to Sleestak : ondol=winter, fan=summer
to Mrs. Monkey : every timer has a "continuous operation" setting.

Maybe I've fallen foul of the immense power of suggestion, but I've literally just finished watching season 5 and the first movie and was thinking - "Wow wouldn't another x-files film be cool"

Dogrun,

Bush won, but not fairly. Are these voting abuses new to the election process, or unique to one party? Doubtful. But with low voter turnout (civic apathy), it does matter. Ultimately, we as citizens are to blame. We need fundamental changes throughout the election process, such as making election day a national holiday (or half work day), so more people can get to the polls. Or using "instant runoff voting" so candidates can win with a real and viable majority. And so on...

Hi, Sid.

You make valid arguments. However, you miss one crucial point. There is a concerted effort by Republicans to purge thousands (even tens of thousands) of legitimate, lawful voters from the rosters, or to deny such citizens the opportunity to vote outright. Such strategic efforts, unsurprisingly, are targeted to districts where voters are disenfranchised (i.e., poor, and therefore without realistic legal recourse) and where they would likely vote for the Democratic candidate. Specifically, I'm referring to African American, Latino and Native American communities.

This says nothing of the electronic voting machines that do not have an accompanying paper trail for purposes of recounts. The proprietary software of voting machines is not allowed to be investigated, and programmers have testified that, in some cases, it was rigged to deliver a tally result (by a narrow margin) for whatever candidate they chose. Doesn't that warm the cockles of your heart?

There are other voting abuses, like willfully neglecting to count absentee ballots (again, in specific districts), but I won't bother to go into details, as this is merely a 'comment' on an otherwise happy-go-lucky blog. One can do his own research, if he happens to care about the legitimacy of our democracy.

In an election that is decided by hundreds of votes, or even one single vote, you can see how voting irregularities add up and have an effect. Third party candidates, like Ralph Nader or Ross Perot, don't cause the "major" candidates to lose an election. In fact, our democracy would benefit from more third party candidates. That's another story, for another time.

You can wave your hands all day, spouting appellations of "kook, whiner, cry baby, sore loser," but it doesn't change the reality. People are standing up for a healthy democracy, not merely the appearance of one that goes through the motions.

Regardless of either party's machinations, though, a greater voter turnout -- and greater civic participation, in general -- will begin to reclaim the democratic ideal of a government of, by and for the people.

Speaking of making a movie using CCTV...

http://www.look-themovie.com/thefilm/trailer.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npqx8CsBEyk

I never said global warming caused hurricanes. I was talking about the effects of a natural disaster for which we were not sufficiently prepared -- that is, our vulnerability was known, and the consequences were anticipated, but we ignored the danger and dismissed preventive action. Also, you add to the weight of the general argument in that, as you said, Katrina was "only" so big. Now imagine environmental hardship on a larger scale, and you may get the point.

Even the Pentagon is planning for possible social and geopolitical upheaval from climate change scenarios. And we know what a liberal operation they are.

Given the best scientific evidence at hand, sounding the alarm is a precautionary measure. A future based on more efficient vehicles, bulbs and appliances -- with sustainable energy sources, new economies and industries -- what's the big fuss? Environmental stewardship is good for our health, our quality of life, our business, our national security, our social stability ... and so on.

Remember what happened during Hurricane Katrina? All the people who were displaced, the lack of basic resources, the violence, death and subsequent police apparatus that was imposed. All that was within the best equipped, most organized democracy on the planet.

Well, if the worst case climate change scenarios come to pass, Katrina will look small in comparison. With a wink and nod, she'll say, "I told ya so."

Please forgive us while we plan for the worst and hope for the best.

It's interesting to see how people are dismissive of climate change concerns. There is this blanket thinking that somehow this is an issue of politics, profiteering and new world order domination. For everyone else, it is an issue of science and risk management.

The embedded video shown was from several months ago.

From the second YouTube link above, you can see an updated version. On that page, you can click on the "more" link in the right column for About This Video, and there is a full listing of videos he has put together. He addresses every criticism and discusses the issue in more detail.

Alex, you are missing the point. Studios produce and distribute content. That's their business. That's their investment and risk. They keep the lion's share of profits. When we talk about "equitable" profit sharing among writers, actors and directors, we're talking pennies on the dollar.

The writers' strike is not about "suffering." It is about big business that merits better percentages for those who make the business possible. And yes, like it or not, guilds as gatekeepers allow for a sustainable livelihood.

By sticking together, the guilds have bargaining power to negotiate a fair deal for income and benefits. Despite your suggestion, back-end deals don't work. The creative accounting of the studios will never admit to a profit to share. The residual system is not some happy accident. It was set up to protect and compensate the talent, rightfully, for all their efforts. The talent's compensation also incidentally supports the agents, managers, et al, who make tinsel town tick.

As an aside, how much are you willing to pay your bloggers here on Neatorama? Do you pay them a flat rate per week, per post? Is there some kind of back-end profit sharing after you have covered your costs of doing business? I imagine there is always someone willing to contribute to your site for free (such as through the "Suggest a Link," or for the promotional exposure). If you paid your bloggers a penny for each unique user to click on their story submission, would it be enough to support them? Maybe it would be an incentive to improve the savviness of posts or to attract other quality contributors? These are rhetorical questions. I don't know (nor is it my place to care) what the economics of your site are.

