As Hollywood settles back into a more quotidian routine, its Oscargasm finally over and the glitz and glam neatly folded away till another season, it’s a good time to take a look back at a few of this year’s awards season highlights. And while the Academy may have swung its gates open to a list of ten best picture nominees, I don’t believe in grade inflation. So, for old time’s sake, here is a list of five memories from awards season I’ll definitely be taking with me. The Ladies Have It Perhaps the best news from this year’s awards season is that the glass ceiling for female directors has finally been shattered. It seems no accident that Barbara Streisand was chosen to announce the award for Best Director, since she was famously slighted by the Academy for her 1983 film Yentl , which earned her top directorial honors that year at the Golden Globes. Bigelow is only the second woman to have ever been nominated for Best Director, behind Jane Campion (who was nominated for The Piano in 1994), and her win is even more historic as she claims a producing credit for The Hurt Locker as well. And it was endearing to see a stunned Bigelow, who had clearly not expected to win either honor, hold an Oscar in each hand amongst the cast and crew of her finely made film. Sarah Palin’s Gifting Lounge Romp Oh, Alaska. While former Governor Sarah Palin may be able to see Russia from the privacy of her own home, she was most assuredly in public when she rode in on a moose, kids in tow, through some of this season’s gifting lounges . Presumably the Fox News host was searching for a few items to fill in the gap left by the GOP’s repossession of her $150,000 campaign wardrobe . So, like other celebrities, Palin stocked up at lounges across Los Angeles like GBK’s W Hollywood-based lounge, which also raised $300,000 in support of the charity Help for Orphans ’s relief efforts in Haiti. The Indies win the Best of Ten This year, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences blew open the field of potential best picture nominees to ten for the first time since 1944. While the larger field did ensure the inclusion of boxoffice favorites like Avatar , it doesn’t seem to have effected the overall outcome of the kinds of films which took away top honors. The Hurt Locker , with barely $16 million in boxoffice swept Best Picture, Best Editing and Best Original Screenplay, while director Kathryn Bigelow became the first woman to net honors as the top helmer in the business. (Even the award for Best Adapted Screenplay went to an indie scribe, Geoffrey Fletcher for Precious: Based on the Novel Push By Sapphire .) For all the talk of the death of independent film, that genre still seems to have a chokehold on the industry’s top accolades. Two for the Price of One This year’s Oscar co-hosts Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin can pat themselves on the back, as the ratings for the telecast increased for the first time in recent memory. I’d wager that the bump in the ratings was probably due in larger measure to the fact that the Best Picture category was stocked with boxoffice performers, but all the same Baldwin and Martin kept the telecast moving fairly swiftly, entertaining enough, and antic free–that is, until a personal matter between Music for Prudence director Roger Ross Williams and his co-producer Elinor Burkett spilled over Williams’ mother’s cane and onstage during Williams’s acceptance speech for Best Short Documentary. Mo’Nique’s Screaming Orgasm And finally, though she may have just won an Academy Award for her portrayal of an abusive welfare mother in Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire, but as part of this year’s Awards Roundtable series, Mo’Nique provided viewers with a decidedly more spirited performance while discussing what it’s like for actresses filming sex scenes. More on Oscars 2010
More:
Fabio Periera: Five Memories from My First Awards Season
Senator Blanche Lincoln finds herself in the political version of a perfect storm. Her home state of Arkansas is centrist. Predictably, Republicans are chastising her vote for Obama’s health care legislation. Progressive organizations, unexpectedly, are throwing millions of dollars behind a male Democrat to challenge Senator Lincoln in a primary. And shockingly, a women’s organization dedicated to getting women elected says she deserves it . Despite all the darts being thrown at Senator Lincoln from seemingly every direction, I’ll stand with her. And here’s why you should too. Women’s representation in the U.S. Government is a national embarrassment. We rank 84th in the world in women’s representation in government — behind such “modern” countries as Pakistan, China and Venezuela. While the governing bodies in countries like France and India are working on legislation that would force gender equality in positions of power, here at home, even under a Democratic president and Congress, we have no such legislation even contemplated. So what exactly do our organizations that consider themselves “progressive” stand for? Somehow in the rebranding from liberal to progressive, we left something behind: gender equality. How can an organization, or for that matter a political party, consider itself modern, progressive, advanced, or liberal if it does not prioritize gender representation? How can the organizations which are funding a primary challenge to Senator Lincoln ignore the fact that only 17% of our Senate is women? It would be progressive to get that down to 16%? I know, I know, it’s not our culture, it’s just that Senator Lincoln is just not the “right woman.” She has her faults and that is why we simply cannot support her. We have to wait for the right woman. Well, who pray tell is this right woman? Because the right women wasn’t Hillary or Sarah or Martha. Could it be that this “right woman” phenomenon is just a socially acceptable byline for our internalized sexism? If our country hopes to move forward, then we need to change the status quo. I won’t bore you with the numerous studies detailing why so few women run. Or why when women do run they are treated much more harshly than their male counterparts. But, I will proffer this: we start somewhere. Here’s a thought: women’s organizations should support women. Does that mean that every women’s organization needs to support every woman? No. But as my dear, departed mother taught me: ” if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all. ” That, at least, is a start. Here’s another thought: having more women in positions of power for BOTH parties is good for women and women’s issues. Why wouldn’t we work towards getting more women elected in both parties? Don’t we see example after example after example of women crossing party lines to vote together for women’s issues? And since we’ll never be able to control the political headwinds, doesn’t it behoove us to have as many women as possible running on both tickets in each election? True, not every woman candidate has the exact policy profile we desire. Does any male candidate? Perhaps in the short-term, we’ll have to be a bit more flexible and forgiving of our women. At least until we can get some semblance of gender equality. And, in the mean time, I’ll stand with Senator Blanche Lincoln and hope that you will too!
