While record sales have definitely dropped and will likely continue to drop as a result of the bad attitudes of record companies, I'd still say that the record companies are looking at this the wrong way.

The fact of the matter is that when I want to purchase a song, if I have a secure, fast and convenient access point to that music, I will purchase it. And when I don't, I will look for other means to acquire it. If the music industry would get out of its own way, they could make a decent living. They don't want a decent living. They want a never-ending gravytrain fueled by young talent and cheap labor.

I just cannot stop laughing at the record industry and their humorless, greedy attitude. This is what comes of a society obsessed with concepts of property. If all you understand is ME, MINE, OURS, the internet will never make sense. Because, at its fundamental level, online music is just information melted down from keyboards and instruments into kilobytes. That's all it is. And that information can have a value equivalent to Viagra spam or the works of Shakespeare. We choose that value. But whatever the value, it's still more or less endlessly copyable once it hits digital technology. The concept of property loses its finite aspect.

The basic principle of music and art has long rested on its ideals, realistic or not. We buy music from musicians that stand for something, that rest outside the norms of everyday capitalism. So when the market turns against you, you can't both keep your cache as a social outsider and STILL clamor for bigger and bigger piles of money. (And, let's face it, U2 is effing RICH. No one can tell me that I'm taking food out of their childrens' mouths.)

If you keep treating your customer base like retarded captive prisoners, they are going to rebel, because you're not selling them a necessity, you're selling them a luxury.

I can't speak for everyone, but I find BC to be whimsical and poignant, even when discussing controversial political issues. True, it's not always hit-you-over-the-head funny. Often it's situation comedy. Breathed throws the ridiculous at the banal (just like throwing a fat penguin at a grumpy pollster).

All I know is that I read Bloom County in the years that I grew into a thinking human being, and I really identify with his viewpoint.

The dandelion field and the swimming hole still exist. They are places in my heart and mind, and I look to them when things get rough. Like, say, when our president is so damn dumb that he plunges our country into war, desecrates our civil rights and mangles the budget.

I was one of the many, many readers who signed on to say, "Please , let's have less bias towards Hillary and a little more objective coverage." That was during Obama's initial win in Iowa, when hopes were high and we just started to get a glimmer of how America might look like without GWB as our lord and emperor. It looks like it's going to be a long haul for the next year. We may not know the name of our candidate until the Democratic National Convention. It could happen!

But I want to thank you, Joan, because I have noticed LESS of a bias towards Hillary over the last few weeks. There have been more pro-Obama articles by various writers and you have acknowledged that it's anybody's game to win. I respect the fact Salon listens to its readers. That's such a rare behavior in the news and all the more valuable for it.

Either way, on to a better tomorrow, regardless of who wins the presidency (as long as it's not a Republican.)

Damn Farhad, I didn't take you to be that kind of chump.

You know who lost the presidency in 2000? His name is Al Gore. What a crappy campaign that was. And the mistakes he made have been repeated by John Kerry and now Hillary Clinton. The presidency was theirs to lose and they did it. Lord knows that the Democrat's power in America is so tenuous, so contrived, that a third party candidate can cause a revolution. (Not to mention whining and bitching for a decade.)

You know what Gore might have done that would have changed the opinions of thousands and thousands of voters? He might have met with Nader on his own terms. He might have insisted that a candidate get to send his message on national television (as Ron Paul did in this election.) He might have practiced what he preached. Instead, Gore turned his back on Nader and his message, because woe be it to anybody who goes against the machine of the two-party system.

The Al Gore that we know and love today is not exactly the same man who won a Nobel prize. That man had to lose a presidency in order to gain some perspective.

Why do we always equate entertainment industry cash cows as "owning" the world? Don't they just own revenue?

It's a very consistent way to write about the biz, but it never fails to depress me. I mean, half the people in the United States watched the Super Bowl, that still doesn't mean diddily squat to me. And, I would imagine, not withstanding residents of Massachusetts and New York, it didn't mean too much to anybody else, not when you get right down to it.

It's unfortunate that young children are into this, but, more importantly, why are WE talking about it and dedicating screen space to it?

Complaining about the idiosyncracies of a cartoon is like getting mad at misspelled graffiti. He's a penguin who wears pajamas; It's not supposed to be sensible. You're really concerned about the logistics of nose flossing? The readership of Salon is really starting to scare me. I thought we were the intelligent, well-rounded demographic. Turns out that it's just not so.