Submitted by steven j oltermann from white stone va

Q: re:Your Hair Looks Just Fine What's the difference between this and the women with straight hair who want to get it curled, or the women who spend time in tanning beds to darken their skin(at the risk of skin cancer). Is this a racial thing or is it just human nature to want to look different than the way the creator made us? Is this a form of rebelion against our creator?

Answered 11/04/09 13:05:16 by Leonard Pitts

A: Oh, obviously there's an element of simple human nature at work. But for people of color (or, as the MASH example was intended to illustrate, for anyone who is in a minority or otherwise marginalized) there is also an element of feeling that one is never quite "there," beauty-wise, to whatever degree one deviates from the ideal embraced by the majority color.

Submitted by Terrence Clark from Tacoma, Washington

Q: As a clinician I am taught to attend to race as a clinical risk factor. I think this is bogus, that we really should look at populations and genetics. Are you aware of this issue, and if so what do you think? Note that I have sent a letter to you email for more context. Terry Clark

Answered 11/04/09 13:02:13 by Leonard Pitts

A: Not quite sure what attending to race as a clinical risk factor entails. I mean, it's a documented fact that, for instance, people of African heritage are more susceptible to sickle cell and people of European heritage are more susceptible to skin cancer, so to that degree, it wouldn't trouble me. If we're talking about something other than that, my opinion might change.

Submitted by FormFactor from Miami, FL

Q: Distortion of facts works in all directions when Fox is the subject. O'Reilly, Hannity and others are doing nothing more than you are: giving an opinion. Neither you nor they represent your respective news desks, a distinction you and others fail to make. Do they distort or shade the facts? Yes. Do you? Yes. Fox's sins are plain enough but here are two of yours: 1) you failed to mention study claiming Fox viewers are more likely to be misinformed was from 2003 and pertained ONLY to views on the Iraq war and 2) the politifact.com stats you used were based on ONLY 9 comments made by Fox commentators. Based on 208 comments politifact also found President Obama to be almost as prone to lying as Fox. Should it then be claimed the Herald is guilty of sloppy, biased reporting, not really a news organization and shut out from the White House?

Answered 10/28/09 13:59:09 by Leonard Pitts

A: Nice try. No cigar. In the first place: pundits are not exempt from the ordinary obligation to be factual and when they repeatedly fail, they most certainly do reflect poorly on their news organizzation. In the second place, where Fox is concerned, we're not talking about distorting or shading fact. We're talking about getting them repeatedly and egregiously wrong - indeed, making them up out of whole cloth. In the third place, you're right: I should've mentioned that the study pertained to views on the Iraq war. Not including that made the information incomplete and made the line somewhat misleading. Its exclusion, for the record, was a matter of space, trying to bring the column down to its allotted length. Which is an explanation, not an ecuse: I should have kept the Iraq information and cut something else, period. And yet...at day's end, I didn't make up a study that doesn't exist, did I? No, it takes a Fox pundit to do that.

Submitted by George from Miami

Q: Good point on all of them..How do we go about change?...

Answered 10/28/09 13:51:26 by Leonard Pitts

A: Funny you should ask. I was thinking about that just this morning. Not that I have an answer, except to say that if we wait for it to emanate from government, we're wasting our time. I tend to think even the idealistic and well-meaning lawmaker, once he goes through that system to reach his/her office, is corrupted by it. The change would have to be forced by a critical mass of public pressure.

Submitted by George from Miami

Q: Also, I read the post about the DC sniper..I know you are against the Death Penalty, but, isn't the death penalty made for people like this?...Especially for crimes against children/elderly?...The scum that killed the little girl last week, (They found her in a dump in Georgia), I mean, to me, they cannot put this scum to death fast enough...Am I wrong?..

Answered 10/28/09 13:49:12 by Leonard Pitts

A: Put it like this: if I believed in the death penalty, I'd want it for the DC sniper.

Submitted by George from Miami

Q: In ref to the article today, I recently changed my party affiliation from Repub, to independent..While I agree with most stuff righty, Im turned off my the extremists in the party..I also agree with some issues on the left, but, Im also turned off by the extremist there..I dont see any hope..Do you?...In ref to the term limits, I believe we should have them..They stay too long, accumulate way-too much power...

Answered 10/28/09 13:45:21 by Leonard Pitts

A: I think if you changed the redistricting rules - and while you're at it, mandate public financing of campaigns, thereby reducing the influence of lobbyists - you get rid of the "too much power" problem. The problem I have with term limits is that it reduces institutional memory and deprives the legislative body of the experience of elders.

Submitted by rondoe from miami

Q: Mr Pitts It has been years since Janet Reno has been out of government! How do you feel about the way she did her job?

Answered 10/28/09 13:40:44 by Leonard Pitts

A: I don't really have strong feelings one way or the other.

Submitted by Josh from Miami, FL

Q: You would probably justify your personal attack on Rush Limbaugh on the basis he's an alleged bigot, who's made quite a few racially insensitive comments. Would you have objected to someone referring to Michael Jackson, while he was still alive, as "an OxyContin junkie who climbed to the top of the entertainment pile"? (He was an alleged pedophile who had made quite a few questionable statements about sharing his bed with young boys). Just curious.

Answered 10/28/09 13:27:18 by Leonard Pitts

A: As far as I know - and I may be wrong - OxyContin wasn't Jackson's drug of choice. Assuming it was, though, then yes, that line would certainly be a fair assessment. As someone who grew up a fan of Jackson's, I might find it harsh, but I surely couldn't argue that it wasn't true.

Submitted by chuck woodward from roseville ca

Q: why a new dime, a new penny is what I may add to the rush fund

Answered 10/28/09 13:21:36 by Leonard Pitts

A: Every little bit helps.

Submitted by Joy Salinder from Sebring, Fl.

Q: What is racism to you? The dictionary states:The notion that one's own ethnic stock is superior. Do you know what love is? I'm sorry for you. This Nation will never have peace and unity with people like you cramming your racist thoughts down our throats for your own personal gains.But lets get Fox off the air so people like you can control every means of public communication.You only know hate.If Chaney was black how would you feel?

Answered 10/28/09 13:21:03 by Leonard Pitts

A: The truly pathetic thing is that you actually believe the idiocy you spew. I'm sorry for you. And if "Chaney" - I assume the reference is to former vice president Dick Cneney - were black, I'd feel much the same about him as I do now: he's Darth Vader with a suit on.