This blogger discovered that if you remove the thought bubbles from above Garfield’s head, Jon becomes a lonely, semi-deranged man who talks to cats.
In other words, the comic strip becomes bleak, existential, and twice as funny.
Inquiring Minds Already Know
The AMA has discovered that women are more likely to engage in heavier-than-usual drinking and have sex during spring break.
Setting aside the health and moral implications, does anyone really need a study to determine this fact?
New Weird Animal Discovered
This seems to be happening a lot lately.
This newest animal, pictured here, was recently discovered in the waters 900 miles south of the Easter Islands. It’s a crustacean, but it’s so unique that scientists created a whole new family and genus for it. They named it Kiwa hirsuta. It is blind, it is the size of a salad plate, and it has magical powers.
Okay, maybe not magical powers, but it is blind. And freaky-deaky.
Full story here.
Okay, So Say Abortion Is Illegal…
. . . what sort of punishment should be given to women who have illegal abortions?
This question was put to anti-abortion protesters recently. Amazingly, they are totally stumped. Watch the video. It’s pretty astounding how well-intentioned and earnest people can be reduced to an uncomfortable mass of stupified bumblefucks when politely asked to explain the logical extension of the very cause they’re advocating.
It seems to me that if God is calling you to protest abortions, and you advocate its illegality, then you better be prepared to explain how the law will be enforced. Otherwise, you’re just a hollow shell of an advocate.
The Solomon Amendment Case
Sadly, I simply won’t have time to do a timely, intelligent post on the Court’s unanimous decision yesterday on the Solomon Amendment.
So, as a cheap cop-out, I beg, borrow, and steal from Blogometer for a round-up of what other people are saying:
The SCOTUS ruled unanimously 3/6 in support the Solomon Amendment, requiring Yale law and other schools to allow ROTC on-campus or lose federal funding. Yale argued that Solomon prevented them from exercising their freedom of speech — many schools object to the ban on gays serving in the military — but the SCOTUS did not agree with that interpretation. SCOTUSblog goes in-depth: "Today’s decision is much more in keeping with PruneYard (which it favorably cites) than with PG&E and Dale. Together with Johans, it shows that the Court is cutting back on some of the excesses of its compelled-speech doctrine."
Univ. WI-Madison law prof Ann Althouse is quite impressed: "I want to express my deepest thanks to Chief Justice [John] Roberts for gathering the Justices onto one clearly written opinion. There is no blather or hedging in the prose. He has obviously taken great pains to put every sentence in plain English. He deals with all the precedents, handling most of the cases in one or two crisp sentences. You may not appreciate how beautiful this thinking and writing is, but I do, and I think generations of law students will."
Left-leaning Publius of Legal Fiction generally agrees with Roberts (and Althouse), but dislikes the part where Roberts wrote: "Congress’ power to regulate military recruiting under the Solomon Amendment is arguably greater because universities are free to decline the federal funds." Publius comments: "The idea is that attaching conditions to federal spending is less coercive than directly requiring people to act in a certain way. While I agree that this practice might be less coercive, it’s still coercive."
WSJ online columnist James Taranto: "Will any institution of higher education respond to the Rumsfeld ruling by declining to accept federal funds? The answer to that question will show us all how much those principles are worth."
Self-described gay conservative Andrew Sullivan agrees with the decision itself, but adds: "On the substantive matter, I appreciate the efforts of many in universities to highlight and expose the stupidity and bigotry of the military’s ban on openly gay service members. But we are at war, and the gap between military and elite culture needs bridging, not widening. Let them recruit; and let others debate. And, for Pete’s sake, let’s change this dumb policy."
Liberal Mustang Bobby concurs: "Aside from the shameful nature of this policy on its face, it has also hampered our actual war efforts. It makes you wonder what’s more important to the Department of Defense: defending our nation or making a bunch of right-wing homophobes happy."
To that, I add the comments by Dale Carpenter and Kevin Drum, the latter of whom write:
Prof. Bainbridge explains that the key issue is the "unconstitutional conditions doctrine," which means that a law denying funding unless you do X is constitutional if Congress could just mandate X in the first place. That makes sense to me, although I’m a little surprised to learn that Congress could indeed have simply mandated access to military recruiters if it wanted to. Under that doctrine, could newspapers be required to accept advertising for military recruitment even if they didn’t want to?
