Provided, I hope, editors keep an eye on it and delete the crap.

And Salon as a blog begins ... a bit behind the curve, but a start nonetheless.

When I want news and commentary that focuses on women's issues, I head over to http://www.womensenews.org/ -- which is a news source written for and by women. It's free, and isn't loaded with cutesy crap written by clueless wonders.

This bullshit blog offends me to my core. Are the women of Salon really such vapid girly girls? Use your brains, grow up, study history -- and get rid of this misbegotten bit of sexist crap or I'm outta here, and I've been a paying subscriber since the beginning. Insult me on your own dime.

Salon keeps getting messier and messier. Walsh keeps not responding to protests. I fear she's in way over her head. Or maybe too arrogant to listen to what others have to say. Joanie -- if this is your answer to hundreds of protest letters, I hope you're gone before you kill off Salon.

If Salon is redesigning for the sake of, well, I don't know why it was redesigned so let's assume it was for the sake of change, those misguided staffers responsible for this mess could have at least spent some time with people who know how to design for online newspapers and magazines, read up on this stuff at Poynter, did some A/B testing, did some actual experimenting instead of foisting this abomination on us.

Blog formats work for blogs but this format does NOT work for a site with a myriad of topics and sections unless the navigation is carefully thought out, wayfinding features are used, and thought given to how readers can most efficiently read the news and features and fluff we're paying a lot of money for (my Salon sub costs more than my annual Newsweek subscription -- and I'm getting a LOT less for my money).

A case in point -- try to quickly find a specific book or author when clicking on the BOOK category. All you see is a long list of cutesy titles.

Then there's that broadsheet trash. Can we expect to see other content ghettos -- one for men, blacks, latins, gays? If so, when? If not -- why? Maybe because you're afraid to marginalize other groups like you do women?

Here's my bottom line: fix Salon, stop trying to shoehorn me into a ghetto (how "old media" is that? That's so old media that only the most backward of the old media has a women's section), stop with the cute bullshit and go back to what you used to do best, or I'm not renewing.

Wouldn't it be great if a true Democrat or even an independent ran against this phony? Once again, I'll vote against Joe Blowhard by voting for whomever runs against him. But I would sure love to vote FOR a candidate, to be able to wholeheartedly support someone, Weicker even, who's at the very least honest about his or her political position. We might have a Republican governor here in CT, but we thought we were voting for Democrat senators. Only one of them is a Democrat.

One of the things that really bothers me about Lieberman is the fact that he manages to get so much face time by jumping in on issues that he knows nothing about. It also bugs me that he isn't honest about how much his religion really affects the positions he takes and the votes he casts. He's gotten hypocritical that his voice makes me cringe even more than Bushie's does.

Maybe if Joe would've run just one campaign, for Veep, rather than hedging his bets and also running a campaign for Senate here in CT, Gore would've won by a decisive enough margin that there would have been no question about the victor. I know it certainly bothered a lot of people here that he was running for two positions. Hedging like that just signaled that he didn't take the campaign seriously -- so why should anyone else?

It's time for Joe to go.

Why is this crap the lead story? Who gives a flying fart that Waldman is so stupid? And if she is so stupid, why are you paying her to write for Salon?

The volume is way, way too low -- kinda makes it not worth the time to bother with this (and other VD entries) because a lot is lost when they're impossible to hear -- and I have my speaker volumes set to max.

If the Democrat strategists knew what the freck they were doing, we'd be in the second term of the Gore administration instead of the mess we have now.

I'm really tired of all the flapping jaws -- the so-called leaders of the Democratic Party should (and here's a novel idea) LEAD the party and do what's right instead of being brainwashed by irrelevant advisors. It would be refreshing to see Dems frame the issues for a change instead of bending over for the Bushies. Grow backbones, dammitall.

q

CSI is a rerun. No Tivo for me, ever. TV already sucks out enough of my brain cells. And dollars.

And so does this column. So I'm going to stop reading it because HH isn't cute enough to waste my time. I realized that when I discovered she just doesn't get Earl.