It is extremely frustrating to think that after winning a huge election victory in November, Barack Obama could be denied the economic stimulus package that he and all the top economists agree is desperately needed to pull the nation’s economy out of its nosedive.
Democrats have a 58-seat majority in the Senate (59 with Al Franken) and could easily pass the stimulus package on an up-or-down vote. But because Republicans have chosen to filibuster the bill, it teeters on the brink of defeat due to the wavering of a small handful of “centrist” Republicans and a couple of Democrats.
The remarkable thing is that the vast majority of Republicans are committed to blocking the stimulus package even as everyday brings more bad news about the deteriorating economic situation.
Obama may be president right now, but until this legislation is passed the country is STILL operating on Bush’s rules and Bushes economic prescriptions. If Republicans want to blame Obama for the economic problems, they need to get out of the way and let his plan go into effect. Then, if it doesn’t work, they will have a case to make next time elections roll around. All they have to do is stop filibustering and allow an up-or-down vote. But instead, they are clinging to the same economic policy prescriptions that have been in place for eight years and that are responsible for bringing us to this point in the first place.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Stupid Letters to the Editor
Sometimes I really hate the Letters section in the local paper. They allow people to publish things that are incredibly stupid, blatantly false and often malicious.
Today, for instance, we have this gem from frequent wingnut letter writer Bud Martinez:
Nevermind that we have been taking the "favorable tax breaks for business" option almost exclusively for the past eight years and look where it has gotten us. Let's just look at the last staement: The government doesn't create jobs. Got that?
OK, now go talk to any member of the U.S. Military, any company working off of government contracts, anyone working in the schools, the post offices, the court houses, the police stations the fire departments, the road crews, the hospitals caring for Medicare and Medicaid patients, all over this country and repeat that "government doesn't create jobs."
Why does the paper even publish letters like this? Maybe they need to print a warning at the top of the Letters section that says "Beware. Letters may contain statements that are stupid, idiotic, false and have no correlation to the truth and or reality."
Today, for instance, we have this gem from frequent wingnut letter writer Bud Martinez:
"Let's face it, the economy thrives because of private entrepreneurs, not government intervention. The government can create favorable conditions like favorable taxes for business, but government doesn't "create" jobs."
Nevermind that we have been taking the "favorable tax breaks for business" option almost exclusively for the past eight years and look where it has gotten us. Let's just look at the last staement: The government doesn't create jobs. Got that?
OK, now go talk to any member of the U.S. Military, any company working off of government contracts, anyone working in the schools, the post offices, the court houses, the police stations the fire departments, the road crews, the hospitals caring for Medicare and Medicaid patients, all over this country and repeat that "government doesn't create jobs."
Why does the paper even publish letters like this? Maybe they need to print a warning at the top of the Letters section that says "Beware. Letters may contain statements that are stupid, idiotic, false and have no correlation to the truth and or reality."
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Confirmation delays
Republicans have been throwing a huge hissy fit in Washington because Barack Obama actually appointed someone to be Secretary of Labor - Hilda Solis - who is (gasp!) PRO-LABOR! The nerve!!!
And now they have found some new ammunition to throw at her. It turns out that her husband had an outstanding tax lien of $6,000 on his business. A-ha! Failure to pay taxes derailed Tom Dashle’s nomination. So now they can do the same thing to Solis. Except, of course, that it is her husband’s business and not hers. But, whatever!
And next, Leon Panetta’s bid to be CIA Director will be held up after it is discovered that one of his second cousins twice-removed has an outstanding fine for an overdue library book.
And now they have found some new ammunition to throw at her. It turns out that her husband had an outstanding tax lien of $6,000 on his business. A-ha! Failure to pay taxes derailed Tom Dashle’s nomination. So now they can do the same thing to Solis. Except, of course, that it is her husband’s business and not hers. But, whatever!
And next, Leon Panetta’s bid to be CIA Director will be held up after it is discovered that one of his second cousins twice-removed has an outstanding fine for an overdue library book.
AP challenging Fair Use standard
I agree with Kos that this case is ridiculous.
On buttons, posters and Web sites, the image was everywhere during last year’s presidential campaign: A pensive Barack Obama looking upward, as if to the future, splashed in a Warholesque red, white and blue and underlined with the caption HOPE.
Designed by Shepard Fairey, a Los-Angeles based street artist, the image has led to sales of hundreds of thousands of posters and stickers, has become so much in demand that copies signed by Fairey have been purchased for thousands of dollars on eBay.
The image, Fairey has acknowledged, is based on an Associated Press photograph, taken in April 2006 by Manny Garcia on assignment for the AP at the National Press Club in Washington.
The AP says it owns the copyright, and wants credit and compensation. Fairey disagrees.
“The Associated Press has determined that the photograph used in the poster is an AP photo and that its use required permission,” the AP’s director of media relations, Paul Colford, said in a statement.
“AP safeguards its assets and looks at these events on a case-by-case basis. We have reached out to Mr. Fairey’s attorney and are in discussions. We hope for an amicable solution.”
“We believe fair use protects Shepard’s right to do what he did here,” says Fairey’s attorney, Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project at Stanford University and a lecturer at the Stanford Law School. “It wouldn’t be appropriate to comment beyond that at this time because we are in discussions about this with the AP.”
I don’t want to see the AP go under like Kos does, but I think they don’t have and grounds to make a claim in this case.
Republicans take cues from Taliban
Making the rounds this morning is this interesting quote
by U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas which compares the Republican Party to the Taliban.
This is especially ironic as Steve Benen notes because comparisons between the GOP and the Taliban have been made pretty consistently recently by frustrated Democrats, but now coming from the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee it has gained new credibility.
by U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas which compares the Republican Party to the Taliban.
“Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban,” Sessions said during a meeting with Hotline editors. “And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person’s entire processes.
“And these Taliban -- I’m not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that’s not what we’re saying. I’m saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with.”
This is especially ironic as Steve Benen notes because comparisons between the GOP and the Taliban have been made pretty consistently recently by frustrated Democrats, but now coming from the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee it has gained new credibility.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Stimulus Response
Andres Bocanegra at The San Antonio Conservative has a post up listing so-called wasteful spending in the Stimulus Bill that has been identified by Republicans. He adds his comments to each one in italics and I thought I would then add my responses in bold.
The list goes on and it gets a bit repetitive, but I think you get the idea. But as Steve Benen has noted, all the items that Republicans objected to come to just 2 percent of the overall stimulus bill.
So why are we holding up a bill that we are 98 percent in agreement on to squabble over 2 percent?
• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient. why restart a program we know is inefficient?
We know no such thing. We only know that the Republican administration, which was ideologically opposed to the program, pulled the plug. Democrats, who are now in charge at the Department of Energy, want to restore funding. But does it belong in the stimulus bill?
Well, $2 billion in government spending will create a log of jobs and business opportunities around the coal plant in Illinois.
One of the main reasons that we in San Antonio are not suffering as much as the rest of the country is the $2 billion in government spending associated with the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) out at Fort Sam Houston. That money, spread out over several years, is creating thousands of jobs and is providing a nice cushion for San Antonio during the economic downturn.
• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film. so the support from Hollywood helped out for them … I suppose
Tax breaks provide the least “bang for the buck” compared to direct government spending, and yet the stimulus bill is filled with tax cuts because they are also the quickest way to get money back into the economy. Lots and lots of tax breaks in the stimulus bill, many at the insistence of Republicans who are now opposed to the package at all cost. The Republicans have singled out “Hollywood” here because it is a favorite boogeyman of the far right. But the movie industry is a huge economic generator. Aside from the jobs it creates directly through the production and distribution of movies, think about the other industries that depend on Hollywood. If they stopped making movies and TV shows who would want to go out and buy all those flat-screen TVs and surround-sound systems?
• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.
Money well spent in my opinion. The initial coupon program proved to be very popular and ran out already. That means the money is being turned over very quickly and making its way back into the ecomomy which is exactly what the stimulus is trying to do.
• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship). this might be ok but this is just for the design … whats wrong with the icebreakers we have at this point?
Some company is going to get the contract to design that ship. Another will get the contract to build it. That means jobs, jobs and more jobs.
• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters. yeah this is a NO …
Constructing buildings is very clearly stimulus. It is infrastructure. Jobs, jobs, jobs.
• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters. seriously hit up a WalMart for furniture … but again NO
Wal-Mart does not make furniture. They are a re-seller. Why go through them just so they can take a cut? Some company out there that makes the furniture will get the contract and that means more jobs, etc.
•$600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees. how does this create jobs or help US automakers
How does it NOT help the auto industry? The government is going to BUY vehicles from the auto companies. This is the most clear example of stimulus for a distressed company that I’ve seen. Whoever put this list together doesn’t have a clue.
• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD’s. this doesnt stimulate the economy
I agree that this one is questionable. They would have to hire people to go out and provide the screening services and so that is clearly a boon for some medical supply and service companies. But it probably doesn’t belong in the stimulus bill.
• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.
• $125 million for the Washington sewer system. again how does this stimulate the economy?
By employing people who would build and maintain the waste disposal and sewer systems (i.e. infrastructure).
• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities. see above comment
The Smithsonian museum has been badly neglected during the Republican reign in Washington. There are cracked ceilings, water leaks and major structural problems that have forced the closure of some sections of the museum and has even resulted in damage to some of our nation’s most prized treasures. It is a disgrace. I don’t care if you want to call it stimulus or not. I say it is infrastructure that needs to be better cared for.
• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion. create more efficient census techniques
Fine. What are your ideas? The Census is a huge job that gets bigger and more complex every 10 years as the population continues to grow and diversify. Maybe it doesn’t belong in the stimulus bill, but it is money the government will need to spend anyway.
• $75 million for “smoking cessation activities.” no stimulation here …
When you convince people to stop smoking it saves millions down the road in health care costs. It is a worthy program assuming that it is effective, but probably shouldn’t be in the stimulus bill.
• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.
That means jobs for the companies that make and sell computers, jobs for the companies that install and maintain computers and jobs for the companies that build out the spaces where the computer centers will go. Plus it is a boon to education and can help people retrain to get better jobs and so on and so on...
• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI. no … this belongs in an budget appropriations bill not a stimulus package
I agree. Don’t know how that got in there. But in a $900 billion stimulus bill, we are essentially arguing about change found under the sofa cushions.
• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction. no stimulation here
See comment on smoking cessasion above.
• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.
• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.
• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into “green” buildings.
• $500 million for state and local fire stations.
Infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure. Any questions?
• $1.2 billion for “youth activities,” including youth summer job programs.
The key words here are “job programs.” Got that?
• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.
• $412 million for CDC buildings and property. how does this create jobs … oh yeah it doesn’t
By employing the people who do construction renovation work
• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland. I guess these are considered construction jobs?
Yes.
The list goes on and it gets a bit repetitive, but I think you get the idea. But as Steve Benen has noted, all the items that Republicans objected to come to just 2 percent of the overall stimulus bill.
So why are we holding up a bill that we are 98 percent in agreement on to squabble over 2 percent?
Welcome to the Neighborhood
A couple of new, local, political/opinion blogs have come online recently.
First, the Express-News Op-Ed page has a new blog called The Arena where the editorial board members such as Jonathan Gurwitz will post brief commentaries.
You have to register on the site in order to leave comments, which is a pain. And it also looks like they have it set so that comments have to be “approved” before they will appear, which is an even bigger pain. But hopefully they will get all the kinks worked out soon and it will become a fun site for debating the issues of the day.
Second, we have a new conservative blogger on the local scene looking to fill the void left by our AWOL friend Bill Crawford.
Andres Bocanegra is a political science student at the University of Texas at San Antonio who is deeply involved in the College Republicans and his blog is appropriately titled The San Antonio Conservative.
So a warm welcome to our new neighbors. I look forward to open, honest and invigorating debates.
First, the Express-News Op-Ed page has a new blog called The Arena where the editorial board members such as Jonathan Gurwitz will post brief commentaries.
You have to register on the site in order to leave comments, which is a pain. And it also looks like they have it set so that comments have to be “approved” before they will appear, which is an even bigger pain. But hopefully they will get all the kinks worked out soon and it will become a fun site for debating the issues of the day.
Second, we have a new conservative blogger on the local scene looking to fill the void left by our AWOL friend Bill Crawford.
Andres Bocanegra is a political science student at the University of Texas at San Antonio who is deeply involved in the College Republicans and his blog is appropriately titled The San Antonio Conservative.
So a warm welcome to our new neighbors. I look forward to open, honest and invigorating debates.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
E-N Op-Ed RIP (not quite)
I was about ready to write the obituary for the Express-News Opinion page. On Monday, they slashed the section down to one-page and then on Tuesday it was cut down again.
But then I finally found Bob Richter’s column explaining the change where he notes the cutback is only for two-days a week rather than six, as I had assumed. So we will still have some room in the Op-Ed section to run some columns and commentaries. I assume that means Jonathan Gurwitz will still have his Wednesday slot.
But Doonesbury has been shipped off to the comics pages next to Prickly City and - the best news of all - Mallard Fillmore has been canned. HAHAHA!!! WooHoo!!! YippEEEEEEE!!!
Ahem. Excuse the spontaneous celebration, but no comic was ever more deserving of getting pink-slipped than the obnoxious, horribly-drawn, frequently ass-backwards wrong, humorless garbage churned out everyday by Bruce Tinsley. Good riddance!
So anyway, I hope that one day they will add those pages back to the Opinion section, because I think it is a mistake to cut back on that section. And I hope they don’t chop any more pages out before Obama’s stimulus plan finally gets past all the Republican sniping, whining, pulling of hair and gnashing of teeth.
But then I finally found Bob Richter’s column explaining the change where he notes the cutback is only for two-days a week rather than six, as I had assumed. So we will still have some room in the Op-Ed section to run some columns and commentaries. I assume that means Jonathan Gurwitz will still have his Wednesday slot.
But Doonesbury has been shipped off to the comics pages next to Prickly City and - the best news of all - Mallard Fillmore has been canned. HAHAHA!!! WooHoo!!! YippEEEEEEE!!!
Ahem. Excuse the spontaneous celebration, but no comic was ever more deserving of getting pink-slipped than the obnoxious, horribly-drawn, frequently ass-backwards wrong, humorless garbage churned out everyday by Bruce Tinsley. Good riddance!