But that’s not what I’m really curious about. What I’m curious about is this: if Congress could have simply forced universities to provide access to military recruiters, why didn’t they do it? Why bother with all the federal funding cutoff folderol? Seems pretty inefficient, no?
As for myself, I disappointed at the outcome, as well as the unanimity of it. I would like to read the opinion to see if it holds water for me, but time prevents me from doing so.
South Dakota Abortion
Blogging has been light because things are busy, but I wanted to interject my two cents on the South Dakota law.
For those living in a cave, the governor of South Dakota has signed into a law which would effectively prohibit all abortions in the state, including abortions which are necessary to protect the health of the mother. There is no exception for mothers who got pregnant by rape or incest.
There’s plenty to find objectionable about such a law, which is why The Rude Pundit offers this rude solution:
Here’s what we do: the age of consent in South Dakota is 16 years old, so this’ll be easy. We gotta get a bunch of the smoothest black motherfuckers around, sweet-talkin’, hot lookin’ African American males, we’re talkin’ some Terence Howard or Andre 3000 or Taye Diggs-lookin’ and actin’ dudes, and get ’em on board for a mission to South Dakota, where the past-the-age-of-consent (which is, by the way, 16) white pussies are tight and virginal and ready for fuckin’.
…Fuckin’. Lots of fuckin’. All consensual. All without drugs or alcohol. All above 16. Just pure, passionate, oh, shit, ain’t this fun, fuckin’. The cherry poppin’ noises’ll make it sound like New Year’s Eve. Those upstandin’ Christian white girls’ll be shoutin’ their "Hallelujahs" and "Amens" and really know what those words mean.
…Over the next few weeks, months even, as periods are missed and crocodile tears are shed (for, indeed, there will be few real regrets), you can pretty much bet that abortion on demand will become the law of the land in South Dakota so fast that it’ll seem that yesterday never happened.
Well, yes, that’s one way, I suppose.
But my idea is much better (and less rude): Let the law — and the other similar draconian anti-abortion laws now being enacted across the country — work their way through the courts. And eventually lose.
Look, let’s be honest about the South Dakota law. The legislators of SD wrote it knowing full well that it violated the holding of Roe v. Wade. Their obvious hope is that the new Roberts Court — with the addition of Alito — will overturn Roe.
The problem with their thinking is this: the Court needs a legal justification to overturn Roe. Let me stress that: the Court needs a legal justification. It’s not enough for the Court to say, "Well, we think that Roe was wrong." They will have to explain why Roe was clearly wrong.
Again, merely disagreeing with Roe is not enough. Courts will only overturn their precedent if their prior decision was WRONG. Demonstrably.
Worse than that, they will need to explain why Casey was wrong. Casey was the case in 1992 which upheld Roe. Casey talked about the importance of precedent and stare decisis, and how you need some strong and tangible reason for overturning precedent.
So . . . for South Dakota to win, they would need to convince the Roberts Court of two things: (1) the reasoning of Roe was wrong (i.e., the Court’s reasoning about abortion was incorrect); and (2) the reasoning behind Casey was wrong (i.e., the Court’s reasoning about precedent was incorrect).
That is an unbelievably high hurdle.
You see, more than anything else — and certainly more than any hot-button issue of the day — the Court is most concerned with the legitimacy of itself. If the Court effectively reverses itself for no other reason than the fact that different people are wearing the robes, then the Court stops being a legal institution, and admits that it is a political institution. And while many laymen think the Court acts politically, do you think the Court will openly admit it? Of course not.
The arguments for and against abortion are no different than they were in 1973, when Roe was decided. They are no different than they were in 1992, when Casey was decided. South Dakota is running up against "super-precedent" and coming to the Supreme Court armed only with the hope that the Court’s composition will make all the difference. But that’s not a legal argument around which the Court can write an opinion.
And I hasten to add that five of the nine present justices were on the Court back when Casey was adjudicated, and came down in favor of upholding Roe.
The result? South Dakota loses. And for a third time in 33 years, abortion rights gets the nod from the highest bench. It becomes (for lack of a better legal term) "double super-duper precedent".
