Very vigorously expressed, but substantive.

I know know how it goes: I’ve also run a small business for ears.

I am not opposed to strong statements. If Jim Wallis says that he will work tirelessly to oppose Sarah Palin and all she stands for, if he calls her statement false, which I believe it is, I’m right with him.

I have a technical quibble with calling it a “lie” simply because I believe that to be a lie one must know it’s false and state it anyhow. I don’t think that’s giving a politician a break. Providing unknowing false information when you should know is not substantially better than lying.

What I’d like to hear would be a debate between actual laissez faire suggestions for improving health care vs various government mixes up to one-payer, but I don’t think we’re going to see that.

I truly ought to contribute some myself, shouldn’t I? But I’m too busy trying to keep my small business growing, and I have only read small sections of the bill myself.

Finally, though this is already long for a comment. I don’t hear the same level specifically on health care on both sides right at the moment, but I think that’s because each side chooses their points on which to go overboard.

There are certainly people over the edge on both sides. We neither need to defend them, nor do we need to be silenced by embarrassment at their actions.

Count ‘em up, Henry, and tell me that the bellowing of the right about death panels is ‘balanced’ by anyone supporting health care reform.

I see what Jim Wallis said as a curse because I hear the language of cursing. “May she not …” That is not our normal form of speech, and it is the kind of phraseology used in cursing or in an imprecatory prayer. You are right that this will be in he eye of the beholder, and perhaps it is that my primary exposure is to the Hebrew scriptures.

Had Wallis simply said, “I hope she doesn’t succeed in politics” or “I hope she doesn’t win election” I would have heard it differently. I suspect he knows the difference. But again, I admit I may hear him wrong.

As for glass houses, the problem I see is that if I point out one issue with one person, those on the other side of the spectrum agree, but those on the same side want to point out how many faults and failings I have let pass in silence. The fact is that I may not even be aware of them. I don’t think I have to catch every transgression of every public figure in order to comment on one.

As for Mr. Raynor, while I often disagree and I often find his rhetoric vigorous, I haven’t felt he was systematically unfair. But again, I don’t have a strong enough sample to debate you on that one …

“We all live to some extent in glass houses. I have previously apologized for things I said on this blog, and there are perhaps things that remain for which I should apologize.”

This was my point exactly. It seemed strange to me for Mr. Raynor to call out Jim Wallis for being uncivil when some of his own words could be construed as uncivil. I agree that we all live in glass houses and therefore we should all refrain from harsh judgment There is a difference between holding one accountable and passing judgment. I felt that I was doing the former and not the latter and if I cross the line then I apologize.

I hold to my assessment that Jim Wallis did not “curse” Sarah Palin, but hopes that her political and public influence fades into the night. Did he go over the line? Perhaps it is all in the eye of the beholder.