The first two messages in this thread have rabbity names.

Hmmmm......does Rabbit Bites have fans who are so enamored that they've created special Salon accounts just to say how much they love their nose-quivering antics?

Or are the people associated with Rabbit Bites sending "seed" messages to themselves in hopes of generating good will toward their oft-maligned creations?

What's up, Doc?

Anything that prevents people from seeing this video is a good thing.

Britney has not evolved or changed. She's just going through the motions (literally) of what has sold in the past. The song is an uncreative, pre-fab set of styles and poses. I pray that we will not be subjected to it for the next 10 years in malls and elsewhere.

Madonna started this and should be held responsible.

"Yeah, I like him a lot. I think he's a real likable kind of fellow. I think he's full of surprises. The short answer is that I do like him."

Well isn't that special. I am sure I would "like" George Bush too, if there weren't this teensy-weensy matter of the man directly causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

It's funny that somebody would say a left-leaning person is in bed with another left-leaning person (or organization).

Because as we all know, none of the right-wingers are in bed with anybody.

Matt Drudge isn't in bed with Ann Coulter. Fox News isn't in bed with the whole neocon establishment. Dick Cheney isn't in bed with Halliburton. The Pentagon's top brass aren't in bed with the defense company SAIC's board of directors.

Who cares if Media Matters is in bed with Keith Olbermann, or if Joan Walsh is in bed with Bob & Ted & Carol & Alice?

I'll be first in line to watch "Eastern Promises."

I loved "A History of Violence." It seemed to come out of nowhere, and I read one convincing review and rushed out to see it before I knew anything about the plot. I love seeing a movie that way -- no previews, no knowledge of the story, and then WHAM....it's a great movie experience. So many movies are ruined by too much advance information.

(Speaking of that, did anybody catch David Denby's review of the "3 p.m. to Yuma" (or whatever it's called) western movie in the NEw Yorker? What the hell was Denby's problem? Why did he give away the movie's ending in the first sentence of his review? I'll bet the New Yorker gets a lot of complaints about that one. What an idiot! Anthony Lane is in every way Denby's superior... Denby didn't even understand why "Fight Club" picks on IKEA.)

Anyway... When walking out of "A History of Violence" I felt the weirdest feeling, of having just been put through something pure and primal. I showed it to my dad and my girlfriend on DVD. I thought my girlfriend would hate it. Mid-way through I suspected she would leave the room. But she was eager to keep watching. They were both completely drawn in.

I'll watch whatever Cronenberg does.

The real reason there's no scandal is because the majority of people have never heard of her.

A few things:

(1) Sally Fields' overall speech, and her personality, get low marks from me. But that is not what this is about.

(2) Sally Fields' comment that "if mothers ruled the world, there would be no wars" is debatable. But that is not what this is about.

(3) Fox has the right to bleep out the word "goddamn" if they do so consistently. But that is not what this is about.

(4) The Emmys are an awards show and not the best forum for political statements, true. Yet there is no rule that people giving speeches can't interject political opinions. In any case, that is not what this is about.

(5) Sally Fields probably wasn't really the best actress in her category. Most of the acting I've seen by her hasn't been all that great. But that is not what this is about.

WHAT THIS IS ABOUT is that Fox TV completely wiped out her entire final statement regarding the war. To me, this was perhaps the most interesting and non-insiderish thing she had to say. The audience watching the Emmys deserved to see this part of the show. When you sit down to subject yourself to all the awards-show ritual, you expect to see the whole show. Not some selectively chopped up version that excises key sentences from otherwise continuous speeches.

Also, it's not like this happened in a vacuum. Fox TV has pulled crap like this time and time again. Their entire news division has become a de-facto propaganda branch of the Executive Branch of our government. Follow the names, follow the money -- this is no conspiracy theory, it's demonstrably true. Fox TV has no independence, no integrity.

So you can spend all the time you like ripping on Sally Fields. Rip on her acting, rip on her speech, rip on the content of what she said. Knock yourself out.

There's still no denying that Fox TV censored her statement like pathetic cowards.

Given the details of this particular case, I think the tasering was appropriate. The only thing wrong with it is that it gave an attention whore a feast of undeserved attention.

I'm all for free speech. But I am also for decorum at public events. The "bro" who got tasered was being an ass-hat long before he got pulled away from the microphone.

That proved what Feinstein is (not) made of. Picking up on a ridiculous, unConstitutional amendment -- one sponsored by the corrupt congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham -- showed Feinstein's true colors: Red, white, and batshit insane.