I read this piece on a whim and it just reminds me how glad I am that I don't read Vanity Fair. I recall browsing through an issue at the hair dresser's a few years ago. I had a hard time finding any articles amongst all the multipage ad layouts.

As always, Cary offers up some excellent advice.

Here's a link to the Texas Parks and Wildlife "Shooting Safety Rules", which they refer to as the the Ten Commandements of Shooting Safety.

www.tpwd.state.tx.us/learning/hunter_education/shotsafe.phtml

Yesterday, CBS Sunday Morning had a segment on the boomers & sex. It was a bit condescending. Gail Sheehy and her book were in it as were a few others. I think one reality that they left out was that boomers are aging in a more healthy way than previous generations & thus, remain interested in & able to have sex.

so how exactly does this magical cake thing work? You make it, set it out on the front stoop & one of those husband things you mention just arrives? I hope he hurries, otherwise the flies and ants will get it all.

Can one of the editors explain what's up with all the dog photos? I realize the section is called "Video Dog" but does that mean every fourth image is a "cute" photo of someone's dog? I checked Salon's front page, saw the updated line next to Video Dog stating "An artistic shot of Ollie" and I thought there would be something to do with maybe Oliver North but instead there's yet another pointless dog picture.

Don't get me wrong, I like dogs, I just don't see what they have to do with this.

I agree with Douglas Moran.

As for the Helen Thomas story eventually finding it's way to a front page story, I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. Since Broadsheet was introduced, there was only item item that appeared in both Broadsheet and another section of Salon.

I don't like Broadsheet. I don't like the "women" slant, I don't like the pink, I don't like the illustration, and I don't like the tone. Having said all that, I will tell you that I do skim through the topics everyday just so I don't miss the every-so-often important (to me) items that won't appear anywhere else in Salon.

Why do we care what Rush thinks or said? I'd much rather have read a piece on what the speakers said. Having to work during the day I wasn't able to watch the funeral on TV. Last night's TV broadcasts & many of the news sites I'm visiting are doing just as The War Room did...pick apart what others said about it & how "the opposition" reacted. It's get tiresome that the news these days is purely how the other guys react or are going to react to something.

Whatever happened to the idea of using the phrase "anti-choice" in place of the misleading "pro-life?" As we should have all learned by now, particularly with the current administration, language & choice of words is very important. People who want to outlaw abortion are anti-choice not the other thing.

My first thought was who will be buying these lovely memory sticks for the kids...Mom & Dad, whether they know it or not. Life is full of wonderful irony.

Isn't "not being straight with the American people" just a euphemism for "lied"? Why don't we stop being wimpy with these people & just use the word. Yes, some may consider it harsh and offensive, but it's the truth and it may jolt a few people out of a stupor.

I had similar response as the last poster to the "avalanche of hate mail" statement in the Salon article. Several time in the article it is referred to as hate mail, yet we see no proof of it, only the word of a couple supposedly hard-nosed reporters. I read the letters on the Post blog before it was deleted. It was no different than the mail I read here at Salon, many good points, some frustration & even anger. Truthfully I've read more of what I consider "hate mail" in some of the comments left on the Broadsheet stories. Gender wars tend to bring out the hateful comments.

I agree with a few who said that Scott M will always find a way to dance around & spin questions so that he doesn't give a straight answer, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be asked. Complancency will get us nowhere!

I keep reading columnist and bloggers who state that "someone" should ask Scott McClellan this or that, or that "someone" should talk with the tribes regarding their interactions with the President or Abramoff. Why can't the people saying this be the "someone?" If I were a reporter I'd certainly start investigating these many details.

NYTimes has an article titled: “Paper Closes Reader Comments on Blog, Citing Vitriol”

Salon’s own Joan Walsh is quoted in it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/business/media/20blog.html

Unfortunately the Times doesn't use the correct quote from Howell that started the furor in the first place.

I'm reminded of the adage "much truth is said in jest."

I starting reading science fiction along with the many other genres that interested me when I was about 15. I'm now 49.

Why does Salon even give this woman (Kate) space on Salon. There are more important and more interesting things I'd like to read about. In fact, I didn't read this interview. I've heard enough from & about her to fill a lifetime.