Regardless of whether Florida or Michigan will be able to send delegates to the national convention, no one can deny that they are still states with significant voting power in the general election. We should not ignore the results of the votes in those states simply because the Democratic parties in those states made a foolish decision. Even if their votes don't officially "count," their voices should still be heard. Clinton has every right to call her victory in Florida a triumph.

That actually seems evidence to me that she actually does care more about popular support than about things like delegate count. In Nevada, she won the popular vote, but the Obama people still tried to paint it as an Obama victory because there's a possibility he might garner more delegates. In Florida, Clinton will probably end up garnering no delegates, but that is no reason not to celebrate a clear and obvious victory in a state that has proved highly problematic for Democrats in the past elections.

about the Hot or Not voting system.

According to this system, if I am not mistaken, a candidate with 3 10/10 votes will win over a candidate with 50,000 9/10 votes.

Tell me again how this is fair?

Who needs a weird old coot in Salon?

This book, which is clearly so incoherent as to never measure up to any academic standard, sounds like it was born of one of those "aha!" moments that people are prone to have, when they connect a few dots, fit the dots into their preexisting worldview, and then decide that the pattern they've created is flawless and perfect. Without the academic or intellectual fortitude to run such a theory through the ringers of real critical thought and solid evidence, though, it remains just another vapid, inarticulate idea thought up by someone who thinks he can account for all of America's problems in a single, convenient way.

The guy decides Schwarzenegger is not a sissy because he has ideas. He decides Al Gore is a sissy because the ideas he has are the wrong ones. He decides that JFK and Nixon are not sissies while providing only the "gut feeling" evidence of someone who didn't know those men or bother to research them as anything other than cultural symbols in our generation.

No one should buy this book.

Having only briefly glanced over the article, I just wanted to make an observation.

It seems to me that at least part of the problem of the decline of intellectual curiosity in America has to do with the way the education system directly feeds everyone into college. In previous generations, only serious students and sometimes wealthy trust-fund babies pursued a higher education. People in college wanted to be there, and they wanted to be there for a reason other than it was simply expected of them. I am a college student right now, and I would dearly like to engage in more intellectual discussions than I do, but it's really hard to find someone or a group of someones who don't view their learning as a chore to be completed or their studies as an activity saved for the classroom. It is difficult to find someone who is not only engaged by their subject but is also willing to demonstrate that engagement to their peers.

Ultimately, I think a lot of kids end up going to college who would perhaps be better suited in other vocations. Academia, which was once the realm of those who loved to learn and loved to talk about their love for learning, has turned into an extension of high school... you are required to show up for class but it is unfashionable to show any real interest in anything other than partying and the movies and your girlfriend/boyfriend.

Plenty of people here possess the resources to help victims of natural disaster, with or without teleporting powers, yet they refrain from doing so and carry on with their lives as usual.

Should we give them a free pass because they don't have superpowers?

I play my Xbox360 between classes and spend my weekends skiing or hiking.

That may make me an anomoly to the stereotype, but I assure you there are lots where I come from.

I guess well-rounded people aren't funny. But really, neither is playing on cliches that seemed old the first couple years videogames were popular. As someone who plays games and knows lots of people who do and don't play games, I guess I just don't find gamers as mysterious or funny or whatever as the audience Opus is apparently writing for. Maybe my dad's generation would find this comic (slightly) funny.

You also apparently read Salon and comment on its articles. Pot, kettle, anyone?

P.S. Berkeley, gamers don't call it "CG." It's "graphics," dude, plain and simple.