is where Moaning Lisa may have gotten her name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moaning_Lisa).

Ha. I read the phrase "historical oppression of collective happiness" to mean something more like "the historical oppressiveness of collective happiness."

I just want to congratulate Dawggone for raising the most perfect child ever. I hope he grows up to be as smugly contemptuous of others as you, sir.

Although his letter infuriates me, I think most rational people will understand that his claim that pedophiles' victims are somehow culpable in their own abuse is wildly absurd.

However, his diary analogy might make sense on its face until you realize that your kid's diary isn't viewable to millions of strangers. If it were, you would definitely have a right to look at it. A parent monitoring her child's MySpace is simply protecting them from making themselves vulnerable. Kids may be surprisingly sophisticated, but they can also be surprisingly dumb. That so many have such a hard time grasping that the internet is the least private forum imaginable is evidence of that.

Police patrolling MySpace are looking for evidence of actual crimes, not wasting their time with high school gossip. School administrators may be hopelessly lame, but they also have an interest in being aware of communication among students. That in and of itself is not necessarily the road to repressing legitimate speech.

Lastly, I'd just say that in order to be rebellious and anti-authoritarian, there has to be some sort of authority to rebel against. So, kids, get smart, not whiny.

After United 93 was released, all of the 9/11 conspiracy nuts came out of the woodwork and made absurd proclamations alleging the Bush administration's willing complicity in the attacks. It's fascinating that people would have to fabricate and conjecture so much, when there was a perfectly good, plausible, and eminently provable conspiracy in the Enron scandal, which was arguably even more injurious to America than a handful of jihadis could ever be.

I've been watching the NBA playoffs religiously, so I'm pretty familiar with the new Miller ads. I like to think of myself as pretty cognizant of whatever subtexts might be present in advertising (if I'm paying much attention), but these Man Law ads seemed pretty innocuous and still do, Ms. Traister's complaints notwithstanding. It's just some sub-Tim Allen stuff, the humor coming from the contrast between the seeming seriousness of the meeting and the triviality of their debates. I also think it undercuts the criticism that it is only portraying a "real man" stereotype, because of the diversity of the men at the table (notice the guy with the amputated hand?) I mean, Burt Reynolds is there, for God's sake; how seriously can you take it? I can't speak to the user input on the site, though, and that's hardly Miller's fault. (Ever considered that maybe the "rulers of the universe" law was submitted tongue-in-cheek?)

"a preposterous idea based on little more than erroneous interpretations of some pictures and selective, manipulative use of evidence"

Saddam did have WMD! Oh, wait, I got confused.

I actually thought it said "Get Neutral" the first time around.

Ever since Colbert got his own show, it's been clear that he's the smartest, funniest man on television. He was always the best part of the Daily Show. It's interesting that Jon Stewart pulled his punches for the Oscars, while Colbert savaged the President of the United States within several yards of him.

Also, isn't it weird that Scalia had a better sense of humor than almost anyone else there?

Personal favorite joke: "McClellan, of course, eager to retire, really felt like he needed more time to spend with Andrew Card's children." (not the most hard-hitting, but hilarious, nonetheless)

If you need a consensus to form your opinion, I don't envy you. Zacharek is a critic who makes it clear how ludicrously stupid a site like Rotten Tomatoes is. Her reviews are never "Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down;" I've often seen a quote of hers on that site labeled with a "splat," when I felt the review was relatively positive.

Consider this quote about Friends with Money from Bruce Newman of the San Jose Mercury News: "I think I liked Aniston's old friends better." Now, does that actually tell me anything? I could go read Newman's full review, but what would that mean, if I've never read any of his others?

The best thing to do is find critics whose writing you find consistently engaging and worthwhile, so that you know from what angles they approach their reviews. Then you can make your own decisions from there. For me, those are Zacharek and O'Hehir. That's why I come to Salon. If you don't like their reviews, why read them? I even keep up with Roger Ebert, even though I rarely agree with him, because I've read him long enough to understand his approach. In today's blog culture, it seems, no one is willing to consider opinions that don't mirror their own.

Besides, I can't take any rating seriously if it factors in Peter Travers, the most tone-deaf reviewer I've ever seen.

Never heard of him. Is he related to Walter?

The Party Party one, already linked to, is the better version. I especially like how it folds in "Walk on the Wild Side."

What really makes this video for me is how dignified the dog looks, as if this is part of its mundane daily routine. It's everthing else that seems bizarre.

One of the most infuriating things about this whole thing is that it brings to mind how these same people used Nick Berg's beheading as fodder for election-year pandering. The fact that he was what they'd call an "AMERICA HATER" didn't bother them because all they needed from him was his death. That didn't stop them from going after his father, though. Since Jill Carroll didn't die, she isn't useful to them. So, I guess that makes her game in these people's minds.