Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
frankepi
Published Letters: 10 Editor's Choice: 1
Of course Blockbuster can't actually "edit" the films it carries. The MPAA doesn't "edit" the films it rates, either. By refusing to carry NC-17 films, however, Blockbuster forces even those few directors who manage to fight through the studio system to deliver an NC-17 film to submit to a(n often eviscerating) "clean" cut of their work. The only other option is to forego representation in the country's largest video-rental chain.
Y Tu Mama Tambien loses the kiss between the boys in the final scene, for example, in order to come in with an R-rated cut that greatly alters the dynamic of the film. David Cronenberg has said that he worked on the 'R' cut of his Crash personally and it simply doesn't make any sense. That cut would never have existed if it weren't for Blockbuster and Walmart (who have a similar policy).
The ratings system, deeply flawed as it is, is in place so that consumers can make their own decisions about content. The additional "family-friendly" filter enforced by Blockbuster and Walmart is both unneccessary and offensive. It also exacerbates the problems with the rating system itself (violence is less "adult" than sex, for example).
I think Macs are great and I don't necessarily need convincing that involces relatively speculative analysis of resale value. The problem is that, as a graduate student who needs a pretty good notebook computer, it remains much cheapter for me to go with a Dell up fraont. Even if a MacBook Pro (which is not available in the 12 or 13 inch size I want) will sell for more eventually, the money I have available NOW is the real issue. Grad school doesn't pay well.
Also: The "slightly slower processor" and the "much smaller hard drive" are significant differences.
The question becomes: who are you talking to? Giving blanket advice is of questionable value.
[this is ridiculoud. please feel free to delete the first two attempts.]
[Sorry for the double-post but I can't stand looking at the typo in my own letter considering the title of my letter...]
It wasn't "driver's licenses at the same level" it was "driver's licenses at the state level."
He was hinting at a Federalist argument but he didn't follow through because he was trying to make a point about process and question formulation and the politics of distraction, a point he didn't make very well but he was probably distracted himself by the oddly unruly audience early in the debate.
I'm not trying to make excuses for him; clearly he should have gone further towards mastering this "debate" format by now. But it's frustrating that when he tries to give a nuanced answer it always comes across, in this format, as an equivocating answer. Covering presidential politics with 300 word posts probably does more to exacerbate the problem than to clarify it.
I think the elusive "substance" behind Obama's call for a new politics derives largely from his interest in consensus building which, in turn, stems from his work as a community organizer. Often, New-Dem/Clinton-style "triangulation" and consensus building will end up in roughly equivalent places, but Obama is as interested in process as results.
The sometimes less-than-specific policy proposals are a result of this process-oriented idealism. The policy grows out of the process. Obama used to say fairly often in town hall meetings that there had been no shortage of solid plans to address our various woes, including health care. What had been lacking was "political will" and consensus. If there aren't enough people who feel like they've been part of the process, part of the conversation that leads to policy, those people won't be as willing to resist when entrenched powers resist the new policies.
This is related to the spat between Clinton and Obama during which Clinton said that a candidate for president should avoid saying certain things, even if they are true. She was referring, if I remember correctly, to Obama's (admittedly imperfectly stated) suggestion that we should consider going into Northern Pakistan if that's where we think/know bin Laden is. She said "think it but keep it to yourself." He said "the people deserve to be part of the conversation." There have been similar exchanges throughout the campaign (including the debate about whether the President should engage in one-on-one negotiations with leaders of hostile or "rogue" nations.)
The Bush administration has made a spectacle of secrecy, allowing classified documents and institutionalized paranoia to stand as a signifier of security... and proven to be astonishingly incompetent when the smoke is cleared away. a candidate seeking a more candid, transparent, consensus building, process-oriented approach to policy might be a welcome change indeed.
I have a lot of respect for some of Sean Wilentz's work (his justly praised book on Jacksonian U.S. for example) but his analysis of the 2008 election has been less than impressive and sometimes a little embarassing.
Both Obama and Clinton knew the rules of this election before they announced, and had the rules been different the game would have been played differently. A winner-take-all system would have resulted in different strategies and tactics from both campaigns so it is specious to surmise that all else would have remained the same.
Doctor Wilentz is more than smart enough to know this, but his one-note Hillary-trumpeting has compromised the rigor and efficacy of his arguments.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
