I agree that others should try not to look.

But at the same time, if a male attorney were wearing spandex shorts that allowed you to...well, know how excited he was about his client's position, let's say...you're telling me that you'd be able to pay attention to anything else? I'm a straight man -- but I'd notice, and be distracted by that. It's not sexual -- it's that such a thing would be both remarkable and remarkably out of place.

(The same would be true if the attorney were a hyper-chicken, of course.)

You know you're preaching to the choir, right?

According to the end of the spot, I'm supposed to do something to oppose "Marraige."

No, I'm not being a spelling Nazi...but come on. It's got, like, ten written words in it. How hard would it be to spell check?

(Oh, and their message is repulsive, too, of course.)

It's not just the word "marraige." Apparently we're supposed to "say no to same same sex marraige."

I know I'm not supposed to feed the trolls, but let me address your points.

1. I take it that you don't believe Fox to be a news organization either -- since you think that any site that provides opinion is not "journalism." But besides weakly relying on ad hominem (and trolling / spamming) you're just wrong. CNN is supposed to cover everything -- that's their role in journalism. Fox and Salon are dedicated to sharing opinions on selected stories that are important and worthy of discussion. Indeed, it's right in the name -- Salon is a salon, in which people discuss important issues. So are both stories you cite equally worth discussing?

The murder of Tiller is an important issue relating to what seems to be a newly-violent and virulent anti-abortion movement. It's the continuation -- the natural continuation, really -- of campaigns by people like Alan Keyes. It warrants, and lends itself to, discussion.

The murder of the army recruiter is "dog bites man." One nutter from Arkansas named Leon decided he was Osama bin Ladin and was going to avenge his Taliban "brothers"... No terrorist movement. Nothing to discuss, other than the ordinary response to a crazy guy committing murder: "fucking nutcase." What would you have Salon do? Repeat "Fucking nutcase" over and over? Discuss the influence that growing up in Arkansas can have in turning you into a fucking nutcase? No thanks.

2. "Progressives" (if you want to limit it that way -- I'd say "Americans") are grieving the attack on a human being because of his political beliefs, and lamenting what that means for our country. You're trying to use that murder to drive home an ideology -- one I suspect is, on some level, supportive of the murder. I think Jesus said something about that -- had to do with splinters and planks.

3. Muslim extremists are no more or less dangerous than Christian extremists. But more importantly, a movement of violent Christian extremists attacking the American political process is a new, important, social concern. A fucking nutcase who changes his name to something Arabic and a couple of months later is shooting up an army base...is roughly as dangerous as a fucking nutcase who decides that his neighbor's dog is telling him to shoot people. Dangerous -- but only as dangerous as crazy people ever are.

If Al Qaida launches another attack tomorrow...believe me, Salon will cover it. The lack of coverage has nothing to do with a preference towards covering only Christian terrorism. It has to do with the difference between something worth discussion, and something worth muttering "fucking nutcase" over.

4. Joan Walsh has more important things to do than deal with spamming trolls. If you want to engage Salon, offer your opinion in a respectful, non-trollish way.

And one final point -- you're fixated on the question of why there is not more coverage of the army recruiter. To support that, you're trying hard to draw a comparison between the Christian terrorist and the Muslim terrorist. So, ok, I'll grant the comparison for a second.

Now, if the Democratic party were implicitly or explicitly supporting the Islamic terrorist...what would you say? Would you denounce them? Call them un-American? I bet you would -- and you should.

So, great -- you think that the Christian and Muslim terrorist acts are comparable, and I'll grant it. Well, many within the American Right are implicitly and explictly supporting the Christian terrorist in this story -- saying that Tiller deserved murder. I take it that you're planning to denounce them as un-American as well...right? Throw O'Reilly out of the country? Put him in Gitmo?

No? Yeah, didn't think so.

That's why we don't elect federal judges. Here, the law required her to do something that was likely going to be unpopular -- but it's the law. Whether 71% or 99% of people disagree with it, if it is the law then it is the law. If it's a bad law, then the branch to ask for change is the legislative -- judges should not decide whether a law is good or will be popular, only whether it applies.

(Add to that, of course, that 90% of people probably have no idea what the law is, what happens in the appellate process, etc., and it's clear why the popularity of a decision is irrelevant.)

If we decided who would be a good judge based on the accessibility and popularity of their decisions -- rather than their appropriateness under the law -- the Supreme Court would have Judge Judy on it.