It's what they're seeing, not "saw." It's still going on, and your clumsy headline makes it seem as though it's over, nothing to see here. It's not. No wonder this has been up for a while and this is the first letter.

I'm not sure if that says more about Salon's editors or its readers.

In case anyone cares, Iran is really about to explode. Ahmadinejad has left the country, possibly to keep his hands clean of a massacre.

And Huffington Post is kicking Salon's ass as regards coverage:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/iran-election

And the protesters themselves, for that matter:

http://twitter.com/IranElection09

Not that it's just Salon. It's the whole MSM. I will use the most recent and poignant example: NIGHTLINE this evening.

Nightline was born 30 years ago, developed out of a nightly update by Ted Koppel on the Iranian Hostage Crisis. If not for the Iranian Revolution, Nightline would not exist.

So you'd think that, with Iran exploding, this would dominate at least tonight's program.

Actually, no. Instead, though they had a teaser about Iran at the start of the show, they devoted over 20 minutes of a half-hour show to Suze Orman, a segment that could have been broadcast on any night. So the show is all about Orman, no Iran at all, except a brief mention at the end.

The irony.

It's certainly an example of why ABC's news department has devolved into something totally worthless.

Meanwhile, the Daily Show led with it and even have Jason Jones in Tehran. No, really, they do. I assume they weren't expecting this. But they can boast to have something most of the networks don't: a correspondent in Iran.

Salon willingly jumped on this bandwagon. No excuse for that. Personally, I think Salon gives far too much attention to these shit-stirrers like Palin or Limbaugh or the like. Without the media attention they want, they would cease to be any threat. But Salon is more than happy to let their talking points spread here. Witness the "Wingnut"--are his essays anything but a reiteration of said talking points? I question Salon's judgment.

That said: they're insane, right? Letterman is just about CBS' only steady ratings draw in the key demos. He's not going anywhere.

I'm so annoyed you named yourself after one of my favorite songs.

Besides that, I can only answer with this:

"Letterman's Ratings Soar On Palin Apology: Beats Conan By 700K"

Well-done, Palin supporters!

Iran will not be the same after this. Because the women of Iran have fought, bled and died in this just as the men have. I really don't think you can tell them afterward what shade of nail polish makes them a whore, unless the regime cracks down on everyone.

It also points up something about the point of the repression of women, in one respect: to split men off from women, because wouldn't that be a lot easier to control right now? But look, there they are standing together.

And for the record, they're stunningly beautiful.

There will be blood.

If this day has done nothing else, it's shown what a bunch of children we all are. And that there are still some people who believe in something enough to risk their asses for it.

And it's not us.

My conviction that this is just a generic talking-point boilerplate is strengthened by this:

>>I appreciate the many thoughtful comments that were posted to the Web site.

"the Web site".

Not to "Salon". Is there another web site this goes to? More than one? It's an oddly...generic choice of words.

I just realized something and would like to thank the Wingnut.

I now realize this IS the conservative point of view. This unwillingness to understand how others see them. This pigheaded sticking to talking points even long after they're discredited. This sense you get that they live in a parallel world impervious to facts, and have no interest in living in the same world as the rest if us.

In other words, that no dialogue is possible and cons really are as pigheaded as they seem, and that what we see IS what they think.

Thank you, GW. Now I realize I should never try to understand you folks, anymore. I should not read this column again trying to gain insight, thinking I've been somehow missing something, that there has to be a hidden agenda behind your side's public pronouncements, that you can't possibly be this out of touch. It appears that you in fact can, and there's nothing further to try to understand--Because it turns out, I already do.

Good luck to your kind in the 21st century. You'll need it. How sad. You're children, and will stay children.

Here's the thing, GW. The examples you mention from the right are violations of the very morality the right wants to impose on us all. The ones from the left are merely moments where politicians may have...AGREED with your side. Like Dodd.

You don't understand the very premise of the question.

True, but we can consider implicitly that, in lack of a true answer, GW is affirming the premise of the question.

If he doesn't want that impression to be given, he should go back and answer. But in the meantime, we will read your answer as "I admit conservatives are hypocrites about sex."