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.

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.)

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.

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.

For me, the interesting part about Cruise's religious fervor is his confidence. He is certain of the value of Scientology the way that I am certain about (the value of) my freedom of speech, or of the value of sour cream enchiladas. (Obviously those are two very different things, but I'm certain about both, just in different ways. Mmmm, enchiladas.) But in that he's no different from Mormons, Baptists or Catholics.

More than anything, it is the inability to question that incites the faithful to commit atrocities. And Tom Cruise is certain that his beliefs are the "right" beliefs, not just for himself, but for everyone.

Did anyone else notice that Tom Cruise can never stop acting? Not that he doesn't really believe what he's saying, I think he does. But he's spent so much of his life putting on a show, he doesn't even know what a genuine exchange IS. Now THAT is creepy.