I agree that this is a poorly researched article. There is in fact a Constitutional right to vote. This does not, however, emanate from the 9th and 10th amendments as several other letter-writers have stated.

The right to vote for Representatives is found in Article I section 2: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states"

The right to vote for Senators is found in the 27th Amendment: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof"

The President is elected by the electoral college, and the state gets to choose its electors, however:

Article IV, section 4 says: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government"

This means that each state must allow its citizens to vote on their state policy-makers and also on their presidential electors.

Various amendments to the constitution limit the restrictions that states can place on the right to vote.

Did no editor with even the most cursory knowledge of Vietnam copyedit this article? This cringeworthy error is repeated throughout the article.

One of the best Salon originals in a long time.

Also amusing to see the defensive reaction in the letters.

Relax! It's just beer.

A softball interview that could have just as easily been conducted by Bill O'Reilly. I can't believe my premium dues are going to this schlock purported to be journalism.

No analysis, no questioning, just some lowball jibes at vegetarians and haw-haw porn star jokes.

1. Steve Baldwin's shtick, identical to that of so many other third-rate charismatic evangelical youth personalities, is not "working" in that it is indeed winning over tens of thousand of youth to be Born Again. To an outsider like Sandler for whom this is an alien world, it may indeed appear dramatically and strikingly true, but as someone who has spent childhood and youth immersed in this scene, it is an illusion. It is only "working" in so far as he is doing the same thing every other one of these characters does—preach to the choir again and again, calling the born-again to be reborn-again, bringing the backsliders to tears so they can "recommit" and "transform" themselves again for a few weeks. This is the mundane stuff of the parochial school retreat. Perhaps a few true outsiders are incidentally drawn in, but nothing of a massive youth movement.

2. Gripe: Can we ditch the hyperbolic takeoff metaphor "spinning in his grave?" It was corny when it first started to crop up in journalistic writing, now it seems to have become a ubiquitous, nauseating cliche. Bonus points though for tying it into the bodily resurrection of Christ.

And not just the songs. Why is Salon using Vizu.com to run their polls? Do they not have web developers who can write a simple poll script that gives one vote per registered user and prevents ballot-stuffing? I guess Audiofile doesn't take their own contest too seriously.

I don't like to hate on these artists, but I do have to agree with TomDavidson and YLlama. Hopefully there will be more variety in the other 8 songs. I ended up going with Motorbike, the sound was more interesting and listenable of the two.

This isn't about socioeconomic gaps. Your brother had the same opportunities you did. I am assuming he has the same parents, upbringing, and ethnicity. Given that he is morbidly obese, I assume that nobody in his family is starving. What, in all his unpleasant characteristics, other than being "family" motivates you to give these endless handouts?

I'm with the three words in Cary's treatise that get to the point. "Let him fail." And the one word from You're Welcome that gets to the point, which is "No."

Cary seems to think that your brother is addictive and may have a drug or alcohol problem. Maybe. But more likely he has a personality and responsibilty problem, and a lack of discipline. If he's not willing to do anything about it and takes advice as "patronizing," then you are much better off keeping your hard-earned money than giving it to your loser brother to waste.

In fact, it sounds like it's not your money you are giving him at all, but rather marital money coming largely from your husband's income. Did you ever how unfair it is to him (and your future child) as well? If you really have that much extra money, invest it for your child's education or for a medical safety net. You never know how quickly your fortunes could turn.

Actually, truly sustainable agriculture has no room for raising animals for slaughter at all. I'm all for separating livestock. It just makes sense, and as a strict vegetarian I can't help be bitter that your cows are shitting in my spinach and scallions and making me sick. Leave the cowshit to the meateaters.

I am surprised that an entire article ostensibly about cruelty-free soap talks extensively about animal testing but fails to even mention animal soap. It is small comfort if a bar of soap is not tested on animals, if the soap itself consists mostly of rendered animal fat from the flesh of slaughtered factory-raised animals (as does most soap sold in pharmacies and supermarkets). The starting point for "cruelty-free" is the contents of the product itself, and while "sodium tallowate" and the like may be obvious giveaways, it is often difficult to tell whether or not soap is made with animal ingredients, as there are no labeling requirements for this.

If you watched the interview with the theater manager on CNN (yes, linked from their homepage), you would clearly see that this was a successful attempt to drum up extra publicity. By "censoring" the V-word to this ridiculous euphemism, he has successfully attracted national attention and distinguished himself from the thousand-odd other venues running this production.