Farhad -

You wrote "Well, first, to the relief of many at the New York Times, these accounts exonerate Miller of the most fevered speculation about her role in this case -- the idea that she was the original source of Plame's name, and that she'd passed that information on to the administration through Libby." And Further on, "Beyond that, though, Miller's actions in this case look quite unsavory."

I do not consider that because Miller did not apparently reveal Plame's identity to Libby, she is logically excluded from having provided information, relative to a scenario involving Wilson being promoted by his spouse to her superiors for the Niger trip, to someone else in the administration. Her notes on the matter should be considered compromised material - there is no reason to believe she has not altered or omitted details to obviate her own complicity. The "lost notebook" should be forensically examined to determine how long the ink has been drying.

thanks

SMN

Patrick -

Wouldn't it be lovely if the folks so ready to jump down your throat with doubles of hemlock in their hairy little fists actually possessed the superior knowledge they presumed to impart, while roasting your spleen over the keen fire of their intellect? Then we could say, "Wow, he is so right and I was so wrong, and I really learned something. Sure my spleen hurts but I'm OK with it." But NO! When was the last time some supercilious snot spent his morning crafting a world-class diss and delivered the goods? Anyone, anyone? I know, never is a long, long time, but I'm still hopeful.

With due respect, there are no "reverse acting" forces affecting the inertia of a body in motion. Were there such, we might expect to feel comfortably pressed back into our seats during a fast stop. There are STATIC forces against which momentum is drained away - pavement against tires, calipers against rotors, seatbelt against body. Sorry, Steve Demuth of Decorah, Iowa, no prize-winner this week, but keep cracking those books and try again real soon. ;} SMN

This clip is so disturbing to me, I'm convinced

I need help. Two weeks after viewing, I'm still grossed out.

It is fortunate that whoever made this is not doing feature films, for it is certain that even the ads for such a product would turn this big tough guy into a permanent whimpering psychotic. Thanks for sharing. Make it go away.

sn

Cintra -

1. To vicariously revel in the debauch of creative freedom, you have to watch the Golden Globes.

2. I'm pretty sure there was some duct tape involved in Felicity Huffman's underwear. That was quite a display of mid-chest real estate for such a slender woman.

3. Yes, Reese is nice, but she has range - I suggest re-viewing Freeway.

4. Bleeping Joan Rivers as much as possible, even when profanity is not an issue, is a favor to us all. I would prefer watching a test pattern.

Oscars have always been a stilted effort at trying to put the best face on a pretty clueless, pretentious industry - one that tends to ignore the occasional flares of personal genius that do grind into being. The best you can hope for, as with last night's effort, is that it wasn't as stupid as some other times.

Gene Weingarten might have delivered the address,

but I recognize the indelible style and substance of

another former Miami Herald columnist: Dave Barry.

I mean, please, you didn't find that speech hilarious?

To Night Soiled -

A few years back, my folks had a 20-member cattery camped in the yard of the vacant house behind them. The stench and the yowling was intense, and our airedale was in a seemingly permanent psychotic state. "At last," my father thought, "The perfect reason to own a really cool pellet gun." Alas, not to be, my mom probably intervened.

However, local animal control officials were trying to abate feral cat populations in the county, and offered the use of live traps to anyone with an infestation problem. It is basically a box that falls shut after the animal steps on the trip plate while investigating the enticing cat food within. Inside of a month, the colony had been entirely delivered to Animal Control's night drop. I am sure at least some were adopted. Good luck.

I truly appreciate the rigorous and thoroughgoing discussion featured of late on Salon's pages. For quite some time, I've thought that Mr. Manjoo was almost pathologically unable to accept that a variety of shenanigans could add up to a an election unfairly thrown to the man with the best network of operatives. I am less certain today that he truly believes things did not go awry, but give great respect to him for maintaining a high standard of proof. Even repeated and various examples of misconduct, frustration and inefficiency at the edges, though they could indeed be parts of a whole effort, finally mean nothing without conclusive documentary evidence.

That being said, the questions that Mr. Kennedy has kept alive are critical to the ongoing analysis of the 2004 elections - not because the result is at some point likely to be overturned, but because the light of day needs to be shined on those methods which could, (and probably have been, face it Farhad), used to subvert the results of free elections in our country. These discussions are primary to our democracy, since we need to develop the analytical tools to certify that our electoral process is everything that it should be: representative of the majority and untainted by shady gamesmanship.