So I think pro-choice advocates should welcome the South Dakota law. The timing couldn’t be better. Here’s how it plays out — in the next few weeks, a federal district court, bound by Roe and Casey, rules that the South Dakota law is unconstitutional. So nothing changes in the real world from the way it was a year ago. The case goes up the chain of federal courts, where it finally reaches a reluctant Supreme Court in a couple of years. It loses. And the whole thing goes away for a while (at least as far as legal chellenges are concerned).
UPDATE: By the way, as Think Progress points out, the South Dakota law is not only offensive, but weird. While it prohbits abortions in the case of rape, there is a small exception: a rape victim can have an abortion if she’s not certain that she was made pregnant by the rape. This makes absolutely no sense. If you take the position that the fetus is a life entitled to protection, what difference does it make whether or not the mother knows she is pregnant? The provision flies in the face of the anti-choice argument that the state of mind of the mother (i.e., her choice) is relevant.
Digby pointed out another weirdness about the SD law. State Rep. Bill Napoli (R) said on PBS Newshour that exceptions can be made for rape or incest under the provision that protects the mother’s life (but, I repeat, there is no protection for the mother’s health). Napoli gave one such scenario:
A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.
See how that works? If you are a virtuous woman, then the life exception applies, because a pregnancy which threatens your physical or psychological health threatens your life. But (and this is the catch), that only works if you are a virgin. Sinful women who have had sex, according to the Napoli reasoning, might have psychological or physical health problems, but because of their sluttiness, their actual life is not endangered.
Go figure that out, because I sure as hell can’t.
Hindrocket On The Oscars
After writing that he only caught 20% of the Oscars, Powerline boy John Hindrockt writes:
I did, however, happen to catch George Clooney’s little oration on what a fine thing it is that Hollywood is out of touch with America. This, he said, is because Hollywood is so noble; he harkened back to the era when Hollywood was cranking out pro-civil rights movies before America was ready for them. Only, no such thing happened.
Damn right no such thing happened. Clooney harkened back to when the Academy gave an Oscar to Hattie McDaniel for "Gone With The Wind", during a time when blacks were segregated in the theater. Clooney said nothing about hollywood "cranking out pro-civil rights movies".
Once again, John Hindrocket shows how truth-challenged he is.
And here’s what Clooney actually said:
"I would say that we’re a little bit out of touch in Hollywood every once in a while. It’s probably a good thing. We’re the ones who talked about AIDS when it was just being whispered, and we talked about civil rights when it wasn’t really popular. This academy, this group of people, gave Hattie McDaniel an Oscar (best supporting actress, Gone With the Wind) in 1939 when blacks were still sitting in the backs of theaters.
"I’m proud to be a part of this academy. I’m proud to be a part of this community. I’m proud to be out of touch."
Debbie’s Diatribe About Diatribes
We haven’t heard of Debbie Daniel over at Renew America, but she obviously has a bee in her bonnet:
Why don’t we just line folks up and shoot them?
Of all the wingnut opening lines, this is the most genuinely honest. Thank you Debbie.
It would probably be more humane than the way we "kill and bury" in today’s society. Our freedom of speech has allowed us to be bona fide assassins of a person’s character, reputation and career.
And which would you prefer — someone attacking your character, or someone lining you up against the wall and putting a bullet in your head? Debbie thinks the latter is more honest and humane.
Noted.
If a person decides to inflict pain on someone, it’s through the murderous method otherwise known as "freedom of speech."
First "abortion = murder", and now "free speech = murder"? Isn’t there anything not murder these days?
It’s a slow death of venomous words and anyone who says "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" has merely persevered to act brave while dying on the inside.
"Why can’t we all just get along?"
No, we don’t push people off buildings with their hands and legs bound — only to have nearly every bone in their body broken and crushed — we prefer the slow agonizing death of ruining their lives, breaking their hearts and crushing their will with the use of destructive words that are sure to kill anyone’s spirit.
I wonder if the torturers down at Gitmo have realized that it hurts more to use words than to bind people’s hands and legs.
When did Americans start acting like this? When did we decide the best way to kill is to break another’s will?
Ah, man. I didn’t know there was going to be a test on this stuff!
