Just dropping a line to say that I really love Scott Bateman's animated shorts!! (I particularly like the moment where the Valenthia Orange Man finds himself in jail with Dick Cheney. Har!)

Okay. That is all.

I've used both extensively and I'd like to add a note about Gmail.

The "conversation view" that you mention doesn't actually group conversation topics so much as it groups conversation threads. If I write two separate emails to two separate friends both with the subject line "celery" it will not group those two emails together. That's a difference worth mentioning in a high volume email environment. What it WILL do is group all my emails within one conversation. That's nice but not quite as clever as what you're implying. In fact, the thread clustering has actually been a problem in a work setting wherein twenty exchanges can be made in one conversation, sometimes out of the literal thread but within the same topic, all within a two-hour period.

I've used the same Yahoo account for over eight years. Many things have changed in my life but Yahoo almost never, ever lets me down. I've never lost a message or had data go missing. Furthermore, I'm inherently suspicious of the current belief that "newer and shinier" equals better. Google has some impressive tricks up their sleeve, but it hasn't proven itself yet.

Also BOTH systems use your private information as a marketing technique. This is actually where Google's prowess as the rulers of information technology turns around and bites us, the users, in the ass. It scares me to think of what Google can do with 1000's of my private emails, which are never EVER actually discarded by their system.

I hate to admit it, but the previous epic commenter has a good point; The professional wise men of politics are all mostly just guessing when it comes to our government's future. It's a sad fact that the best of the best can't do better than a flip of the coin when it comes to telling us, the public, about Washington D.C. Personally, I think Sidney Blumenthal is brilliant. He has shed more insight on this administration than any other professional journalist.

But it leads me to wonder. Since Karl Rove has played this game expertly under the cover of neo-con religious, pro-war patriotism, since he has gotten away with so much, how do we know that what Blumenthal says NOW is true? Has Gonzalez really been under the supervision of Rove? What makes him say that? I think this article deserves a little more actual evidence than just Blumenthal's own word.

The audio track is a great lesson for everyone involved, including Salon readers.

Regardless of what did or did not happen in that stall, he should NOT have made a statement to the cop without an attorney present. Basically pleading entrapment, particularly in this instance is admitting guilt. Craig probably hoped on some level to talk his way out of the arrest. He is, after all, a man of importance. Shouldn't that count for something? (Or so would go the logic in his head.)

Anyhow. Whatever. The Republican party has been pleased to scapegoat gays whenever it is convenient for them. So it goes. Screw him.

More importantly, let this be a reminder to us all that once you are arrested you SHOULD NOT TALK TO THE COPS OR MAKE STATEMENTS TO THEM ABOUT YOUR ARREST. EVER. Let your attorney sort it out.

Red State Update took awhile for me to grow into but now I've watched every video and can't wait for the next. Also, who is Little Jackie? Can't wait to find out!

I am probably going to regret paying you any attention, but . . .

The reason why you hate women so much is that every other thought -- separate from the ones dedicated to blaming women for your hardships -- is about getting into our panties. That's right! Our silky, soft panties.

Ohhh, they're so mean!!!!

{Boobs.}

That bitch of an ex-wife!!!!

{Whose boobs I did love.}

I had more to say, but I'm going to leave it at that.

I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with Ms. Zacharek's assessment of Michael Moore. It seems we do hear, from time to time, that Michael Moore is not worthy of carrying the title of Defender of the Faith. But who is? To tell the truth, I'm bored with the endless scrutinizing of our public figures. And I don't think he has presented himself to be a saint or a martyr. More importantly, look to his body of work, which is considerable.

He does consistently ask the American public to stand up for itself and act as a real democracy. Again, I don't think that's out of line.

I have heard he is difficult to work with, that he can be demanding and petty. But if it were the case that we only watched the movies of the truly humble, only read the articles of the genuinely sweet-natured, I think you'd have a pretty barren news day here at Salon.

Thanks, Heather for that excellent column on the state of the television state. What do you think would happen if we didn't have such great television to watch these days? Would America pull its efforts into a cultural/political transformation the likes of which we have not seen since FDR? Or maybe we'd just find another high-tech solution to dull the pain: Extreme Grand Theft Auto with computer-injected needles of adrenaline (inserted through the eyeball for a particularly William Burroughsesque effect.) Or Sudoku Porn. Not sure how that one would work.

Again, thanks for writing!

Yes, I have noticed, which is why I employ a little tool called gallows humor.