Jackson, who last night clotheslined little Dee Brown, clearly out of frustration over the sticky defense Harpring had just applied to him, and then proceeded to make an ass of himself for several minutes, getting in the ref's faces, yelling and acting the fool while they called flagrant and technical fouls on him. I was thinking to myself, man, what does it take to get a guy tossed around here? I was rooting for the underdog Warriors and I got a pit in my stomach thinking that Jackson was going to go crazy and run into the stands. And you want to talk about instigating? All the rest of the riled up Warriors proceeded to bump, elbow and shove the Jazz for several minutes, that mohawked dude even getting himself T-d up for trying to hurl Boozer to the ground.

Maybe the refs figured it would hurt the Warriors more to allow Jackson to play on, considering his astonishing display of brickwork in the 4th quarter, but I was concerned for the well-being of the other players- the Jazz and his own teammates- with this loose cannon rolling around on the decks.

Beyond this particular game, I thought it amusing that TNT showed that Jackson profile right after the game. I suspect they had been holding it reserve since the start of the playoffs to whip out when, not if, Jackson lost his head during a game. I have sympathy for Jackson, who is probably a decent guy off the court, and I suspect that he is watched, called, T-d, and tossed more frequently than other players- and sometimes unfairly. The problem is that the guy is a lit fuse who can explode at anytime. As Kenny ineloquently said, you may be a good person, but if you keep doing bad things, eventually you become a bad person.

Everyone agrees it's an overzelous rule, applied poorly and unfairly. The problem is the inconsistency- judgements are passed on the nature of specific actions all the time, so any dismissal of "fairness" on the grounds of letter of law are specious, and in this case incomprehensible.

I'm also of the opinion that if the TNT crew hadn't gone off for ten minutes with the replays and the handwringing and the speculation that nobody would have gotten suspended, not even Horry.

Well, except maybe Stephen Jackson, who would have been retroactively suspended from the Spurs.

An unexpected low for Salon. I cannot believe Joan Walsh approved this.

Mrs. Obama's badonk, adonk or not, is not a suitable topic for discussion. That the writer is pleased to find a first lady she can relate to, however superficially, is fine and dandy. Good for her. But the silly and frankly stupid stereotype of the large African-American behind as the jumping off point (great imagery there) for an article about that presumed empathy is not worthy of publication here.

I don't care how many women, whatever race, can relate. They can discuss it over coffee or maybe, maybe, on 'The View'. The fact that I am an anglo male does not make my opinion on this subject moot. What is next? As many have suggested here, an article by Christopher Hitchens on the subject of large genitals, a condition which he presumes to share with the president elect? The cultural impact of Laura Bush's nipples does seem to have gone uncommented upon- maybe we can dig up an old Molly Ivins piece on the topic.

I understand that this was supposed to be a jolly and irreverent comment on the new and sort of astonishing political landscape we happily find ourselves in today. But it comes off as puerile in the extreme. King Kaufman must have shot milk out of his nose when he saw this.

The problem with Kaplan's piece is not that it was misguided, ill-informed, racist, sexist, or inappropriate. The problem is that it appeared in Salon. Like the vast majority of readers who commented on the original article I found it unfunny, uninteresting, self indulgent, and irrelevant. Let me presume to speak for the bulk of Salon readers here: WE DON'T READ SALON FOR THIS KIND OF FOOLISHNESS. We expect a level of intelligent political discourse from a mostly left leaning but diverse group thinkers. This article simply does not qualify. We, the readers, are letting you know that.

Your defense of this article here is pretty sloppy. Vincent Rossmeier writes "I understand there's a historical racial dimension here that complicates the issue, but the amount of energy and anger this article has generated seems misdirected. Who did it actually hurt? Aren't there more important issues to get up-in-arms about?" More important than Boo-tay? It must be awfully important if Salon published this article! But wait, aren't we complaining that this not an important issue, not worthy of discussion? Castigating you for wasting our time on such a silly subject? As Clay Davis would say, "Sheeeee-it."

Again, Rossmeier, "If we're going to devote mammoth amounts of time and attention to the appearances of our political leaders (and I'm not advocating that, by any means, but we do)". And Kate Harding, "(except insofar as I always hate the focus on prominent women's bodies)". Seriously? Seriously? Everyone else talks about it, so we too must talk about it (not that we advocate that, in fact we hate it). No. No. NO. You do not have to talk about it. We don't want you to talk about it. The whole idea of Salon in not to engage in such talk. That is why your readers have flooded you with negative feedback.

You are looking a little bit like the Bush administration here. You have made a mistake, undeniable to almost all of the people who care, and you refuse to admit it or promise to reform, and instead fall back on specious arguments and childish excuses. Get it together.