More to the point: It happens that Hollywood can support good salaries. Anyone can break in, if they know the terrain and play the game. No sympathy required.

Brother, the world is a messed up place in no small part because of mindless, heartless economic forces. Let us not kid ourselves otherwise. Organized groups of workers and citizens help to balance the equation, as do enforced laws. In some places, unions and community groups are intimidated or prevented from organizing -- health and environmental codes are nonexistent or ignored -- and everyday people suffer for it. This is not an academic question. It has real-world implications and importance.

Alex, I'm not interested in scoring debate points, or finding the perfect analogy, or even winning the argument. My notes are just offering a tiny prism through which maybe to glimpse a bigger issue of what is fair -- even if purely on a humanistic level. The powers-that-be do not often, if ever, willingly surrender their control. Any gains that workers or citizens have won for themselves have been through their coordinated efforts & collective solidarity. If you do not believe in the fundamental goodness of an equitable distribution of wealth for those who are essential in producing that wealth, no amount of wordsmithing may convince you otherwise. (Or rather, I'm not going to take the time to do so.)

If organized labor & citizenry have succeeded to increase the well-being of the larger community, and thereby pushed business overseas (including the abusive practices and harmful products no longer welcome here at home), again that's just the corporate credo following its bottom line to maximize profits. In that case, the onus falls on our legislatures to work out incentives to keep industry domestic.

I'm of the philosophical mindset that people should work together and share in the gains of their collaboration, as opposed to some slavish arrangement of pure, uncaring capitalism.

Don't fret, though. Whatever agreement that the directors, actors and writers guilds come to, the corporate heads and their families will not go hungry.

Like I said, just because writers (potentially) make good coin doesn't lessen their argument or position. The economics/market allows for such good payment, and the writers and actors deserve some small percentage of the income that their work generates.

You are talking in academic abstractions about fair compensation as whatever a writer is willing to accept. In this business, as probably with most, whatever the studios can get away with, they will. Without the union, there would be endless rewrites and drafts, and the writer would not be paid for any of their time, effort, talent, etc. In the case of this strike, in particular, writers are not negotiating for safe working conditions and all that, but rather for equitable profit-sharing. Period.

There are a lot of talented people in the world, and most corporate structures favor one mission: maximize board members' profits. Without an organized labor force, owners/executives would undercut the talent and hire the next poor, willing fella off the bus. Going back to the baseball analogy, the general public may not have sympathy for their demands, because they earn a good salary. But compared to what the owners are making off of their work, the players deserve it. The market allows for such salaries. Maybe we should lay off all the major league baseball players and bring up the hungry, farming teams from the minors? And if they make any demands, there are plenty of others willing to take their place...

You have to understand there is an inherent antagonism between art and commerce here. If executives could get away with showcasing flaming bags of poo, and if the public would happily feed from that trough, the studios would not bother with any guild of artisans whatsoever. Rather, the junk we see produced is the result of the tension between what artists have to offer and what studios are willing to produce (in an attempt to minimize their risk and expense) -- i.e., what they think the public will accept and consume. As one television executive said, "Make no mistake about it, our programming is just to keep people in their seats long enough to see the advertising."

For all involved, film and television is a feast-or-famine industry. We horde during the few months we can get work, and squirrel away for the times when we are not hired. Any boo-hoo dismission otherwise betrays an attitude that, say, art and sports are a privilege and not work. In truth, these fields of endeavor are an integral part of our society, and a meaningful contribution to our culture.

As consumers, if we really feel that writers, musicians, sports players -- whomever -- are making too much money, we can refuse to buy the pricey stadium tickets, DVDs, and so on. By default, that will drive down their cut in any profit-sharing.

Alex, back-end deals don't work, because the studio will never admit to a profit. (That may be hyperbole, but you get the point.) Upfront compensation and residuals are the key to fair payment. This is just like a book author who gets upfront compensation for his/her manuscript and residuals for every copy sold -- even though, as you pointed out, the publisher is taking the financial risk on manufacturing, distributing and marketing the book.

I can't speak for the inanity of other unions, but the writers guild's negotiating points are pretty straightforward. If a show or movie makes money over the lifetime of its use -- in some cases, MILLIONS of dollars in syndication, ad revenue, DVD sales, etc. -- surely the people whose story/performance it was deserve some (relatively small) fraction of that income?

Just because the economics support large profit-sharing, this is fundamentally a worker's rights issue. Given the market, it is about what is equitable. It's like getting angry at baseball players for striking to make more money, when: (a) the franchise owners are making obscene amounts of money off their talent; and (b) there would be no game, in the first place, without the talent. Maybe baseball players and writers are supposed to be more pristine in their motivations and obsequious in their requests -- for being able to earn a living, at all, doing what they do. But, really, executives are the ones who should be grateful. Like parasites and pimps, they are living fat off the sweat, blood and tears of others.

Without an organized labor force, there would be no leverage to seek fair compensation, humane working conditions, and health/retirement benefits.