FRIDAY, JANUARY 26, 2024
Though possibly not a third: We agree with Kevin Drum about quite a few things.
For example, we agree with him about the utter foolishness of the annual "Who got snubbed by the Oscars?" folderol.
We haven't seen Barbie, and he did, so we have no personal opinion about the film. That said, here's the start of Kyle Buchanan's report in the New York Times about this week's "snub" of Greta Gerwig, who didn't get a nomination for Best Director this year:
Why Was Greta Gerwig Snubbed for a Best Director Nomination?
In her own world, Barbie can accomplish just about anything. But in the real world, “Barbie” was dealt a significant setback Tuesday morning: Though Greta Gerwig’s colorful comedy skewering the patriarchy was the biggest blockbuster of last year and set a record for the highest-grossing movie ever directed by a woman, Gerwig failed to receive an Oscar nomination for best director.
The snub had many in Hollywood scratching their heads, since the 40-year-old filmmaker had earned best director nominations from the Golden Globes and Directors Guild of America for “Barbie” and had picked up an Oscar nod for her solo debut, “Lady Bird,” just six years ago.
The promulgation of the "snub snub snub snub" Storyline just seems to grow every year. Buchanan employs the sacred term all through his rather short piece, and in other Oscar reports.
That said:
As Kevin notes in his post, ten films can get nominated for Best Picture, but there are only five nominations for Best Director. At least five of the Best Picture directors can't get nominated in a typical year. That's how the math works out!
Concerning Gerwig, also this, as Buchanan notes:
Six years ago, Gerwig did receive a nomination for Best Director. If the academy was willing to do that then, why would anyone rush to assume that they're just "snubbing" her now?
You'd think that the childishness of this mandated annual foofaw would be fairly apparent. And this is coming from the very top of our upper-end elite press corps, from a guild whose members qualify within our culture as "highly educated" thought leaders.
We also agree with Kevin about the usefulness, or lack of same, involved in some endless debates. In the current battle of the bands, Kevin is sticking with his preferred generalization and, on balance, we're going to stick with ours:
We have become a nation which is incapable of solving even the smallest problem.
The United States is one of the world’s great problem solvers.
Leaving aside the original source of those formulation, we'll stick with the first at this time. Though of course, as we said yesterday, Kevin could always turn out to be right in his general assessment.
Here's the title of Kevin's new post on this topic:
Just how bad are things, really?
Regarding that, we have no real idea! For example, we don't know how poorly things will turn out if Donald J. Trump returns to the White House. We can't even say we're sure that things would turn out poorly at all.
That said, we note again:
Every blue pundit on the face of the earth has been sounding the alarm about the possible loss of our democracy if Trump gets elected again. That strikes us as possibly overstated, like so many other claims, but it also seems possible that there could be a large problem lurking there.
Also this:
When that same Donald Trump recently said that we as a nation can't solve any problems, it seemed to us that very few people would have recoiled from that claim. We've offered a few examples of problems we can neither address nor solve, but here's one we haven't mentioned:
We can't even solve the apparent problem involved in the so-called "gun show loophole!" Thanks to that loophole, a felon or a victim of mental illness who can't buy a gun at a certain gun store can walk directly across the street and buy one at a gun show over there.
Gun store no, gun show yes! Every Dem on the face of the earth has noted the sheer absurdity of our nation's inability to address that problem. That doesn't mean that the world is about to come to an end, but it never would have occurred to us that Donald J. Trump's statement—the statement our blue tribe rushed to mistranscribe and distort—would seem to be inaccurate to red tribe voters or to their blue counterparts.
In short, it amazes us that that statement by Trump would strike anyone as odd. Nor do we see a way out of this mess, as long as we maintain our current system of "news management"—a system built upon the total segregation of viewpoint for purposes of tribal pleasure, corporate profit, entertainment, reassurance and fun.
Can you run a large modern nation that way? It seems to us that you can't, and the inability to address any problem—let alone the ability to solve some problem!—feeds upon that brine. Indeed, it's the creation of those segregated Americas which feeds the whole sprawling machine.
Personally, I think our own blue team has long been a part of this problem. We've long admired Kevin's work, but we'll still cast ourselves as a Cassandra at this point in time.
We began to work with low-income kids in the fall of 1969. We don't know if we've ever seen an intelligent discussion of what goes on in the lives of such kids—and if we have, that conversation never went anywhere much.
It's our impression that things have improved in that realm, but good God—the unhappiness and the waste! Nobody actually cares about this, but we're quite good at pretending.
As a nation, we aren't even capable of solving the problem of how to hold a discussion. It's all about braindead amusement now, including that mandated annual foolishness about all the thrilling snubs.
