The only thing more tasteless and offensive then the concept behind Broadsheet is the justifcation you used to introduce it. How dare you complain that "women's" news (whatever that is) is being ignored in favor of more traditional news and then announce your solution is to undereline your agreement with its lack of importance by packaging it off in own separate spot. I am a women and I am can not find the words to express how completely offended I am by the idea that information will be separated by gender. You may argue that your opening editoral welcomed men, but it is clear that you don't mean it. What's next the men's only section? Separate but equal news coverage? If something is worth covering then it worth being read by all your readers. And heres a hint articles that have the word "catfight" in them are not worth covering.

This story would have made a great lead story on Salon's home page. In fact this is just the kind of thing that Salon use to do so well. Take an important but completely over looked news item and dive in. I've never even heard of this position, but if has this kind of budget it is certainly worth looking into.

I check Salon several times a day and yet somehow I keep stumbling upon articles of great interest to me several days after they were posted. The current organization just doesn't work for me. What I would like is a complete and readable table of contents list that I can scan through everyday organized by subject. I would like this list to persist, so that if I don't make it to Salon for a day or a week, I can quickly jump to the days I missed and scan for articles of interest. I don't see this as a replacement for the home page but as a prominent link on the home page.

Having information organized by subject and date is very important to me. I am not interested in every subject matter and it is easy for me to miss the must-read political analysis article when it is stuck somewhere between a movie review and sports article. Traditional newspapers have separate sections for various subject matters and I think it would be easier to navigate Salon is it took a page from them, so to speak. I think there is a lot of good stuff buried in Salon, but the new design is turning it into an Easter Egg hunt for me minus the pretty colored eggs and fun.

I can't believe you start with a story about a robber who so kindly only shoots his victim in the leg and the nasty old victim has the nerve to shout a racial slur in his anger and pain and the poor robber reacts but killing him. Yeah, we're all so upset about this poor put-upon black robber turner murderer that everybody would be so outraged over anything that happend in his trial. What the heck is the point of this information? It is just yet another example of the confused arguments that the left tries to offer up. I am way left and even I don't get it.

The only point here is that potential black juriors may have been removed from multiple trials unfairly, which may have meant a black defendent didn't really get a trial by his peers. Certainly looking at Supreme Court Nominees approach to deciding such issues is worth looking at, but leading this piece with the unsavory details of one specific case is a sure-fore way of getting everyone to focus on the wrong thing.

Forget for a moment the issue of limiting abortion and focus on the simple truth here. Alito thinks it would be OK for a state to strip a married women of her right to make her own medical decisions. This is radically different from minor-notifications laws since it can be argued that in all other medical proceedures, a parent is required to approve of a childs care, with abortion being the sole exception. In this instance, a special husband right would be carved out the long standing precedent of according all adults the right to privately make their own medical decisions. It is clear that the intent of this law is to allow the husband to veto a proceedure that the wife desires. If a law of this type were to be approved by the Supreme Court, it would open the door to women being subject to their husband's approval on other aspects of their lives, a throwback to the kind of legal thinking that dominated this country 150 years ago when married women were for the most part considered little more then wards of their husband. This kind of thinking has far reaching implacations for the rights of women who live under a consitution that does not specifically provide them with equlity undr the law. Overturning Roe v Wade looks moderate in comparisoon.

It is also possible that Libby may end up dragging the process out long enough that Cheney is forced to take the witness stand shortly before the mid-term elections. And if he is really clever, he might be able to drag it out so long that Bush may no longer be President by the time he has exhausted all of his legal avenues. In that event, Bush will no doubt pull a Ford and pre-pardon everyone involved. I wonder how many corrupt Presidents will be allowed to pardon members of their corrupt administration before someone will suggest it is time to amend their very large loophole in the President's Constitutional power to pardon anyone for any reason even before they stand accused of a crime.