on "bigot" and "hate" and practicing peace

The words "hate" and "bigot" seem to get tossed around freely. Personally, I don't think using them is good for anything (other than for expressing anger, which has been shown to generally make people even more angry, and thus more divided), and hurts the user more than anyone.

For those of you who don't care, and are going to continue to call people hateful or bigoted, are you at least using the terms accurately?

bigoted:

• "obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions"

hate: 

• "feel intense or passionate dislike for someone"
  
• "have a strong aversion to something"

Perhaps the words are being used accurately. I suppose under the definitions above, many of those who are against gay marriage (for example) could correctly be called bigoted or hateful. At the same time, however, it seems that many of those on the other side are often bigoted and hateful in response. What to do? Where is this cycle taking us?

Whatever side you may be on, whatever your opinions may be on any number of issues, how do you stand up for them, and work for what you believe is right, without resorting to the same aggressive and self-poisoning modi operandi that your so-called enemies use? 

On a related note, how can we condemn war and international aggression when we can't even curb it in ourselves? I believe we must first practice peace within and around ourselves. We must find a way to express ourselves in productive ways. Or not.

Why do we not hold presidential candidates up to our own standards?

These are things that would keep them out of the FBI, or prevent them from getting a faculty position at most universities, yet somehow it is condoned if one is running for President. Perhaps we have no one that could measure up to flawless standards, but one does have to wonder…

Cindy McCain ran her fingers through her husband’s hair and teased, "You're getting a little thin up there." He reddened and fired back, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c*nt." McCain later apologized saying he’d had a long day.

Any wives out there that accept verbal abuse based on a “long day”? What will President McCain say to the Chinese ambassador after a long day?

Here’s McCain on a good day:

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."

Not to be partisan, here are two gems from Obama:

"...I've got two daughters… I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

The principle seems off here. If they make a mistake, he doesn’t want them to face the consequences?

"The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person..."

I’m not sure what he means here, but I’ve often been critiqued for making generalizations around my colleagues… can someone this high get away with it?

I do not intend to slam both candidates, nor suggest that we should view it as choosing ‘the lesser of two evils.' We should choose the candidate we think is best for the job. My question is, should a presidential candidate be held up to higher scrutiny or personal standards than a daycare worker or a substitute teacher? No offense to those honorable positions, but this is the highest office in the country. 

I have had four background checks (for work and school) in the past two years, and have been told to be wary of what I write here, lest future employers base their hiring decisions on my words. Do politicians get away with abuse or questionable judgment because they have a monopoly on candidacy?

Oh yeah, and McCain committed adultery in his "immature" 40's, and Obama is the Antichrist. People believe both of those. One of them is true.

Park on the driveway, drive on the parkway

I have another one for that list of things that are named the opposite of what they should be. The newly tested drug "Reclast" is supposed to fight osteoporosis by building stronger bones. I once took a human biology class--didn't do very well--but I did remember that bones are formed by two cells. Osteoblasts build bone, and Osteoclasts break it down. So "Reclast" should actually be called "Reblast." Also, if I'm not mistaken, "clast" comes from Greek meening "broken". So does "Reclast" actually mean "Re-broken"? Maybe the "Re" is Greek for "not".

I'm confused (read: ?)

I've been trying to figure out what exatly it means when someone writes "(read:_____)". Does anyone know? I can't find an explanation anywhere online. Also, WHY is it used? Is it "proper", or just slang? Here's an example: "...the purpose of this kind of wild character analysis was to establish a psychogenic or functional cause (read: explanation) for Parkinson's disease..." To me it seems like the writer is trying to better define 'functional cause'. Why didn't they just write 'explanation' in the first place (if that indeed was the purpse)?