Original post:
Amy Siskind: Why I Still Stand With Blanche Lincoln
Ever since Sarah Jessica Parker visited Magnolia Bakery on Sex and the City, cupcakes have been America’s trendiest treat. Trendy may be bit of a misnomer then, since the so called “cupcake craze” has been growing for over a decade and shows no signs of fading anytime soon. However, it is exactly that special mix of hipness and surprising longevity that makes cupcakes something really sweet — a great fundraiser. Cupcakes for a Cause⢠is an annual national fundraiser for Cancer Care for Kids® built precisely on that notion. It began in 2004 in the birthplace of cupcake mania, New York City, with 12 local bakeries that sold cupcakes adorned with the signature Cancer Care for Kids smiley-face and donated a portion of the proceeds to the program. The company provides free professional support services, like counseling and financial assistance, to children affected by a cancer diagnosis, either their own or that of a family member or loved one. As the country’s love affair with cupcakes grew, so too did the campaign and the funds raised for the program. In 2009, for the week-long campaign in September there were over 365 participating bakery locations nationwide, featuring famous bakeries such as Baked in Brooklyn and Charleston, Georgetown Cupcake in Washington, D.C., and SusieCakes in Los Angeles, as well as several in-store bakeries in supermarkets like Whole Foods Market and Cub Foods. In addition to the bakeries, the campaign now includes a number of other fundraising vehicles: Bake sales: Student and community groups, companies, and individuals across the country host bake sales, with a free, downloadable bake sale kit supplied by Cupcakes for a Cause and its bake sale sponsor (in 2009, it was Reynolds Baking Cups®), and donate the proceeds to Cancer Care for Kids e-Cupcakes: Anyone can visit www.cupcakesforacause.org and send their friends and family these cute, virtual cupcakes for free. In 2009, 1-800-FLOWERS.COM ® donated1 per e-Cupcake for the first 5,000 sent. Cupcake in Bloomâ¢: In 2009, for the first time, non-edible Cupcakes for a Cause were available for purchase during Cupcakes Week - 1-800-FLOWERS.COM ’s Cupcake in Bloom. During the month of September, 10% of net proceeds from the sales of these cupcake-shaped floral arrangements benefitted Cancer Care for Kids. With multiple cupcake-based fundraising channels, the 2009 campaign raised nearly $100,000 for Cancer Care for Kids. And that’s what makes this campaign such a sweet success — it’s not just about the cupcakes but about who they help — children and adolescents who are coping with cancer. Whether they have cancer themselves or are grappling with a parent, sibling, or other loved one’s illness, children have specific needs in terms of understanding cancer and the challenges it presents. The Cancer Care for Kids program strives to address their concerns. Cancer Care ’s professional oncology social workers help families navigate the often complex issues they face when coping with a cancer diagnosis though age-appropriate counseling, therapeutic recreational activities, educational materials, and financial assistance. The 2010 Cupcakes for a Cause Week will be September 20-26, during Childhood Cancer Awareness Month. As this unique fundraiser enters its seventh year, CancerCare looks to continue its growth, mirroring the ongoing expansion of the cupcake market itself. Because if we can help provide free support services for children coping with cancer while enjoying a delicious and chic treat, well that’s just the frosting on the cupcake!
See the rest here:
Christina Wyman: A Sweeter Kind of Philanthropy: Cupcakes for a Cause
Socialist. Death panels. Downright evil. Those are just some of the talking points Sarah Palin uses to describe the Democrat’s health care plan. Well, I wonder if she was quite so outspoken when she was in Canada receiving medical attention? She said that her family used to go to Canada to get medical care when she was growing up. And she admitted that she found that “kind of ironic now.” Well, it’s more than ironic, it’s downright hypocritical. It’s time we stop letting Republican propaganda define our health care policy. Click here to stand up for the public option by signing our petition. Everyone deserves a chance for better health care, like Sarah Palin received as a child. I’m tired of seeing this debate framed by Republicans like Palin, who are more interested in protecting the health insurance companies than they are in bringing better health care coverage to millions of Americans. It’s time to fight back. Click here to stand up with millions of Americans for the public option by signing our petition on countdowntohealthcare.com. More on Sarah Palin
Here is the original post:
Rep. Anthony Weiner: Sarah Palin’s Trip to Canada
As a vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin condemned Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez as a “dictator” and called for “energy independence … to allow us to be less and less reliant on someone like Hugo Chavez.” Venezuela, one of the top suppliers of oil to the United States, “wanted to use energy sources as a weapon” under Chavez, she said.
