Face it, people. Joan Walsh's Salon is little, if any, better than Fox News or any of the other empty, air-blowing television "news" programs.

Alex Koppelman, the estimable author of this amazing piece of journalism, is *on record* as stating that Congressman Kucinich's move for the impeachment of President Bush is not newsworthy. No one takes Kucinich seriously, according to Koppelman.

But the blatherings of Fox News pundits - not the actual words of Michelle Obama, mind you, but the words of people talking about Michelle Obama - is more worthy of Koppelman's attention and the attention of his readers.

In other words, to Salon's editors and writers, gossip is more important than substance. The meaningless words of empty-suit pundits are more important than legal proceedings being filed against a sitting President.

The drift of Salon toward content-less editorializing is the hallmark of Joan Walsh's reign as editor. Evidence of her intent to drift toward the empty rhetoric of TV is found in her sweetheart deal with CurrentTV, wherein Salon's lackluster and charisma-free authors appear on webcam, disheveled and discomfited, and offer lukewarm commentary that 99% of the time consists of the same thing you just read in their blog. Joan is of course the star of a show in her own mind; she is apparently more concerned with promoting her multiple appearances as pundit (yes, even on Fox!), no doubt enjoying the extra income as much as the extra attention.

Perhaps soon Joan Walsh will resign and take up her career as the pseudo-liberal version of Michelle Malkin, using her MSNBC appearances to "call out" Barack Obama on issues of sexism, while continuing to wonder if Americans like scary black preachers.

Meanwhile, Salon, perhaps the last of the worthwhile online magazines, is buried deeper and deeper in the burgeoning chaotic morass of Mainstream Media.

Why doesn't Salon have anyone capable of legal analysis like Dahlia Lithwick? (Or any analysis, for that matter.)

You section editors must feel great linking to better writing and analysis on other web sites, rather than being able to provide it in your own sections. If you had a decent editor, who placed emphasis on journalism and writing rather than hit counts and being more like TV, you'd rarely, if ever, have to do so.

But it's really gotta sting that Slate has better writers, more well-known writers, a wider readership, and better finances than Salon has enjoyed - at least since Walsh took over.

(Cue bitter, cackling laughter...)

LouGibbens: "On the other hand, you who hail from progressive states should not presume that since you do not have a legislature which could afford the political risk to entertain such idiocy that you do not have a great many of your own citizens who would welcome the introduction of creation 'science' to their schools' curricula."

But the whole point is that we (I live in California, a state I'd wager you have deprecated yourself on occasion) DON'T have a legislature that would come up with such cockamamey bullshit because we DON'T have a majority of citizens (or even a significant population) who insist on such legislation, or who are easily fooled/manipulated by such legislation. Louisiana, and other Southern states, is dominated by an ignorant, fearful, overly religious population which either demands or is easily influenced by such legislation.

Crisgg:"...the online magazine that I read daily and that I have praised as a bastion of openness and intelligence actually has a large contingent of people willing to use disparaging stereotypes, and actually to wish ill (let them fight the wars, let them be unable to compete in the market, etc.) on their fellow countrymen is saddening to say the least."

When 90-something percent of your population acts a certain way, it is no longer a stereotype to depict them thusly.

Those posters were not wishing ill upon your poor, ignorant fellow citizens; they were pointing out, albeit in awkward and angry terms, that historically such ill-educated, impoverished populations are the cannon fodder in most wars. If Louisiana choose the path of ignorance and superstition over knowledge, then Louisianans can expect to become secondary in a world which prizes knowledge over superstition and ignorance.

guygardner:"And unfortunately, I've got no current desire to live somewhere without drive-thru daiquiri stands and crawfish boils."

I miss the crawfish, too. Hard to find anywhere else - and never as good as memory. And drive-thru boozery is nothing to be proud of when your death-by-DUI stats are climbing.

Seriously, my formerly fellow enlightened crawfish eaters and dance-on-a-dime Louisianans: the weather is better elsewhere, the dancing and eating are just as good, and you won't have to worry about whether your kids are being taught halfwit mumbo-jumbo in the classroom.

Show your state government to effect of stupid legislation: dumb down your state by moving elsewhere. Vote with your wallet and pay taxes in a state that won't use your money to enforce superstition and ignorance.

There are no "reputable scientists" who consider "creationism," or any of its offspring, to be a valid scientific theory.

Were you not so ignorant of the facts and history of their cause (and it is a "cause" - science doesn't generally have "causes"), you'd know that "creationists" are the ones who have much to fear. It isn't that they want both theories discussed: they want one theory (evolution) subject to scientific criticism, and they want their theory free from the same analysis.

But again - why would someone who believes in "creationism" want to sully her mind with facts or history, eh?