In my twenty-plus years as a prisoner of corporate cubicle culture, I've seen it all in the restrooms... but the dominant leave-behind material has usually consisted of: a) graffiti; b) sports pages, and c) printed memos and e-mails... many of which were inappropriately left behind for any number of reasons, the least of which were ideological.

My favorite ideological corporate clashes have extended beyond the restroom, however. Most recently, I was stunned to witness the in-house counsel of a supposedly progressive internet marketing company (comically) racing through the office to remove flyers promoting a very anti-Bush event protesting the (prolongued) invasion of Iraq.

But the crown jewel of ideological inter-office warfare involved two very personal invasions of my briefcase and the dissimination of it's contents to the inboxes of senior executives at the Union Bank of California during a long term temp position 13 years ago.

Although I never made any secret of my sexual orientation, I didn't hide it either. But during two separate lunch excursions, someone -- whom I will probably never know -- removed from my briefcase an issue of The Advocate magazine, followed by a flyer for an "O-Boys" orgy that I never attended, but picked up out of the youthful innocent curiosity of the urban gay experience of the early 90s.

I wasn't fired for these "transgressions," but they didn't do me any favors either. My two bosses said they believed me when I protested that I had nothing to do with these strategic in-basket placements, but it became very difficult to leverage the progress we had made on a very complex database.

What I've learned over the years is that collegial and neutral are very relative terms in the corporate world. As some readers have suggested, I would use the the occasion to counter right-wing leave-behinds with material that allows for some levity... the Republican party is so corrosive, and in such a state of implosion, that just watchig this leaky battery provides many opportunities to open the stall to other mental discharges.

In my twenty-plus years as a prisoner of corporate cubicle culture, I've seen it all in the restrooms... but the dominant leave-behind material has usually consisted of: a) graffiti; b) sports pages, and c) printed memos and e-mails... many of which were inappropriately left behind for any number of reasons, the least of which were ideological.

My favorite ideological corporate clashes have extended beyond the restroom, however. Most recently, I was stunned to witness the in-house counsel of a supposedly progressive internet marketing company (comically) racing through the office to remove flyers promoting a very anti-Bush event protesting the (prolongued) invasion of Iraq.

But the crown jewel of ideological inter-office warfare involved two very personal invasions of my briefcase and the dissimination of it's contents to the inboxes of senior executives at the Union Bank of California during a long term temp position 13 years ago.

Although I was never overt about my sexual orientation, I didn't hide it either. But during two separate lunch excursions, someone -- whom I will probably never know -- removed from my briefcase an issue of The Advocate magazine, followed by a flyer for an "O-Boys" orgy that I never attended, but picked up out of the youthful innocent curiosity of the urban gay experience of the early 90s.

I wasn't fired for these "transgressions," but they didn't do me any favors either. My two bosses said they believed me when I protested that I had nothing to do with these strategic in-basket placements, but it became very difficult to leverage the progress we had made on a very complex database.

What I've learned over the years is that collegial and neutral are very relative terms in the corporate world. As some readers have suggested, I would use the the occasion to counter right-wing leave-behinds with material that allows for some levity... the Republican party is so corrosive, and in such a state of implosion, that just watchig this leaky battery provides many opportunities to open the stall to other mental discharges.

Why the letter from G.L. received a star from the editors is beyond me, but I can't second-guess their decisions. (They don't support liberal opinions concerning stolen elections, either, but that's another story.)

I was offended by this letter and the editors' endorsement because it lends credibility to the often very contrived, and very tiresome liberal/conservative divide. Attacking people like C.L. is human nature; whether or not they were "Salon letter writers" -- with the implication that they are "silly" or "angry" liberals -- is completely irrelevant. I'm sure G.L. has no problem when poor and angry Republicans disdainfully refer to the Clintons and the New York Times as elitist, yet are unable to apply the label to George W. Bush -- born with a silver (coke) spoon -- and the Wall Street Journal.

Which brings me to Steve's letter, which I am glad was acknowledged. It's not just about C.L. While wealth and poverty do have an impact, they are only part of the problem. The system is broken. It doesn't work. Unbridled capitalism and its constant need of financial and material acquisition we know is not sustainable. And it makes us depressed and unhappy as a society. Those of us who choose otherwise and can deal are penalized with a polluted environment, our food and water contaminated with sedatives and anti-depressants.

I'm glad Mr. Conason highlighted Russ Holt as an alternative to either Alcee Hastings or Jane Harman to serve as chair for "intelligence." The former is ethically challenged while the latter is, well, quite incompetent.

I find it appalling that someone serving on an "intelligence" committee, since 2000, could analyze more material and with arguably more insight than what the rest of us Americans were provided in the front and back pages of the pro-war media, and still vote to give George W. Bush the authorization for his then-as-now illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq.

I hope enough people, with and without the usual influence, can help persuade Speaker Pelosi to make the obvious choice.