So anyway, I hope that one day they will add those pages back to the Opinion section, because I think it is a mistake to cut back on that section. And I hope they don’t chop any more pages out before Obama’s stimulus plan finally gets past all the Republican sniping, whining, pulling of hair and gnashing of teeth.
Power of the Pen
In a remarkable nod to the news media, Tom Daschletold NBC News today that he decided to drop his bid for HHS Secretary after reading this mornings editorial in the New York Times.
It was a good editorial, I have to admit. I hate to see Daschle go and I wish this could all have been washed away, but the reality in today’s political culture is that it would never have gone away and would have hung around like a cloud over the Obama administration from here on out.
It was a good editorial, I have to admit. I hate to see Daschle go and I wish this could all have been washed away, but the reality in today’s political culture is that it would never have gone away and would have hung around like a cloud over the Obama administration from here on out.
Academy to movie fans: Drop Dead
In the “I told them so” category comes this story in the NYTimes the other day about Academy Awards officials fretting that nobody will watch their big show later this month.
Oh, that’s nice. They will make some “bows to the crowd” after thumbing their noses at them for the fourth year in a row.
This isn’t a new phenomena, as I noted earlier, and it has already been having an impact on the Oscar ratings.
So how are the Academy bigwigs planning to draw in viewers after snubbing the top 20 box office winners?
By hyping up the one and only caveat they made to popular taste - the supporting actor nod for that dead guy in the Batman film.
I hope that makes all you lowly, movie-watching rabble happy because it’s the only scrap you are likely to get off of the Academy’s elitist, super-exclusive table this year.
Check it out:
It’s a show for THEM too, she says. Can’t you just FEEL the love?
The nominations of a still relatively little-seen crop of best-picture contenders — “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” “Frost/Nixon,” “Milk,” “The Reader” and “Slumdog Millionaire,” which together have accumulated less than half the box office of “The Dark Knight,” which was snubbed — are making it harder for producers of the Oscar ceremony to deliver on an earlier promise: to create a big night for the movies, even if some of the movies are not so big. Operatives of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences are quietly scrambling to assemble an event that would make some extraordinary bows in the direction of the crowd while trying to do right by the honorees.
Oh, that’s nice. They will make some “bows to the crowd” after thumbing their noses at them for the fourth year in a row.
This isn’t a new phenomena, as I noted earlier, and it has already been having an impact on the Oscar ratings.
After the American audience for last year’s Oscar show hit an all-time low of about 32 million viewers, ABC cut its rate for a 30-second ad on this year’s broadcast to $1.4 million from $1.7 million, according to Advertising Age.
So how are the Academy bigwigs planning to draw in viewers after snubbing the top 20 box office winners?
By hyping up the one and only caveat they made to popular taste - the supporting actor nod for that dead guy in the Batman film.
I hope that makes all you lowly, movie-watching rabble happy because it’s the only scrap you are likely to get off of the Academy’s elitist, super-exclusive table this year.
Check it out:
The message, on posters and Web sites and in televised ads, aims to tell people that this year’s show has something even for viewers who may not care much for the nominees.
Anyway, Ms. Weiss said in a recent telephone interview, the more pop-minded fans should find a glimmer of comfort in the supporting actor nominations that went to Heath Ledger, as the Joker in “The Dark Knight,” and Robert Downey Jr., for his blackface turn in “Tropic Thunder.”
“The Oscars,” she said, “is a show for them too.”
It’s a show for THEM too, she says. Can’t you just FEEL the love?
Monday, February 02, 2009
Supremely out of balance
The New York Times had a good article yesterday illustrating just how far to the right the Supreme Court is skewed today. A recent study shows that four of the five most conservative justices since 1937 are currently on the Court - No. 1 Clarence Thomas, No. 3 Antonin Scalia, No. 4. John Roberts Jr. and No. 5 Samuel Alito. Anthony Kennedy comes in at No. 10.
Meanwhile, when it comes to the top liberals on the Supreme Court since 1937, we currently have just one in the Top 10 - Ruth Bader Ginsburg at No. 9.
And when you consider that the people most likely to step down from the Supreme Court in the next few years - John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ginsberg - are all from the liberal wing, that means Obama won’t have much of a chance to correct that conservative imbalance unless he appoints someone who is very, very liberal.
And so that is just what Obama needs to do when the time comes. Appoint a liberal lion in the mold of Thurgood Marshall or William Brennan. Someone who will be as far to the left as Clarence Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito are to the right.
Don’t worry whether the person is “too liberal”. They need to be “too liberal” just to begin to bring back some semblance of balance to the Court.
Meanwhile, when it comes to the top liberals on the Supreme Court since 1937, we currently have just one in the Top 10 - Ruth Bader Ginsburg at No. 9.
And when you consider that the people most likely to step down from the Supreme Court in the next few years - John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ginsberg - are all from the liberal wing, that means Obama won’t have much of a chance to correct that conservative imbalance unless he appoints someone who is very, very liberal.
And so that is just what Obama needs to do when the time comes. Appoint a liberal lion in the mold of Thurgood Marshall or William Brennan. Someone who will be as far to the left as Clarence Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito are to the right.
Don’t worry whether the person is “too liberal”. They need to be “too liberal” just to begin to bring back some semblance of balance to the Court.
Odds and Ends
I only watched the last five minutes of the Super Bowl, but that was apparently all I needed to watch. The lead changed twice in the final minutes and had a very exciting finish. I didn’t really care who won, but watching it at the very end I was suddenly torn as both teams struggled for the advantage. From a political perspective, I suppose I’m glad that the Steelers won since they are from a Blue state and Obama was rooting for them, while the Cardinals are not only from a Red state, but John McCain’s home state to boot.
I recorded the halftime show so that I could go back and watch it later and I thought Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band were terrific. It was great to see that he was clearly NOT lip-synching and even changed the lyrics to some songs to suit the occasion.
I was disappointed this morning to see that Rudy Park is no longer on the comics page of the Express-News. And I guess I will have to wait until tomorrow, but it looks like their whole, lame “guest comic” thing will turn out to be for not as Rudy Park was replaced on the page by Doonesbury, which had been bumped from the suddenly shortened Op-Ed section.
I guess I’ll have to wait and see if this one-page editorial thing was just for today or if it is a permanent cost-cutting measure. Is it just for Mondays? Or will it be like this all week except for Sundays? That is a real shame. My two favorite sections of the paper are the comics and the Op-ed sections and those are the sections that always get hit hardest during downturns in the economy because they generally don’t allow room for advertising, which is the newspapers’ life blood.
The one bright spot is that while Doonesbury wound up on the comics page, the loathsome Mallard Fillmore was apparently dropped altogether. Ha!!!
I hope that Tom Daschle can weather this confirmation process and still become Secretary of Health and Human Services, but damn! He should have known better on that tax thing.
I was excited when I heard that Obama was tapping Republican Judd Gregg for Secretary of Commerce, but now that it appears the New Hampshire Democratic governor is just going to appoint another Republican as his replacement in the Senate I’m thinking “Why even bother?” What is wrong with these governors and their awful Senate picks anyway? Sheesh!
I recorded the halftime show so that I could go back and watch it later and I thought Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band were terrific. It was great to see that he was clearly NOT lip-synching and even changed the lyrics to some songs to suit the occasion.