To some we say, "I can’t find the words to tell you how much I love and appreciate you," but to those we despise, we can find the exact words necessary to rip a heart, destroy a life, and leave it bleeding along life’s way.
Debbie’s death fixation is beginning to trouble me.
We can throw a punch with words that’s equal to a stab in the heart.
I think I see a Tom Cruise movie in this: "War of the Words"
I don’t have a problem with freedom of speech, but I believe adults have abused this privilege; they are the worst stewards of this freedom.
Funny. That argument doesn’t work with the Second Amendment.
They will send kids to their rooms for "talking" ugly to one another — calling it "time-out."
You lost us, Deb. One minute you’re mad at people who talk ugly to each other, and the next minute you’re mad at parents who send children to their rooms for talking ugly to each other. Make up your mind.
Teachers will even separate children on the playground until they can learn to get along and say, "I’m sorry," and then the young ones must assure the teacher they can play together and "be nice."
What a farce!
Just like Noises Off or Fawlty Towers!
Why do we expect so much from our children when we, the adults, can’t get along at all?
So the solution is to let children be big assholes like the rest of us, I guess.
I have concerns with freedom of speech in that we don’t seem to know how to get our point across without denigrating the other person. It’s no longer civil discourse — it’s senseless slime. We educate our children with it and then wonder what happened to our youth.
Well, the "time out" idea is a pretty good way to educate our children that civil discourse is a good thing, but you’ve already shot down that idea. Got any others?
Anyway, having read this far, we wondered what prompts Deb to be outraged. We wonder….
While I loathe this common practice of "freedom to persecute," I am at the same time amazed at how George Bush maintains in the midst of some of the most poisonous words I’ve ever heard assigned to any man, much less a president of the United States.
Oh, we see now. She’s mad because people are critical of the President.
But make no mistake, he will go down in history as one of the most outstanding presidents who ever lived — mark my words.
And why will he go down in history as one of the most outstanding presidents? I recall someone wrote about George: "Buffoon or idiot, he makes things happen." Who was that? Oh, yes, Debbie. It was you.
No, George Bush is not perfect — nor will any president ever be — but to lay him on the chopping block to be sliced, diced, and pureed for political pleasure is the surest sign of a country gone mad.
Shorter Debbie: criticism of the buffoon/idiot President means that you are insane.
We have no hope for a future if we continue at this pace. Our children are watching and we don’t care.
Will somebody think of the children?!?
We’ve developed a vulture behavior and are obsessed with this gift of stab and jab . . . pick him apart while he’s still alive and death will soon ensue.
I really don’t think Bush is on death’s door. That assumes he even listens to criticism and takes it to heart. He’s shown no sign of doing either.
And it doesn’t stop there. It seems that former presidents have just nixed the "brotherhood" code of ethics when it comes to scorning a sitting president. It’s the "me" mentality that prevails — forget manners, forget respect and forget the children.
Oh, my GOD! The Children!!! Please – for the sake of innocent children who already have to endure getting "time outs" – please please please stop saying bad things about George Bush.
Under the guise of teaching geography, a teacher in Aurora, Colorado stood up in the classroom recently and equated George Bush to Adolf Hitler. We pay dearly into a system that financially supports that teacher and allows him to make those comments freely. But let a child offer a prayer to God and we shut him down. Isn’t this a proud moment for America?
And the teacher was suspended. When a child is suspended for praying to God in school, then you have something to complain about.
Being respectful and showing any semblance of manners is an art of the past.
Like Michelangelo’s David.
We don’t even think like respectable people any more. We’ve lost our finesse, our culture and our dignity toward one another. We’ve become no better than street thugs.
What do you mean "we", kimosabe?
While I may be enraged that a former president of peanut popularity seems to delight in taking potshots at a sitting president — most recently comparing his faith to that of George Bush’s — saying, "The essence of my faith is one of peace . . . we worship the prince of peace, not of pre-emptive war," I’m once again convinced and reminded that it’s best to let a person like that just hang himself . . . we don’t need to do it for him.
And that’s why you’ve decided to stay mute on the subject?
And by the way, by refering to Jimmy Carter as "a former president of peanut popularity", aren’t you taking a "potshot"?
I’m definitely not against our freedom of speech, but it’s just like an airplane — if it’s in the hands of the wrong people, it can do great damage.
