And I don't mean that sarcastically. As a self-employed writer, I pay about $1,300 a month for health care insurance for myself and my wife. And I can't imagine how someone with kids could boot an even bigger bill than that. That said, medical care for myself and my wife has been nothing lees than excellent, despite the outrageous price tag that's come along with it. Therefore, I have no desire to change all that by getting my medical care from another government motor-vehicle-type bureaucracy. Which is to say, at the very least, for God's sake, we MUST let our legislators and citizens take all the time and effort they need to figure this thing out and to lower costs, WITHOUT socialization. It is, after all, one-sixth of our economy.

BTW, what ever happened to Obama's pledge to post new legislation on his website for a week before Congress can vote on it? Sadly, it's just another broken promise from someone we now understand is just another ordinary promise-breaking politician.

There is absolutely no reason to slam a one thousand-page document through Congress before anyone can analyze and understand what's in it. After all, that's what Obama did with the Stimulus Bill and golly, the results have been so gosh darn wonderful, haven't they? To put it simply, what Obama is trying to ram through Congress this time stinks worse than his first washed-up starfish, withering once again in the heat of the day.

Or that the CBO says there's no way to pay for this NEW trillion dollar piece of shit? Or that we can't afford Medicare to continue in its current form? Or that you don't raise taxes during the worst recession in decades?

But, hey, what's another trillion dollars when your an Obama fan? Yippy! Let's bankrupt the country! And let's do it as fast as possible by "painting some lipstick on this pig" and ramming it through before anyone can even read it! That's what we did with the Stimulus Bill, right? And everyone knows how gosh darn successful that's been! Come on, everybody, pitch in and help Obama get our unemployment rate up to 25%!

Yes we can!

Why don't you hire an ombudsman to help you get out of your own way, Joan? Or don't you want to make Salon command respect as a responsible and accountable journalistic outlet? Don't you want to be a player? Or do you want to remain a sloppy, bottom rung entity? It's all up to you, Joan, as Misogynist-in-Chief. Wouldn't you like to lose that title and Salonmove beyond its current perception? Or are you happy with the status quo?

It reminded me of the time you said that Salon didn't win the Pulitzer Prize because they didn't enter the contest. Another gem. Oh, well, thanks for the howl. One always needs a good laugh in the midst of the Obama economy. So please, please please, keep up the Pulitzer Prize winning prose.

Errr... not so well done, guys. Not at all. All you've proven is that I loathe Hillary. Although, I must admit, she looks like a lot better an alternative to me these days as Obama continues to shoulder our grandchildren and their grandchildren with our debt.

But the major difference that remains is really rather obvious: I'm just a guy with an opinion. End of story. Salon, however, is supposed to be a responsible, accountable journalistic outlet. Only they're not. Which is why even the thought of an ombudsman scares the hell out of Joan. Sorry, but you haven't destroyed my argument for a news outlet acting in an evenhanded manner when it comes to matters of misogyny or any matters at all. You've simply discovered something I'm already on record about and continue to stand by -- that I loathed Hillary Clinton's behavior during her presidential campaign. And BTW, this is also something that was not uncommon here at Salon during that time period. In fact, reader's were savaging Joan for her defense of Hillary back then. Are you pretending not to remember that? Were you a part of it? Perhaps you should rifle through your own letters. Or better yet -- get a life, my friends.

My posts as "a guy with an opinion" on Hillary have absolutely nothing to do with Salon's utter failure to act responsibly and accountably on the issues. So big whoop.

"Come on, virtue. Just admit it. This isn't about women at all. It never, ever was. This is about politics, pure and simple."

Actually, it's about fairness, pure and simple, my friend. This kind of duplicity would be easy to correct if only Joan cared enough about it to hire an ombudsman. Most reputable journalistic outlets keep themselves honest and accountable this way. It's a simple fix. But I don't expect Joan ever will.

"I don't recall you ever, ever making a stink about the treatment of any other woman but Palin."

I really haven't had to, my friend. Joan has covered that territory vociferously for many, many years, especially in defense of Hillary. My problem, as I've said so often, is how selectively Joan and other writers at Salon defend women against misogyny -- meaning that they only defend woman on their end of the political spectrum. THAT'S where the transparency lies. Not with me. Sadly, the only one who has zero credibility on the subject of misogyny, given the many examples I've cited time and time again, is Joan.

I'm just not a fan of misogyny. And I'm certainly not a fan of Salon (especially Joan) pretending to condemn misogyny when Salon uses it shamelessly whenever it serves their agenda.