Although I don't presume to have an answer, I understand the anger underlying Sirota's article. All of my life, when I had very little and when I had (and have) what I consider to be enough) I have found it simply obscene that a very few people control far more wealth than any human being could possibly spend well (a debatable notion, of course) while the vast majority of people barely get by (and that too is relative --- we don't REALLY need flat-screen TV's, camera cell-phones, or Twitter accounts) or in fact suffer short lives in real misery.

I've always admired Andrew Carnegie, who knew abject poverty and enormous wealth who said that it is no sin to get rich but it is a sin to die rich.

Question: how "hard-earned" is the interest on a T-Bill? How much sweat or brainpower was expended in selling a stock? I've never heaved garbage bags, but I recognize hard work when I see it. (Unpleasant, sometimes dangerous, and absolutely necessary for the well-being of everyone, these guys should be the highest paid of all).

I've had to deal with some very rich people in the course of my career. They come in all shapes and sizes and attitudes, so I won't generalize. But I suspect that what drives them is not money per se, and once I had a chance to test my suspicion by asking a rather aggressive venture capitalist the direct question "This whole thing is a game for you, and money is just a way of keeping score, isn't it?" He said, with real enthusiasm "Absolutely, the greatest game in the world!" Anecdotal of course, but stil it seems right to me. And his fun can come at the expense of a lot of people for whom it is no game at all. After all, if you have $100M, what's an extra 2 or 3? (This, for all of you who missed Econ 101.00001 is called "marginal utility" --- the simple idea that if a man with 1000 is given another 100, he feels better off than a man who has 10000, givedn the same 100.)

I also suspect that some of our trolls are not 1%-rs themselves, but have been sold the myth that some day they might be. Good luck! You'll need it. Hard work alone never made anybody rich. (The best way, of course, is to pick your ancestors well.)

He makes the point that Jolie out-draws Streep at the box office. True. But so what?

Fortunately for people of varying tastes, movies that are not mainly T and A and loud explosions get made now and then, because there is still a market for them.

Comparisons are odious, especially when it comes to taste. De gustibus non disputandem est. (Pardon my Latin! and correct my grammar if needed.) i. e. You can't argue about taste, the only thing I remember from a college esthetics course I took a long time ago.

It seems to me that spoincey's manner of expression (e.g. dragging insults to "liberals" into a discussion of acting ability) is a deliberate attempt to stir up a s----storm, sort of like stamping on an ant hill for the pleasure of watching the beasts mill around in panic. In that he succeeded, but only because some of us (yes! I am a liberal too) rose to the bait. Isn't there enough going on in the real world to elicit anger without letting a malicious little troll push our buttons so easily? Let him cultivate his resentments somewhere else. Nobody here is going to change his mind, or whatever part of him does the writing.

That's when a poker player has a strong hand that doesn't look strong to the other players (say 3 of a kind on the flop --- a set --- with two of the three in his pocket, with a good chance to catch a full house or even quads) and doesn't push aggressively at first, letting the others commit themselves and hitting them hard when he fills.

I missed the first few minutes of the speech, but tuned in at about the time when he was calling liars liars, and heard the heckle. That was a slow-play...he has let the a$$holes demonstrate their a$$holery to all the world, and tonight he went all in. Hr also let the media Villagers lower expectations --- a bunch of fish, they are --- which made the reality that much more powerful.

I think his play was not for Republicans (except maybe a couple of Senators from a basically Blue state i. e. Maine --- the rest of them may find themselves in a very tricky position politically) but for Blue Dog Democrats, Of course it may not work, but not for lack of trying. I hope all of you here and elsewhere who have been moaning that he needed more brass in his ...well, you know ... are satisfied. Obviously I am.

Dear Wannawander is not where you think it is. It is in those Jews who don't understand that the Xianist support for Israel is based in the crazy visions of a hermit who railed against the Roman Empire from a cave or something in the Aegean, that has become (to the dismay of many Xtians) the last Book of the NT. The prophecy requires the reestablishment of a Jewish regime in Jerusalem before the Second Coming can occur. At that point, half the Jews will convert and the other half will be thrown into the fiery Pit. (I know which half this Jew will be in.)

So support for Israel is not out of concern for Jews as such, at all. The disconnect is among ultra-Zionist supporters of Bibi and his literal-minded followers, every bit as fundamentalist and nutso and stupid as any Bible-thumping, Holy-rolling, snake-handler.