I have my feet planted in both camps. My computer's sound goes into my Harman/Kardon receiver. Joining my computer are my turntable (with an Ortofon cartridge) and my old but good Sony CDP-501ES CD player. I use my PDA to listen to my music while on-the-go.

Recently I started converting some of my vinyl records to CDs, and I noticed what so many others have said here: that current recordings don't have dynamic range. Even though the loudest passages of my converted CDs are as loud as the loudest passages on a typical modern CD, the average sound level is significantly lower. I feel that my converted CDs are easier to listen to in a quiet environment, but I sometimes have to turn up the sound when in the car.

So I don't think it's the "digital" nature of the technology that is the issue. My digitized LPs sound great (provided the LP was good to begin with), even when compressed into Ogg format files. Perhaps today's music is being recorded to sound OK in cars and on iPods, whereas older recordings were meant for audiophiles to enjoy in the quiet of their homes.

I'm disappointed with Alexander Cockburn's column. While I heartily agree with the analogy of carbon credits with the indulgences sold to wealthy sinners the rest of the column left much to be desired.

Climate change is a complicated science. The cavalier manner in which Cockburn brushes it aside does his readers a disservice. Who is Martin Hertzberg, PhD? Does Cockburn understand the Milankovitch cycle? I certainly don't, and I suspect the vast majority of his readers don't either.

I have two problems with the attitude of global warming naysayers:

• Engineers understand the concept of the 'fail-safe'. That is, if something fails, it had better be in a way that does little or no damage. What is wrong with adopting this attitude towards climate change? If we do everything we can to reduce anthropogenic CO2 and it turns out that Cockburn and the nay-sayers were right, we lose little. We might even gain economically, politically, and socially from the effort to find alternatives to fossil fuels. But if we do nothing and Cockburn is wrong, what will the price be?
• Who benefits from the "hoax"? I think it is pretty clear who benefits if we keep the status quo of blithely burning all the fossil fuel we can. But just who stands to gain from a global warming hoax? I don't get it.

I hope Cockburn recognizes the problems he faces with his argument and addresses them. Otherwise, he just might have jumped the shark.

(A minor correction to Andrew Leonard's article: Cockburn's column appeared in the Nation's special issue on Cuba, not the one on climate change.)

I find it amusing that some readers think that the ownership and financing of The Politico is not relevant. Clearly, Fox News must be an aberation!

Don't be so sure that Oswald couldn't have hit President Kennedy with that rifle. I've fired weapons in the army and own a 6.5 mm bolt-action rifle, and I can tell you that hitting a target at 190 feet (Oswald's second shot) is not that difficult, even without a scope. It is certainly not "world-class" accuracy. His third, at 265 feet, is still very doable, especially with a scope, which he had. Three shots from a bolt-action rifle in about 11 seconds is also about right. The more interesting problem is how he missed his first, closest shot. Stating that such shooting is "world-class" stretches the truth and damages the credibility of anyone making the argument.

Secondly, the Zapruder film is quite consistent with Oswald as the assassin. That "the momentum transfer was to drive the head back and to the left" (droogoy) is most likely caused by an equal and opposite reaction to the exit wound. What I've seen of that sad footage indicates that the exit was towards the front, which is consistent with the autopsy report. Since so much mass is ejected by the exit wound (it was approximately 5 inches across!) it is natural for the rest of the head to move in the opposite direction.

Finally ad-hominem attacks on critics won't win the day. Whether one believes in "virgin birth" is neither here or there.

I personally don't think there is any persuasive evidence for another assassin. Now, whether Oswald acted alone or was someone's agent, that's another question entirely.

Back on October 1, 2006, I sent Mr. Bauder an email in response to another attack on Keith Olbermann:

In your article about Fox's slumping viewership, it was fascinating to note that though you characterized both Keith Olbermann and news viewers as increasingly partisan, you never applied this label to Fox News or to Roger Ailes, both of whom epitomize partisanship. I can't speak for every news viewer, but I find Fox's partisanship sickening (perhaps the decline in their viewerwhip means that I'm not alone). The nation's interests are never served when people are told what the ruling establishment wants them to hear, and Fox News has been a propaganda branch for this administration in all but name. As for Mr. Olbermann, he is far fairer and far more balanced than anyone at Fox.

Regrettably, I don't have Bauder's original article, but I do have his response to my email:

Well, I referred to Mr. Ailes in the article as a ``former Republican operative'' and discussed Fox's effort to provide another voice. All in the eyes and ears of the beholder, I guess...

So you see, Fox is heroically providing another voice, but Olbermann is partisan. And this is long before Mr. Olbermann participated in any presidential debate.