I was disappointed this morning to see that Rudy Park is no longer on the comics page of the Express-News. And I guess I will have to wait until tomorrow, but it looks like their whole, lame “guest comic” thing will turn out to be for not as Rudy Park was replaced on the page by Doonesbury, which had been bumped from the suddenly shortened Op-Ed section.
I guess I’ll have to wait and see if this one-page editorial thing was just for today or if it is a permanent cost-cutting measure. Is it just for Mondays? Or will it be like this all week except for Sundays? That is a real shame. My two favorite sections of the paper are the comics and the Op-ed sections and those are the sections that always get hit hardest during downturns in the economy because they generally don’t allow room for advertising, which is the newspapers’ life blood.
The one bright spot is that while Doonesbury wound up on the comics page, the loathsome Mallard Fillmore was apparently dropped altogether. Ha!!!
I hope that Tom Daschle can weather this confirmation process and still become Secretary of Health and Human Services, but damn! He should have known better on that tax thing.
I was excited when I heard that Obama was tapping Republican Judd Gregg for Secretary of Commerce, but now that it appears the New Hampshire Democratic governor is just going to appoint another Republican as his replacement in the Senate I’m thinking “Why even bother?” What is wrong with these governors and their awful Senate picks anyway? Sheesh!
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
The Return of Nigel Tufnel
Well, not really. But Jonathan Gurwitz brings the fictional headbanger back from obscurity in his latest column.
His contention is that Obama’s stimulus plan is like trying to turn the volume up to 11 the way the fictional Nigel did on his amplifiers in the mockumentary “Spinal Tap”. The only problem with this analogy is that we are not talking about spending stimulus dollars that don’t exist. The money will be there, borrowed no doubt, but there none-the-less.
Perhaps if the Federal Reserve was threatening to lower the interest rates to -1, then the Spinal Tap analogy would be applicable. But as it is, I think the more apt analogy would be that of firefighters spraying water on a raging fire. The stimulus package is the equivalent of spraying a whole bunch more water in order to get the fire under control.
Republicans are essentially arguing that it is more important right now to conserve our water than it is to put out the fire.
But the reference to Nigel Tufnel naturally brings back memories of that disagreeable chap who used that pseudonym on Bill Crawford’s now defunct blog. “Nigel” seemed to be most intent on disparaging me personally and arguing in particular about the covert status of Valerie Plame and the question as to whether or not Karl Rove broke the law.
Since “Nigel” would never comment on my blog and because Bill ultimately deleted his entire blog before vanishing into the ether, there is now no record of our lengthy and protracted debate on this subject. However, I did make reference to it in several posts on my blog here, here and here.
His contention is that Obama’s stimulus plan is like trying to turn the volume up to 11 the way the fictional Nigel did on his amplifiers in the mockumentary “Spinal Tap”. The only problem with this analogy is that we are not talking about spending stimulus dollars that don’t exist. The money will be there, borrowed no doubt, but there none-the-less.
Perhaps if the Federal Reserve was threatening to lower the interest rates to -1, then the Spinal Tap analogy would be applicable. But as it is, I think the more apt analogy would be that of firefighters spraying water on a raging fire. The stimulus package is the equivalent of spraying a whole bunch more water in order to get the fire under control.
Republicans are essentially arguing that it is more important right now to conserve our water than it is to put out the fire.
But the reference to Nigel Tufnel naturally brings back memories of that disagreeable chap who used that pseudonym on Bill Crawford’s now defunct blog. “Nigel” seemed to be most intent on disparaging me personally and arguing in particular about the covert status of Valerie Plame and the question as to whether or not Karl Rove broke the law.
Since “Nigel” would never comment on my blog and because Bill ultimately deleted his entire blog before vanishing into the ether, there is now no record of our lengthy and protracted debate on this subject. However, I did make reference to it in several posts on my blog here, here and here.
Monday, January 26, 2009
25 Most Influential Liberals
JimmyK links to a Forbes list of 25 Most Influential Liberals in the media. Here it is in reverse order:
Michael Pollan
Kurt Andersen
Kevin Drum
Ezra Klein
James Fallows
Gerald Seib
Andrew Sullivan
Glenn Greenwald
Hendrick Hertzberg
Matthew Yglesias
Maureen Dowd
Christopher Hitchens
Bill Moyers
Chris Matthews
Fareed Zakaria
Markos Moulitas Zuniga
David Shipley
Josh Marshall
Rachael Maddow
Oprah Winfrey
Jon Stewart
Thomas Friedman
Fred Hiatt
Arianna Huffington
Paul Krugman
It’s a pretty good list with just a few questionable inclusions and some glaring omissions.
First for the omissions.
Where the heck is Keith Olbermann? They have Chris Matthews, which is questionable, and Rachael Maddow, which is well deserved, but not Olbermann?
And what about Duncan Black - Mr. Atrios himself, probably the leading liberal blogger of all time.
And another up-and-coming liberal blogger I would probably include is Steve Benen, who took over Kevin Drum’s slot at Political Animal. He has been doing a bang-up job and is a must-read for me everyday.
They also left off several prominent liberal columnists including Frank Rich at the NY Times and E.J. Dionne and Eugene Robinson at the Washington Post. Also, Clarence Page at the Chicago Tribune.
Now, for the questionable inclusions.
What were they thinking putting Christopher Hitchens on this list?? He went over to the dark side back during the Clinton era and has been a reliable wingnut voice throughout the entire Iraq War quagmire. His grudging endorsement of Obama notwithstanding, there is no way he should be included in a Top 25 list of LIBERALS. Sheesh!
And speaking of Iraq War cheerleaders, how about Fred Hiatt, the neo-con editorial page editor at the Washington Post. Hiatt is one of the chief reasons the WaPo editorial pages are often more in line with the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed page than they are with the New York Times. A leading liberal voice?? Hogwash!
There are a few others I could nitpick including Andrew Sullivan, Thomas Friedman and Chris Matthews. Also, there is the fact that I had never before heard of Michael Pollan and Kurt Andersen, which is not to disparage their liberal credentials but just to suggest that they might fall short of being in the Top 25.
Who else got left off who should be on the list?
Michael Pollan
Kurt Andersen
Kevin Drum
Ezra Klein
James Fallows
Gerald Seib
Andrew Sullivan
Glenn Greenwald
Hendrick Hertzberg
Matthew Yglesias
Maureen Dowd
Christopher Hitchens
Bill Moyers
Chris Matthews
Fareed Zakaria
Markos Moulitas Zuniga
David Shipley
Josh Marshall
Rachael Maddow
Oprah Winfrey
Jon Stewart
Thomas Friedman
Fred Hiatt
Arianna Huffington
Paul Krugman
It’s a pretty good list with just a few questionable inclusions and some glaring omissions.
First for the omissions.
Where the heck is Keith Olbermann? They have Chris Matthews, which is questionable, and Rachael Maddow, which is well deserved, but not Olbermann?
And what about Duncan Black - Mr. Atrios himself, probably the leading liberal blogger of all time.
And another up-and-coming liberal blogger I would probably include is Steve Benen, who took over Kevin Drum’s slot at Political Animal. He has been doing a bang-up job and is a must-read for me everyday.
