were the only Altman films I saw on release that disappointed me. McCabe and Mrs. Miller is my favorite. What a beautiful, potent dream! Mash, The Long Goodbye, Thieves like Us, California Split, Nashville, 3 Women, A Wedding, Popeye, Vincent and Theo, Short Cuts, Cookie’s Fortune, The Gingerbread Man, Gosford Park, The Company: all I loved or enjoyed, got lost in for a couple hours. I get stuck on all these while channel surfing.

Jimmy Dean, Health, Pret-a-Porter, Kansas City, less so, but well worth seeing. The other 10 feature films that are listed in Wilkopedia I haven’t seen yet or don’t recall.

Ideological complaints about Altman (and they used to come from the far-right-wing-rigids, now in Salon I see the far-left-wing rigids are gritting their faces and squeezing their hard, narrow little opinions out for everyone to admire), the most protean director of our times, are sophomoric. He created multi-layered slices-of-life, most with bad, hard edges, and he set them in many genres, societies and times. If your mind and heart is set on “narrow,” and you just can’t allow yourself to read between the lines, more fool you.

And what great actors and acting!

I’ve worried the last few years that he would die without creating another film. So, I’m in mourning now. Thanks Bob.

in the late 60s and 70s when I was reading SF stories in magazines and paperback anthologies. I picked up a copy of this bio after reading about it in Salon, and it was a bit of a slow read, but worth it to anyone with a prior interest in her fiction, mostly for the facts about her life. I just finished re-reading all her stories last night, now plan to go back through the bio. Previously, I never regarded her suicide as a tragedy, because I agree with the sentiments expressed by “no name given;” however, after reading the bio, and learning much more about the circumstances, including her chronic, lifelong depression and the possibility that her husband did not want to die at that particular time, I do think it was tragedy. The Showtime series “Masters of Horror” recently aired an episode featuring her story “The Screwfly Solution” directed by Joe Dante, who did the best episode last year, “Homecoming.”

Can’t have too many of those in circulation.

I suspect framing it as an “Hillary apology” is just another way to cash in on the feeding frenzy about her vote. There were lots of Democrats, and probably even more Republicans, who were intelligent enough to see the picture, but too cowardly to vote against it because they knew an election was coming up, and they valued their own political lives more than the lives of our troops. Kerry voted for it, and got crucified by the Republicans for his verbal disavowals. Was he stupid or calculating in voting for authorization? After the campaign he ran, it’s hard to tell.

I’ll vote for the Democratic candidate whoever it is, for social, economic and environmental reasons. These areas pose bigger problems then national security, because of Bush’s domestic policies or lack thereof. (And I say that with a National Guard niece on her second tour, going out several times a week to advise Iraqis on sewage treatment, my insides freeze whenever I think of her.)

As far as ending the war goes, Bush has already said that will be up to the next president. I’d hate to see McCain win. Any Democratic candidate will have a saner foreign policy then him or Rudy G. I like Hegal for his integrity on Iraq, which he seems to have because he’s gone against the grain, but again, Republican economic, environmental and social policies make me puke.

To the writers who say they will not vote for Hillary, if she is nominated, because of her vote and/or her (probably calculated, she’s not stupid) refusal to apologize, I join several writers in saying to you folks “reconsider, please.” Her domestic policies will be better than any Republican. I suspect any new president, except McCain, will get out of Iraq quickly.

I voted for Gore in 2000. I didn’t care a lot for him, he ran a stupid campaign, but he understood issues and Bush was obviously in over his head. Its funny how seeing Bush operate for six years has made me think about what qualities a (decent, good, great) president probably needs.

says William Legro. Logical-smogical. The logical conclusion is a COMPETENT religious/corporate reactionary president who successfully turns the clock back to 1890.

William LeGro’s letter is a variation of the shit we heard six years ago from some Nader voters after the 2000 election, that Bush would be so bad that everyone would turn against the corporate rulers and sing kum-ba-yah in our new socialist republic. Only “lite,” since the original predication is now so obviously nonsense.

Sorry to disillusion you William, but most Republicans still support Bush, and they all still worship Reagan. The evangelicals are still out there, along with their more moderate allies who “only” want prayer brought back into public schools, the ten commandments in courthouses, abortion outlawed, etc. The same reporters who slanted their writing for access are publishing this morning, with the same editors. Bush’s hardline judges remain, as do his bureaucratic appointments and tax breaks, and unAmerican laws.

The strategy and tactics of destruction have always been part of the American political process from Jefferson through Lincoln to now, and they will always be. Rove, or someone who learned from him and Atwater and Gingrich will be running the next GOP campaign, and the one after. They will learn from their mistakes.

Anyone who voted for Nader in 2000 in a swing state, or argued that there was no difference between Bush and Gore in 2000 was either naïve or stupid. Anyone who believes in 2007 that Nader did us a big favor is both.