Love that flick, and that's the one I always return to myself. Like the critic in this column, that whistling theme is hilarious, and the goofy camera shots and angles are terrific.

That being said, to this day, my favorite moment is at the end of Blood Simple, after such a complicated plot where only one character - Emmet Walsh's - really understands what is going on... to see how all the other characters have it wrong, topped off with Walsh's hysterical laughter at the very end is just the funniest thing ever.

Did you just stumble across this or something on Netflix? I've watched this a few times over the past couple of years.

You are so right on in your praise. This may be the best thing Sci-fi has ever done, which is amazing given the way they churn out B-schlock. I find that maybe once a year they do a miniseries that is interesting and well produced, like the Speilberg produced Taken, or the Tin Man. Yet even those projects are merely above average. The Lost Room is one of the smartest and most well done and well thought out minis on tv in years, regular or pay cable, especially with the supernatural aspect to the show and the special effects involved. The plot is well thought out, doesn't cheat us or break its own rules, and the conclusion basically makes sense. This show is a gem.

Why through your entire column do you say "Chuck Todd?" I thought standard copy practice was to identify the subject, then refer to him/her by surname. I would think for the rest of the article, you would refer to him as simply "Todd." I.E. "Todd says..." "Todd clearly believes..."

Actually, there's one paragraph smack in the middle where you do that, but other wise, it's "Chuck Todd" "Chuck Todd" "Chuck Todd" all over the place. I know it's a nitpick, but it just comes off as a weird affectation. Maybe you just like the way his name sounds?

I mean, you say just "Bush" and "Cheney" the way it should be done.

Also, I look forward to your podcast. As odd as Todd (heh) can be sometimes, he does seem to be pretty straightforward when some calls him out on stuff. I'd like to see how that goes.

It's hard to take your column seriously when the first couple of paragraphs include the semantically challenged sentence: "the differences between the Obama administration and a hypothetical McCain administration would have been real and can be vividly illustrated by counterfactual history." Whuuhhhaaaa?? I don't have a problem that you're talking about a hypothetical McCain presidency, with plenty of crazy hyperboles included, even though I don't think you're quite correct about how such a presidency would look with the Iraq issue and the stimulus - I actually think McCain would have been much similar to Obama, albeit not as forceful, smooth, or politically shrewd about it. But I don't like that your article is one part "certainly would have" done this or that and another part crammed with "maybe" and "probably." Wonky logic and over-the-top hyperbole, combined in this bizarro universe scenario atmosphere makes me shrug then laugh at its grasping for irony.

What a maroon.

"the head of the Democratic Party wasn't telling Nader where he could or could not run, he was asking him not to run in certain places and offering him a financial incentive"

What was really amusing to me about last night's Harball was that Buchanan was so out in left field, that Matthews was just exasperated. Joan was doing in well in responding, but Matthews was so bewildered by Buchanan's reasoning, that he just wouldn't let him shut up as he was trying to get a handle on his logic. And he couldn't. Typically, when someone spouts nonsense, even Pat, Matthews is likely to go bananas on them, but every once and a while, he ends up completely mystified and at a loss for words, like yesterday. And he kind of shakes his head, like "whatever," and moves on.

The idea that Perry was ever giving serious consideration to secession, or even playing a political angle, is silly, even lame. Perry has a well known history of making sly comments, jokes, asides. He loves saying generic things like this to get reactions from reporters. As a lifelong Texan, even a very pro-Texas (hopefully seen as a good natured local pride), and one who doesn't really care for Perry, even I can see that he is probably having a laugh at the reaction to what he said. Afterall, this is the governor who once called a reporter a "mofo." "Adios, Mofo" he once said to a reporter who seemed chagrined with him, and I think that was pretty funny and also pretty representative of what he thinks of these little bruhahas. Not much. And the idea of secession is not a real serious one. The only people who take that serious are themselves not taken seriously. Anyone seriously who talks about that is just venting.