Amity said:

"If I had to guess, I'd say it's because the story of a American-born haji-come-lately attacking a soldier in the middle of the country plays into a fantasy of Muslims coming to get us, the story of which is already obscured by right-wing propaganda, and it's easy to imagine that Salon is in no hurry to participate.

Why, what's your guess?"

Pretty much that, but I think that's a pretty serious abdication of journalistic principles, wouldn't you say? Not-reporting some (significant, I shuld think) stories because they happen to coincide with ideological narratives (i.e. dangerous! Muslims! out to attack our small towns!) that the editorial staff finds unpleasant. The equivalent here would be some right-wing newsmag/site/whatever ranting and raving about, well, dangerous! Muslims! out to attack our small towns! and the very real threat of Muslim domestic terror, using the Arkansas shooting while failing to devote any ink whatsoever to the Tiller murder. I like to think that Salon is better than that, but I haven't been impressed lately. I certainly don't think Salon is "in the service of some kind of secret black Muslim conspiracy"--no conspiracies needed, just some ideologically-driven selectiivty which I find disappointing.

I admit having missed Salon's coverage of the NOI assassination of the journalist, but I have certainly not missed Salon's many excellent investigative-journalism pieces revealing abuse and mistreatment of soldiers and their families. As I noted in an earlier letter, Salon is not shy about discussing soldiers as victims when the perpetrator is the Army, the VA, or other American bureaucracies. Again, ideologically-driven selectivity. I understand that Salon is a self-described progressive organization (minus the puzzling "Ask a Wignut Column") and don't demand value-judgment-free reportage or even completely balanced reporting. I do think, though, if it wants to be taken seriously as an outfit that deals substantively with world and domestic issues, it should be unafraid to tackle and report on news that makes them ideologically uncomfortable.

You wrote, "He killed a black man who'd spent six years protecting a monument to the triumph of love and brotherhood over hate and division. My condolences and prayers go out to Johns' family."

Do your condolences and prayers go out to PVT William Long? I don't remember you writing anything about it at the time. No, I don't think that you belive US soldiers are "baby killers" or any such nonsense. Which is why your utter silence--and the nearly complete non-coverage of that particular act of terrorism by Salon--is so puzzling. Why are the Tiller and Stephen Tyrone Jones murders worthy of comment, but not PVT Long's? I've been harping about this on Salon for a while and have heard a lot of thoughts by other letter-writers about this--I would be interested to hear a justifiction directly from you.

Meant to say "to the family and friends of PVT William Long," of course.

I agree with every single one of the self-congratulatory liberals who have posted on this thread about the unquestionable superiority of their region, their unassailable enlightedness, and the hopelessly retrograde and bigoted nature of the South. Bill Clinton, Mike Beebe, Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, Kay Hagan, Mary Landrieu, Jim Webb, Mark Warner, Beverly Perdue, and Tim Kaine are excellent examples of the inability of the Southern electorate to vote in anyone with remotely progressive or liberal ideas. Bobby Jindal, meanwhile, is living proof that Southerners remain unable to look past skin tone and ethnic background when inside the voting booth.

Did they ever worry about getting 60 votes, instead of 50? No? Then why should the Democrats?

Aside from the general mediocrity of the essay, that is. I mean, some "reporter" posts some dumb-ass thing on Politico; Joan responds by saying, "This is stupid--just because someone donated money to Obama's campaign/the DNC and defended Polanski doesn't mean Obama is a Polanski defender!" No, really? This is a high-school level of analysis; surely the salary you command ought to merit more cogent and insightful prose than this.

Anyway, *problem* is your reference to Kate Harding's essay as "brave." While Ms. Harding's was excellent, and surely the best piece to appear on Broadsheet in a long time--a very long time--to describe it as "brave" is thoroughly absurd. Taking a stance on an issue, then writing about it, is not a "brave" act for an essayist; indeed, it's what essayists are *paid to do*. She took no particular risk, either to her person or her career; it wasn't even psychologically brave in the sense of exposing some traumatic aspect of her own past and writing about it, a literary act sometimes referred to as courageous.

Only in the self-congratulatory world of liberal intellectual writers can an opinion article condemning a convicted child rapist be construed as "brave."

Too swamped doing what? Dashing off poorly-thought-out thousand-word essays, then going out clubbing in NYC?

So when does the brain of an infant form? During labor, or when the umbilical cord is cut?