More:
Todd Palin’s Iron Dog Team Sponsored By Venezuela-Owned Lubricant Brand
In informal discussions with people, I often shock them when I relate the simple fact that Jewish rabbis spoke Arabic and lived in the Arab-Muslim world. So conditioned have we become to Jews being Ashkenazim from Eastern Europe with their lox and bagels, chopped liver and matzoh ball soup, that it is startling for many to find that Jews once lived in the Arab world and acculturated to the norms of those places. In the immigration to America, many of our grandparents were native speakers of Arabic - even that American Jewish icon Jerry Seinfeld, on his mother’s side, comes from Syrian Jews who spoke Arabic and ate Arab food like kibbeh and samboosak! The reason that Arabic-speaking Jews are a strange thing to many is that Arabic is considered in some Jewish circles to be the language of the “enemy.” The very definition of the word “Sephardic” has taken on a European gloss when in reality it was first and foremost part of the Arabic civilization of al-Andalus. The figure of Moses Maimonides (ca. 1138-1204), perhaps the greatest post-Talmudic rabbi, exemplifies the complications and pitfalls involved in the Arabic articulation of Judaism. It can be said without exaggeration that to know Maimonides is to know Judaism. Never has such a figure become as central to Judaism as he has. And yet Maimonides, like many other religious giants, has been transformed and co-opted by reactionaries in order to suit their own agendas. Maimonides’ great genius was in the creation of a synthesis that my teacher Jose Faur has called “Religious Humanism.” Taking the parochial traditions of Judaism, its laws, its rituals and its particular understanding of God and the Covenant, and merging them with philosophy, science and history, Maimonides’ Religious Humanism was of a piece with the civilization of the Arabic Mediterranean world he lived in. But if you were to look for books that presented the teachings of Maimonides from this standpoint, you would be frustrated. The two most accessible studies of Maimonides over the past few decades completely ignored the Arabic context of Maimonides’ teaching by situating him in the context of Ashkenazi Orthodoxy: Isadore Twersky published his Introduction to the Code of Maimonides in 1982 and David Hartman issued his Maimonides: Torah and Philosophic Quest in 1977; both books have been perennial best-sellers and are routinely assigned to undergraduate students. It is therefore a very good thing that we now have two books which bring the work of Maimonides to a general audience without eliding the Arabic cultural context so critical to his teachings. In the work of Maimonides, the Muslim Ibn Rushd - better known to Westerners as Averroes - and the Catholic Thomas Aquinas, was generated a creative synthesis that was predicated upon the many advances being made in places like Cordoba, Baghdad and Cairo. And it is in Cordoba and later Cairo that Maimonides lived his life. The polyglot nature of this Arabo-Mediterranean world is crisply formulated by Joel Kraemer in his definitive biography Maimonides: The Life and World of One of Civilization’s Greatest Minds (Doubleday, 2009): From the ninth to the twelfth century, Islamic culture burgeoned, as scholars translated philosophy and science from Greek into Arabic, appropriating the ancient heritage creatively and critically. Scholarship, literature, art, and architecture thrived. The Islamic world surpassed Europe in culture and learning. In Spain, especially Toledo, and in Sicily, scholars translated Arabic philosophy and science into Latin, as Islamic culture became the bridge between the intellectual heritage of antiquity and the West. The transmission of learning from Greek into Arabic and then from Arabic into Hebrew and Latin and other European languages was a momentous achievement of human civilization, and it was vital for the formation of European thought in the medieval period. Kraemer has presented the general reader with a vigorous portrait of a Jewish sage whose relevance for our time is critical. His Maimonides is a figure who rejects superstition and religious fundamentalism in favor of a deeper and more penetrating understanding of the tradition. For all his brilliance, Maimonides has been repaid with a combination of scorn, mischaracterization and apathy. A number of his philosophical and scientific works were placed under ban by rabbis in the orbit of Franco-German Judaism. Bowdlerization of his work continues to this day. A welcome addition to Kraemer’s definitive biography is Sarah Stroumsa’s Maimonides in his World: A Portrait of a Mediterranean Thinker (Princeton University Press, 2009). Srroumsa’s book is the perfect complement to Kraemer’s portrait. The book delves into even more detail to discover many of Maimonides’ innovations and the way in which they were enabled. Critical to Stroumsa’s reading of Maimonides is her insistence that it is impossible to understand any of his texts without taking into account the scholarship of the Arabo-Islamic thinkers of his day: Maimonides’ theory of religion was profoundly affected by his uncensored reading in what he believed to be the authentic ancient pagan writings. His interpretation of biblical precepts was the result of discoveries he believed himself to have made in the course of these readings. Furthermore, his legal methodology was conditioned by his immersion in Almohad society, and by his encounter with Muslim law in general and with Almohad law in particular. To fully understand Maimonides’ legal writings and to duly appreciate his tremendous contribution to the development of Jewish law, all these elements, seemingly external to the Jewish legacy, must be taken into account. Maimonides is thus just the sort of religious visionary that our times call for. Beyond this, Maimonides provides those who remain stymied by the binary division of Jew and Arab with another possibility: A fusion of Jewish and Arab-Muslim culture that is grounded in the realities of history. In these two books we can better come to terms with a forgotten history that brings together Jews, Christians and Muslims under the rubric of Arabic civilization. As Kraemer so expertly states: Although many states, ethnic groups, and religions emerged in the Mediterranean region, political boundaries did not stifle free movement and did not interfere with the unity and autonomy of religious and ethnic groups. Rather than remain chained to a model of culture and civilization that separates the protagonists in the Middle East conflict, perhaps it is high time that we traveled back in time to rediscover the legacy of Maimonides that is so richly detailed in these wonderful books. More on Religion