They also left off several prominent liberal columnists including Frank Rich at the NY Times and E.J. Dionne and Eugene Robinson at the Washington Post. Also, Clarence Page at the Chicago Tribune.
Now, for the questionable inclusions.
What were they thinking putting Christopher Hitchens on this list?? He went over to the dark side back during the Clinton era and has been a reliable wingnut voice throughout the entire Iraq War quagmire. His grudging endorsement of Obama notwithstanding, there is no way he should be included in a Top 25 list of LIBERALS. Sheesh!
And speaking of Iraq War cheerleaders, how about Fred Hiatt, the neo-con editorial page editor at the Washington Post. Hiatt is one of the chief reasons the WaPo editorial pages are often more in line with the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed page than they are with the New York Times. A leading liberal voice?? Hogwash!
There are a few others I could nitpick including Andrew Sullivan, Thomas Friedman and Chris Matthews. Also, there is the fact that I had never before heard of Michael Pollan and Kurt Andersen, which is not to disparage their liberal credentials but just to suggest that they might fall short of being in the Top 25.
Who else got left off who should be on the list?
Wackiest governor is NOT in Chicago
It’s not often that I tout Maureen Dowd columns, but her latest Which Governor Is Wackier? says just about everything that I’ve been thinking recently in regards to the fiasco of recent Senate appointments.
Rod Blagojevich may be a complete looney tune, but when it came to picking someone to fill Illinois’ Senate vacancy he did a far better job than New York Gov. David Paterson.
What an awful, wretched performance by Paterson.
Paterson comes out of this looking much more the fool than Blago. And New York will pay the price with much, much less power and influence in the Senate than they did have or than what they could have had.
Rod Blagojevich may be a complete looney tune, but when it came to picking someone to fill Illinois’ Senate vacancy he did a far better job than New York Gov. David Paterson.
What an awful, wretched performance by Paterson.
So now we have an N.R.A. handmaiden in Bobby Kennedy’s old seat? Kirsten Gillibrand, a k a Tracy Flick, accepting the honor with her Republican pal Al D’Amato beside her on stage?....
Paterson could have acted a month ago, or even a week ago. There was no reason not to, certainly not his claim that he had to wait for Hillary, ad nauseam, to exit to State. Colorado’s governor named Michael Bennet senator two and a half weeks before Ken Salazar resigned his seat for the Interior Department.
Then the Democrats would have had another Kennedy in the Senate representing New York — Bobby’s niece and a smart, policy-oriented, civic-minded woman to whom the president feels deeply indebted in an era when every state has its hand out.
Instead they have Gillibrand, who voted against the Wall Street — as in New York — bailout bill. And who introduced a bill to balance the federal budget annually, which suggests she would oppose the $825 billion in deficit spending that President Obama proposes to rescue the country, not least New York.
Paterson’s five weeks of dithering let the jealous vindictiveness of the Clintons and friends — still fuming over Caroline’s endorsement of Obama and Teddy’s blocking Hillary from a leading health care role in the Senate — poison the air. With his usual sense of entitlement and aggrievement, Bill Clinton of Arkansas did not want Caroline Kennedy of New York to have the seat that Hillary Clinton of Illinois held.
Paterson wasn’t thinking of New York, only of how an upstate ally who was a woman would bolster his own chances for re-election. We can only hope that an avenging Andrew Cuomo takes him out in a primary.
Paterson comes out of this looking much more the fool than Blago. And New York will pay the price with much, much less power and influence in the Senate than they did have or than what they could have had.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Academy ignores popular films
Something is up with the Academy Awards. For most of this decade they have been giving short-shrift to popular (i.e. big box office grossing) films.
It didn’t use to be that way. Allow me to demonstrate.
This year’s list of Best Picture nominees marks the fifth year in a row where a Top 10 box office grossing film did not make the cut for the Academy’s top honor. That is an unprecedented streak dating back to at leat 1980 and probably further.
This year, the most popular best picture nominee at the Box Office so far is Benjamin Button which has just cracked the $100 million mark and ranks No. 22 for the year.
In 2007, the biggest box office draw was Juno at No. 15. In 2006, the top grossing nominee was The Departed, also at No. 15. In 2005, Brokeback Mountain had the highest box office gross at No. 22. And in 2004, The Aviator and Million Dollar Baby were No. 22 and No. 24, respectively.
The last time the general public and the Academy agreed on a film was 2003 when Lord of the Rings: Return of the King took the Best Picture Oscar and was the No. 1 draw at the box office. The next most popular best picture nominee that year was Seabiscuit at No. 17.
In 2002, LOTR: The Two Towers was No. 2 at the box office and Chicago was No. 10. In 2001, LOTR: The Fellowship of the Ring was No. 2 and A Beautiful Mind was No. 11.
So, not counting the LOTR trilogy, there has only been one best picture nominee in the last eight years to crack the Top 10 at the Box Office.
But so what? It’s not like they used to always nominate Top 10 films for the Oscar, did they? Ummm. Well, yes, they did.
In 2000, Gladiator was No. 4 at the box office, while Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was No. 12 and Erin Brockovich was No. 13.
In 1999, The Sixth Sense was No. 2, while The Green Mile was No. 12 and American Beauty was No. 13.
In 1998, Saving Private Ryan was No. 1 at the box office. Shakespeare in Love was No. 18.
In 1997, Titanic was No. 1; As Good As It Gets was No. 6 and Goodwill Hunting was No. 7.
In 1996, Jerry Maguire was No. 4.
In 1995, Apollo 13 was No. 3 and Braveheart was No. 18.
In 1994, Forrest Gump was No. 1 and Pulp Fiction was No. 10.
In 1993, The Fugitive was No. 3 and Schindler’s List was No. 9.
In 1992, A Few Good Men was No. 5 and Unforgiven was No. 11.
In 1991, Beauty and the Beast was No. 3 and Silence of the Lambs was No. 4.
In 1990, Ghost was No. 2 and Dances With Wolves was No. 3.
Need I go on? OK, I think I will...
In 1989, Driving Miss Daisy was No. 8 and Dead Poet’s Society was No. 10.
In 1988, Rain Man was No. 1 and Working Girl was No. 11.
In 1987, Fatal Attraction was No. 2 and Moonstruck was No. 5.
In 1986, Platoon was No. 3.
In 1985, The Color Purple was No. 4 and Witness was No. 8.
In 1984, Amadeus was No. 12. You have to go all the way back to 1984 to find the last time a Top 10 Box Office draw was not nominated for Best Picture.
In 1983, Terms of Endearment was No. 2 and The Big Chill was No. 13.
In 1982, E.T. was No. 1, Tootsie was No. 2, The Verdict was No. 11 and Gandhi was No. 12.
In 1981, Raiders of the Lost Ark was No. 1, On Golden Pond was No. 2, Chariots of Fire was No. 7 and Reds was No. 13.
In 1980, Coal Miner’s Daughter was No. 7 and Ordinary People was No. 11.
OK, I’ll stop there.
So what the heck is going on? How come the Academy and the general public have grown so far apart in their tastes? More independent cinema? Too many movies to choose from? It is fine if they want to promote indy films, but can’t they reserve at least ONE slot every year for a movie that the general public likes? Is that really asking too much?
It didn’t use to be that way. Allow me to demonstrate.
