One of the risks of "mixing it up" to attract a wider

audience, is losing a loyal and stalwart following to a

gossip-hungry and fickle readership.

Jennifer Aniston does not belong on Salon's front page, as

a feature story. At least not on the front page of the Salon

I have come to know over the years. Salon has been the most honest and

intelligent magazine online. Its focus on politics and

government, with good writers who tear apart the garbage we are

fed by the mainstream media; combined with the thoughts and

research of bright, inquisitive people on TableTalk are what

set Salon apart.

I don't hate Jennifer Aniston, but I worry that changes are taking

place that are compromising the quality of what has always

been an exceptional resource for the truth, about things that

really matter. The Aniston/Pitt divorce;

Jen's almost-exposed breast; and the folks who love to

know about them, are not among the things

that really matter. This is not Page Six of the New York

Post.

Of course we will complain, because movie-star madness

is all very new to Salon's established audience. If they

don't speak up, who will?

Nothing. Except a free-for-all for the media. I am embarrassed

to live in a country that executes human beings. I certainly never

expected Schwarzenegger to grant clemency to Tookie Williams, but

if he had done so, he would have shown the world that he has

balls to go with his muscles. No Governor - no individual human -

should have that kind of power.

The death penalty accomplishes nothing. It is useless. Tookie

wasn't going anywhere. He was imprisoned. No way for him to ever

hurt anyone again.

I cannot describe my disgust.

What bothered me more than anything in LW's letter, was the following:

"We're both furious at each other. He claims he has changed,

and no longer is susceptible to addiction. He resents my

attempt to control him."

He resents her attempt to control him. The words of a true

addict, and a true coward. He has pointed the finger at his

wife - the innocent wife who was interrogated by police and must now

live with a criminal record. Where is his shame? His sadness

and his remorse?

He goes BACK to smoking pot, again on their communal property, and

SHE gets accused of being a controlling wife.

This is not just about marijuana. This is about a guy who thinks

only of himself. I know what I would do. And then I would call

a locksmith; a family counsellor for myself, and a really close

friend or family member to take the kids for awhile. And I would

keep my cellphone handy to dial 911 if necessary.

LW: Look after YOU. Look after those two kids. Don't let him

back into your lives until he completes a full stay in a

rehab center. He dragged you into the pit with him once. If

you ease up, he'll do it again. And if he ever comes back to

you "clean" and you are able to try trusting him again, get some

relationship counselling (together).

I wish you love and luck.

What a seething bunch of letters! You folks are registering close

to hysteria. The piece was more glowing than even I expected

it to be, even here on Salon.

I think you need to chill out and think about your adverse reactions.

I fear if Andrew O'Hehir were in front of you, someone might have to

call 9ll.

Biggest problem with the grassroots folks in both parties

- RAGE and PARANOIA.

"Don't you DARE call our man portly."

It's embarrassing.

Andrew O'Hehir wrote a review of Al Gore's documentary. Demanding

that he apologize or withdraw parts of it because they don't please

certain readers here is unacceptable.

What kind of ownership do some of you believe you have over Salon -

that you can assert this form of control? The piece didn't please

you to a "T" so you demand that it be changed? You don't have the

right to do that.

I liked the review; and it is more than obvious that it is a

positive one.

I would not be suggesting that a person

who contemplates "killing" an

innocent cat to keep her yard clean, should

now go out and acquire a dog. What if the dog

makes a mess in the house or in the yard? I

would pity that poor dog, whose safety would

be in jeopardy.

LW should not have pets. I'd suggest some

much-needed therapy but predict hell will

freeze over before that happens.

It doesn't matter which child, in a family, was born first.

Once adulthood is reached, the playing field is even. Why does

the oldest have to assume the responsibility of the deceased

father? Be nice to your younger brother because that's what

your father would have wanted? What kind of advice is that?

I don't believe the oldest should have extra responsibility

in bad times; anymore than I think the oldest should have

extra privileges. I grew up, always being reminded of the

special status of my sister who was the oldest. And she

raised her own two children the same way.

The LW's "thirty-five" year old brother would be wise to

back off and stop making demands that LW obviously cannot

meet. It has nothing whatever to do with their chronological

ages. If the situation were reversed, and the 35 year old

brother were the LW, would Cary say "Don't worry, your brother

is older than you and he will never close the door."

Sometimes the only way to maintain your own happiness is to

close a door.