Handicapping the Oscars

OK, movie buff as I am, this when I take a break from politics and write about the Academy Awards.  I've probably done this before, but it's worth repeating (says me about me). 

If you are trying to tough out who will win what, here's a main rule to keep in mind:  A lot of the people who vote on the Oscars are people who either have been in the movie business a very long time or have been influenced by what we refer to as "old movies."  They like what they did and they vote for the movies that remind them of what they did.  Hence....

Which movie will win Best Picture?
Movies that cause nostalgia for movies of the Forties, Fifties, early Sixties etc. generally win this one.  So look for the film that has at least one if not multiples of these ingredients:

1. War movies
2. Epics
3. Gladiator flicks, aka sword and sandal movies
4. Film noir like detective/crime stories
5. Star-crossed love stories
6. Gangsters
7. Spectacular Disasters (see: Epics)
8. Message films

I've used this guide and I usually have successfully chosen the Best Picture Oscar every year with the exception of about twice - sometimes by seeing the movie, a couple of times just by the movie poster or description.  I called 'Titanic' on the way out of the movie theater (#2, #5, #7), 'Gladiator' just by the poster (#2, #3).  One category not listed here has made a comeback of sorts - the Musical - but they are still comparatively rare.


There is an exception to the above however, and you usually get plenty of warning beforehand when it's coming.  I call it Foreign Film Fever or Artsy-Fartsy-itis.  Those are the years the Best Picture goes generally to a British film set in the Victorian era or the overwhelming "importance" of a movie from say, India, gets "Slumdog Millionaire" the statuette to take home.

My prediction for Best Picture this year:  AVATAR (#2, #5, #7, #8)

Who will win the Acting Awards?

This is harder to call since so many factors come to play here, like:

1. Did the performance really knock everybody's socks off?
2. Did the actor or actress get passed over for an Oscar earlier and is this their make-up one?
3. How many times has the actor/actress won or been nominated already?
4. Is this an encouragement Oscar for someone seen as an up-and-comer?

Usually the rule for the acting awards is that the supporting actor/actress ones are for up-and-coming first timers and the main ones are for the stars - the rare exception is for performances like Jamie Foxx's turn as Ray Charles which was impossible to deny.  The Academy Awards like to spread the wealth with these - they may nominate someone year after year but rarely award that way.  Best Director pretty much follows these rules as well.

The rest of the Oscars tend to be for technical things - writing, art direction, music soundtracks, etc. - and I don't pay them much attention outside of the fact that seeing which movie picks up a lot of them is usually a good clue as to which one is going to be the Best Picture that year.

Granted, there isn't a thing important about any of this outside of the added box office a nomination and win gets for a movie company's profits and I probably won't have seen most of the nominated films by the time of the Oscar show on TV.  But hey, it's still fun to watch and I get to do shallow once in a while.

Oh, and one last thing:  Horror, Science Fiction and Comedy movies?  If your name ain't Clark Gable or Anthony Hopkins, y'all just keep movin' on down the road.  The Oscars just don't cotton to your kind.

Bartcop Nails it again

Twelve hours driving alone...


I've been saying for years that Democrats are all about being fair.

Remember the old westerns, when Little Joe Cartwright was in a fight,
he'd knock the guy down, then help him to his feet and knock him down again?

But when the bad guy knocked down Little Joe, he'd kick him in the face.

I always wondered, why does the good guy always want to fight fair?

That's today's Democrats and I think I see the source of their confusion.
The Democrats seem to think they're in the NFL, and it's important to
play by the rules because there's no shame in losing if you tried your best.

They want to play the game with honor and that's a laudable goal,
but the other team is cheating so there's no way we're in a fair fight.

The Democrats don't understand that this isn't some damn football game.
It's the future of our country and health care and civil rights they're supposed
to be fighting for, but they're all hung up on playing by the rules and it's killing us.

The Democrats have laid down their arms in the hope that the GOP teabaggers
will see that disarming themselves would be the fair thing to do, but the GOP
just laughs at how gullible and naive the Democrats are as they shoot at us.

I wish the Democrats would put winning first, for once, and playing fair second.

Tell me, if you're walking with your wife on the street and some asshole jumps out
from behind a bush with a knife and says, "Give me your wallet and your wife,"
a Democrat might - I say might - engage him but as soon as he knocked the
mugger down, the Democrat would be all Little Joe and help the mugger back to his feet.

Not me.

I'd wail on the bastard until a crowd pulled me off of him.