This year’s list of Best Picture nominees marks the fifth year in a row where a Top 10 box office grossing film did not make the cut for the Academy’s top honor. That is an unprecedented streak dating back to at leat 1980 and probably further.
This year, the most popular best picture nominee at the Box Office so far is Benjamin Button which has just cracked the $100 million mark and ranks No. 22 for the year.
In 2007, the biggest box office draw was Juno at No. 15. In 2006, the top grossing nominee was The Departed, also at No. 15. In 2005, Brokeback Mountain had the highest box office gross at No. 22. And in 2004, The Aviator and Million Dollar Baby were No. 22 and No. 24, respectively.
The last time the general public and the Academy agreed on a film was 2003 when Lord of the Rings: Return of the King took the Best Picture Oscar and was the No. 1 draw at the box office. The next most popular best picture nominee that year was Seabiscuit at No. 17.
In 2002, LOTR: The Two Towers was No. 2 at the box office and Chicago was No. 10. In 2001, LOTR: The Fellowship of the Ring was No. 2 and A Beautiful Mind was No. 11.
So, not counting the LOTR trilogy, there has only been one best picture nominee in the last eight years to crack the Top 10 at the Box Office.
But so what? It’s not like they used to always nominate Top 10 films for the Oscar, did they? Ummm. Well, yes, they did.
In 2000, Gladiator was No. 4 at the box office, while Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was No. 12 and Erin Brockovich was No. 13.
In 1999, The Sixth Sense was No. 2, while The Green Mile was No. 12 and American Beauty was No. 13.
In 1998, Saving Private Ryan was No. 1 at the box office. Shakespeare in Love was No. 18.
In 1997, Titanic was No. 1; As Good As It Gets was No. 6 and Goodwill Hunting was No. 7.
In 1996, Jerry Maguire was No. 4.
In 1995, Apollo 13 was No. 3 and Braveheart was No. 18.
In 1994, Forrest Gump was No. 1 and Pulp Fiction was No. 10.
In 1993, The Fugitive was No. 3 and Schindler’s List was No. 9.
In 1992, A Few Good Men was No. 5 and Unforgiven was No. 11.
In 1991, Beauty and the Beast was No. 3 and Silence of the Lambs was No. 4.
In 1990, Ghost was No. 2 and Dances With Wolves was No. 3.
Need I go on? OK, I think I will...
In 1989, Driving Miss Daisy was No. 8 and Dead Poet’s Society was No. 10.
In 1988, Rain Man was No. 1 and Working Girl was No. 11.
In 1987, Fatal Attraction was No. 2 and Moonstruck was No. 5.
In 1986, Platoon was No. 3.
In 1985, The Color Purple was No. 4 and Witness was No. 8.
In 1984, Amadeus was No. 12. You have to go all the way back to 1984 to find the last time a Top 10 Box Office draw was not nominated for Best Picture.
In 1983, Terms of Endearment was No. 2 and The Big Chill was No. 13.
In 1982, E.T. was No. 1, Tootsie was No. 2, The Verdict was No. 11 and Gandhi was No. 12.
In 1981, Raiders of the Lost Ark was No. 1, On Golden Pond was No. 2, Chariots of Fire was No. 7 and Reds was No. 13.
In 1980, Coal Miner’s Daughter was No. 7 and Ordinary People was No. 11.
OK, I’ll stop there.
So what the heck is going on? How come the Academy and the general public have grown so far apart in their tastes? More independent cinema? Too many movies to choose from? It is fine if they want to promote indy films, but can’t they reserve at least ONE slot every year for a movie that the general public likes? Is that really asking too much?
Best Pictures seen and unseen
Thinking about the Oscar nominations last night, I decided to list out all the Best Picture nominees that I have ever seen. It's a long list, but still woefully short for someone who considers himself to be a movie buff. For instance, I've seen none of the movies from 1920s and only a handful from the 1930s. And, of course, I haven't seen any of the Best Picture nominees for the past two years and only one each from 2005 and 2006.
So following the first list, I put together another list of the Best Picture nominees that I would like to see. I don't know enough about a lot of the early films to know whether I would like them or not. One thing is for sure, though, I need to spend more time watching TCM.
(an * means I saw all the nominees that year)
1934
The Thin Man
1935
Captain Blood
1936
The Story of Louis Pasteur
1938
The Adventures of Robin Hood
1939
Gone With the Wind
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
Stagecoach
The Wizard of Oz
1940
The Grapes of Wrath
The Philadelphia Story
1941
Citizen Kane
The Maltese Falcon
1942
The Magnificent Ambersons
The Pride of the Yankees
1943
Casablanca
The Ox-Bow Incident
1944
Going My Way
Double Indemnity
1945
The Bells of St. Mary’s
1946
It’s a Wonderful Life
1947
The Bishop’s Wife
Miracle on 34th Street
1948
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
1951
An American in Paris
1952
High Noon
The Quiet Man
1953
From Here to Eternity
Roman Holiday
Shane
1954
On the Waterfront
1955
Mister Roberts
1956
Friendly Persuasion
Giant
The King and I
The Ten Commandments
1957
The Bridge on the River Kwai
1958
Gigi
1959
Ben Hur
1960
The Apartment
The Alamo
1961
West Side Story
The Guns of Navarone
1962
Lawrence of Arabia
The Longest Day
The Music Man
To Kill a Mockingbird
1964
My Fair Lady
Dr. Strangelove
Mary Poppins
1965
The Sound of Music
1966
The Sand Pebbles
Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
1967
Bonnie and Clyde
The Graduate
Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner
1968
Funny Girl
1969
Midnight Cowboy
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
1970
Patton
MASH
1971
The French Connection
A Clockwork Orange
1972
The Godfather
Cabaret
Deliverance
1973
The Sting
American Graffiti
Cries and Whispers
1974
The Godfather Part II
Chinatown
The Towering Inferno
1975
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
Dog Day Afternoon
Jaws
1976
Rocky
All the President’s Men
Taxi Driver
1977
Annie Hall
Star Wars
1978
The Deer Hunter
Heaven Can Wait
1979
Apocalypse Now
Breaking Away
1981
Chariots of Fire
On Golden Pond
Raiders of the Lost Ark
1982
Gandhi
E.T.
Tootsie
The Verdict
1983
The Right Stuff
1984
Amadeus
1985
Witness
1986
Platoon
Hannah and Her Sisters
The Mission
A Room With a View
1987
The Last Emperor
Broadcast News
Fatal Attraction
Moonstruck
1988*
Rain Man
The Accidental Tourist
Dangerous Liaisons
Mississippi Burning
Working Girl
1989*
Driving Miss Daisy
Born on the Fourth of July
Dead Poet’s Society
Field of Dreams
My Left Foot
1990*
Dances With Wolves
Awakenings
Ghost
The Godfather Part III
Goodfellas
1991
The Silence of the Lambs
Beauty and the Beast
Bugsy
JFK
1992*
Unforgiven
The Crying Game
A Few Good Men
Howard’s End
Scent of a Woman
1993
Schindler’s List
The Fugitive
The Piano
The Remains of the Day
1994*
Forrest Gump
Four Weddings and a Funeral
Pulp Fiction
Quiz Show
The Shawshank Redemption
1995
Braveheart
Apollo 13
Babe
Sense and Sensibility
1996
The English Patient
Fargo
Jerry Maguire
Shine
1997*
Titanic
As Good as it Gets
The Full Monty
Good Will Hunting
L.A. Confidential
1998
Shakespeare in Love
Saving Private Ryan
The Thin Red Line
1999
The Cider House Rules
The Green Mile
The Insider
The Sixth Sense
2000
Gladiator
Chocolat
Erin Brockovich
2001
A Beautiful Mind
Gosford Park
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
Moulin Rouge!
