Thanks for the reply. I've written to readermail@salon.com with my complaint. If the reply - assuming there is a reply - is signed by "Brittany" I'm going to be mighty suspicious. Three different email addresses and, so far, the respondent for two of them is "Brittany"? I'm not sure I see the point to that, but it's Salon's business model, so they get to organize as they think best.

Given all the time, effort, careful documentation, and attention to analysis you provide your readers with regard to the media, to see that photo next to this column is jarring in the extreme. Were you writing a critique of visual media, you might actually use that photograph as Exhibit A, as some sites have done (thanks for the BAG link, Pedinska).

Given Salon's work on behalf of the torture victims (ie; being among the first to publish the photographs), it's jarring to see this photograph on their site. It's what I expect to see in the traditional media, but I thought Salon recognized that at least part of their audience are refugees from that form of journalistic malpractice.

Using that particular photo, with others already "certified," circulating, and analyzed on the web, imo, makes Salon look foolish on the one hand, and undermines their authority, and yours on the other. I know there are dozens (hundreds?) of editorial decisions that get made everyday. No one is perfect; shit happens.

But, still...

Glenn, I know you have complete editorial control over your column's content. But, can you also exercise any editorial influence over the images Salon uses to illustrate your columns? I get that the one Salon used is the most familiar, but images matter (see: unreleased torture photographs), and I'm wondering why Salon couldn't just as easily have used this one from Andy Worthington's site (and, at sig):

http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/09/09/first-photo-of-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-in-guantanamo/

Or, this one via Google:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/09/09/world/asia/09lede_ksm.350.jpg

The thing that's weird (or inconsistent) about Bob The Carpenter, is that while he makes a number of assumptions about bearpaw1 (which may or may not be true with a gender neutral name like that) .... What does he think he's doing reading Glenn? Coherence isn't the current GOP's strong suit, is it? Irrational, inconsistent, incoherent. Your modern GOP.

Not only homophobic but an ignorant boob given to making assumptions. Partner is a designation that gets used by unmarried heterosexual couples as well. Bob should stick to pounding his own wood as opposed to worrying about others'. Wait... maybe that's the problem.

The sad fact of the matter is that ANY trial of these detainees at this point will NEVER be seen as legitimate by anyone outside of this country.

Absolutely true. And, I submit that's the point; that's all Obama and Holder care about. Worse. It will work. See: Carpenter, Bob.

Since you were unaware of the Beta deformities Salon has introduced, you may also be unaware of an underground or guerrilla code writing effort to combat some of site's more noxious attributes.

You might find this helpful, or at least interesting:

http://language-grammar.blogspot.com/

And, at sig. Yes, I know, you're likely to think that's an unlikely location from which to organize an insurrection, but it is truly worth a look.

It's okay. Welcome to "Beta" Salon. We've all been there over the past few days. Appeals to Salon's editors and technical folk suggest this is going to be an ongoing process. Who the heck knows what it'll all look like tomorrow. Stay flexible, assume nothing, and don't apologize for "errors" (since they might not be yours in any sense of the word anyway) is my recommendation.

Interviews Byron Dorgan,who was one of the eight senators opposed to the repeal Glass-Steagall. Also, a clip of Dylan Ratigan explaining the effects of Gramm Leach Bliley (to music and in costume no less).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/12/byron-dorgans-financial-p_n_355659.html

And, at sig.

It seems to be a pattern. Whether we speak of domestic policy or international policy, the people in the driver's seat have a vested financial interest in the outcome. Very much like the CEO's of major corporations who make decisions which benefit themselves ahead of their shareholders (forget the interests of the business or industry itself), those who govern and those who advise them, also make choices which will benefit themselves ahead of We the People (forget the citizens of some distant country as well). So much for the entire notion of a "public servant."

The only - truly the only - antidote to this state of affairs I can see is an array of laws (or regulations) and a process of accountability to those laws (or regulations). Yet, the very same people who are reaping these bounties are the folks making the laws and deciding when a demand for accountability is warranted.

Is an absence of mirror neurons a pre-requisite condition for those seeking public positions, whether appointed or elected? Is this some "functional" genetic mutation? Is the ability to look beyond one's own needs something the electorate unwittingly screens out? Where does this sense of entitlement come from? Surely something explains Goldman's God-defense for the bonuses* and Peter Galbraith's deliberate machinations to benefit from the war in Iraq and its resolution.

The level of ceiling to floor, and wall to wall collusion and cooperation for mutual benefit among our elite as it's been revealed genuinely leaves me breathless. And, it seems as if they no longer see any need to conceal it. What an amazing capacity human beings have for corruption and the ability to rationalize it.

* http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/11/04/goldman-one-ups-gordon-gekko-says-jesus-embraced-greed/