By all means, fuggedabout Coal and Nuclear! We can't have piles of hazardous waste anywhere! Even places where no sane person would ever want to live, like a desert mountain.

And let's stop making plastic ( benzene emissions, ) and cell phones ( Molybdenum waste, ) and everything else more advanced then a wooden hobbyhorse.

We're surrounded and invaded by our toxic chemicals, and all-natural but quite harmful UV rays, deadly cosmic radiation, and radon gas. We already tolerate large toxic waste dumps for dull, non-mushroom-cloud-like killers. These things don't even have a half-life, they're *forever!* Meanwhile, our bodies become ( are ) repositories for heavy metals and bizarre organic compounds.

How is it that we're not dropping like flies? ;>

Personally, I would feel safer living next to Three Mile Island then living in the Big Easy.

But then the safest life usually isn't the best life.

When the Middle-East oil runs out, America will stop caring about Israel.

Just wait and see.

I just love how the Democratic primary has turned into a nasty fight. It means the general election will be a real contest and should be much easier to throw.

But Salon is jumping the shark. Pity.

And thanks to all the new wingnut trolls, the letters section has turned into a real sewer, no better then freerepublic.com

Ugh. Joan, is this your fault?

Please instead be angry at the media and the "concern troll" wingers pretending to be Democrats. The real sexist filth directed at Hillary didn't come from Obama or his supporters.

It's a big, noisy media, with Republican provocateurs in the back of the room randomly yelling "rhymes with witch!" A harsh and shocking insult leaves a nasty mark even if the source isn't clear.

But isn't a fight inside the Democratic Party just what Rove and his kind would want? And we all know how good at devious mind games he is.

( much better then any of the concern-trolls here :)

as too well insulated from real adversity, the kind of adversity that demands hard thought.

H.W. sure seems nice, but that means nothing. It's an easy act to put on. I neither believe his "war hero" story, nor consider him a "good man" at all. His worse then lousy parenting is obvious.

Extremely funny article. "dresses like Condi" ROTFLMAO!

Bigguns, your comments about why people avoid talking about class are insightful and worth repeating.

Too bad about the thin-skinned, right wing whiners like Elephantman.

He was on the Tee Vee!

It's funny how people can have such strong opinions about the character and personality of a television star. It's like they think they actually knew him.

Americans could improve their I.Q. greatly by remembering that on T.V., everyone is acting.

I personally don't care about Tim Russert's death. The only reason I know his name is because his theatrical image was beamed nationwide every week.

And my two Dads were more estranged then yours.

You've got two, accept it. It's fine. It's normal. It's... a good thing.

Of course, my stepfather will always be "My Old Man."

Russert, plucked from obscurity by General Electric chief Jack Welch to become a t.v. star, was probably a nice guy who felt he was doing real journalism.

But he was chosen for his corporate-compliant nature, and with sincere enthusiasm enjoyed his fortunate position as a human channel richly rewarded for broadcasting institutional myths.

The icons of the problem get more then their fair share of the blame.

jas4850:"But Tim Russert was the best -- most professional, most prepared, most knowledgeable, most experienced -- out there, no question."

You probably don't read much. Seymour Hirch, Greg Palast, Joe Conason, and the gang at McClatchy; there are many real journalists out there, but Tim Russert was not one of them.

But he was on T.V., so he was easy to find, easy to digest and easy to believe, if you don't read much.

"Salon Letters .. the lunatic fringe of the left."

Thinkers always seem like lunatics to the mainstream deluded. So thanks for the compliment!

juballl:"I can't even imagine politics without Tim Russert. There is no one in politics today that can get to the bottom of an issue, show the inconsistances of politicans, or put the fear of God in a person being interviewed more than Tim Russert could."

You need to broaden your news diet.

The only fear Russert could put in a politician was the fear of being on the wrong side of power.

Mainstream politicians are afraid of real journalists these days, which is why Russert never had any trouble getting the likes of Cheney pn his show.

For God's sake, THINK!

jas4850, as a doctoral student in language and literacy, have you never connected some critical fact or statement in one of those Utne Reader, Atlantic or The Nation articles that would have been quite helpful had Russert brought it up in an interview with the politician to whom it applied?

Polemics and personal attacks are not what I want from the media, I want them to ask hard questions like:

1. "Mr Cheney, Transportation Secretary Norman Minetta gave testimony that you prevented air defense missiles from being fired at the aircraft that apparently struck the Pentagon. Is that true and why did you do that?"

This is an example. I could write hundreds more questions, most *not* about 9/11, and none of them involving a personal attack or polemical trick.

If you're the intelligent reader you claim to be, and aware of the distinction between polemics and critical inquiry, you should find Tim Russert's interviews to consist largely of "gotchas" on relatively trivial matters.

So my question is, are you really the intelligent reader you claim to be, or is there another reason why you would praise Tim Russert as superior to the fine journalists in the publications you claim to read?