Here is the original post:
David Shasha: Moses Maimonides: Arab Jew, Religious Humanist
Sarah Palin’s recent statement that, presumably during her childhood, she and her family used to cross the border from Alaska to take advantage of Canada’s health care system is not really a gaffe or a verbal slipup, but offers an interesting insight into Palin. It is not exactly surprising, or even”ironic,” to use Palin’s words, that somebody who has made a name, and a great deal of money, for herself by linking health care reform to some kind of socialist bogeyman, used to take advantage of socialized medicine. Speaking to a Canadian audience and reminiscing about traveling to Canada for health care as a child is the kind of thing we might expect from a progressive supporter of health care seeking to stress the need for a better health care reform system in the US. Had, for example, Anthony Weiner made this comment while on the Canadian side of the border near New York, you can be sure that Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and, yes, Sarah Palin would be seeking to red bait him out of the congress. There will, of course, be no such consequence for Palin. While it is easy to point out the absurdity of somebody who, as a child, was made aware of the shortcomings of the American health care system spending so much energy fighting against the need to change that system, or to mock Palin for seeming to be unaware of just how telling this statement is, it also suggests a few of her political strengths. From the time she became a national figure slightly more than 30 months ago, Palin has been, political opinions aside, a confounding mix of political positives and negatives. She is clearly an effective communicator who is able to connect with audiences, albeit within a somewhat limited demographic bandwidth. She has been reasonably successful in turning her most glaring political weakness, her seeming lack of knowledge of public policy, into a strength. She has done this by constantly reasserting her identity as an outsider to explain this away. Like former President Bush, Palin is rarely burdened by any doubt or sense of nuance, so is able to appeal to voters seeking clear, concise and accessible explanations, regardless of if they are wrong. Palin’s ability to turn weaknesses into strengths makes her a potentially formidable politician, but she is weakened by an unwillingness to truly prepare, study or learn. She has been able to hide this by challenging her critics, but one wonders how much more effective she would be if she immersed herself in the study of even a small number of issues. This latest episode plays very well into Palin’s strengths. It is easy to imagine that in the unlikely event that she was challenged for her statement, she would reply that she is not a Washington insider who studies everything her opponents say waiting for a gaffe, but is out there talking to real people. She would avoid the question of how she evolved from a young person who left the country due to the weakness of the American health care system to a middle-aged person who believes that changing that system puts us on the road to Stalinism by asserting her outsider status. The likely lack of fallout around this issue underscores another of Sarah Palin’s surprising political strengths. Although she has been surrounded by bad stories and mini-scandals for about thirty months, including: attacks from former aids to John McCain , reports of spending extraordinary amounts of RNC money on clothes and makeup , an unexpected resignation from her position as Alaska’s governor punctuated by an almost surreal resignation speech , various issues regarding her family and her one time son-in-law to be and others, none of it has ever really stuck. Palin is a polarizing figure — and will likely remain that way as long as she is on the national stage — but she is also something of an unsinkable one. A key to Palin’s resilience may have been revealed in this latest comment. To Palin it was a throwaway line, good for building a folksy rapport with a Canadian audience. Referring to this as “ironic” is sufficiently cryptic that it is not clear what it even means, but it is clear from her lack of effort to distance herself from this remark that Palin is not really aware of how revealing this admission is. Palin is a complicated political figure, but she may be of less off an ideologue than first thought. Clearly, a true right wing ideologue would probably not have made this revelation. The informality of Palin’s revelation, and her seeming lack of understanding of what it meant, suggests that for Palin, the right wing populism, while fun and easy, is not really grounded in anything other than the advancement of Sarah Palin. More on Sarah Palin
Read the original:
Lincoln Mitchell: Sarah Palin’s Canadian Health Care