Gun store no, gun show yes! Along the way, everyone has cited that as an example of our nation's inability to get anything done.
We aren't "a pitiful helpless giant," President Nixon once famously said. Maybe it all depends on what the meaning of "helpless giant" is!
Will the current situation get worse? We can't give you the answer to that—and Kevin's preferred bumper sticker / generalization may turn out to seem basically right!
Final point, and pass it on:
If you aren't said to be among the five best, that doesn't mean you've been snubbed!
We can’t solve our problems.
ReplyDeleteThe way to solve them is to elect Trump.
Therefore, we can’t elect Trump.
Therefore, the only way he can win is by cheating.
Trump has been ordered to pay E Jean Carroll $83.3M.
ReplyDeleteThis is outrageous. $83.3M is not even covering a half of the defamation she suffered. Justice not served.
DeleteIt’s approximately a twelfth of a billion.
DeleteI find it scary that simply proclaiming one's innocence can amount to a judgment of this magnitude. An accused person should have the right to plead innocent without being punished for doing so.
DeleteDavid,
DeleteYou funny!
David, you really should read something about the defamation suit before holding a strong opinion about it. Trump was not allowed to deny the charges because a previous trial had already determined that he assaulted Carroll. Trump defamed Carroll by calling her a liar and asserting that he had never met her, calling her crazy and other demeaning things. He might have been able to do that before his trial, but once he was found to have assaulted Carroll, continuing to call himself innocent and her a liar was defamation of her. That was determined at the last trial, which was on defamation charges, not rape. The jury found that Trump had indeed defamed her. This latest trial was to award further damages for Trump continuing to defame her.
DeleteTrump is being punished for calling Carroll a liar and calling her other names. He can no longer claim to be innocent once the court has found him guilty or liable of the charges. He has appealed the cases but he must set aside the money awarded to Carroll and he is not allowed to continue defaming her in the meantime, as he has kept doing, including during this trial.
I realize this is confusing, but Trump is not considered innocent because the jury found him liable for assault. This was the penalty phase of the trial, not the phase that assesses guilt. This was explained repeatedly to Trump and his attorney but Trump persists in defaming Carroll. No man is above the law, incuding Trump.
An accused person should have the right to plead innocent without being punished
DeleteDonald J Chickenshit did have the right and opportunity to testify in the first trial, but "Chickenshit" avoided the courtroom like the coward he is because he didn't want to face cross examination. The jury, the finder of fact, determined that Trump did indeed sexually assault EJ Carroll, and further that he defamed her.
Let's just say his taped deposition was not too helpful to his case either.
This is Trump's normal MO. He is too much of a coward to testify under oath and explain why he is innocent, but he's a big brave boy lying to his adoring fans at his rallies.
Stupid motherfucker then proceeded to defame her again. And here we are, David.
The damages are based on an estimation of how much Trump’s defamation hurt her career. She is a celebrity, like Trump, and was before he assaulted her.
DeleteI empathize with the defamed lady.
ReplyDeleteI am Corby.
You are a fake Corby. I know that because the real Corby has stopped commenting.
DeleteIn the early 1970's the Black Panthers were working with white activists to create free healthcare clinics despite state terror used against them. The idea of free-at-point-of-service healthcare is even becoming more popular with conservatives now. But the killing of people like MLK and Fred Hampton and others by the Power were ways of suppressing this desire among people.
ReplyDeleteThere are still free clinics in cities across the US. Further, every hospital receiving federal funds is required to treat people who walk into its emergency room, regardless of ability to pay.
DeleteFully state subsidized healthcare is not the least bit popular among conservative elected officials. The idea of giving away someone else's services may be appealing. After competing in college at the highest level, add 7-10 years of additional training, incurring large amounts of debt, and then tell us why your services should be given away, when you can be sued for such work. Physicians volunteer their services as a matter of good conscience but you can't devise a healthcare system based on this amount of charity anymore than you can run a chain of 7-11s by finding employees that will work for free. As it is, physicians and hospital systems give away free healthcare to the uninsured on a regular basis, as stated 7:45. So yes, there is free healthcare to be obtained and no, its limited availability has nothing to do with whatever you construe to be the Power, and a hard no to conservatives in politics approving of universal healthcare. The requirement that hospitals receiving Medicare payments provide healthcare to uninsured patients was Ronald Reagan's idea, guy who got paid well in a unionized profession and likely because of this never gave away his time spent working.
Delete
Delete"Fully state subsidized healthcare"
I don't know what exactly "subsidized" means here.
What I do know, however, is that British NHS, where the doctors are government employees (like cops in the US) working in government-owner hospitals, has its disadvantages. Serious problems. People have to buy private medical insurance and seek medical services outside the NHS.