I'd beat his head with a brick until he stopped moving.

That's what we need in this life-and-death fight we're currently in.

More bartcop and less "Let's be fair."

I'm sick to f-ing death of fighting fair - and losing.

Democrats need to fight dirty - whatever it takes to win..



Bartcop.com

Air America, RIP

Today, Air America announced that it has filed for bankruptcy and will end their live programs this afternoon. This is at least the third time they have done so and they have been bought previously and brought back. If this is really it for them this time, its sad for them but it doesn't mean the end of progressive talk radio.


First, a word of appreciation for Air America. Simply put, if it wasn't for them we liberals who are talk radio fans would still be stuck with Rush and his clones with no relief in sight.

Years ago, an article on CommonDreams.org made the argument that the reason liberal talk had failed because stations ran liberal shows in the middle of a conservative talk line-up. He said it was like placing an hour of classical or country music in the line-up of a rock radio station - the people who tuned in to hear rock didn't want to hear it and that dynamic was killing liberal talk. He suggested that the way to make liberal/progressive talk radio a going concern wasn't just putting out more shows, it would be to create radio stations where it would be all liberal talk, all day.

Air America was the first to take that advice to heart and go with it. They found failing radio stations across the country and offered them a complete package of liberal talk shows. The progressive radio station closest to me here in Oregon - KPOJ AM in Portland - was a low-power station with low listenership when they decided to take the plunge and was one of the first stations in the country to go with Air America from day one.

They had problems starting out. Unsure of how to approach liberal talk, they started out with only one experienced liberal talk show host - Randi Rhodes, who had a local liberal talk show in Florida. Otherwise, they believed that the way to do liberal talk was to fill their airwaves with entertainers - mainly comedians. Al Franken was tapped to be their 'name' flagship show and was so inexperienced as a radio show host that they had to pair him with a woman as co-host who had briefly hosted a public radio talk show to keep the show flowing and provide Franken with on-the-job training. They kept tweaking the format but eventually got to where we're at now.

However, Air America did one thing - they kicked the door open for progressive talk and showed that it could be profitable. My station went from nearly going off the air to a radio station that increased power and if it isn't the number one station in its market it is in the top ten.

Progressive radio was moving away from Air America long before today. Air America got local liberal talk stations their initial audience but now most are a mash of liberal syndicated programs. Randi Rhodes and Thom Hartmann started out as Air America programs, they are now their own separate shows. Ed Schultz was and is a syndicated show who's show is carried by liberal-only talk radio stations and ones who mix his show in with a variety of points of view. Mike Malloy, Bill Press, Stephanie Miller, even Alan Colmes - all separate syndicated programs. For my locale, about the only Air America shows left on my station are the Ron Reagan show during the week and the weekend "Ring of Fire" program.

So, it this is it for them finally, I send Air America a fond adieu and and much thanks. Thanks to them, progressive talk radio exists and continues to thrive.

And another thing....

I'm seeing a lot of tweet, blog posts, and emails about the right wing echo chamber.  You know, who said what, the latest outrage on *** network - usually with a cry of "Won't someone DO SOMETHING about that?" 

Well hey, aren't YOU somebody?  Why, yes you are!

Ask yourself - why does the mainstream media kowtow so much to the righties?  OK, it's a given that their corporate owners' hearts are with them, but one thing that any news organization values most is its reputation for a fair, even-handed approach to the news.  The righties have shortcircuited that and got them to go their way.  How?  Well, when the righties see something they don't like, they are on the phone or computer telling them so - usually accompanied with a threat to stop watching their shows and boycott their sponsors.

It's worked.  It's why, with the Democrats in the majority in DC, we are seeing losers like Newt Gingrich and John McCain being interviewed instead of Democrats who chair committees and such.  It's why we see more right wing think tanks spokespeople from the Heritage Foundation, etc. instead of people from organizations dedicated to supporting and urging Democratic/liberal philosophy and programs.  It's why, when the Iraq War was getting going, we saw no stories about Iraq civilian causualties.

It's because the righties have scared the hell out of them and the media wants to keep them watching.

I say enough of that crap.

I say we stop complaining amongst ourselves when some news show allows some rightwing nut to baldface lie on camera without a peep.  No more weepy tweets about how the media is presenting the Republicans like they are still in charge and what they say is important.  And on and on and on.

Don't say that to us - we're already with you.  Tell it to the news media.  There's more of us than there are GOPbaggers, let them worry about offending us for a change.  When you see or hear of the traditional media pandering to the right, let them know that it's not acceptable to you.  Don't shake you head in disgust, pick up the phone or fire up the computer.

