Mr. Rich Greenwood has his history wrong when he claims that abortion has only been legal for about 1/10th of our nation's history.

The first abortion laws did not appear in the United States until the 1820's and abortion remained legal without restriction in some states right up until the late 1890's. Even in 1965 when all fifty states had laws restricting abortions there were still circumstances (varying state to state) which made exceptions for rape, incest, fetal abnormality and life/health of the mother. And of course there is the fact that even in states where abortion was outlawed entirely, it was still available as a "therapeutic procedure" to women of means. They just called it something else. The only people who were truly denied abortion services were the poor.

So no, abortion hasn't been legal "only about 1/10th of the nation's history."

As far as Sam Alito is concerned, the battle really isn't (or shouldn't be) over abortion. Alito is far more dangerous than the threat he presents to Roe v. Wade and reproductive rights/choice. Sam Alito is a man who believes in the idea of the "unitary executive" which in effect makes the president the equivalent of a pre-Magna Carta king. Under this proposition, the president can't break the law because the president IS the law. Scary stuff that.

But it gets worse. Alito is an "originalist" on the commerce clause. He doesn't think that congress has the right to make laws for minimum wages, workplace safety standards, environmental protection or anything else that is not directly (and I do mean directly) involved in interstate commerce. His dissent in a case involving illegal possession of a fully automatic weapon rested on that very point: The many who had the weapon wasn't selling it, wasn't taking it across state lines and therefore, according to Alito, the federal law which made his possession of the weapon a crime was unconstitutional.

Filibuster Alito? Yes. If the Democrats were saving the filibuster for when they really needed it, now is the time. If not now, when?

One last thing. A lot of people are sick and tired of waiting for the Democrats in the Senate to stand up and fight. If they don't fight now, I think they run a real risk of losing the votes of these people later. Why vote for wimps?

The question I have for you as a writer is why it says "hate" instead of "angry" or "critical." (See http://tabletalk.salon.com/webx?14@@.773ad94a/2852 for more.)

It seems to me that the comments drawn by Ms. Howell were rightfully angry and critical of her very shoddy work. I don't believe anger and criticism are the same thing as "hate" and it reflects very poorly on you as a writer (and on editorial control at Salon) that you chose (and were allowed) to frame it that way.

Was there "hate" in those posts? Well, people that really want to know can see the preserved message board for themselves at http://www.democraticunderground.com/archive/2006/wapo/.

I would like to congratulate Mr. Manjoo on the (all too rare) substantive portions of his article. The thing is, if someone else on Table Talk hadn't called my attention to the fact that there was actually a pony in there, I never would have seen it because I gave up looking after the first four paragraphs of...natural fertilizer. Hate mail in avalanches indeed.

Just read your post at http://letters.salon.com/news/feature/2006/01/21/ombudsman/permalink/62002047930028a0aa494707e1c98e94.html where you write "the difference between the letters at the Democratic Underground archive and the letters that the Post put up on Friday, after it had screened them."

If the WaPo tells you that they were moderating or screening posts and you bought it without checking, they're not being truthful and you're doing sloppy work. Again.

The posts to the blog at the WaPo appeared instantaneously in real time (at least until the WaPo shut comments down) and were not "screened." Anyone who participated at that forum could tell you as much. In fact, it was the retro-moderated nature that led to so many "Hey, why did you remove my post" questions and comments.

If there was an "avalanche of hate", someone somewhere would have a cached copy preserved in their browser which would show it. Nothing like that has been shown. I suspect that's because it doesn't exist. You've been played.

Now I have a question: Why are reporters responses being listed as "editors choice"? What exactly is "editors choice" supposed to mean?

Now, yes, there are likely many other cached versions of the site which might include these deleted comments. But I haven't seen those. And neither have you. - Farhad Manjoo

You're 100 percent correct, Mr. Manjoo. I haven't seen those cached posts...and NEITHER HAVE YOU! In fact, nobody seems to have seen those posts. No one. Do you think that if Powerline or Little Green Footballs could lay their nasty little mitts on one of those copies that it would not be all over the right wing blogosphere by now? Perhaps the fact that they can't lay their nasty little mitts on a cached post full of "hate" means that these alleged posts do not exist.

Why are you so so credulous (Or is it gullible?) where the claims of the WaPo are concerned?