2002
Chicago
Gangs of New York
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
The Pianist
2003
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Lost in Translation
Master and Commander
Seabiscuit
2004
Million Dollar Baby
The Aviator
Finding Neverland
Ray
2005
Good Night and Good Luck
2006
The Queen
And now for the list of best picture nominees I would like to see:
Grand Hotel
42nd Street
It Happened One Night
Mr. Deeds Goes to Town
You Can’t Take it with You
Goodbye, Mr. Chips
Wuthering Heights
The Great Dictator
How Green Was My Valley
Sergeant York
Suspicion
Yankee Doodle Dandy
Gaslight
Anchors Aweigh
The Best Years of Our Lives
Twelve O’Clock High
All About Eve
King Solomon’s Mines
Sunset Boulevard
Quo Vadis
A Streetcar Named Desire
The Greatest Show on Earth
Ivanhoe
The Robe
Seven Brides for Seven Brothers
Three Coins in a Fountain
Around the World in Eighty Days
12 Angry Men
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
The Defiant Ones
Anatomy of a Murder
Elmer Gantry
The Hustler
Judgment at Nuremberg
Tom Jones
How the West was Won
Zorba the Greek
Doctor Zhivago
A Man for All Seasons
Doctor Doolittle
The Lion in Winter
Hello, Dolly!
Airport
Five Easy Pieces
Fiddler on the Roof
The Exorcist
The Conversation
Lenny
Barry Lyndon
Nashville
Network
The Goodbye Girl
Midnight Express
All That Jazz
Norma Rae
Coal Miner’s Daughter
Raging Bull
Reds
Missing
In the Name of the Father
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Mystic River
Capote
Munich
The Departed
Letters From Iwo Jima
Little Miss Sunshine
No Country For Old Men
Juno
Michael Clayton
There Will Be Blood
Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Frost/Nixon
Milk
Slumdog Millionaire
So following the first list, I put together another list of the Best Picture nominees that I would like to see. I don't know enough about a lot of the early films to know whether I would like them or not. One thing is for sure, though, I need to spend more time watching TCM.
(an * means I saw all the nominees that year)
1934
The Thin Man
1935
Captain Blood
1936
The Story of Louis Pasteur
1938
The Adventures of Robin Hood
1939
Gone With the Wind
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
Stagecoach
The Wizard of Oz
1940
The Grapes of Wrath
The Philadelphia Story
1941
Citizen Kane
The Maltese Falcon
1942
The Magnificent Ambersons
The Pride of the Yankees
1943
Casablanca
The Ox-Bow Incident
1944
Going My Way
Double Indemnity
1945
The Bells of St. Mary’s
1946
It’s a Wonderful Life
1947
The Bishop’s Wife
Miracle on 34th Street
1948
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
1951
An American in Paris
1952
High Noon
The Quiet Man
1953
From Here to Eternity
Roman Holiday
Shane
1954
On the Waterfront
1955
Mister Roberts
1956
Friendly Persuasion
Giant
The King and I
The Ten Commandments
1957
The Bridge on the River Kwai
1958
Gigi
1959
Ben Hur
1960
The Apartment
The Alamo
1961
West Side Story
The Guns of Navarone
1962
Lawrence of Arabia
The Longest Day
The Music Man
To Kill a Mockingbird
1964
My Fair Lady
Dr. Strangelove
Mary Poppins
1965
The Sound of Music
1966
The Sand Pebbles
Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
1967
Bonnie and Clyde
The Graduate
Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner
1968
Funny Girl
1969
Midnight Cowboy
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
1970
Patton
MASH
1971
The French Connection
A Clockwork Orange
1972
The Godfather
Cabaret
Deliverance
1973
The Sting
American Graffiti
Cries and Whispers
1974
The Godfather Part II
Chinatown
The Towering Inferno
1975
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
Dog Day Afternoon
Jaws
1976
Rocky
All the President’s Men
Taxi Driver
1977
Annie Hall
Star Wars
1978
The Deer Hunter
Heaven Can Wait
1979
Apocalypse Now
Breaking Away
1981
Chariots of Fire
On Golden Pond
Raiders of the Lost Ark
1982
Gandhi
E.T.
Tootsie
The Verdict
1983
The Right Stuff
1984
Amadeus
1985
Witness
1986
Platoon
Hannah and Her Sisters
The Mission
A Room With a View
1987
The Last Emperor
Broadcast News
Fatal Attraction
Moonstruck
1988*
Rain Man
The Accidental Tourist
Dangerous Liaisons
Mississippi Burning
Working Girl
1989*
Driving Miss Daisy
Born on the Fourth of July
Dead Poet’s Society
Field of Dreams
My Left Foot
1990*
Dances With Wolves
Awakenings
Ghost
The Godfather Part III
Goodfellas
1991
The Silence of the Lambs
Beauty and the Beast
Bugsy
JFK
1992*
Unforgiven
The Crying Game
A Few Good Men
Howard’s End
Scent of a Woman
1993
Schindler’s List
The Fugitive
The Piano
The Remains of the Day
1994*
Forrest Gump
Four Weddings and a Funeral
Pulp Fiction
Quiz Show
The Shawshank Redemption
1995
Braveheart
Apollo 13
Babe
Sense and Sensibility
1996
The English Patient
Fargo
Jerry Maguire
Shine
1997*
Titanic
As Good as it Gets
The Full Monty
Good Will Hunting
L.A. Confidential
1998
Shakespeare in Love
Saving Private Ryan
The Thin Red Line
1999
The Cider House Rules
The Green Mile
The Insider
The Sixth Sense
2000
Gladiator
Chocolat
Erin Brockovich
2001
A Beautiful Mind
Gosford Park
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
Moulin Rouge!
2002
Chicago
Gangs of New York
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
The Pianist
2003
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Lost in Translation
Master and Commander
Seabiscuit
2004
Million Dollar Baby
The Aviator
Finding Neverland
Ray
2005
Good Night and Good Luck
2006
The Queen
And now for the list of best picture nominees I would like to see:
Grand Hotel
42nd Street
It Happened One Night
Mr. Deeds Goes to Town
You Can’t Take it with You
Goodbye, Mr. Chips
Wuthering Heights
The Great Dictator
How Green Was My Valley
Sergeant York
Suspicion
Yankee Doodle Dandy
Gaslight
Anchors Aweigh
The Best Years of Our Lives
Twelve O’Clock High
All About Eve
King Solomon’s Mines
Sunset Boulevard
Quo Vadis
A Streetcar Named Desire
The Greatest Show on Earth
Ivanhoe
The Robe
Seven Brides for Seven Brothers
Three Coins in a Fountain
Around the World in Eighty Days
12 Angry Men
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
The Defiant Ones
Anatomy of a Murder
Elmer Gantry
The Hustler
Judgment at Nuremberg
Tom Jones
How the West was Won
Zorba the Greek
Doctor Zhivago
A Man for All Seasons
Doctor Doolittle
The Lion in Winter
Hello, Dolly!
