Certainly if the editors at Salon changed the title, it is hard to be critical of the reviewer, my mistake there. The rest of the review is just a review and no harm done. As for the comments on my 'trollishness', the reason I read Salon is its focus on both substance and writing. The content is frequently to the point, without being unnecessarily abrasive. The title of this review is misleading with respect to the reviewer's body of work, which seems like a mistake to me.

It's the title with the problem. If the SZ hadn't compared FMF favorably with Pixar films, or had liked Pixar films in general, then I wouldn't have a problem. However from the SZ perspective, Pixar are films are something like a Straw Man (they look good but they are really crap). Presumably it is easier to be intellectually honest in a movie review, than in almost all of the other content at Salon.

While you seem to like this film, which is unusual, your title is uniformative. In general Pixar films leave you 'cold'. So you like this film more than others that you stated you don't like. Okay.

I'm looking forward to the opening up of the northwest passage, and getting cheaper goods.

At what point does the obvious become obvious to the blind. By and large, the negative consequences of climate change have generally exceeded predictions, so yes it is true that the predictions are off. They are usually too conservative.

Everybody has had their role to play, and has been at them for years. They aren't going to change quickly, or possibly ever. The LW should think of her situation as that she has moved to a foreign land. Their are some things about this foreign place that she really likes (the husband), but there are many other things that she does not. One cannot expect to change everyone else in this new foreign place, instead one adapts or moves. Talking with the MIL, while theoretically a good idea, is more likely to cause the LW more trouble in the long run than benefit, unless the LW plans the conversation extraordinarily well and already knows what buttons to push. The LW needs to speak in terms the MIL gets and is comfortable with. The LW says she wants to move, and maybe that would be best, it is impossible to tell from what we have been given. Moving to a new country is often hard, and there times when one simply cannot stand it. And fleeing may not be as easy as the LW things, even considering the aunt, because of the husband. He stayed all those years, why? He may have wanted to leave, but he didn't. He'll be moving to a foreign land with this move, and colorado seems like it is far far away from where they are now. Wouldn't it be better to move an hour away, thereby giving the LW space from the crazy in-Laws but without potentially causing issues to the husband and possibly reducing the retribution of the in-laws. There still would be lots of retribution, but less, and potentially easier for the husband to deal with. If that doesn't work, say after a year or so, then it is time to flee.

Bluntly: Have you lost your mind? Comparing Quayle & Palin is perhaps something of a stretch, but it is ludicrous to compare either to Biden. Biden has a long record in the Senate, Quayle was minor figure, and Palin? Biden talks too much, Palin sometimes seems incapable of speaking in complete sentences.

GK's whole forgiving thing isn't about Cheney or Bush, it is about your neighbor who voted to re-elect the pair. Whatever you might think about 'voting irregularities' in 2004, Bush/Cheney got rather a lot of votes. After it was known that torture was going on, and all those folks who voted for the pair are complicit in the torture. Or are morons for not knowing it was going on.

I'm not in favor of forgiving Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Etc, but Salon readers might want to think about the nature of the US democracy just a tad bit more before simply advocating for Revolution.

The GOP would very likely have been screaming bloody murder, about obstruction of the will of the people.

I didn't know Wingnut was only speaking for the Senate Republicans. Since they haven't, by and large, voiced strong opposition to the nominee as yet, it is unclear how exactly Wingnut has answered the question that was posed. Nobody is fooled. It isn't less hypocritical to pretend that much of the republican base is racist while the 'leaders' of the party called the nominee racist.

Having now seen the film, it's sad that Ms. Zacharek finds it cold. Unambiguous, check. Perhaps even pure. But cold, not so much. That Ms. Zacharek thinks the movie is cold says rather more about her than she might want to admit.

This is BS. No one can possibly believe that the WSJ is seriously concerned about decorum, unless they are approximately 6 years of age. Moreover, how many folks listening to this interaction have federal courtroom experience? Sotomayor has a great track record of accomplishment, don't let it get sidelined by taking interactions out of context.

I haven't yet seen "Up", but not thinking Wall-E was something special makes me wonder about the reviewer's ability to appreciate the obvious.

I do not know of a single faculty member in any science discipline that thinks the Republicans are pro-Science. Not a one. I'm sure there are some, but most of my colleagues are more concerned that the Republican party is trying to turn the public away from scientific thinking.

Republicans running for elected office should make logical sense. A good way to do so would be to stop lying. If they stop lying about (insert your own favorite absurd republican BS here), then the electorate might take them seriously. Until then, they're going to stay out in the wilderness.