"9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11 . . . "
Brief Oscar Thoughts
(1) I realize I’m no producer/director, but it seems to me that if you want a show to end on time, you don’t fill it up with pointless montages. There should only be TWO montages: (1) the recently-dead actors montage; and (2) the Honorary Oscar award winner montage
(2) I found the musical underscoring of the acceptance speeches to be distracting and contrived. And annoying.
(3) Jon Stewart was fine. It wasn’t really his mileu. At some point, it doesn’t make any difference who hosts — you just want the thing to MOVE ALONG, and Jon — while being funny — didn’t showboat and get in the way.
(4) I was a little off with my predictions this year. I got 16 right, and 8 wrong. But I get bonus points for predicting that Richard Pryor would be the last one in the "In Memoriam" montage.
(5) I was a little surprised that Paul Giamatti didn’t win, and like everybody else, VERY surprised about "Crash" taking Best Picture. I thought "Brokeback Mountain" was overrated, but I still wish it had won — if only because I would have enjoyed making fun of all the moral wingnuts going ballistic about the decline of America blah blah blah.
(6) Along those lines (and despite my boredom with montages), it was nice of the Academy to remind the moral wingnuts to show (via montage) that Hollywood has always been at the forefront of social issues and spotlighting injustices.
(7) I watched it with a friend. We came up with a game – "Strip Oscars". It would have made the whole Oscars experience more interesting, but sadly, we didn’t actually play it; we just came up with it. Perhaps next year.
2006 Oscar Picks
[NOTE: This post will stay "promoted" at the top for a few days. Scroll down for other posts. And check out (if it’s working) the Brokeback Mountain/Lost mashup movie trailer in the right column, which will also remain for a few days]
These are my Oscar picks. The nominee in red is who I think will win. The underlined nominees (if any) are my sentimental favorite or favorites.
| Performance by an actor in a leading role | |
| Philip Seymour Hoffman in “Capote” | |
| Terrence Howard in “Hustle & Flow” | |
| Heath Ledger in “Brokeback Mountain” | |
| Joaquin Phoenix in “Walk the Line” | |
| David Strathairn in “Good Night, and Good Luck.” | |
| Performance by an actor in a supporting role | |
| George Clooney in “Syriana” | |
| Matt Dillon in “Crash” | |
| Paul Giamatti in “Cinderella Man” | |
| Jake Gyllenhaal in “Brokeback Mountain” | |
| William Hurt in “A History of Violence” | |
| Performance by an actress in a leading role | |
| Judi Dench in “Mrs. Henderson Presents” | |
| Felicity Huffman in “Transamerica” | |
| Keira Knightley in “Pride & Prejudice” | |
| Charlize Theron in “North Country” | |
| Reese Witherspoon in “Walk the Line” | |
| Performance by an actress in a supporting role | |
| Amy Adams in “Junebug” | |
| Catherine Keener in “Capote” | |
| Frances McDormand in “North Country” | |
| Rachel Weisz in “The Constant Gardener” | |
| Michelle Williams in “Brokeback Mountain” | |
| Best animated feature film of the year | |
| “Howl’s Moving Castle” – Hayao Miyazaki | |
| “Tim Burton’s Corpse Bride” – Mike Johnson and Tim Burton | |
| “Wallace & Gromit in the Curse of the Were-Rabbit” – Nick Park and Steve Box | |
| Achievement in art direction | |
| “Good Night, and Good Luck.”- Art Direction: Jim Bissell; Set Decoration: Jan Pascale | |
| “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” – Art Direction: Stuart Craig; Set Decoration: Stephenie McMillan | |
| “King Kong” – Art Direction: Grant Major; Set Decoration: Dan Hennah and Simon Bright | |
| “Memoirs of a Geisha” – Art Direction: John Myhre; Set Decoration: Gretchen Rau | |
| “Pride & Prejudice” – Art Direction: Sarah Greenwood; Set Decoration: Katie Spencer | |
| Achievement in cinematography | |
