I'm a little confused by the review of "World Trade Center". It sounded like it was positive, but every detail of evidence to support that theory made it sound like Mr. Stone was doing business as usual with this film.

His narrative is clumsy, he uses sledgehammer tactics to make sure he's understood and the voice over about how everyone was helping everyone is shockingly obvious. It sounds a little like sitting through a corporate powerpoint presentation - you already know what you think and this film won't challenge that on any level. The best thing the reviewer says about the film is that it's easier to sit through than "Flight 93". What? Someone ought to go back and rewrite all those Greek tragedies because they're pretty uncomfortable too.

Yuck. But then again, I haven't seen the film and unfortunately (to properly write a rebuttal to the review), and I don't think I will. Nothing makes me more discouraged that clumsy preaching with no encouragement for deeper thought.

Oh dear, I'm so sorry to hear this. it's my favorite Salon.com feature and gets me to log in even when I'm overworked and can't stand the computer for one more minute.

I'm not sure where else to find something like this but thank you for having it for all the time that you did.

Nope, it doesn't work for me. I appreciated the article, but I think it draws an incorrect conclusion. Selig probably should be present when Bonds breaks the record, everyone knows how he feels about it anyway. I don't find Barry Bonds to be a likeable person but it's hard to explain the reasons why and race doesn't factor in whatsoever.

People don't really like ARod either, I don't like him much myself although he is a heck of a ball player. You know who I do like? Torii Hunter, Derek Jeter, Vlad Guerrero, David Eckstein, Jose Reyes. I never thought about race, all I see is how much those guys love the game of baseball. Shoot, stop telling me why I don't like Barry Bonds.