Today, President Obama welcomes Mauricio Funes, the president of El Salvador, in what is his first meeting with a Central American head of state at the White House. The Center for Democracy in the Americas has reported on the development of the Funes administration from the time we monitored the elections which brought him and his party, the FMLN, to power through his inauguration to the early successes of his term. Now, Linda Garrett , our organization’s El Salvador consultant, has written an analysis of the issues likely to arise in this meeting and why it important - if not remarkable - that they are meeting at all. Thirty years ago this month Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero was assassinated by a right-wing hit man with a bullet through his heart as he celebrated Mass. His murder shocked the world. El Salvador spiraled into the chaos of a long civil war, with Washington supporting succeeding conservative governments and the military against the leftist guerrilla coalition, the FMLN, in one of the final confrontations of the Cold War. Now, following twenty years of conservative administrations the FMLN is the party in power and its candidate, Mauricio Funes - a former journalist, not a member of the party - is the democratically elected president of the country. And today President Mauricio Funes will meet with President Obama, the first Central American leader to be received in this White House. The two have much in common: both are young, smart, center-left pragmatic leaders who have assumed power in the midst of severe economic downturn. Both face challenges from the right and left as they attempt to build post-ideological consensus for domestic and foreign policy programs and strategies. They also have a shared interest in helping El Salvador address issues like security and fostering economic growth. To the surprise of many, El Salvador under the leadership of this center-left president and a party representing a former guerrilla army is becoming the most reliable Central American ally of Washington. But whereas the Bush Administration could count on former Salvadoran governments to send troops to Iraq and in essence, as one analyst said, “to act as the lapdog of the State Department,” President Funes is attempting to build a balanced, independent foreign policy. During his first eight months in office the president and his foreign minister Hugo Martinez have normalized diplomatic relations with Cuba, Vietnam and Libya while simultaneously making clear that he looks to Brazilian president Lula de Silva and to Barack Obama as his models for governance, not Venezuela’s president Hugo Chávez. As the Salvadorans pursue an open, non-aligned diplomatic strategy, realities on the ground in the U.S. and in El Salvador require the presidents to forge a close, mutually beneficial relationship. Among the issues of concern that will surely be on the agenda when the two presidents meet is immigration. An estimated 2.5 million Salvadorans live in the United States and the remittances they send home - over $300 million last year - keep the country afloat. Of those 2.5 million, 240,000 benefited from the TPS (Temporary Protection Status) granted in 2001 after Hurricane Mitch. Leaders of the Salvadoran community argue that these hardworking taxpaying immigrants should be given legal residency status. And though immigration reform seems unlikely this year, Salvadorans hope the TPS can be extended in order to legalize the status of more Salvadorans. This is not just an immigration issue, but also a security issue. Some 20,000 Salvadorans are deported from the U.S. every year. Some of the deportees have criminal records or are alleged gang members, and are dumped off planes at Comalapa Airport with nothing but bus fare and no hope for honest employment; many have never lived in the country and have no family, nothing except gang connections. And this has repercussions for the U.S. El Salvador is considered one of the most violent countries in the hemisphere - with an estimated 17,000 known gang members on the streets and 10,000 in prison. According to a recent survey by the mainstream newspaper La Prensa Grafica, nearly 1/3 of all residents of the capital have been affected by criminal activity during the past three months. Though gang activity represents only part of the problem - organized crime has infiltrated government institutions - the situation is so serious that President Funes has ordered the military to participate in joint operations with the National Civil Police. Despite criticism from human rights organizations, and Funes’ understandable reluctance to order his troops to patrol the streets given the history of abuses by the military, the president had few options. The violence could derail his social agenda and destabilize already debilitated government institutions. The bottom line is that increasing violence in El Salvador provides additional opportunity for drug and human trafficking, money laundering and other illicit activities that filter north. Central America is the south to north funnel for cocaine and heroin traffic and thus a security priority for the U.S. The FBI, ATF and DEA are all on the ground in-country and El Salvador hosts the DEA’s “Cooperative Security” monitoring station for the region. But more assistance is needed including funding and technical training for the under-equipped and poorly paid police force. Beyond security, the two nations are also intertwined financially. El Salvador has been on the dollar economy since 2001 and is vulnerable to fluctuations in the U.S. financial system. The crisis in the north also means fewer jobs for immigrants and a reduction in the crucial remittances returned home. President Funes inherited an enormous financial deficit but he and his economic cabinet have skillfully earned the confidence of international financial institutions and of much of the domestic business sector, though some investors say they need greater legal reassurance that their investments will be protected. From immigration to security to economics, the two presidents clearly share great interests and opportunities, but at a higher level, what is most remarkable is that they are meeting at all. We share a complex, sometimes excruciatingly painful history. Many Salvadorans suffered as a consequence of U.S. policy in the 1980’s and some in Washington may be uneasy with the new Salvadoran government. But as the Obama administration recognizes the importance of developing consequential relationships with the southern hemisphere, El Salvador can be a key ally. So why should we - and President Obama - care about El Salvador? One Salvadoran analyst put it this way: “Our impoverishment and/or extinction can destabilize the entire region and this can affect you, Mr. President…For this reason we come to request your aid while we are still living.” More on Latin America
View original post here:
Sarah Stephens: Why should we care about El Salvador?