Below is contact information for news sources.  Keep this information handy and start USING IT.

Network/Cable Television


ABC News
77 W. 66 St., New York, NY 10023
Phone: 212-456-7777

General e-mail: netaudr@abc.com
Nightline: nightline@abcnews.com
20/20: 2020@abc.com

CBS News
524 W. 57 St., New York, NY 10019
Phone: 212-975-4321
Fax: 212-975-1893

Email forms for all CBS news programs
CBS Evening News: evening@cbsnews.com
The Early Show: earlyshow@cbs.com
60 Minutes II: 60m@cbsnews.com
48 Hours: 48hours@cbsnews.com
Face The Nation: ftn@cbsnews.com

CNBC
900 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
Phone: (201) 735-2622
Fax: (201) 583-5453

Email: info@cnbc.com

CNN
One CNN Center, Box 105366, Atlanta, GA 30303-5366
Phone: 404-827-1500
Fax: 404-827-1784

Fox News Channel
1211 Ave. of the Americas, New York, NY 10036
Phone: (212) 301-3000
Fax: (212) 301-4229

comments@foxnews.com

List of Email addresses for all Fox News Channel programs
Special Report with Bret Baier: Special@foxnews.com
FOX Report with Shepard Smith: Foxreport@foxnews.com
The O'Reilly Factor: Oreilly@foxnews.com
Hannity: Hannity@foxnews.com,
On the Record with Greta: Ontherecord@foxnews.com

Glenn Beck: GlennBeck@foxnews.com

MSNBC/NBC
30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10112
Phone: (212) 664-4444
Fax: (212) 664-4426

List of Email addresses for all MSNBC/NBC news programs

Dateline NBC: dateline@nbcuni.com
Hardball with Chris Matthews: hardball@msnbc.com
MSNBC Reports with Joe Scarborough: joe@msnbc.com
NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams: nightly@nbc.com
NBC News Today: today@nbc.com

PBS
2100 Crystal Drive, Arlington VA 22202
Phone: 703-739-5000
Fax: 703-739-8458

The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer: newshour@pbs.org

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Radio Programs


National Public Radio
635 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20001-3753
Phone: 202-513-3232
Fax: 202-513-3329

E-mail: Alicia Shephard, Ombudsman ombudsman@npr.org


The Rush Limbaugh Show
1270 Avenue of the Americas, NY 10020
Phone (on air): 800-282-2882
Fax: 212-445-3963

E-mail: ElRushbo@eibnet.com


Sean Hannity Show
Phone (on air): 800-941-7326
Sean Hannity: 212-613-3800
James Grisham, Producer: 212-613-3807

E-mail: Phil Boyce, Program Director phil.boyce@citcomm.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



National Newspapers


The Los Angeles Times
202 West First Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: 800-528-4637 or 213-237-5000
Fax: 213-237-4712

L.A. Times Contact Information by Department

Letters to the Editor: letters@latimes.com
Readers' Representative: readers.rep@latimes.com


The New York Times
620 8th Ave., New York, NY 10018
Phone: 212-556-1234
D.C. Bureau phone: 202-862-0300
Fax: 212-556-3690


Letters to the Editor (for publication): letters@nytimes.com
Write to the news editors: news-tips@nytimes.com
Corrections: senioreditor@nytimes.com

USA Today
7950 Jones Branch Dr., McLean, VA 22108
Phone: 703-854-3400
Fax: 703-854-2078

Letters to the Editor: editor@usatoday.com

The Wall Street Journal

200 Liberty St., New York, NY 10281
Phone: 212-416-2000
Fax: 212-416-2658

Letters to the Editor: wsj.ltrs@wsj.com
Comment on News Articles: wsjcontact@dowjones.com

The Washington Post
1150 15th St., NW, Washington, DC 20071
Phone: 202-334-6000
Fax: 202-334-5269

Letters to the Editor: letters@washpost.com
Ombudsman: ombudsman@washpost.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Magazines

Newsweek
251 W 57th Street, New York, NY 10019
Phone: 212-445-4000
Fax: 212-445-5068

Letters to the Editor: letters@newsweek.com

Time
Time & Life Bldg., Rockefeller Center, 1271 6th Ave., New York, NY 10020
Phone: 212-522-1212
Fax: 212-522-0003

Letters to the Editor letters@time.com

U.S. News & World Report
1050 Thomas Jefferson St., Washington, DC 20007
Phone: 202-955-2000
Fax: 202-955-2049

Letters to the Editor letters@usnews.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

News Services / Wires

Associated Press
450 West 33rd St., New York, NY 10001
Phone: 212-621-1500
Fax: 212-621-7523

General Questions and Comments: info@ap.org

Reuters
Three Times Square, New York, NY 10036
Telephone: 646-223-4000

United Press International
1133 19th Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: 202-898-8000
FAX: 202-898-8048

Comments and Tips: tips@upi.com

Now get those phone lines burning and fill up those email boxes!!

