I'm with A Reader and others who express skepticism about this proposal. I mostly come to salon for hard news from a different or more in-depth angle than is offered in mainstream media. In the last little while, there seems to have been less of this in favor of softer pieces. The harder news stories are still there, but the ratio is slipping. The proposal doesn't sound like it provides anything that can't be found in many other venues: livejournal, tabletalk. I'm concerned about financial resources being diverted to this new project and away from the what keeps me in a salon premium subscription. I would MUCH rather see the money go into reporting rather than another community opinion option.

One problem is that pro-choice doesn't boil down to a simplistic catch-phrase that can easily be digested by the masses.

I love this idea too. If something happens in Silicon Valley/South Bay, I'm in.

Almost daily, I read news items that make my head want to explode. My best friend and I send articles back and forth. We're reasonably well informed. I write letters to my representatives and will continue to do so. However, I don't believe that my being informed enough to comment or rant or write letters is doing anything, and there are plenty of times when I recall that I was happier when I had no political opinions.

So I love this idea. Being ticked off might be motivating or useful in the long-term. But in the short term, no amount of being horrified at public policy has made it go away. I don't see Anne's suggestion as being a call for global change. It's just one day to set aside everything that we can't control and see to some of the things we can...be decent, be kind, share what we can. So what if there isn't media coverage or if it won't do any "good." You can have a good day or a lousy day. I like the idea of a concerted effort to give a lot of people a good day.

I don't think funny entered into it. Colbert saw an opportunity to make some important statements under a guise of humor (or attempted humor, depending on your opinion) and ran with it. It wasn't about being especially rock-the-house funny, it wasn't about Colbert's shining moment as a comedian. Instead, it was about one brief, miraculous glitch in a system that would usually screen out someone who didn't agree with the administration and its supporters. Colbert used his time to make some important statements that are otherwise not forthcoming from those in a position to say them. He didn't have to be funny. Plenty of people are funny. Colbert is funny four nights a week. He had a chance to be truthful to a liar and executed *that* brilliantly. I think he was very brave and I thank him for it.

I am an introvert. I always have been. Even as a very young child, when one LW postulates that we wanted to connect with everyone...nope, I didn't. I'd be the one happier sitting with the adults.

I do have friends, but even though we enjoy spending time together, it is naturally draining for many introverts, and I stand in their company. One of my best friends, who lives in another state, recently visited. By the first evening when we were sitting in my livingroom talking, after being together for hours, I blanked for a little bit while she was talking with the thought "Oh, God...how am I going to get through the next three days of this?" When I bid her farewell after a very nice visit, I went home and slept from 5PM until the next morning.

Even small, very enjoyable social gatherings are draining. I go, I have a genuinely good time, but there isn't a single time I attend a small or large social event without needing to have zero human contact for the next day or so.

It isn't just a matter of laziness or not wanting to put out, selfishness, whatever else extroverts seem to accuse the introverts of. Not everyone is built for a lot of human contact.

My issue with the ubiquitous Christmas season, aside from being unable to escape it, is that people seem to want it to be by turns secular and sacred, and vehemently either. If it's secualar, American-aculturated, all-encompassing, non-religious, then it shouldn't matter, for example, if you skip saying "Merry Christmas" and say "Happy Holidays" instead. However, if you're OK with the tree and lights, but not the songs & sentiments praising the Christian prophet/diety, then that seems to be a problem (for some). If it is a religious holiday, then it shouldn't be incumbent upon non-Christians to participate. In fact, if it is sacred, then it is disingenuous and disrespectful to feign a worship you don't believe in. Spirituality needs to be more than lip service, so skipping religious Christmas by non-Christians is more respectful of it's meaning for those who believe.

The problem I see with Christmas in America is that it's a moving target. Is it secular or is it sacred? Please let's pick one so we can all move along.

I logged in looking for some coverage of the Bhutto assassination, analysis of its implications, etc. It's not like this is a slow news day, yet the only mention I found of Bhutto's death was a little wire story in the sidebar. This is a ridiculously inappropriate lead story at this time. There's news out there today. Please give it to us.