Wow. She touched on climate change, saying that her skepticism has been proven by several recent controversies and that money shouldn’t be spent on “pie-in-the-sky, snake-oil ideas.” The vocal opponent of health care reform in the U.S. steered largely clear of the topic except to reveal a tidbit about her life growing up not far from Whitehorse. “We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada,” she said. “And I think now, isn’t that ironic.” Who is “she?” She is Sarah Palin. Sarah “Death Panels” Palin. Sarah “Socialism” Palin. Sarah Palin’s freeloading family used to border-hop for Canadian socialist, single payer, death panel health care for themselves, only to return to the U.S., where she grew up to dedicate herself to denying affordable care to you , largely by hoping you’ll believe that the Canadian health care she crossed the border to get sucks so badly, it’ll kill you. Oh, not to mention the favorite Republican claim that passing health care reform in this country will supposedly rip off taxpayers by making health care available to border-hoppers! Who here lives up near the border? How does this work? Was Palin’s family sticking Canadian taxpayers for the bill, or do Americans pay up front for treatment in Canada? Palin thinks the word for this is “ironic.” I think of it more in terms of “going to Hell.” But that’s just me. Religious freedom and all that. (h/t to @Will_Bunch )
Read more:
I got mine. The rest of you can drop the f*@# dead!
My favorites of the Our Gang short films of 75 and 80 years ago (back when “gang” was an innocent term), were the ones where Spanky McFarland became a 9 year-old Ziegfeld, and staged big shows full of all-kid casts on make-shift stages. Well although the Kodak Theater in Hollywood is hardly a make-shift stage, this year’s Oscar producers, Adam Shankman and Bil Mechanic, were so dedicated to the Quixotic task of luring in young viewers, that we were given a show full of presenters that appeared to have gone through puberty during the rehearsals, and I felt like I was seeing The Oscars as produced by Spanky McFarland. Also, bear in mind as we go along that Shankman and Mechanic promised to speed up the ceremony from last year’s, which was just winding up as this year’s attendees were arriving. They opened with the Best Actor and Best Actress nominees all lined up together on the stage. Why? They didn’t even do anything. Were Shenkman and Mechanic just bragging that they’d gotten them all to show up, even though everyone knew who was going to take Best Actor weeks ago? Neal Patrick Harris, in the world’s gayest tuxedo (really, Liberace’s ghost was calling it over the top.), did a fairly pointless opening number, the gist of which seemed to be trying to justify having two hosts, when Steve Martin has shown before that he is perfectly capable of hosting alone. Throughout the evening, Martin was consistently funny, even if his two-facelifts-too-many countenance now looks like an old Chinese man. Baldwin was amusing, but not as funny as Martin, and this was a comedy team that had no need to exist. Penelope Cruz had the honor of being the first person to completely blow a scripted gag. Don’t hire her for comedies. Christopher Plummer was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for playing Leo Tolstoy, one of those truly magnificent writers no one ever actually reads. The first non-surprise of the evening was Best Supporting Actor going to Chrostopher Waltz. The show’s script actually said: “Penelope Cruz gives Best Supporting Actor to Christopher Waltz.” The other nominees had to have presenting gigs to even get them to show up. Waltz showed during his acceptance speech that only someone who could brilliantly play a Nazi could convincingly praise Quentin Tarantino, the most overpraised man in Hollywood. (And that is a hotly-contested title.) Ryan Reynolds introduced the first of the 87 movies nominated for Best Picture, the wretched, two-dimensional, aren’t-white-conservative-gun-nuts-wonderful-people, feel-good movie for Red States, The Blind Side. In the animated bit for Up , Edward Asner got to say “Stop it, Doug,” which is practically my catchphrase around the house. It was interesting to hear people clap for The Secret of Kells , as though they’d seen it, or even heard of it. Now if it had been The Secret of the Krell , I’d know it was that they’d wiped themselves out 20 million years ago by unwittingly unleashing their Id monsters. The category Best Song has changed over the years from actually the Best Song to Least-Forgettable “Song” Stuck Into the Closing Credits in Hope of a Nomination. Frankly, no one has taken this category seriously since it was won by It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp , which didn’t even have a melody. We saw the winning song, The Weary Kind from Crazy Heart , sung for a few seconds by that famous recording artist Colin Ferrall. I have all his album. Winner T-Bone Burnett (Does it say that on his birth certificate?) did the too-cool-for-school affectation of wearing sunglasses indoors at night. He made the mistake of letting his co-winner, Ryan Bingham, say a few words first. Oops. No two-winners-speaking here. What are we, the BAFTAs? T-Bone was whisked off the stage without getting a word in. In the Original Screenplay nominee excerpt from A Serious Man , we read “She hands him a glass and sits on the couch next to him,” while on the screen we saw the actress playing the role sit an the couch and then hand him the glass. The actress’s refusal to do the scene as written ruined the shot, and clearly cost this film its Oscar. As written, performers, do it as written! (And bless comedy goddess Tina Fey for being genuinely funny, as usual.) When did Molly Ringwald become a middle-aged woman? Since the great Mary Travers died last year, Molly has appropriated her look. She and Matthew Broderick presented a special tribute to the late John Hughes. How does Hughes outrank the other