Hardly a day slips by without my hearing or reading "that's just my opinion," as if to say don't bother to examine my statements closely, since they're just idle chatter. It's almost an apology.

But what about this: "Barack Obama has been worshipped by the media." Chatter, or a serious point? Or "Only an idiot would support Sarah Palin as a serious candidate for the presidency." Or "Democrats will turn America into a socialist country."

Since we're now blanketed by similar statements from bloggers and bloviators, opinionizing deserves special attention.

Not all opinions are created equal, nor are they endowed by their creators with facts, logic and the pursuit of effectiveness. Whole classes of opinions are designed to provoke a quick, gut-level response from either conservatives or liberals. These are called "polemics," and the vast majority of current "opinions" fall into this category.

Instead of opinions, I call them "polemics." Those three assertions with which I began are polemics, and when offered in a public forum, generate plenty of responses, meaning still more polemics. It's a form of entertainment and the anonymity of blogged responses to columns or news stories encourages bloggers to create veritable towers of babble.

None dare call them enlightening. Except for a precious thoughtful few, they're verbal pornography, designed more for arousal than for understanding.

Another class of statements, however, is based on facts, examples and logic. Such assertions deserve analysis, followed by agreement or refutation. These I would call genuine opinions, and I respect them.

Instead of the polemic "Obama has been worshipped by the media," one might assert, "Obama's ideas on the environment are similar to editorial positions of several mainstream newspapers." That's a statement that can be supported or refuted and doesn't create an immediate visceral response. It's potentially fact-based, and therefore, worth far more than two cents.

The columnists I read most often write opinions rather than polemics: Thomas Friedman, David Brooks, Leonard Pitts and Kathleen Parker come to mind. But not Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity, who polemicize for profit and not much fun.

Another class of statements deserves serious attention, more so than either polemics or opinions. These are the conclusions that derive from research based on extended readings of historical events, laboratory experiments, direct observation and experience or some combination of the four.

Here is where knowledge of our world and its workings gets created and shared, and which we ignore at our peril. I call them "hypotheses" for want of a better term. Understanding hypotheses takes a good deal of energy and time, and they aren't found in the rants that pass for commentary on cable news channels or blogs.

Nor does it come from right-wing pulpits, where faith-based assertions can overwhelm common sense and logic. Though faith and religion deserve study in schools, they don't belong in political decisions or in science classrooms. That's an opinion, by the way, not a polemic. It's based on facts as I understand them, and I've written about this in detail in other columns.

Some hypotheses can be highly controversial and have become the subject of extended debates among specialists and laypeople alike: "The World Trade Center collapsed from a controlled demolition, not just from jetliners flown by terrorists." And "JFK was shot both from behind and in front, so Lee Harvey Oswald could not have acted alone." Citizens need to take time to study the logic, facts and sources behind such hypotheses and decide where the truth lies.

Some opinions and hypotheses, to be blunt, are just plain wrong and deserve oblivion. Incidentally, in my opinion, both of those conspiracy hypotheses are wrong, based on cherry-picked or faulty evidence.

My advice: Ignore polemics unless you find them entertaining.

They're mostly just distractions. Opinions, however, are the stuff of adult conversations and deserve attention, even analysis. And valid hypotheses can make all the difference when understood and applied.

Finally, here's an opinion that I hope will prove to be a valid hypothesis: The current economic crisis will force Democrats and Republicans to put their country ahead of their political parties and cooperate on a variety of solutions. Finally.