Best live band ever. Here is the proof: www.flickr.com/photos/kexp/sets/72157600337796870/

I have to add to the persistent chorus around the poor quality of Video Dog. The large-format preview of the videos on the front page *is* garish and distracting, as another commenter pointed out. I stopped looking at this feature when the obvious editorial care left the selections, and the same (dubious) videos kept reappearing. I am actually kind of appalled at the Rabbit Bites videos. They just don't seem up to the standard that I would expect of Salon, and seem more reflective of random YouTube mashups and silly home videos. As a paying subscriber, I would really like to see an explanation of why Salon is so solidly behind this video series, when it seems to earn nothing but ire and complaints from Salon readers.

Internet video is a very rich vein for smart satire, alternative news, political commentary, you name it. Why squander this important and progressive format on repetitive, whoopie cushion humor?

It is super, duper easy to go get 6 - 12 canvas bags (most stores like TJ and Whole Foods sell them cheap), put them in your car, and re-use them every single time you go to the store. I use my set every week for complete family shopping trips. It is the easiest environmental move you can make. Do it now.

Articles like this always bring out the men who unquestioningly hold on to a very self-flattering myth: that a woman's sexual appeal to men is the most important part of her value as a human being. It really speaks volumes about men more than anything: their sense of entitlement, their inability to question sexism or see a problem with reflexively relating to women as objects and second class citizens.

It's sad. And frankly, I don't give a f*&^ whether random men find me attractive or not.

I think there is a line one can cross with environmentalism, just as with every -ism, where the value of individual lives loses focus. Personally that is where I know I've taken it too far-- when I start thinking about "the unwashed masses/all those rug rats and breeders/noxious American consumers/the religious right/left/whoever" who stand between me and some imagined social utopia.

Environmentalism is essential. Can we think of a way to address it without sneering at families and wrapping ourselves in righteous personal choices? I used to think about children in this sort of "I'm saving the planet by not breeding" way, and then I changed my mind (heart?) and had a daughter. Frankly, my love for her has motivated me to profoundly change my ways in regard to resource use. I would walk in front of a bullet for her with a smile on my face, and I fear for her future in a way no one without children can possibly understand. And I don't believe that the best 'green' choice would be for her to not exist. Green has to grow some heart. It has to renounce elitism and embrace families and children, and stop plugging human lives into eco-equations that reduce precious lives into units of trash and toxic waste. There are so many better and more effective ways to educate people and preserve resources that need our time and attention.

I always seem to get on these threads too late to be anything but noise, but I just wanted to ask, Cary please, couldya stop picking on the suburbs? Here's why.

Your advice is so wonderful much of the time, but I think you suffer from a kind of urban liberal myopia (the same kind that is kinda hurting the Obama campaign's image if you think about it) that states that what is right for childless, urbane city dwellers is right for everyone, and other choices indicate ignorance. I think this view (ironically) doesn't do justice to diversity. It isn't open minded. It furthers blue state/red state us/them enlightened/ignorant stereotypes that urban liberals hold dear, but that counterproductively, do no favor in general to great causes like environmentalism and the antiwar movement that really should belong to everyone with a conscience. Open up your mind on this one. Great people live in all kinds of places. Urban cores are not the answer for everyone. I tried to live in the city once and I hated it. I wouldn't want to raise a kid there. That's just me. Is it too much to ask that I be able to read your column without the occasional inference that I'm a clueless, soul-dead idiot because of it?

Thanks. I had to get that off my chest!

Oh, lordy. No one can grind an axe like the anti-feminist comment-addicts at Salon.

Give it a rest, gents.

Well, any Clinton supporter with any sense will support Obama, of course-- I know I will. He's a strong candidate and I believe he will do a good job. But I just have to say, there is something about the tenor of discussion here on Salon -- the naive deification of the man who is, at the end of the day, a politician, the unacknowledged sexism endemic in discussions of Hillary Clinton, the treatment of this contest between two essentially similar politicans as some kind of scrimmage to prove one's liberal cred (Obama as lifestyle choice) that's just essentially embarrassing, and ultimately reflects poorly on the candidate, not that he bears any responsibility for this.

I'm hoping that some of Obama's supporters can try to reflect a little more of Obama's dignity in their discourse from this point on, now that "hope has beaten fear" (oh lord, did someone actually say this? What is the emoticon for rolling your eyes?)

It's great that these women are intelligent and confident, but isn't it typical that they had to rely on sex appeal to get any coverage in the media?

Tired of it.