Airport
Five Easy Pieces
Fiddler on the Roof
The Exorcist
The Conversation
Lenny
Barry Lyndon
Nashville
Network
The Goodbye Girl
Midnight Express
All That Jazz
Norma Rae
Coal Miner’s Daughter
Raging Bull
Reds
Missing
In the Name of the Father
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Mystic River
Capote
Munich
The Departed
Letters From Iwo Jima
Little Miss Sunshine
No Country For Old Men
Juno
Michael Clayton
There Will Be Blood
Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Frost/Nixon
Milk
Slumdog Millionaire
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Oscar nominations 2009
Maybe I’m just in a bad mood this morning, but theOscar nominations that just came out
really suck this year.
Here are the Best Picture nominees:
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” “Frost/Nixon,” “Milk,” “The Reader,” “Slumdog Millionaire.”
I want to see “Frost/Nixon,” but as for the rest I am really indifferent. I was hoping that “Gran Torino” would get a Best Picture nomination, but no such luck.
I’m sure the ones that made it are all good films, but I just can’t get excited about them. I’m having a hard time seeing the appeal of a movie about a guy who is born old and gets younger as he ages. It sounds depressing. And I’m sure “Milk” is a well-done bio-pick, but I am more interested in seeing Oliver Stone’s “W” instead.
Why can’t they make room for at least one of the hugely popular and extremely well done films this year such as “Dark Knight” or “Iron Man” or “WALL-E.” They used to do that. Remember when “Raiders of the Lost Ark” was nominated for Best Picture? Or “Star Wars”? They didn’t win, but at least they got some well deserved recognition. But these days the Academy is extremely snooty and refuses to acknowledge any film that brings in more than $100 million at the box office. I think they are shooting themselves in the foot.
I’m glad that they gave a posthumous nomination to Heath Ledger for “Dark Knight,” but they will probably end up giving the Oscar to Robert Downey Jr. for his goofy role in “Tropic Thunder”. Downey is a great actor and is overdue for an Oscar, but he should have been nominated this year for “Iron Man”.
And I’m disappointed that Clint Eastwood didn’t get recognized for his acting in “Gran Torino”. Instead, they gave that slot of Richard Jenkins in the Not-Appearing-At-Your-Theater Indy-flick “The Visitor”.
really suck this year.
Here are the Best Picture nominees:
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” “Frost/Nixon,” “Milk,” “The Reader,” “Slumdog Millionaire.”
I want to see “Frost/Nixon,” but as for the rest I am really indifferent. I was hoping that “Gran Torino” would get a Best Picture nomination, but no such luck.
I’m sure the ones that made it are all good films, but I just can’t get excited about them. I’m having a hard time seeing the appeal of a movie about a guy who is born old and gets younger as he ages. It sounds depressing. And I’m sure “Milk” is a well-done bio-pick, but I am more interested in seeing Oliver Stone’s “W” instead.
Why can’t they make room for at least one of the hugely popular and extremely well done films this year such as “Dark Knight” or “Iron Man” or “WALL-E.” They used to do that. Remember when “Raiders of the Lost Ark” was nominated for Best Picture? Or “Star Wars”? They didn’t win, but at least they got some well deserved recognition. But these days the Academy is extremely snooty and refuses to acknowledge any film that brings in more than $100 million at the box office. I think they are shooting themselves in the foot.
I’m glad that they gave a posthumous nomination to Heath Ledger for “Dark Knight,” but they will probably end up giving the Oscar to Robert Downey Jr. for his goofy role in “Tropic Thunder”. Downey is a great actor and is overdue for an Oscar, but he should have been nominated this year for “Iron Man”.
And I’m disappointed that Clint Eastwood didn’t get recognized for his acting in “Gran Torino”. Instead, they gave that slot of Richard Jenkins in the Not-Appearing-At-Your-Theater Indy-flick “The Visitor”.
Shared sacrifice? Not us!
It would go a long way to help lift the economy if some of these companies out there would just suck it up and keep more of their workers employed.
But corporate America doesn’t give a flying flip about shared sacrifice. All that stuff that President Obama was talking about in his Inauguarl Address? That’s for suckers. If their bottom line starts to dip even slightly, these companies are ready to start passing out pink slips. Let the government take care of the workers, they say, we have to watch out for our stockholders!
And so the vicious circle continues. The economy goes down. Businesses respond by cutting spending and laying off employees. And the economy goes down further.
This is why pure, unfettered capitalism is just as big of a failure as communism or socialism. None of these systems work by themselves. Capitalism is by far the best economic plan, but it needs a heavy dose of socialism and government intervention to keep from going off course and taking the country over a cliff. Unfortunately for us, Bush didn’t get around to handing the keys to the Obama administration until we had already driven off that cliff and crashed in the valley below. So it will be a long haul to pick up the pieces and get ourselves back on the road again.
In the meantime, companies that think they can weather the storm by passing out pink slips and putting their hands out for big, fat government bailout checks are going to have another thing coming.
But corporate America doesn’t give a flying flip about shared sacrifice. All that stuff that President Obama was talking about in his Inauguarl Address? That’s for suckers. If their bottom line starts to dip even slightly, these companies are ready to start passing out pink slips. Let the government take care of the workers, they say, we have to watch out for our stockholders!
And so the vicious circle continues. The economy goes down. Businesses respond by cutting spending and laying off employees. And the economy goes down further.
This is why pure, unfettered capitalism is just as big of a failure as communism or socialism. None of these systems work by themselves. Capitalism is by far the best economic plan, but it needs a heavy dose of socialism and government intervention to keep from going off course and taking the country over a cliff. Unfortunately for us, Bush didn’t get around to handing the keys to the Obama administration until we had already driven off that cliff and crashed in the valley below. So it will be a long haul to pick up the pieces and get ourselves back on the road again.
In the meantime, companies that think they can weather the storm by passing out pink slips and putting their hands out for big, fat government bailout checks are going to have another thing coming.
New York’s Senate screw-up
I am deeply disappointed that Caroline Kennedy has been forced to withdraw from consideration for the New York Senate seat. I think this will prove to have been a boneheaded move on the part of Gov. David Paterson. I don’t understand why he has waited this long to make an appointment, but it was clear that he was just letting Kennedy hang out there and twist in the wind. She was being battered everyday by bad press and bad opinion polls and if Paterson had just made his pick weeks ago it would have gone much more smoothly.
Now, as a result of his dilly-dallying, it does not matter who Paterson picks - New York will lose power in the Senate. Hillary Clinton was a high-profile Senator who commanded respect and wielded power despite having little seniority. Caroline Kennedy would have gone a long way to fill those shoes with her history and celebrity. She would have wielded at least as much power as Clinton from day one. Now, New York will end up with a Senator who will have greatly diminished power reflecting their lack of seniority. Even if it turns out to be Andrew Cuomo, he won’t garner half the attention that a Senator Kennedy would have mustered.
That’s too bad.
Perhaps Caroline will now wait for the Senate seat to open up in Massachussetts when her Uncle Ted decides to step down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)