Silenced, I was talking about worldly wise neocons. Not you. And they, and you, and other liberal Democrats, are all free to disagree with me. I'm not sure what your point is here. Do you think I missed something in my take on the Times piece? Please tell me. I appreciate your participation in letters, but your personal attacks on me don't really advance your cause.

Thanks, everybody, for your feedback. I think the writers are basically happy with doing video, and you're right, we're not arm-twisting yet. We have a small staff with enough for everyone to do right now, so we're only looking for video volunteers. But I think you'll see more people doing it in the weeks to come. I will certainly pass along requests to Cary and Tim.

We're looking into the feasibility of transcription as well. For now, though, everyone's video has been a version of a story they've already told or are currently telling on the site in text form, too, so no one's missing a story they can only learn about by watching video. But as we expand we'll certainly be mindful of these issues.

Thanks, jhenner, I'm concerned about that too. We'll keep trying to figure this out. And Amity, I think it's a great idea to incorporate more discussions, panels, etc. (For which a transcript would make a lot of sense; we often if not always do that with our Conversations, knowing some people want to read, and aren't podcast people.)

And someone earlier (I apologize for not remembering who) suggested reader-videos; I hope you'll see that in the not too distant future on Salon -- you can upload a video reply to my video. We're working on all of it.

And thanks to Amity and others who've expressed appreciation for our experimentation. It really is what makes this job fun. Things we try don't always work, but it's nice to have an audience that tolerates our trying!

Forgive the light blogging, I've been in NY this week. I'm at JFK looking at the rain and hoping to get on my flight home, and I peeked in on letters. Thanks, virtue001, for acknowledging a rare topic we agree on. This could be the beginning of something beautiful. And thanks, as always, Garry Owen for defending me for my MSNBC work. I'm sure I never say as much as I ought to but I always leave feeling like I made at least one worthwhile point that wouldn't have been on the air if I wasn't there. Yesterday I was marveling about how I had to spring Shtup-gate on Chris the day the news broke, and he wasn't buying it; and now it's one of the rare Rudy scandals he consistently acknowledges. I think it's good for Salon, but I understand and think about everyone's doubts.

And it's not a new haircut! When I do MSNBC from New York, they do full hair and makeup, and they always straighten my hair. I like the way it looks but I'm way too lazy to do it myself. I appreciate the feedback.

And david sugarman, that is pretty much my favorite poem, and exactly what I thought about half-way through this article. Thanks for posting it.

Yes, I just hired Kristol and Krauthammer.

Kidding!

Time is having a good week.

I'm also very proud of Michael's piece today explaining why we chose Sgts. Yance Gray and Omar Mora as our People of the Year -- a better selection than Time's choice of Putin, in my opinion.

Cary Tennis will be back later this week -- we posted a note on the cover, he's not going anyplace! Neither are Glenn Greenwald or Camille Paglia. To the anonymous worked up about Greenwald: I couldn't disagree more. I think Glenn's work is distinguished by his great reporting and meticulous analysis, not indignation.

And Thrasher, thanks for the praise. I'm thrilled about James, who is free to muse about everything under the sun, as I think you can already see from his writing on Salon.

bushwacker00, with all due respect, did you read the piece? McGwire lied about steroids, and is, actually, not one of the great charismatic figures of the game. (To be fair, he is, belatedly, suffering for his likely steroid abuse and lies about it.) I wrote about the role of Bonds' surliness in his persecution; but if surliness was a crime, much of Major League Baseball would be convicted.

And Amerigo, no, actually, the word I wanted was "persecuted." That's been going on since 2002-3 (or earlier if you count the "he's a goat and Jeff Kent is a standup guy!" stories.) He was just "prosecuted" last month, roughly four years after his allegedly false grand jury testimony. He's been persecuted far longer. But thank you for your thoughts.

Anonymust, I've spent a lot of time with a sportswriter friend debating that very question. While I was (briefly) writing about sports, and breaking news when I did it, I was struck by how toothless the local media was covering the Giants. They missed stories hiding in plain sight. But my sportswriter friend told me to look at City Hall and White House reporters, and tell him how they were different. I granted him his point to some extent, but honestly, I would still argue that newspaper sportswriters, in particular, mainly because of their papers' ties with local sports teams, are probably a little more spineless. But I wouldn't go to the mat about it. Some reporters on all of these beats are cowards, and some reporters on all of these beats are heroes.

And anonymous (the last one), yes, thank you for your Baby Boomer attack. I'm a late Boomer (so is Barry Bonds!) so it seems kind of silly to me, but maybe you'll share with us how your pre- or maybe post-Boomer experiences make you smarter?