Which brings up another point regarding use of language: Literally, every time someone uses the word literally, it is incorrect.

The item about Simpson was completely sincere; though, admittedly, the 'thug life' reference was meant in a jocular way.

No smear intended; it's fascinating and brave move by the former senator to use his own background to argue for mercy in the case of these two prisoners.

I certainly hope readers find the blog, and I acknowledge that language -- like humor and surprise -- can be used to draw traffic. That can't make an audience stick around, though; and I think that a case like this can be used to illuminate significant matters. Hence, the follow-up post (prompted by critiques such as yours) that tries to grapple with the reasoning itself.

Good question by Mark, concerning the dynamics involved in linking to an uncensored opinion but then censoring the words in the blog. I wrestled with it, but here was my thinking: First came the decision to blog on this particular case. Yes, it's a bit squalid and not important to the overall assessment of Sotomayor, but I thought it, well, an entertaining sidebar to our more serious coverage at www.mcclatchydc.com. Second came the decision to bleep out the specific words. I concluded that because the purpose of this posting was 'entertainment' more than illumination -- lesser-value speech, in a sense -- that I had less cause to violate clean-speech expectations. I also thought the use of **** is inherently funny. Third, by linking to the opinion the blog allows the curious to read for themselves all the gritty details.