I don't find the grandmother comment inappropriate or a tin-eared attempt at rationalization. My parents, who are not white, have in the past uttered pretty prejudiced comments about African-Americans. Sometimes people you love and respect can hold opinions that embarrass and disappoint you.

He obviously respects the Reverend Wright but, he argues, he disagrees with his statements. Can he have it both ways? I'm not sure he can, it depends on whether people are willing to let someone have a nuanced position. Can America move beyond simplistic symbolism and easy patriotism? I hope so.

I actually agree with Mr. Anderson that the city cavalierly ignored an environmental impact statement for a large civic works project. And that bikers sometimes ignore rules of the road: biking on sidewalks, riding through red lights or stop signs, etc.

The solution isn't doing nothing, however. The city should not accept that city streets are inhospitable to bikes and should remain that way. If you haven't biked in the city you don't really understand how the lack of bike lanes and proper planning for mixed transportation makes the environment dangerous and actually encourages rule breaking by bikers. In many cases, bikers disobey rules because following them is more dangerous. For example, there's no bike lane and no space for a bike and a car in the right lane and traffic is moving at twice the speed of a bike, ie. 30-45 mph. A biker can 1) follow the rules and ride in the right lane, forcing cars to slow down, pissing off the motorists and often leading them to swerve around the biker partly into the next lane over, causing a dangerous situation, or 2) disobey the rules and ride on the sidewalk, 3) find an alternative route. 3) is often a valid alternative, on a parallel, quieter street but isn't always the case.

Most frustratingly, Mr. Anderson's actions have stalled efforts to reduce the accidents, of both pedestrians and bikers, at notoriously dangerous intersections. For example, Masonic and Fell. A link to a good description of the problems, with pics http://sfist.com/2007/07/12/sfist_photo_fel.php. Mr. Anderson's opinion of the danger, http://district5diary.blogspot.com/2007/07/steve-jones-fighting-death-monsters.html. Mr. Andersons's arguments can be distilled into bikers and pedestrians will lose an encounter with cars and therefore the responsibility lies with them to be careful, regardless of the environment. The last comment on that blog page has a nice list of cogent counter-arguments.

I understand and empathize with the outrage the many people feel. Wall Street financial firms built this house of cards and should suffer the consequences. Bu the outcome of letting that happen appears to be much worse than a bailout.

As pointed out by people who understand economics much better than me, a credit freeze would cause tremendous damage beyond Wall Street. The fact is, due to the splitting up of mortgage loans into little pieces and sold as mortagage-backed securities and thereby spreading risk to many players, the defaults of these financial institutions would have widespread impacts. Letting Wall Street firms burn has the risk of setting off a financial forest fire throughout the entire economy.

Will the bailout plan work? I don't know. The problem is that the current economic experts like Paulson and to a lesser extent Bernanke loss a lot of credibility because they either espoused false optimism or failed to foresee the crisis. But having a flawed plan seems to be much better than nothing.

Sure Wall Street should pay. And the moral hazard of risky investing should be maintained. But don't let ideology and outrage replace the need to address the crisis.

What is the alternative? None of the off-hand solutions that I've heard would seem to address the credit crunch crisis.

She seems like two different people. One a reasonably articulate person, albeit somewhat vague but knowledgeable about the issues discussed, and the other an almost-caricature of a debator, a folksy word-salad generator.

She's not as dumb as she's recently come across. Is it intentional? I don't really see the utility of driving debate expectations so low. The VP debates generally don't have that much of an effect on elections. So why burn your credibility to win something that doesn't really help you that much?

While I agree with you that no one should be sending death threats, it's an understatement to say she transgressed cultural norms. It's clear she's not all there mentally but that doesn't excuse it. What surprises me is the relative lack of attention her fertility doctor has received. It was frankly irresponsible and unethical to implant 6 embryos in her. The guidelines recommend no more than 2 for a woman of her age. Multiple fetuses have a much higher risk of premature birth, cerebral palsy, and death. There was no reason to do so. She wasn't someone treating infertility. She was ostensibly using the leftover embryos to prevent their destruction. WTF? She couldn't donate them? Keep them frozen?

Culturally speaking it was not just simple transgression of norms. This goes way beyond into the territory of disbelief. How can any rational human being subject her kids and society to this completely selfish act? She can't support the kids she already had and now she's more than doubled the burden on her, them, and us. She needs mental help. We commit mentally ill who are likely to harm others or themselves. I think there's a rational argument to be made to order treatment for her.

The response to her actions is not a reflection of societal attitudes about reproductive rights and women. It's the collective reaction to an incomprehensible behavior. She's not a mirror where we see misogynistic or anachronistic cultural attitudes. I can understand pitying her for all the hate that she's receiving; she doesn't deserve death threats. She and her doctor deserve the scorn, however, if only as a cultural prophylaxis towards similar behavior.