great talents that died last year? He was okay I guess (his films did little for me. I liked Planes, Trains & Automoblies , but only because I’ve had sex in all three, once on the same day. Well, more than once.), but Hughes was no Jean Simmons or Larry Gelbart or David Brown or Karl Malden. And then, after the Hughes montage, they brought out every person who had ever appeared in one of his films, and had them go on about him at greater length. This was reaching the point of being an insult to the other greats who died this year who only got 5 seconds each in the montage later in the show. I’m sorry, for me Hughes peaked back when he was writing for The National Lampoon . And is this what they call speeding up the ceremony? During the Short Animated Films (you know, cartoons) montage, the usually-brilliant John Lassiter said: “You know one of the things I like best about short films? They’re short.” I half-expected him to add, “and they’re films.” Later he added: “Tools never make great films.” Don’t let James Cameron or Quentin Tarantino hear you, because those tools both think they’ve made great films. And actually, some films are made by no one but tools. The Oscar for Best animated short went to Logorama , a film with more product placement in 16 minutes that 10 entire seasons of Survivor. So Roger Ross Williams was starting to accept his Oscar for Best Documentary Short for a film titled Music By Prudence , when what I assume was his co-winner, Elinor Burkett, rushed up on stage, shoved him aside, interrupted him by talking over him until he gave up and shut up, and then blathered on, under the delusion that anyone was paying attention to anything but her incredible rudeness. My condolences to Williams if he has to work with this insufferable woman. They not only played over her, but had to shut off her mike to finally get her silenced. Ironically, the presentation for short films was particularly long, as not only are there three awards to give out, but the winners are seated at The Los Angeles Music Center, 10 miles away, and we had to wait until they were bussed to the stage. Ben Stiller came out made up as a smurf, and made random noises, saying that this had seemed a better idea at rehearsal. They must have been doing some heavy drugs at rehearsal. But then, when isn’t Ben Stiller doing a bit that “seemed like a good idea at rehearsal”? Star Trek won Best Make Up for pointlessly concealing Eric Bana’s great beauty, although I think that should have been punished, not rewarded. The look-at-the-script-while-we-watch-the-scene-it-became bit was repeated for Best Adapted Screenplay, but it would have made more sense to show us pages of the original, and then the adaptation, so we’re seeing the essence of adaptation. Someone needed to think this through better. The award went to Jeffrey Fletcher for adapting the movie Precious, based on the novel Push by Sapphire from the novel Push by Sapphire. And I’d thought it was an original screenplay. He cried, so now I know where Mo’Nique gets it. He wrote her Golden Globes tears for her. Queen Latifah came out and told us about the Oscars which were handed out in stealth way the hell back on November 14th to Gordon Willis, John Calley, Lauren Becall, and the great, underrated-because-he-won’t-allow-you-to-overrate-him Roger Corman. I was disgusted when these awards were handed out so surreptitiously at the time, and wrote a column about them, especially Roger Corman, called The Stealth Oscars , which you can read by clicking on it. Shameful. Only two of the stealth winners, Lauren and Roger, even got to go to the real Oscar ceremony, and they weren’t allowed to come up onstage or speak. They’re old. I’d rather listen to Roger and Lauren, both genuine movie legends, than to Zoe Saldana, Amanda Seyfried, Miley Cyrus, or Taylor Lautner, all of of whom did get to speak, and none of whom had the slightest idea who Lauren Becall or Roger Corman even are. As Robin Williams came out to hand out Best Supporting Actress, towels were being handed out, sandbags were being piled up, and dykes were being asked to lie in front of the stage. It was almost as though all were resigned to Mo’Nique taking the award. During the nominees montage we got to see Maggie Gyllenhall being moved by her own performance. Who knew Crazy Heart wasn’t a one-man show? Sure enough, Mo’Nique Based on the novel Push by Sapphire won. She’s learned from the reactions she received to her sodden Golden Globes acceptance speech and her stern angry SAG Awards acceptance speech. This time she took a solemn approach, appropriate to the seriousness in which she holds herself. (This woman is actually a stand-ip comedienne? I’ve watched her accept three awards now - thank Heaven she didn’t attend the BAFTAs - and I’ve yet to hear her make even one joke, or go near getting a laugh, or even a smile.) No, this time she was in full-of-herself mode, with how significant and important she sees this meaningless publicity moment as. And she’d also learned not to improvise her speech. Clearly every word of this one was written, memorized, and rehearsed, in the sure and certain knowledge that she had it in the bag. First she closed her eyes and stood solemn and serious, like a preacherette waiting to deliver God’s Word, basking in the standing ovation that her section of the audience had started, and the rest of the sheep in the room reluctantly joined in. (This was not one of those the-whole-audience-leaps-to-its feet-cheering-spontaneously moments. It was serious, dutiful, and rehearsed.) Once everyone was aware that she was Mother Theresa reborn, she began speaking quietly, forcefully, and seriously. It was a more calculated performance than the one in her bleak, depressing movie. “First I would like to thank the Academy for showing that it can be about the performance and not the politics.” I loved the “it can be,” not “it is” but “it can be.” Secondly, what politics? Were the Republicans