So, let's not pretend that there is a simple obvious solution here.
5:02 Are you purposely misreading my comment to engage in a debate? Medicare is government subsided healthcare in the US, which is supplement by many members via Medicare advantage plans or Medicare supplement plans. Nowhere in my comment did I advocate for Bernie Sanders type Medicare for All. Hospital margins are such that if Medicare/Medicaid dollars alone constituted their reimbursements, with no more private insurance, many would go out of business. So that is untenable. You will need to find another commenter here if you want to get into a debate about the NHS. My original comment was about the nonsensical notion of people forming large systems to supply free services to people.
DeleteNo, I am not purposely misreading.
DeleteI'd say, Medicare is a government-provided health insurance.
I'm not sure what government-subsidized (not "subsided", I guess?) healthcare could mean in this context. "Government-subsidized", to me it means privately owned and getting government grants, preferential tax treatment, or something.
Maybe poor word choice on my part.
Delete"We" are the government.
ReplyDeleteMusk is one of those immigrants who did it the right way. He was born into wealth.
ReplyDeleteIMO the government would be better at solving its problems if it didn't take on things that it doesn't need to. E.g., Secretary of State Blinken is not obliged to solve the Israel/Palestinian problem. IMO he doesn't know how to solve the problem In fact, the problem may not be solvable. Blinken should spend his time and energy on problems and opportunities of the State Department and the USA.
ReplyDeleteDavid, this idea only works if no one in the world is affected by any other country's actions and there is no history, trade or economic relationships, treaty or alliance between any country. None of that is true, so your idea will not work.
ReplyDeleteWhat Bob doesn’t mention is that Trump only half believes that the U.S. is carnage land where.no problem can be saved. Simply be making him President, the US is transformed into a shining city on the hill, all problems solved.
ReplyDeleteAre the MAGA fans really justified in believing things were going great pre Covid, as Bob seems to believe? That would be a no. Bob spent those three years constructing idiotic excuses for the ugly things Trump was doing to the Country, so he’s not the best person to ask.,
This essay echoes the one where Somerby complained because Greta Gerwig's Little Women got nominated for Best Picture. It seems like he has a vendetta against Gerwig and those who both like her work and consider her worthy of being recognized in the Best Director category.
ReplyDeleteElsewhere, people in comments are claiming that her snub and the emphasis on Ken (who got a best supporting actor and best song nomination) is entirely consistent with the plot line of Barbie. Every snub adds evidence to support the feminist view of things. There is some irony to Somerby helping to advance that idea when he is so blatantly misogynist. He can't help himself, just like Trump can't help repeatedly defaming Carroll, thereby proving the case against himself over and over and over.
Anonymouse 8:19pm, if they can make Trump unable to declare that he’s a falsely accused man without being forced to pay a king’s ransom, surely feminists can sue to keep you from issuing some of the most boneheaded analysis ever seen on a blogboard.
DeleteTrump had his day in court. He is a convicted rapist. He doesn’t get to further abuse and harrass his victim.
DeleteCec, king chickenshit ran away from the first trial where he had the opportunity to take the witness stand and lie his ass off. He didn't want to risk perjury or cross examination. What the coward wanted to do, because rules don't apply to him, is defame Carroll in front of the jury without having to face her lawyer. Which is what he attempted to do but was shut down by the judge.
DeleteIt is kind of refreshing to see this man who has abused the civil court system all his wretched life finally get taken down by an 80 year old woman. Wouldn't you agree?
I don’t care. I don’t think anyone on the planet (acrimonious or gentle as a lamb; saint or liar; convicted or declared innocent) should be unable to declare that they have been falsely accused.
DeleteAre you just playing stupid or what, Cec? He was given that opportunity to declare that he was being falsely accused. He chickened out. I know you think the rules don't have to apply to him for some reason, but that is the way it actually works.
DeleteHe could have ignored her accusation - hell, you cult fans didn't care one way or the other anyway - but the dumb bastard had to attack her and slander her.
He could have walked away after the first case and eat the $5 million judgement, but the dumb bastard decided to continue to slander and defame her.
It's so funny that the corrupt lying bastard can't find a jury in the city in which he grew up and lived his entire life that isn't repulsed by him.
Why so negative, 8:38 AM?
DeleteLook at the bright side: he's got plenty of good publicity for that 85 mil. Assuming he will actually have to pay it.
Being sued by an obviously crazy lady in what appears to be (to many people) a highly politicized witch-hunt/show-trial, that's priceless. For a presidential candidate, that is.
