I live in downtown Oakland, and so I appreciate the coverage that Salon is finally giving to its sister city. It's needed perspective on this tragedy that has received national attention. However, it troubles me that the death of Oscar Grant did not warrant the same stars and stripes treatment as the mourned officers. Is he no less seen? This is the issue at the heart of the problem. There is a war in America between the police and those that they are supposedly protecting. Mixon is doubtless responsible for his actions. But why is it that our criminal system is so brutal, so dehumanizing, so unforgiving that a person would rather die and take down four cops with him rather than be pulled over in a routine stop? Until we are ready to ask ourselves that we won't be ready to prevent more violence of a similar nature. When you treat a population like prisoners in their own neighborhood they act accordingly.

I think everyone in Oakland is diminished by this tragedy. We are a city at war with itself, over gentrification, poverty, the haves versus the havenots, race against race. The police are always on the vanguard on these disputes. I hope these events call to question the way in which our police force is run, as a military installation against the poor and oppressed.

Meanwhile, the sheriffis office has been around to my apartment building on at least 2 occasions within the last month to evict my neighbors for nonpayment of rent. You don't think this is an issue of class warfare? Think about that then.

My god, I love Wanda Sykes.

Wanda Sykes, for the record, is a lot more competent at getting her point across than Erin Aubry Kaplan. Maybe it's because she's a comedian? Maybe Salon should have Sykes talk about M. Obama's booty and hair? At least I'd get a laugh out of it instead of a cringe.

The only thing less genuine than the urban lifestyle is the "midwestern" writer who stands apart and writes the commentary. Keillor, you've been writing and talking about New York for years now. So clearly you spend a lot of time there. What do you think that makes you? A New Yorker? Probably.

I appreciated Rosen's perspective on the Froomkin firing, that the media establishment resented Froomkin because he consistently presented the truth instead of merely kowtowing to the Bush (and now Obama) administration. As we say these days, the truth has a liberal bias.

I'm constantly reminded of an Eric Alterman column from early 2000. He was rubbing his hands gleefully at the thought of Bush vs. the Washington press corpse, believing that the rough and tumble journalists of D.C. would eat the Texas governor for breakfast. Bush didn't know how to handle real criticism and they would sense a phoney and fraud immediately.

None of it happened! God love ya' Alterman, but you couldn't have been more off.

Perhaps I didn't read thoroughly enough, but is Froomkin actually getting paid? And does Huffington have any means of earning money through her blog? Because you are right. I would be happy to pay for journalism that actually tells me something. (You did issue a call for donations, and I will be sending you one as soon as I have a few extra bucks in my pocket.)

Interesting series of articles. Part of the culture of power is that you never think that the way it is can be done any differently. Of course the Washington Post should throw parties for lobbyists in exchange for access. It's a community. Of course these people are hobnobbing together. It's not surprising that so many journalists detest the independence of online media. As a matter of practice, societies codify behavior and tradition. And over time these traditions become entrenched. But democracy requires fluidity. Democracy is retarded by the tradition that builds society and culture. That's not to say that democracy and social structure -- be it the media, the military, religion, or the good ol' boy network -- can't coexist. But they do exist in constant tension.

Imagine all the kids that saw Woodward and Bernstein and thought, I want to be just like that. They were emulating something that, by the time they had entered into the profession, was already passing out of existence. Maybe it's because real journalism is, in part, dull, difficult labor. Maybe it's less glamorous than the reporters of today anticipated. They didn't get into the business in order to go against the grain. They wanted to be heroes. Heroes are well-liked and powerful, not iconoclasts.

It's not a show for everyone. It's an equal opportunity offender, much like South Park, and if you're looking for tv that handles political topics "appropriately" you're barking up the wrong tree. The entire point of the show is that it provokes. You could stroke out attempting to take offense at everything they cover. Why would you do that? The comedy comes from breaking social taboos. If you don't want to be offended, don't watch the show. But don't cherry-pick one throw away segment (the rape chair) and pretend that THAT moment is beyond the pale.

I love Family Guy. I've watched every episode they ever made, and some episodes repeatedly. That's because I take the humor within the context of the show. Also, as Chris Rock and other comedians have proved time and again, risque humor comes across better when it's actually funny. Just ask Bill Maher. He gets away with saying some naughty stuff.