| “Batman Begins” – Wally Pfister | |
| “Brokeback Mountain” – Rodrigo Prieto | |
| “Good Night, and Good Luck.” – Robert Elswit | |
| “Memoirs of a Geisha” – Dion Beebe | |
| “The New World” – Emmanuel Lubezki | |
| Achievement in costume design | |
| “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” – Gabriella Pescucci | |
| “Memoirs of a Geisha” – Colleen Atwood | |
| “Mrs. Henderson Presents” – Sandy Powell | |
| “Pride & Prejudice” – Jacqueline Durran | |
| “Walk the Line” – Arianne Phillips | |
| Achievement in directing | |
| “Brokeback Mountain” – Ang Lee | |
| “Capote” – Bennett Miller | |
| “Crash” – Paul Haggis | |
| “Good Night, and Good Luck.” – George Clooney | |
| “Munich” – Steven Spielberg | |
| Best documentary feature | |
| “Darwin’s Nightmare” — Hubert Sauper | |
| “Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room” — Alex Gibney and Jason Kliot | |
| “March of the Penguins” — Luc Jacquet and Yves Darondeau | |
| “Murderball” — Henry-Alex Rubin and Dana Adam Shapiro | |
| “Street Fight” — Marshall Curry | |
| Best documentary short subject | |
| “The Death of Kevin Carter: Casualty of the Bang Bang Club” – Dan Krauss | |
| “God Sleeps in Rwanda” -Kimberlee Acquaro and Stacy Sherman | |
| “The Mushroom Club” – Steven Okazaki | |
| “A Note of Triumph: The Golden Age of Norman Corwin” – Corinne Marrinan and Eric Simonson | |
| Achievement in film editing | |
| “Cinderella Man” – Mike Hill and Dan Hanley | |
| “The Constant Gardener” – Claire Simpson | |
| “Crash” – Hughes Winborne | |
| “Munich” – Michael Kahn | |
| “Walk the Line” – Michael McCusker | |
| Best foreign language film of the year | |
| “Don’t Tell” – Italy | |
| “Joyeux Noël” – France | |
| “Paradise Now” – Palestine | |
| “Sophie Scholl – The Final Days” – Germany | |
| “Tsotsi” – South Africa | |
| Achievement in makeup | |
| “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” – Howard Berger and Tami Lane | |
| “Cinderella Man” – David Leroy Anderson and Lance Anderson | |
| “Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith” – Dave Elsey and Nikki Gooley | |
| Achievement in music written for motion pictures (Original score) | |
| “Brokeback Mountain” – Gustavo Santaolalla | |
| “The Constant Gardener” – Alberto Iglesias | |
| “Memoirs of a Geisha” – John Williams | |
| “Munich” – John Williams | |
| “Pride & Prejudice” – Dario Marianelli | |
| Achievement in music written for motion pictures (Original song) | |
| “In the Deep” from “Crash” – Music by Kathleen “Bird” York and Michael Becker; Lyric by Kathleen “Bird” York | |
| “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp” from“Hustle & Flow” – Music and Lyric by Jordan Houston, Cedric Coleman and Paul Beauregard | |
| “Travelin’ Thru” from “Transamerica”- Music and Lyric by Dolly Parton | |
| Best motion picture of the year | |
| “Brokeback Mountain” | |
| “Capote” | |
| “Crash” | |
| “Good Night, and Good Luck.” | |
| “Munich” | |
| Best animated short film | |
| “Badgered” – Sharon Colman | |
| “The Moon and the Son: An Imagined Conversation” – John Canemaker and Peggy Stern | |
| “The Mysterious Geographic Explorations of Jasper Morello” – Anthony Lucas | |
| “9” – Shane Acker | |
| “One Man Band” – Andrew Jimenez and Mark Andrews | |
| Best live action short film | |
| “Ausreisser (The Runaway)” – Ulrike Grote | |
| “Cashback”- Sean Ellis and Lene Bausager | |
| “The Last Farm” – Rúnar Rúnarsson and Thor S. Sigurjónsson | |
| “Our Time Is Up” – Rob Pearlstein and Pia Clemente | |
| “Six Shooter” – Martin McDonagh | |
| Achievement in sound editing | |
| “King Kong” – Mike Hopkins and Ethan Van der Ryn | |
| “Memoirs of a Geisha” – Wylie Stateman | |
| “War of the Worlds” – Richard King | |
| Achievement in sound mixing | |
| “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” – Terry Porter, Dean A. Zupancic and Tony Johnson | |
