Wall Street has discovered that finding cheap labor will continue to bring down costs, and boost profits, but that didn't create a permanent middle class in America and it won't do it anywhere else in the world. Too bad these people don't think about anything beyonf than next quarters profit statement. The massive deflation their policies promote will only lead to something much more like Communism. Should we invoke protectionism and protect the American standard of living?

There are good reasons to think we should. The energy crisis will accomplish some of this, while it becomes too expensive to ship raw materials around the globe, (already true in coal, and somewhat so with Natural Gas).

It may also be true that California has enough iron ore to produce enough steel to take care of the states needs, no one has really explored this issue. The export of manufactured goods never caused the current problem, it was the export of technology, know how, and intellectual property, which the big investment banks really don't seem too eager to protect.

I think it was McLuhan who said modern war is a war of cultures, and the only victory that is possible is the complete destruction of the alien, or outside culture. Some wag once suggested we drop blue jeans and rock and roll records on Russia, instead of pointing nuclear weapons at Moscow, and their culture would disappear. That sort of hubris proved wrong

There was of course the famous attack on Japan's culture by Cmdre. Perry, which opened that country to the West. McLuhan also made the point that in subjugating a culture, the conquering people begin to identify with the conquered people.

This also applies to the American south, a culture destroyed and reborn in music, literature, and the folklore of the American West. Whats interesting in all those comparative charts is the difference between the attitudes and direct cultural exchange, tourism, etc. Iranians favor that, Almahinijead wanted to lay a wreath at Ground Zero, but so far nativism prevents us from identifying with the Iranians, and that must be a good thing. It must indicate that this battle of cultures is a low intensity war at present.

i am so bored, why are you doing this?

hey andrew want to hear about my accident? i am really getting fucked over by the police, and the insurance company. a cautionary tale.

The role of the critic never recovered from Godard. Suddenly the critic was making films. Films like Breathless which mocked HOllywood standards of continuity, soon became the standard. Specifically, directors like Martin Scorcese, and Clint Eastwood, have had a chilling effect on the female gender, the roles they have in movies, and ergo, their role as critics, because film is a self reflexive medium.

Directors like Scorcese and Eastwood are able critics and students of their art. Criticism is baked into the cake, if you will. Films become self explanatory (you can reread a page in a novel, but the image keeps moving).

As for what constitutes thought about film, outside of film, venues like TCM, where Osborne and Fisher trade insights, and critics choose their three favorite films, makes a bit more sense. Critics, like writers, must reveal themselves. The critic holds up their version of reality, to the reality on the screen, and woman's roles are generally poorer in that regard.

George Bush on most substantive policy issues, is an FDR Democrat. (I know we all hate him, GWB, so please don't pillory me about this). On matters of spending, trade, immigration, Bush pretty much toes the Democratic line. On matters of defense his 9/11 credentials mirrors the post Pearl Harbor global rise to power, and the American political abandonment of isolationism, which Bush preached in 2000.

Bush is immensely unpopular, the question is why? Is it his policies, or his stewardship? The man has followed Reagan in an inverse way, Reagan's core politics were Democratic, while his style and rhetoric were Conservative.

I don't have any problem understanding that, I know many people who work at the public trough, double dip, or triple dip if both spouses get their check from Uncle Sam, and they vote Republican, complain about taxes, and government interference in their lives. Quite simply American voters talk the talk, or they elect people to do it for them. Americans believe in the free market, and the opportunity to make, and get rich, and they also believe in a safety net to catch them.

The real question for Obama, (who preaches a Malcom X tinged message to black constituents), is will he keep the safety net in place. The second part of the equation is will he restore the free market machine running, which churns out stock market profits that defy gravity.

McCain is properly qualified, because he is just schizoid enough to walk this line. Americans are in no mood for a leader telling them the truth and preaching austerity. Americans are in no mood for change, change means I lost my job, I lost my house. Change is a bad thing. Keeping what we have is important. That's a custom tailored Conservative message. Will Obama be able to pull enough of those elements, in the Kennedy style to pull it off?

The 1960 election was the closest ever, ripe with fraud, and nothing good came of it. Remember that.