Hello…I’m a lying douche:
Who should win the Oscar for Best Picture? From my Orwellian, topsy-turvy, through-the-looking-glass perspective, that prize should logically be awarded to the best American movie of the year. Which any sentient, English-speaking person can tell you was Walk the Line. Want further proof of Walk The Line’s merit? It wasn’t even nominated for Best Picture this year. Sadly, the Cash biopic was passed over by the Academy because it shamelessly pandered to a narrow, little-understood fringe segment of the population: white, native-born heterosexual folks not seeking gender-reassignment surgery. And really, why throw that fringe population a bone?
Notice the use of “American.” Sigh…
It is an abject lie that WTL has been stiffed by liberal-elite Hollywood: it is the only film this year to earn oscar nominations for both Best Actor and Best Actress (and Witherspoon will almost certainly win), and it has already won numerous other awards, including Gold Globes for Best Film, Actor, and Actress in a Musical or Comedy. And it deserved them, too.
Of course, Hollywood hates America, which is why it never makes, nor rewards films that might appeal to Heartland values. How silly of me.
Tom posted this at 9:56 PM EST on Saturday, March 4th, 2006 as Uncategorized
3 Comments »
Jamie,you accept that we are winning the war. Yet you quote Lee (in a manner implying you agree with it wholeheartedly) saying:
Well, we didn’t do it right, and it’s damn near gotten to the point where I’m really beginning to question whether it was worth it.
So it follows that you question whether the war is worth it not because we’re losing, but because you think we should be, er, extra winning. I think this sort of approach to a war is seriously ill-considered. Read the rest of this entry »
Apollo posted this at 9:06 PM EST on Saturday, March 4th, 2006 as Iraq
No Comments »
Neat etymological post. (Hat tip, Father Tucker.)
Hubbard posted this at 8:25 PM EST on Saturday, March 4th, 2006 as Politics and the English Language
No Comments »
Apollo wrote:
That’s war: ill-conceived, hamfisted, ineptly managed. War is, in a word, “Hell.” Wars are almost never won or lost by upper management (i.e. the president), but instead by the efficiency of the armies involved. To the extent that it’s managed, you’re always dealing with scarce resources, always under attack, and have limited intelligence. To anybody who supported the war before the invasion but who opposes it now because of “incompetence,” I have no better word for you than “fool.” Perhaps “sucker” would be kinder, but I am not in a kind mood. If you support a war, then you must support that war, not support some theoretical war managed by omniscient angels. It’s sad that the therapeutic view has so overtaken even those on the right that this sort of criticism passes for intelligent.
And is seconded by Dorothy:
It’s silly to think about whether a war is being “implemented” well or not. Let’s just have the patience to see this war through and the certainty that we’re doing the right thing.
Sophistry, my dear Morgans. Sophistry.
Notice that once you accept this logic, it is impossible to come to any conclusion other than Apollo or Dorothy’s. Any criticism of the war effort is immediately dismissed as weepy, pie-in-the-sky, liberal wishfullness. It doesn’t matter that the criticism might actually be substantive, afford that mistakes happen, and acknowledge that there’s someone fighting against us. It doesn’t even matter that such criticism might hinge on the fact that the Bush Administration doesn’t always apply these truisms. Nope. “War is Hell, that’s that, quit your whining.” Save it for somebody else.
Your comments also reflect a consistent failing of President Bush’s since his reelection: the inability to fathom that someone might disagree with him, while still being on his side. In fairness, Bush has had to put-up with an almost unbelievable amount of ill-will from opponents who criticize him no matter what he does; they do not like him, his money, his manners, his privilege, his accent, or his faith, and therefore, do not like him. I understand and I sympathize. But in the past year and a half, the administration has defended itself from every criticism by attacking the motivations of the critics. Don’t think Harriet Miers is the best choice for Supreme Court Justice? You’re a sexist. Don’t think warrantless wiretapping of American citizens is a great idea? You want the terrorists to win. Think the war has been fought perfectly? You’re not serious about it. Again, save it for somebody else.
Tom posted this at 7:38 PM EST on Saturday, March 4th, 2006 as Brave New Worlds, George Bush Sucks!, Iraq
No Comments »
Would you mind if I blogged about this?
“Go ahead,” said my dinner companion. “Just keep it fuzzy, who I am. Give me some nickname.”
Crazy Mandy and I were having dinner at Mimi’s, where the servers sing. The food is good enough to stand on its own, but it doesn’t have to: the singers are wonderful. Our server, Kiyaana Cox, is having a one woman show there next Friday (11:00 p.m. on 03/10/06–the $10 ticket covers a drink). During a charming evening–which leavened a much more serious conversation–Kiyaana sang “Summertime” from Porgy and Bess and did a very good job with it, so by all means go if you can; you might see Crazy Mandy and me. Read the rest of this entry »
Hubbard posted this at 10:26 AM EST on Saturday, March 4th, 2006 as Vignettes
No Comments »