| “King Kong” – Christopher Boyes, Michael Semanick, Michael Hedges and Hammond Peek | |
| “Memoirs of a Geisha” – Kevin O’Connell, Greg P. Russell, Rick Kline and John Pritchett | |
| “Walk the Line” – Paul Massey, D.M. Hemphill and Peter F. Kurland | |
| “War of the Worlds” – Andy Nelson, Anna Behlmer and Ronald Judkins | |
| Achievement in visual effects | |
| “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” – Dean Wright, Bill Westenhofer, Jim Berney and Scott Farrar | |
| “King Kong” – Joe Letteri, Brian Van’t Hul, Christian Rivers and Richard Taylor | |
| “War of the Worlds” – Dennis Muren, Pablo Helman, Randal M. Dutra and Daniel Sudick | |
| Adapted screenplay | |
| “Brokeback Mountain” – Screenplay by Larry McMurtry & Diana Ossana | |
| “Capote” – Screenplay by Dan Futterman | |
| “The Constant Gardener” – Screenplay by Jeffrey Caine | |
| “A History of Violence” – Screenplay by Josh Olson | |
| “Munich” – Screenplay by Tony Kushner and Eric Roth | |
| Original screenplay | |
| “Crash” – Screenplay by Paul Haggis & Bobby Moresco; Story by Paul Haggis | |
| “Good Night, and Good Luck.” – Screenplay by George Clooney & Grant Heslov | |
| “Match Point” – Written by Woody Allen | |
| “The Squid and the Whale” – Written by Noah Baumbach | |
| “Syriana” – Written by Stephen Gaghan | |
Other predictions:
Biggest applause getter in the "In Memoriam" montage – Shelley Winters [SIDEBAR: Jack Wild, who played the Artful Dodger in "Oliver" as well as Jimmy in H&R Puffenstuff died yesterday]
Last person to appear in the "In Memoriam" montage – Richard Pryor
Ending time: 6 minutes late
Worst fashion: Christina Ricci
Funniest presenter: Will Farrell
Terrorist Strike At UNC? Doubt It
A UNC graduate, with degrees in psychology and philosophy (making the Dean’s List last year) careened his silver Jeep Grand Cherokee through the Pit today about noon, striking nine pedestrians and sending six to UNC Hospitals.
A sad story, but not national newsworthy, right?
Well, sure, but the graduate’s name is Mohammed Reza Taheriazar. So already, wingnuts like Michelle Malkin are turning into a terrorist attack, without knowing nothing more than the facts I’ve laid out.
The next time I read about a car accident in which the driver is Christian, I’m going to assume that its an attack my the next Eric Rudolph or Timothy McVeigh.
Hairspray: The Movie
John Travolta and Queen Latifah have been confirmed to star in the big-screen version of Hairspray to be directed by Adam Shankman (Bringing Down the House). Travolta will play the role made famous by Divine as Edna Turnblad. Latifah will play Motormouth Mabel. A current nationwide search is on for the lead role of Tracy Turnblad made famous by Ricki Lake. Production begins this Fall with a 2007 release. [New Line Cinema]
I think John Travolta as Edna Turnblad is interesting. It could be either (a) incredibly great or (b) his worse career move since "Battlefield Earth" (or whatever the hell it was called)
Missouri
There’s a bill going through the Missouri legislature that would name Christianity as the state’s official "majority" religion.
Obviously, such a law would be struck down as unconstitutional in a heartbeat. It violates the U.S. Constitution as well as the Missouri Constitution.
But it’s a little scary that this bill is even being considered.
Friday iPod Random Ten
- Dubuque Blues – The Association
- Blackwater – Doobie Brothers
- Schoolhouse Rock Medley – Brown Derbies
- The Want Of A Nail – Camp (movie soundtrack)
- Nights On Broadway – Bee Gees
- I Wish – Stevie Wonder
- Cruel Summer – Ace of Base (cover)
- Eight Miles High – The Byrds
- Love Me Do – The Beatles
- Breakfast in America – Supertramp
My iPod is feeling very 70’s today. Groovy.
Update On Your Planet
The Antarctic is losing 36 cubic miles of ice per year.
But there’s not global warming, right, wingnuts?