Coakley and How We Don't Do That Again

We lost Teddy's seat to a teabagger. 

Amazing. 

Let me repeat that:  we just lost EDWARD KENNEDY'S SENATE SEAT to a rightwing nutter. 

In stinking MASSACHUSETTS. 

George McGovern could lose every other state to Richard Nixon - and still win Massachusetts.  Walter Mondale could lose in a landslide to Ronald Reagan - and still win Massachusetts.  Just when I think my Democratic Party can't screw things up for themselves any worse, they go and prove me wrong.

I'm not going to blame this on sneaky Republicanism, their lies or Fox or Rush or Glenn or anybody else we normally go after.  I congratulate them, in fact - they knew what they were about and weren't afraid to go after it.  It worked, they won.  I'm not even going to blame Martha Coakley, even with her awful campaign - she'll serve just as well for a model of what we Democrats have become.

We Democrats just got shot down to earth - me included.  We were so SURE that since we so soundly routed the Bush minions out of power in Washington, they'd never find their way out of the political wilderness.  We were so SURE that we'd destroyed the conservative movement and the Republicans so well that we'd convinced ourselves that we'd never see them come back.  In fact, in our convictions that our 2006 and 2008 victories were so solid, some of us thought it's so safe for us that we can even go after our own President without consequence.  I'm just as guilty here - just look at some of my earlier posts...not so much the going after Obama part though.

OK, we lost a couple of governors but we won two House special elections we were supposed to lose so it was a push.  We even got a watered down but better than nothing Health Care bill through both houses of Congress.  Victory was ours and we thought it'd stay that way for a long time. 

Then tonight happened.  If it was any other open Senate seat in any other state, we could shrug it off as a "well, we can't win 'em all" thing.  This one was special to us - it was the Senate seat of the deceased Lion of the Senate, the last fighting Liberal from a reliably liberal state who had faithfully sent their Teddy back to the Senate for around 30 years even after Chappaquidick.  And we lost it.

OK, we still have control of Congress and the White House.  It's a 59 seat majority in the Senate now instead of 60.  Painful but not the end of the world.  

WRONG. 

It's an obstacle that can be overcome, but it's far from small.  If this were even as recently as the Clinton era, I wouldn't be so concerned.  The Republicans hated him then just as much as they hate Obama now - and for the same reason, they won - but back then at least not all of the Republican Party was willing to scuttle the country for partisan gain.  A few even voted with Clinton from time to time.  The Democrats didn't go there either when Dubya was in - maybe a few filibusters against some nominees to be judges, but enough Democrats went along with George that 51 Republicans in the Senate was plenty.

Make no mistake about it, those days are gone.  Except for one lone Republican in the House who got called a commie and a gook by his own party for doing it, there was virtually no Republican votes for health care reform.  Just that one Republican guy in the House, not a single Republican vote in the Senate even from the "moderates."  59 votes in the Senate would be enough usually, but not when you have a Republican Party who is going to filibuster EVERYTHING and you need 60 votes just to pass the Defense Bill.

The bright spot in this is, first - the Massachusetts Republican winner this evening is only in for 2 years.  He has to run again in 2012.  Second, there is still time for the Democrats to treat this election as the wake up call it is and turn it around in time for November. 

Some suggestions on how to do that:  stop still acting like a battered wife protecting an abusive husband when it comes to the conservatives.  We Democrats still are in control and it's past time we started acting like it.  The righties have shown us what they consider to be "bipartisan" - to them it means do it their way then vote against it anyway.  Fine.  We're fair people.  We should give them one chance to participate in the process and if they refuse, then we do it without them.  That's not quite as easily done now as it was just last Monday, but there are ways.

MAJOR change - we start changing the way we talk about our issues, in fact we take the right's methods and verbiage and turn it right back on them.  Does that mean we start lying about everything like they do?  No, we still can fight with real facts and real information but we do it differently.

