Plenty of other people have commented on "Broadsheet's" appearance of condescension, the trivializing of "women's news" into gossip and fluff, the strange decision to split out some news that is defined as "women's news" but has a much wider appeal (e.g., Harriet Miers), the noticable change in Salon's content since the editorial changes, and the awful pink color scheme (my wife commented, "OK, now they should add "MenSheet," and make it baby blue"), so I won't add my voice to the chorus there.

I will only note that I find it particularly ironic that you introduced this as a "need" in the middle of nearly a month's-worth of news that focused almost exclusively on two women (Harriet Miers, of course, and Judy Miller). Whether Broadsheet is a good or bad thing (I think it's not a very good idea; why do you want to ghettoize yourselves?), your timing is absolutely atrocious.

What on earth were you thinking? It doesn't matter that you have a new Editor in Chief who wants to put her "stamp" on the 'zine. Have you done any surveys of your readership?

You say that the Broadsheet traffic is strong. Care to post your stats? (Before you do, check the user log to see how many of those hits immediately posted negative feedback.) If you're so enamored of the "Broadsheet" title that you feel compelled to use it somewhere on Salon, create a discussion group with that label.

The introduction to the section states that Broadsheet will be "taking the ladies seriously." Ms. Editor in Chief, listen seriously to your readers: We "ladies" already take ourselves, and each other, seriously. We don't need to read our news on the Pink Aisle next to the Barbie dolls.

You know, I will never understand all this hooraw over cable. It seems pretty simple: either lock out the channels you are afraid your kids will watch (Didn't Ned Flanders lock out every channel except PBS?) or, heaven forfend, keep an eye on your kids and stop them from watching the programs you don't want them to see. What's the hard part in this scenario?

There's plenty of TV I don't want my kids to watch, and I don't let them. It's, ya know, not all that hard.

I think Heinlein put it well in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress:"

"Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws--always for other fellow. A murky part of us, something we had before we came down out of trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up. Because not one of those people said: "Please pass this so that I won't be able to do something I know I should stop." Nyet, tovarishchee, was always something they hated to see neighbors doing. Stop them "for their own good" – not because speaker claimed to be harmed by it."

I've never been able to undertand why "conservative" groups--you know, the folks who supposedly want to conserve the original intent of the Constitution--continually try to abridge the First Amendment. They must be doing it "for our own good."

This is actually an astoundingly simple issue. There is a federal law, Bush broke it, has admitted to it, and states that he plans to break it again. (If I knocked over a liquor store for money for bread for my family because I've been unemployed for months and said, "It's a matter of security to my family," I doubt the local police would be very forgiving. "Les Miserables," anyone?)

President Bush signed an Executive Order so that he can flout the law. In other words, his argument is, "I'm President, and I can break whatever laws I want when I think it's right." I can't do that; I don't know anyone else outside the Bush Administration who can. Is Justice blind, and does the law apply to everyone? The answer seems self-evident.

However, it is clear that with Republicans wanting to hold on to power, with a right-wing echo chamber that absolutely refuses to say anything that strays from the approved talking points, and with a cowed minority and a supine mainstream media, there will not be an impeachment. They will hang on, wait for it to blow over, and move on with the next atrocity. Donald Rumsfeld is still the Secretary of Defense. Condi Rice is now Secretary of State. No one-- no one--will be held accountable.

A President has flouted the law, and admitted it, but will not face the consequences. This is the person 62 million people voted for. This is the country we are living in now. I cannot decide whether to laugh or weep.

Actually, I am somewhat surprised that Salon didn't reference their earlier discussion about this topic: specifically, the controversy over Vivian Gornick's memoir "Fierce Attachments." Gornick's memoir departed from life in quite a few ways too, apparently, and Gornick put up an impassioned defense of her definition of "memoir," and there was much back-and-forth about same here in Salon in 2003. Read about it at http://www.salon.com/books/letters/2003/08/19/corrigan/index.html.

Anyway, like I said, I'm surprised Laura Miller didn't reference it. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.