Thanks, "Garry," for a third chuckle today!

Ok, there's no place that I can see to post comments about "War Room" in general, so I'm posting on this article...

What's with the new page design for War Room? First you go to this clunky "classic"-looking Times-style font, with half the page taken over by what look like ads for other Salon features... then, today, you make me click on an extra added "continued" button just to read the "lead" article -- and the familiar trail of older articles is just missing, missing, missing? What, am I supposed to click back to the main page and click "continued" on one article after the next just to read them through, which I used to be able to do while I was brushing my teeth (no fingers on the mouse needed)? I know we don't get to vote on these things, but here's my vote regardless: I hate being forced to mouse-click needlessly, so I liked the former design better. Much better.

Thanks for listening (I hope!) to my rant. Keep up the good blogging, just make the reading easier on your audience.

If Bush and his Republican Party were serious about actually winning the war in Iraq, they would be working to build public support for (a) reinstituting the draft and (b) doubling the income on the top income brackets to pay for it. Since they are not doing that, I will continue to assume that at this point, from the politicians' point of view (quite distinct from the pov of the troops, which is again distinct from the pov of the Republican voter) this is all about prolonging the war just enough to pin the blame for "losing Iraq" on the Dems.

BTW, thanks for (half) fixing the layout of "War Room."

"Meanwhile, we'll keep trying to solve the mystery of the journalist Limbaugh bullied into better coverage!"

As if a story would have to be true (in any sense) for Limbaugh to spin it on his show. He panders to an audience that sees physical threats against (real) journalists as a positive, something to boast about. The search for the mystery journalist assumes that there really was a journalist, a publication, a threat, or a anything else reality-based in Limbaugh's testosteroid boasting.

I always enjoy Joan Walsh's commentary, so I'm sorry to say that this letter has nothing to do with her latest post. It is just that, unless I'm missing something, there is no general all-purpose "letter to the editors" page on Salon, so I'm doing the next best thing and posting a comment to the editor's blog...

Enough intro; here's my gripe: Salon regularly makes format changes (which is a good thing) but does so without making any mention of the changes and without providing readers with any means of responding to them (which is not so good).

Latest example: this week's (typically brilliant) Ruben Bolling cartoon appears with no letters section. Was this an editorial decision? An oversight? A mistake to be corrected later on? A one-time change? Who knows? The change happens; no comment is made, no way is given for us the readers to remark on it. Admittedly, in this particular case, 90% of the letters on the comix pages are asinine, vapid, irrelevant and even illiterate, but even so they can be fun to read. (Maybe only because I'm not the poor suffering artist.)

So... what's up with Bolling's unletters nonpage?

And -- is there a general "letters to the editor" page somewhere that I'm missing?

Thanks for letting me get this off my chest...

Titles of forthcoming movies, based on letters to Ask the Pilot:

1. Large Zoo-Type Animals on a Plane

2. German-Austrian Neurological Issues on a Plane

3. Fighter Jets on a Plane

4. 3:10 to Houston or Perhaps Mexico City

5. Where Are the Dog Hairs of Yesteryear

6. The Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon

7. Bollocks on a Plane

8. Fuck the Airlines

9. From Vizag to Dum Dum

10. The Wingspan of Angels

Joan, thanks for the quick response. I really appreciate the way you have enabled all readers to comment on individual articles in Salon. One of the (many) things that makes reading Salon more satisfying than reading the NYT these days.