We on the left talk about our issues as something beyond ourselves - health care is good for the people who need help and is good for the country, as an example.  That comes from our world view of politics - we don't act solely out of self interest and our vision goes further than our front door.  Our views can stay the same but we'll never beat the right with that approach.  One thing they do well is that they make their positions personal - for themselves and who they are speaking to.

George Lakoff is a linguistics professor who wrote a book for the 2004 election entitled Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate.  It was a sort of primer version of a longer book, but the idea was that you don't win debates and elections by using the terms of your opponent.  An example of that is, as a Democrat, when discussing tax issues you should not use the term "Tax relief."  The word "relief" implies that taxes are an insufferable burden that needs to be relieved - a bad way to say it if you are arguing against, say, the Bush across the board tax cuts.  He suggests, if you are taking the anti side of a tax cut debate, calling them "service cuts."  This he calls "framing" - your use of language frames the debate in your favor.

His theory is a good start but we have to make that extra step - change it from global to personal.  Using the health care reform debate as an example again, we state our position in terms of community, country and world.  The right shoots it down by saying to the audience, "Do YOU want to pay more taxes and pay for somebody else's insurance to do this?"  Then follow that up with outlandish claims and name calling spoken clearly and forcefully.  We fluster and bluster, but that argument hits home faster than any argument about millions uninsured - count on it.

We need to come back, with facts, just as forcefully and right in their faces - just like they do to us - and make it personal to our audience as well.  No Senator - the word you're looking for isn't "misleading", it's a LIE.  Speak plainly and make them defend that lie - don't go all nuance-y and "suggest it might not be entirely true."  Florid language goes directly in one ear and out the other - say the other guy is lying his ass off.  That they get.

Then, when you talk about your ideas, don't talk about the country.  Trust me, the guy and/or gal in the audience with sick kids and no health insurance isn't sitting in Oregon worried about millions of people or folk in Ohio - they want to know how what you are proposing is going to help them.  TELL THEM.  No 'we' or 'us', here's how I plan on helping you.  Say, "I don't want you or your family to get so sick that the only place you can go is an emergency room, I'm going to help see to it that you can all go to the doctor well before that!"

Harry Truman said the way to win elections is to take the battle to your opponent and never apologize.  He also said that if peoples' choice is between a Democrat acting like a Republican or a Republican, the Republican wins every time. 

We lost it for Teddy this time.  Let's not do that again.

The Tea Party Timeline...

1982 - Reagan signs the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, raising taxes by $37.5 billion per year



1982 - No Tea Party Movement


1982 - Reagan signs the Highway Revenue Act of 1982, increasing the gasoline tax by $3.3 billion


1982 - No Tea Party Movement


1984 - Reagan signs the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, increasing taxes by $18 billion per year


1984 - No Tea Party Movement




1990 - Bush signs the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, raising taxes


1990 - No Tea Party Movement


1993 - Clinton increases taxes by 0.36% of GDP for 1st year and 0.83% of GDP in 4th year


1993 - No Tea Party Movement


2000 - 2008 - Bush cuts taxes creating the deficit the Tea Party Movement is so upset about


2000 - 2008 - No Tea Party Movement


2008 - The first African-American president is elected to office


2008 - The Tea Party Movement emerges to "take the country back"


2008 - 2010 - Obama slightly reduces taxes


2008 - 2010 - The Tea Party Movement opposes tax increases?
 
h/t to Mic test blog

Conservative Theories vs. Reality Scoreboard

Now that we're past the years of conservatives telling us if we only followed their ideas, things would be just GREAT (and righties still trying to make that argument now), let's review how their ideas actually played out when conservatives controlled the White House and Congress:

Con theory:  Give the wealthy more tax breaks!  After all, a poor man doesn't give you a job!!
Result:  10% unemployment, possibly as high as 22%

Con theory:  Quit putting so much regulations on business, they'll police themselves!
Result:  Banks, financial companies, auto manufacturers bailed out to prevent total economic failure.

Con theory:  There's no need to regulate what businesses do, the invisible hand of the free market will correct anything bad going on!
Result:  Thousands die in earthquakes due to collapsed, unregulated buildings in Peru and Haiti.

Con theory:  Taxation is theft!
Result:  Collapsing infrastructure, not enough or no snowplows during winter storms, school failing, poor suffering from service cuts, states near bankruptcy.

...and more that I can think of.

Remind me again why anyone would want people who think these failed policies would work if they did more of them back into power again?