What worries me is that as long as the GOP remains firmly in control of congress, how will any of these nefarious misdeeds, or any other, ever be properly prosecuted?

Even if Bush himself, for instance, could ever be proven do have done something impeachable -- does anyone really think he would face the consequences?

I don't think we're going to be able to fix or right any of the wrongs done to the country in the past 5 years until we solidly regain control of the legislature.

-- SG

What really bothers me about the Time piece is that it's another example of how conservative that magazine has gotten and continues to get.

Last week was the worst week in the history of the Bush administration -- Libby indicted, 2000-dead mark topped in Iraq, Harriet Miers shot down, etc., etc., etc.

And what did we get on the cover of Time today? "Third World Health".

WTF?!

Also the main article on BushCo's problems -- By NANCY GIBBS & MIKE ALLEN -- was *incredibly* positive towards their subjects, always assuming as fact at every juncture that everything they've been saying is true and this is all just an unfortunate occurrence. As if they're not responsible for what they've done, and this is all just happening to them out of nowhere.

The last sentence is pretty endemic to the tone of the whole piece, in fact:

"Next thing you know, Bush will be calling himself the Comeback Kid."

Ugh.

I'm afraid I have to agree with the majority of the posters -- it's long past time for a new film reviewer.

I don't care about Jarhead one way or another, so I'm lacking in investment as to whether this review is as innaccurate as the rest of hers -- but I can say that it's just another in a long pattern of grossly substandard movie commentary she's done. It's not just that SZ dislikes films that every other well-respected reviewer likes. It's not just that she loves films that are crap. No, her real problem is that she misses whole plot points in films and declares them worthless, or misunderstands or overlooks key sequences and then says the plots are nonsense.

If she was just a step outside the common wisdom once in a while, or she could at least write intelligent reviews that cogently defended her oddball, scatterbrained point of view on any of these films, it would be one thing. But her reviews are almost ALL empty and pointless.

I can't read Salon.com's film reviews anymore when I see her name on them. I'd rather go over to The Onion, Ebert, or RottenTomatoes. At least there I either enjoy their biases or know that even if they disagree with me on a film, the way they do so isn't going to be so ignorant as to waste my time.

Please Salon, get some fresh blood in here to do movie writeups. PLEASE.

As usual, a vague and pointless negative review by Zacharek has inspired me to run right out and see a film sooner than I otherwise would've. Thanks!

Finally, a decent film review on Salon again.

Please feature MORE reviews by writers other than Stephanie Zacharek in the future -- I'd like to start coming back to Salon for my entertainment material again.

Thanks!

This whole issue just seems like such a gigantic bitchfest.

I agree what he writer said about Perez being a modern-day gay stepinfetchit, but honestly...I think the easiest thing you can do to someone like Perez Hilton is the one that would hurt him the most -- just ignore him.

This is just giving him more press, and more attention, which is all he trades in and thrives on.

Just ignore him.

I had managed to avoid Paglia for some time now, as her bizarrely self-absorbed and one-note rants rarely engage me on more than a comical level, but every time I see people (and Salon, for that matter) taking her seriously, it startles me. This is one thing she has in common with Ann Coulter, actually.

The other thing is not "being aware of her gender weirdness". This weirdness that Coulter projects physically, Paglia projects in her writing. These issues ooze out of everything she writes so endlessly and non-stop that it's tiring even trying to figure out what he hell her original damage is. Does she even read her own writing? I mean, what drives this woman to say such idiotic things? Atttention-seeking?

Hmm, Ann and Camille seem to have increasingly more and more in common, now that I think about it...

I think the problem here is that all these articles are conflating Race with Culture. The Culture he came from, and especially his family, may have influenced how he ended up (especially in regards to not getting treatment for his mental illness) -- but the Race he is HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

This is a great move. I never really came to Salon for the Fix anyway. I do really enjoy the features, the cartoons, and Glenn Greenwald, however.

Please feel free to get someone else to review films via replacing Stephanie Zacharek, though. If I could get more decent film reviews on Salon too, it might actually be worth paying for again.

-- a former subscriber