goferit2, I want to argue with you, I do. But the way you've broken it down, as long as we allow that the main thing going on for McCain is a feeling that Imus has done his time for the crime, while Bonds has gotten off scot-free, well, I can at least call it a draw. I keep starting another sentence arguing with you, but...we can't get inside McCain's head. Or anyone else's. So I appreciate the spirit with which you argue, I will continue to have my own ideas about how to wriggle out of what you've posited, but it's a better argument over a cup of coffee or a beer. I thank you for coming back.

I have to say, I love our letter writers. They teach me something new every day. But not until your letter, Dano, did I think about whether reading Ball Four when I was 13 -- I stole it from my dad, I learned a lot! -- made me more tolerant of rumors about Barry Bonds (and other ballplayers I admire, but we'll stop there.) I have to say my aha reaction tells me you're right. I have had an infinite number of fights with people, including people I know well and love, about my tolerance of Bonds -- the steroid rumors and all the other rumors, too.

Thank you for writing. I'm going to have to read Ball Four again.

Nice one, virtue001. But only my friends are allowed to call me dogface!

Thanks, Xrandadu. That was really helpful. They're going to let me out of my bunker any day now and I'll have a nicer backdrop. Yes, we're experimenting, and feedback really helps.

I did blog about the '94 Cheney video last week -- along with Scott Bateman's great take on it. Honestly, the redundancy on this one is partly that I wanted to do the video, but I could get the text up faster -- and my outrage drove me to do both. But I understand that it's not the most important issue.

Thank you, Garry -- ok, I hear you! But don't blame the photographer -- well, actually, you can, because it's me. I'm just sitting in front of my Macbook camera and sending the shot to Caitlin, in New York. I wanted to try that, informal-like. I'm more about the ideas than how I look, you know that. Maybe it isn't quite working. But it's fun and we'll keep trying!

Someone was kind enough to help moderate my blog today because I was so busy (blogging, and a few other duties), but I normally do it myself. And I wouldn't have removed Anonymous's early if unbelievable post, myself, so...I restored it, along with Garry Owen's and a couple of other replies.

As long as the information and argument (even if probably false) outweighs the sheer insults and obscenity, I will normally let it pass. Dumb, drive-by insults I delete. Hitlery insisting I have a crush on Rudy in another thread: gone.

mrkcohen, I'm disturbed by various Democrats' seizing on Maliki as a scapegoat as well, because I fear it will play into a new Bush strategy of saying the problem is the leader, the leader must be replaced, and then he must be given MORE time, backed by 160,000 American soldiers, to succeed. A leadership surge, if you will. But that's very different from what's going on with Allawi. To my knowledge, he has not also hired a big Democratic lobbying firm with close ties to, say, the once and future Clinton administration. And supporting Allawi himself is far more problematic than simply criticizing the admittedly flawed Maliki -- he's a CIA/right-wing favorite and there was lots of concern when he was first chosen that this wasn't a good first step for Iraqi democracy, and it wasn't. So there is no comparison between a handful of Democrats criticizing Maliki, and this apparently coordinated effort by top Republicans and former administration Iraq insiders to topple him and replace him with Allawi.

In the interest of fairness, I should note that Zelikow emailed Glenn Greenwald Friday night and insisted that while he's listed as one of a small number of trusted "advisers" to the Barbour firm, he knew nothing about the Allawi contract when he spoke to ABC News. He did not seem to feel his role as a lobbyist -- even if he isn't connected with the Allawi contract -- needed to be disclosed. Glenn's got a long new post about it. Zelikow's rhetorical contortions, as he describes his insider/outsider role on Iraq policy, must be read to be believed.

JAURELIO, the Post has confirmed it did not run the strip. Berkeley said so on his Web site, and they confirmed it today. I'm not sure what you saw, but it wasn't the Opus we ran.

Mike M., look for an interesting Salon cover story tonight! Let me know what you think.

And I personally don't think I was too hard on Pat Buchanan. I don't believe his alcoholism comparison was limited to illegal sex in bathrooms, but to "urges" to have sex with men, generally. I can't be sure, but if you consider Buchanan's long history of demonizing and pathologizing gay life, I think my interpretation deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Wow. I love our readers. But every once in a while, I feel...surprised. This is a great, only-in-Salon story, in my opinion. I never expected a debate about it. Please click on the link in the Kevin Youkilis item for one of my favorite ways into the story.

For complicated reasons, there aren't too many Jews in baseball. For some of the reasons why, read the article. Thanks to Jonah Keri for a great piece.