pushing for Maggie Gyllenhall? Frankly, I was beginning to think maybe it was just the opposite. But this speech was clearly going to be about the performance: the one she was giving as she spoke. “I’d like to thank Miss Hattie McDaniel for enduring all that she had to, so that I would not have to.” Hattie never heard of you, Mo darling. But yes, let’s thank Hattie for having a nice life as a movie star, as Hattie herself pointed out, making a fortune playing maids instead of a pittance being a maid. One thing Hattie never was was full-of-herself. The next lines were more mysterious, and more unintentionally funny. (Nothing like an un intentionally funny stand-up comedienne.) “Tyler Perry and Orpah Winfrey, because you touched it, the whole world saw it.” Dare I ask what “it” is? Whatever “it” is, I don’t want to watch Tyler Perry touch it. However, if she meant the movie, the “whole world” hasn’t seen it. I certainly haven’t and won’t. This week Entertainment Weekly described Precious Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire thusly: “A harrowing nightmare of domestic abuse so bleak that it’s a miracle director Lee Daniels finds a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel.” I spend money on movie admissions for a good time, not for bleak, harrowing nightmares of domestic abuse, fun as that sounds. And even if it were something I’d want to subject myself to, Mo’Nique’s I’m-Elinor-Roosevelt-and-Mother-Theresa-combined full-of-herself acceptance appearances would put me off forever. She then thanked her lawyer (That was a True Hollywood Moment), her BET family, her Precious Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire family, and finally her husband, to whom she delivered this gem: “Thank you for showing me that sometimes you have to forgo doing what’s popular to do what’s right, and baby [looking at the Oscar in her hand] you were so right.” So her winning an Oscar was what it was all about? In any event, Mo, you made a movie, a successful movie. You weren’t feeding the hungry in Haiti, or getting medical supplies to the survivors in Chili, or even marching for civil rights, facing bigoted cops and angry lynch mobs. You were making a movie. You had a trailer, crafts services, and a personal assistant, if not several. And now you have an Oscar. I’m told you gave a very good performance. You certainly proved yourself an actress as you accepted. But it’s an Oscar, not a Nobel Prize, or sainthood. Over yourself, get you must. At least she bestowed God’s blessing on everyone this time, rather than thanking God for her award. Apparently God didn’t arrange for this one. And, of course, she said not a word about the other nominees in her category. After all, they were all whores who were doing what was popular, and depending on politics to win, while she was an artiste doing what was right, and receiving her just-if-barely-adequate reward. Thank Heaven she can’t get an Emmy for it too. At least this is her last award show coronation, I mean acceptance speech, that I’ll have to endure. Best Production Design went to The Smurf Movie. Oh well, when you have to design a whole planet from scratch, it is a large job. Two winners got to speak. The first designer began kissing James Cameron’s butt, but before he could nauseate the whole room, he was shoved aside so a co-winner could make it about his own overcoming of a death-sentence-illness to survive to this triumph. Though I don’t know who he was, nor what his illness was, it’s more enjoyable to listen to than people praising Cameron’s genius. James can handle that himself better than anyone. Best Costumes went to The Young Victoria , for digging through the trunks in the attics at Windsor Castle, to unearth out the musty outfits Queen Victoria Principal made the British People pay for a century ago. Three time Oscar Winner Sandy Powell graciously acknowledged the designers who do less-showy work on cheaper, contemporary films, who usually go unrewarded. (Let’s face it, the Costume Oscar almost always goes to Costume Movies), though she honestly said she was keeping the award. You see Mo’Nique, that’s how you accept an award graciously, modestly, and with humor. There was an unintended irony to Sarah Jessica Parker Broderick presenting Best Costumes while she was being strangled by her own gown. At least I assume it was strangling her, as otherwise her reaching up to adjust the sash cutting into her throat while her co-presenter Tom Ford spoke was just deliberate upstaging. Surely such a seasoned pro wasn’t so small as to deliberately try to draw attention away from her co-presenter? Yes, it must have been her gown attacking her. Adorable infant Taylor Lautner took time away from doing a late term paper which will be 50% of his grade to introduce a time-wasting-but-enjoyable montage tribute to horror movies with the odd statement: “Although the most popular genre of movie is horror…” Oh really? That will be news to makers of comedies, women’s melodramas, gangster movies, even westerns. I love them (Well, I love classical ones. The torture-porn trash of film makers like Eli Roth just revolt me. I loved the new The Wolfman .), but they’re hardly “the most popular genre of movie.” Lautner and his co-presenter, Kristin Stewart star in those atrocious Twilight movies, and which are full of vampires and werewolves, they are not horror movies. They are horr ible movies, but their genre is fantasy tween Mormon romance porn. Lautner went on: “…somehow [horror] doesn’t seem to command the respect it deserves.” Of course, many feel it does command “the respect it deserves,” though I am not one of them I still feel Boris Karloff was robbed when he wasn’t nominated for Bride of Frankenstein . Some Academy historian should have vetted Kristin’s speech, and prevented her blatant error: “It’s been thirty-seven long years since horror had it’s place on this show, when The Exorcist
More here:
Tallulah Morehead: The Our Gang Oscars.