I think everyone agrees that the election of 2004 generated results that are suspicious, and that a multitude of facts, when put together, suggest the Repubs rigged the election.

But as was hashed out in the previous round of name-calling here on Salon, what can be done with these accusations? Legally, nothing. As long as those in power have some sort of "explanation" for the discrepancies, no matter how unrealistic, they will easily succeed at painting any challenger of the result as a liberal whiner. Kerry and Dean and the Dems already know this, and without tangible proof of their case, they have decided to move on.

Yes, we know in our hearts the Repubs rigged the election, probably in more ways than even imagined at this point, but without concrete evidence of such an intention, we're just spinning our wheels.

I took that to be the theme of Mr. Manjoo's original article, and I believe it still to be true.

And though I have absolute respect for the writings of both Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Freeman, I don't find in those writings any sign of a "smoking gun" in the hand of at least one election official--at least not a gun big enough to have made a difference in the outcome. Yes, there might be evidence to suggest lots of little guns, all in different hands, but that still gets us nowhere, unless evidence arises of group intention (AKA a conspiracy to commit election fraud).

As far as I can see, sadly, all we can take from the election of 2004 is a mandate to be more vigilant come next election, and learn to combat the tricks that were pulled on us so far. I wouldn't have though that would need to be said now, given what happened in 2000 and 2002, but apparently the Dems still haven't accepted it. In 2004, they were outmaneuvered by the Repubs once again.

Being an avid student of both Judo and Kickboxing for the past 12 years, I have to write in support of those questioning the validity of what the MMA and Pride are doing. To be very frank, these matches are about giving the public what most want to see, namely two-way brutality until one loses. People here can gush on and on about wanting to see "great athletes" in action, and skill, etc. but most of these same people weren't going to see skilled martial artists back before this brutal component was added by MMA and Pride. It was the brutality of boxing that made it such a spectator sport, and now is making MMAA and Pride a ton of money.

You can see great athletes and much better fighting skills at all sorts of competition matches across the USA, yet hardly any spectators appear, and the matches are never televised. Why? Because there's no blood flowing, and no one gets knocked-out.

So hopefully, people will drop this ridiculous pretense about what drives the public to see these events. Let's all just admit that a large percentage of the public are hard-wired to get a rush from brutality (from a safe distance, of course) and be done with it.

Joan Walsh brings up some very important points in this article, which no doubt the majority of the blogosphere will happily ignore. It's unrealistic to think that most bloggers, on the left or the right, will keep to the narrow road once some extra money and greater fame are waved before their eyes. No doubt, many feel it's a "just reward," long overdue, for their hours and hours of typing and (hopefully) research. But in an instant, they convert from "vocal citizen" to "political hack," though naturally it's couched in other terms more palatable.

And Ms. Walsh's defense of Salon's recent actions satisfies me. I believe it would satisfy any objective reader.

Everyone has their own taste in movies, of course, but to read these posts glorifying these sorts of movies makes me wince nearly as much as watching them does. I saw Reservir Dogs, then Pulp Fiction, then said I'd never waste another minute or another dollar on Quentin T. and his "new" genre. Now to see Stephanie Zacharek fawning over these movies, all I can do is groan. I'm sorry, but these movies are nothing more than silly and mindless violence peppered by oh-so-witty banter that's supposed to make the mindless characters look smart and admirable. After reading this review, I don't need to see "Grindhouse" to know it follows the same formula.

Why anyone would see more than one of these movies though, I can't say. I guess since the Romans closed the Coliseum, people have had to find other safe ways to see blood flow and limbs fly.

And they call it "genius."