But doesn't everyone love Judi Dench because she plays M? I mean, isn't that by far her best known and longest-running role? Other than Queen Victoria in Mrs. Brown I can't actually think of another character I know her as. For better or worse, M is (or has been) Judi Dench for well over a decade now.

"But after watching the first two, and now suddenly he's already past his prime, I was like 'WAIT, when was he in his prime? I would've loved to see THAT movie!'

I'm more or less in agreement here. I liked that the stakes in Casino Royale were lower and the villain less grandiose.

"Is there a reason why all the new James Bond films don't call themselves James Bond or 007?"

I just saw the movie a couple of hours ago so my opinion isn't entirely formulated yet, but I have to agree with CJA's assessment that the film isn't quite as smart as it thinks it is.

Simpler, yes. Better? That's an open question and it depends entirely on what your aim is. If your aim is representing absolutely what the majority of the country feel, sure, popular vote is best. But I don't think that's what American democracy is about, which has always been more about broad support than deep…

"Candidates still spend most of their time in the big states trying to sway them. "

Really? What evidence do you speak of? I'd say evidence points (slightly) in the opposite direction. It looks like these are going to be sequels, not a reboot.

The fact that it's apparently based on an earlier treatment by Lucas and Lucas' earlier plans involved an older Luke "passing the torch" indicate it will take place sometime after the latest EU novels (but before Legacy).

Har de har. I have no doubt the CIA does illegal activities within the United States but they are ultimately working for the U.S. government, not against it.

I would have mentioned those but they're actually highly contentious among the fans.

"Any system where it's possible to win an election with 22% of the popular vote is inherently flawed and should be abolished."

"However, there seems to be the implication that if slavery and suffrage had not come about then white men would be republican, because it is in their nature to be pro-slavery and anti-suffrage if they weren't set straight."

But the fact of the matter is that the article's claims are accurate. Demographically, that is what the map would look like if (all other things being equal) only white people or only men were voting.

I don't get it.

If anything abolishing the Electoral College would make California and New York's power over the presidency even greater. The entire point of the Electoral College is to give power to the small states.

I think you're overreacting. I'm a white man too and I don't feel threatened by this.

How do we know? Statistics. Largely pre-election, post-election, and exit polling.

Fair enough, but my point is it wasn't an academic exercise in the concept. There wasn't any serious consideration of how political geography would be different, just a look at how demographics vote now.

I try not to take pleasure in the misery of others - even my enemies - but I have to admit that some of those are pretty funny. I'd almost be tempted to think some of their satirical except for the fact that I know some people really feel that way.