I understand what the author is saying, but I don't think it addresses how we got into our current mess. In the 2000 election, George Bush lost the popular vote (The Florida electoral votes, of course, will be the subject of fierce discussion, but are largely irrelevant to my point). What IS obvious and undeniable is that the will of the majority was clearly ignored, spat on, shat on, raped and abused. Gore got more votes than Bush, and when you add in the Nader votes (and I think it is highly unlikely that many would-be Bush voters would have opted for Nader) it is even more certain that the electorate was not looking to install an extreme neocon platform. (Of course, we should also not forget that Gore's running mate was Lieberman, hardly the most progressive of candidates.)

After the Supreme Court weighed in, Bush promised to be a uniter, and not a divider. It was the first of the infinite number of lies of George Bush. Once he was sworn in, he began almost immediately to speak of the "mandate" for change he'd been handed, when there was no mandate. It was the second of his many lies. And yet, from the beginning, the democrats in the house and senate seemed to act as if he'd won in a landslide. They never did put up much of a struggle. Knowing the true mindset of the voting public, they should have forced Bush to fight like mad for every one of his proposals, knowing that most voters had their back. Instead, we all had to watch as the view was advanced that America is a conservative place of bible thumping christians who wanted to privatize everything as fast as possible.

In the '96 elections, the Democrats were given another mandate, a true and obvious and clear mandate, unlike Bush's non-existent mandate, and they still act as if there is nothing much they can do. So now we are facing a situation in which our terrible president — the worst president possible in the history of presidents and all presidents to come — has basically been allowed to chart the course for the country well into the next several years. None of the "leading" candidates has expressed a definite desire to get out of Iraq as fast as our little legs can carry us, even some democrats hinting that it might take a couple of years at least.

Given the results of the 2000 election, the Electoral College doesn't seem to make much sense, I agree. But the worse damage by far has been caused by congress' refusal to force the president into his proper balance of power. Elected by an Electoral College or direct majority vote, the president is not our king or emperor. He is not supposed to have unrestrained power. Checks and balances; Checks and balances! If I had to chose between changing the Electoral College and restoring checks and balances, my vote goes to the latter.

I just viewed a screener copy of this documentary and want to second what you wrote about it. It is obvious, I think, that most Americans haven't got the slightest clue about what they are eating and where it comes from. The beauty of the documentary is that there is almost no preachiness to it. It merely shows you the food chain.

I especially appreciated the respectful attitude toward Earl Butz, the man who, you might say, made a nation turn fat. They just show up dressed in nice suits and let him explain his side of the story.

The bottom line is Americans want cheap food, first and foremost. When all other considerations come a distant second, what really is the solution?

The discussion the women had illustrates, to me, the problem with the film industry as a whole: If it doesn't open wide the first weekend, it's worthless. And if the female director can't helm a big-budget picture, she's not really in the industry.

But the industry is eating itself. It is designed solely to vacuum as much money as possible in the shortest amount of time from the pockets of young kids. That's its only purpose.

There should be tiers to distribution, and there are none, now. Not really. What's wrong with a modestly budgeted picture designed to reap modest profit? Such a film also has the benefit of being able to become a sleeper hit. I know the audience is there and hungry for such a film. I have a friend who runs an independent theater. I've sat many times and watched his customers file in, and I'd say that 75 percent of them are women. Another theater owner friend did very well recently with "Waitress." Women do like movies, but they do not always like the boom crashers. Nor do I think that most female directors are interested in making the boom crashers. Hollywood is missing out on a fantastic opportunity.

One last point. The odds of anyone - male or female - becoming a top-tier director in Hollywood are very very low. I tried it myself for a few years - film school, the endless hustle and jumping - until it stopped being any kind of fun. My friends still remaining in the business long ago got comfortable with the idea that it might not be the career they dreamed of, but there are many jobs available and you can make a living at that level, and probably have more fun with it than at other jobs.

Oh, one final last point - Nora Ephron is truly a terrible director. If I ever wrote a script and she got the directing nod, I would burn the set to the ground like Gary Cooper burned his building in "The Fountainhead." Just kidding, of course; someone might get hurt that way, but I would definitely have it as a clause in the contract or something. The "No Nora" clause; and sexism would have nothing to do with it.