You've failed to explain why anecdotal journalism is cartoonish in Michelle Malkin's hands (and it is), yet acceptable in your own. Oh Salon, Salon! You used to be so reasonable. When did you submit to the spell of The DailyKos?

Without you I'd be ashamed, Katie and Rebecca. Thank you so much for your tag-team lecture. Because of your honest appraisal of me, I will no longer find these Crazies even the least bit amusing. I promise to no longer read about them. And thank you for your promise to never pay your bills again with money earned by writing of them.

If there is something "not so female-friendly, running below the frantic fanaticism of their Obama-loving compatriots" it's a very weak something. Even Traister doesn't seem convinced of it, but when there's a slug-fight of a campaign and you've got a deadline...

Why is it that women in the media always have to praise other women in media with such purple prose? The girliness of it robs their accomplishments of impact....And another thing, Traister, there were nearly 30 years of sedition on SNL before Fey got there. But I'm totally down with Amy's pro-lady garden postion. The Full Barbasol makes me think I need a wedge of lemon.

Weird article. No one has ever said "no" to me. Just lucky, I guess.

Ah, the first kiss! What a heady moment of thrills and potential miscues. If as decent people we accept that no means NO as the golden rule, one only needs a little finesse to avoid any hurt feelings. There are plenty of ways to be direct without being rude or killing the good vibe of swapping some spit. You charmed your way into the kiss, so charm your way out.

I have a dog named shiloh too! WE ROCK! Wanna make out?

So, is that a yes or a no for the make-out session?

QUESTION OF THE WEEK: Who sucks on it harder for an invitation to a Tina Fey kool-kid party? - Traister or Havrilesky? You decide. Raising your fist for a fellow sister-in-the-struggle doesn't change the fact that you're an entertainment writer. Welcome to the P.R. machine, willing cogs!

Why are you such a douche? Don't do that, you self important commie asshole.

You've just made and crossed a new line of shamelessness all at the same time. Some "spiritualist" you are.

It doesn't matter what I say, you're hysteria has overcome your bungee cord connection to fact. For the record, I'm a liberal Democrat. It's become increasing clear that the scientific community - although fractured - is not entirely comfortable with the idea of anthropogenic global warming. While the jury is still out, it's important to not hand down a legislative sentence that is sure to effect world food prices, increase poverty and to be most hurtful to developing economies. You imply that too many scientists are shilling for oil companies. As I scientist, try getting a research grant without swearing allegiance to Al Gore's apocalyptic vision of climate circumstances.

@publicola

Wow. You found a statement that runs counter to mine. Genius! Someone should hire you for something science-y.

"...it is the official statement of the National Academies, the non-profit non-governmental organization created by Lincoln to give scientific advice to the Congress and people of the United States."

And as we all know, there are no political agendas at think tanks.

"So on the one hand we have the NAS and on the other a guy with a keyboard on the Internet who calls himself shilohcool. For me, that's not a hard call."

Kudos. Couldn't have been played better by Herr Olbermann himself. He's a journalist.

"The NAS was set up with extremely elaborate protections to avoid having a political agenda"

You can't possibly believe or expect me to believe this. Why is it that conspiracy theorists like yourself beleive government info when it suits your kooky world view? (...And using hyperbolic qualifiers like "extremely" and "elaborate" does nothing to strengthen your case.)

"On the other hand we have an anonymous clown with a keyboard and an Internet account."

Do I have to point out how silly it is for you to post such a statement on a board?

Listen, if you're against an open, invective free exchange of opinions, ideas and facts, maybe you should no longer be "an anonymous clown with a keyboard and an internet account."

Or, you can always go back to GAWKER with the other C students where you belong. You contribute nothing.

So, a private citizen writes a memo to his friends in government and The Speaker's aides make a courtesy call to speak with him about it. Why do you inflate this into something rivaling Kennan's article on "Containment"? If you've ever worked in Washington, you know these vanity memos from old timers who want back in the game are a dime a dozen. Just like Dennis Kucinich's virtually unsupported almost daily call for Bush-Cheney impeachments, this memo has triggered no procedural mechanisms - most likely because everyone has heard it all before and the "suggestion" of a hearing doesn't establish cause for said hearing. This fails to provide any meat for the BBQ. Even in the Pelosi-world of wild, scatter-gun rhetoric, you can't "go to court" without evidence. That evidence may very well be in hand in the future, but a three page article on a memo that says what millions of people have said already in one way, shape or form? Really? Call us back when you've got something new. I'll bet this former Church Committee member has written a lot of memos.

Wow. What scociologically flimsy drivel this is. Congratulations, Dian Fossey. Salon has a really bad habit of publishing anecdote as journalism. You know this wouldn't pass muster in a real magazine. It's your right to keep doing it, but it will always keep you third rate. It's just this "pull out all stops" writing that has marginilized the blogosphere. But I guess blue collar journos need to scrape by somehow.