Earlier I wrote: "Bonds, a college-educated, multi-millionaire superstar, an underdog? You are a disturbing parody of a leftist when you say things like that Joan."

Since posting that I remembered his dad and Willie Mays so I should have written:

Bonds, a born into an upper-class income bracket, given privileged exposure to the game and a star player from an early age, college-educated, multi-millionaire superstar, an underdog? You are a disgusting parody of a leftist when you say things like that Joan and show a very broken moral compass.

As long as you are at the helm of Salon it will continue to betray liberal values and reason for what ever fashionable, uncritical victim-worship you choose to engage in, a trend seen in the mainstream media as well. You have in effect become the Fox News of ‘liberal’ journalism and your Bonds support is an eerie leftist parallel to something Rush Limbaugh might do for the baseball equivalent of Ollie North.

It would be better that Salon die than to continue much longer with its current ethos. I for one and finished with Salon completely after almost ten years. You have simply run out of credibility.

when Joan as editor-in-chief approved the following two articles:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/01/22/obama/index.html

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/07/12/obama_hillary

Also see AncientAssyrian's detailed post from yesterday on how much Phony Joanie is a 'fan' of Obama:

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2007/08/07/obama_bonds/permalink/1ff3947b5e7965292b2f506cf0e4fa72.html

"I give Bonds the benefit of the doubt. I do it because I care about the underdog,..."

"underdog"? Bonds, a college-educated, multi-millionaire superstar, an underdog? You are a disturbing parody of a leftist when you say things like that Joan.

"benefit of the doubt"? For a man who has explicitly admitted to using substances (e.g. "the clear") now known to contain illegal steroids?

If Bonds were not black, you would not be in his corner, period. That is racism.

Contrast all of this with your constant attacks on Barack Obama for not being black-enough, manly-enough, etc. He is a true underdog in the context of the Presidential Race, yet you treat him like garbage.

Obama is moral, decent man and Bonds is an egotistical cheater. But I guess a black man who doesn't play into some prescribed victim role just doesn't fit your phony white-man's burden leftism.

The fact you as editor in chief focus on nonsense like Obama's response to a trivial question, your absurd claim that racism is behind people's dislike of Bonds (a man who has been reviled even by teammates since he was in college) and your pathetic implementation of this blog speaks to why I stopped being a Salon subscriber after many years.

Why should the next President, a person who has to clean up the various debacles of the Bush administration, pay even the slightest attention to how well some person hits a yarn, leather-covered ball with a wooden stick? I mean abstract this issue a bit and it shows what an ass Obermann was even to ask it, although as a former sportscaster he has some excuse. What's yours out there in leftist field, Joan?

prefers freedom of expression.

Notice that Ms. Price like most of the Salonista crowd only thinks of this as something "likely to fail" or as an "unenforceable" measure rather than a grotesque attempt to censor free expression which should fail and in fact ought never even be contemplated in a free, liberal society to begin with.

"bodies will be modified only for self-expression, not because people are dissatisfied with their bodies." -jebldmm

Firstly how is living as the opposite sex not a form of "self-expression", perhaps the apotheosis thereof?

"That said... I believe that in a few hundred years, when we understand the human mind completely, they will look back at gender reassignment surgery as a barbaric practice."

"understand the human mind completely"??? Wow, talk about hubris...anyway, transsexuals choose to have the surgery performed on them in free societies. Anyone who can be convinced by a doctor to have invasive cosmetic surgery on their genitals was pretty much doomed from the start in my estimation. Maybe some transsexuals do make mistakes, but mature people who value freedom accept that no potentiality of conduct cannot be abused or pursued in error. C'est la vie.

"People who are unhappy with their bodies will be treated so that they can be happy with who they are instead of undergoing radical surgery to change their appearance." -jebldmm

For people who don't accept that we are just self-replicating strands of DNA (as Eric Idle sang) what is more threatening to our sense of self? Changing the finite, temporal physical body through surgery or altering our transcendent mind through psychiatric drugs with potentially permanent consequences for our (for lack of a better term) spiritual development?

Of course through out this I am writing to a woman who wrote that "anything voiced anonymously by anyone...is to be regarded automatically as a lie or without rational substance." A week later am I am still stunned by the ignorance and close-mindedness of that statement.

Still, this was a wonderful piece by Ms. Lloyd which should remind people of the value of Broadsheet.