I'd be happy with $115 per year for cable. My cable bill is $54 per month, with no premium channels (i.e no HBO, Golf Channel etc.). Left up to me I'd punt cable in a second, however my wife would have a cow.

She has an iPod and loves iTunes. If she knew she could get every episode of every show for $1 we'd be done with cable.

This would be a great distribution model, as low run shows with a devoted fan following could charge a little more and remain "on the air".

Maybe to some, resolution does matter to me. But many people watch a show for the story. As long as one can detect the emotion registered on the face of a character and hear the mood music the quality is good enough. For many plot driven shows such as House M.D. who cares if it's in standard definition quality. You don't need to see every age line in an actors face.

I think some of the stuff on TV is quite good. The Universe series on the History channel, anything written by Joss Whedon, The Countdown just to name a few. Is it worth $600 a year? I don't think so.

I wonder who the target audiance is for most of the shows Traister describes?

From my own group of 30 something friends only the wives/girlfriends are plugged into standard pop culture. We guys just check out of the whole debate, by finding other entertainment options. The few television shows that are mentioned from time to time are mostly on Cartoon Network, Comedy Central, or Discovery.

It doesn't surprise me that few (any?) of the TV week articals are writen by men. Network television is not even on the radar for all the guys I personally know.

So to the (mostly) women who are busy teasing out the BIG MEANING behind all this, enjoy. Have at it. Meanwhile I'd rather discover how humans figured out that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old by watching the history channel.

As to why on earth you think I should vote in a certain way to appease voters who are in their twenties, I can't imagine. That is not voting my interests. My interests and that of many women my age is health care and Social Security. Ha!

Actually, I've almost never vote for my direct interests. Though I'm certainly not wise enough to always get it right, I vote for what I perceive as the entire country's best interest.

Call it corny, but I think that's our duty as citizens.

First off thanks for the thoughtful response. One thing you said caught my attention:

I think preserving Social Security and having affordable health care that covers everyone is in the country's best interest. Luckily, in those instances my best interest and what I perceive to be best for the nation happen to coincide.

Those are important issues affecting the country, though it's open to debate wether these are the most important ones. Your daughter could say that stopping foreign wars, the invasion of privacy, and lawlessness of elected officials are in her best interest and also in the country's best interest as well.

For my part I think both candidates would be good administrators of the country. But young people want to be inspired. That is the payoff for their vote. Unlike older voters they do not depend on government services that much. Just to date myself the first person I ever voted for was Paul Tsongas in the '92 primaries. My sister (18 at the time) was at the Clinton rally in Little Rock when the national results came in. We were just so damn happy that someone who might possibly represent us was elected instead of someone from our grand parents generation.

For my 2 cents I'd say let this generation have their Bill Clinton (which is Obama). Since the policies of both are close to the same I give up little (if anything) to bring in many new people. Will Obama end up disappointing may of them later on, you bet he will, just as Bill did. But that one victory will keep them going for many years in politics.

That said, if Hillary is the nominee, I'll have strong reservations given her AIPAC connections but I'll do my duty as a citizen (not as a Democrat) and vote for her in November if any other vote would throw the Presidency to a war monger.

I see the information content of Salon has continued to dwindle. The only reliable contributer of useful knowledge seams to be Glenn Greenwald and it doesn't look like we need a Premium login to read his substantive blog.

I've been reading Salon since about 1998, and the first year that subscriptions were required I signed up. After reading this article, (and the fact that anonymous posts are even allowed) I'm done.

The Nation looks interesting, maybe that's were I spend this December's subscription fee...