1.people are happy to tell you what they think you're doing wrong-- of course! but don't throw away what you're doing right-- please.

I really think the people who urge you to try threaded commentary are wrong. the present system allows you to perfunctorily scan lots of letters to see if you want to read them, and is pretty legible and easy to navigate.

threaded comments-- I'll pick onSlate again-- are incredibly exasperating and time consuming to wade through and encourage regimented "in the box" thinking. Blah.

2.the "anonymous coward" who wrote

"Posting anonymously so Garry Owen will actually read it."

made a very strong argument for retaining anonymity as an option, which I want to reiterate.

2b. another argument for anonymity-- one that may already have marketing data that proves(or disproves)it:

is the notion of allowing a casual reader to "invest" himself casually in reading Salon, leaving an anonymous comment where the reader would've otherwise just not bother to comment at all if she has to register. Then, such a reader will remember having commented before and having participated where otherwise she wouldn't have, might be more inclined to visit again.

or,

leave things as they are, asking that people register, but being allowed to occasionally post anonymously, possibly adding the 3rd option of checking off on showing the IP address for impatient "drive-by" commenters.

hmmm. should I offer this comment anonymously, so you might think 2 different people like my idea? :^{)

"a purely military solution won't work,"

we periodically hear politicians, both republican and democratic, as well as sundry military brass and pundits, say this over and over. And sometimes Bush scolds Maliki, sometimes very publicly, for "not doing enough" to achieve a diplomatic solution-- and stupidly enough, some democratic politicos chime in, strengthening Bush's position, never questioning if perhaps Maliki's hands are tied by Bush's actions.

But what exactly, would a meaningful diplomatic solution entail? One thing it would require would be a unilateral cease-fire by the US, a complete cessation of our airstrikes, which mostly kill noncombatants.

What if, for example, Petraus offered to stop airstrikes, say for a week, in return for sunni insurgent groups and shi'a militias, et al, agreeing to a similar cease-fire, including a week-long end to laying down IEDs and attacks on both Iraqis and US forces?

You want meaningful negotiations? That's one way to start.

But if Petraus actually did this, how long would he keep his job?

It occurs to me that if you asked most people what the debate surrounding the bill was about, I'm guessing most either wouldn't know, or, assuming they follow mainstream news sources like CNN, would characterize it as a relatively uncontroversial bill that was simply designed to "modernize" existing legislation to allow for cell-phone technology and the like.

If this is in fact the case, much of the blame lies with the media, of course, but not all of it.

Joan, you mentioned your disappointment with Edwards for not criticizing the bill. I understand. But what about Obama and Hillary going after each other last week when they could have both criticized Junior for his power grab, thereby forcing the wretched political press to explain what they were talking about?

at least not entirely,reprehensible and grossly ill-considered as his words may be. And it's not as if I disagree with Joe Conason-- words do indeed matter.

But one of the reasons we have crappy candidates, one both the right and the left, is because we have crappy voters, or at least crappy poll respondents.

Some of the boneheadedly dangerous rhetoric seems to be oozing out from a hydraulic effect, and it's difficult to see if it's moved more by the left or the right---

although when the 2 leading candidates on the left are debating whether or not they'd use nuclear weapons in an unprovoked 1st strike, a pretty strong case can be made that the reactionary excesses among the GOP hopefuls are partly driven out of a desire to not be outflanked on their right by our crazy, reactionary leading democrats. Their words matter too.

So ultimately, if the polls are in fact accurate, maybe the fault lies with democratic voters. Think about it-- if Kucinich suddenly started to poll even at just 15 or 16 percent, and drawing down support from the "relevant three", Hillary Clinton and Obama would be bending over backwards talking about how much they love the Iranian people and how they think impeachment should be back "on the table."

Historically, most artists, whatever the medium, have never been able to support themselves by simply being artists. Look at the lives of Trollope and Charles Ives, just to name two who maintained workaday existences. I think Borges worked as a librarian well into his fifties, in spite of having had several of his stories published.

Do your job and make a living, and do your art, and allow the work to be its own justification. If, occasionally along the way, you receive external validation, that's gravy-- but nobody owes it to you.

Actually, all sarcasm aside, I suspect that your dissatisfaction with your life is probably heightened by your feeling entitled to being regarded as special. You can still believe in yourself and your work without thinking you're entitled to acclaim and the stereotypical life of an artist, and you just might find everyday life more bearable.

I am struck by the irony that US foreign policy, especially under Bush,jnr, has been built on the two pillars of

1.massive deficit spending, more and more of it money borrowed from China and

2.war(s) in the middle east financed by that borrowing designed to secure access to middle eastern oil to ward off competition from other countries for that oil-- such as China.

If push comes to shove and the Chinese get tired of underwriting our destabilizing wars of aggression, what's to stop them from flooding the world money supply with US treasury notes they decide they no longer want?