That's right, magat troll boy, and those grapes are sour too. This is the world we live in now, magat troll boys consider being found guilty of sexual assault good publicity. This is exactly the kind of shit EJ Carroll has been subjected to, in addition to death threats.
DeleteSay hi to your compadres, Cec. You must be very proud.
Anonymouse 8:49am, I don’t like the precedent. I don’t care if someone is as guilty as the devil and has engaged in all sorts of calculated legal maneuvers in order to hide that fact.
DeleteYou ought to always be able to lie your butt off and declare that you are not guilty without facing legal percussions.
You keep ignoring the fact that Donny Chickenshit had the opportunity to sit his fat lying ass in the witness chair and defend himself and explain why he had to defame this woman but declined. Didn't even have the balls to face her.
DeleteShe chose to defend her reputation from the vile lies he was saying about her - of course only from the safety of the stage in front of his cult fans - and sued him in civil court. She chose to defend herself from the insane morons sending her death threats and slandering her in defense of Donnny Chickenshit.
No, Cecelia, you don't have an absolute right to defame someone, if they choose to defend themselves. If he wanted to testify in his own defense, then he would have to abide by the rules of the justice system and subject himself to cross examination. He chose to run away and hide.
"I don’t like the precedent."
DeleteHey, look around you. The only precedent of all this, of everything happening in the last few years, is that everything is politicized up the wazoo. Banana republic style.
Anonymouse 9:14am, I didn’t say legally declared guilty, I said guilty as in … he done it…
DeleteOh, you got me there, magat troll boy. How would you prefer to define it? Not "guilty". Liable? Is that better, fan of Donny Chickenshit?
Delete9:14am wasn't directed at you 9:06 AM. It was directed @9:06 AM, resident woke idiot-moonbat.
DeleteTrump was afraid of being caught in a perjury trap, so he didn't testify to defend himself.
DeleteIt's similar to why no one will make the charges of Joe Biden's corruption under oath in a court of law.
Anonymouse 9:21am, everyone should have the absolute right to always declare their innocence and to say that the charge against them is false.
DeleteEven if they are lying. Even if a court has declared otherwise.
I prefer to call it what it is, idiot-wokey: a crazy lady won an absurd civil suit.
DeleteYou're so dense, Cecelia. That was the first trial. He had the absolute right to declare his innocence. He passed on that. That one was over and done with.
DeleteIf this can happen to Trump, it can happen to anyone who commits sexual assault and lies about it in public.
DeleteHaving a convicted sexual predator as their Presidential nominee is almost too on-brand for the Republican Party.
DeleteTrump has the absolute right to assault any woman, including Cecelia.
DeleteAs part of his presidential duties, he has the right to slander and defame Ruby Freeman also. Unfortunately, Rudy Guliani doesn't feel so good about it.
DeleteAnonymouse 10:46am, inherent in disputing the claim that you have attacked someone is that the accuser is either exaggerating, mixed up, or lying.
DeleteThis should not legally impede the accused from proclaiming their innocence, even when guilty as hell.
Cec, there is a difference between quietly denying the accusations, and screeching repeatedly from your honored and prominent status as a former president that the woman is a lying crazy slut that is not your type of woman to rape, and then having your minions make her life a living hell.
DeleteThat what the court sorted out. Hey, don't look at me, I don't make the rules.
Blinken should not get involved in the Israel/Palestine problem. That implies that his government should stop aiding and supplying Israel.
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen the film, but I wonder if they guy that played Ken just did a better job than the director and the lady who played Barbie. I don't know if that's true, but I imagine it's possible.
ReplyDeleteGo see the film.
DeleteMaybe. After Oppenheimer.
DeleteI saw it. Such is not obviously the case. The point of the movie includes the proposition that women in our society labor under some warped expectations of achievement. It's somewhat ironic that the female director and female main character were both passed over for recognition, but the primary male actor was not.
DeleteThe nominations don’t mean the film is about an important issue. They mean the nominees did their work well.
DeleteThey present a woke message in it. Like the whole world is a patriarchy holding women down kind of thing.
Delete“I haven't seen the film, but I wonder if the guy that played Ken just did a better job than the director and the lady who played Barbie.”
DeleteIt reminds me of that British comedian, Ricky Gervais, who hosted the Oscars one year. He made fun of the culture and was especially hilarious with the speech about how he wasn’t going to do the memorial to actors who had died that year because more white ones had kicked the bucket than black ones.
Yes, that's hilarious. Ha ha ha ha.
DeleteThat was when Gervais was funny.
DeleteHis new shtick (old man yelling at kids to get off his lawn) isn't funny at all.
Thanks, Cecelia. You corrected my typo. I said “they guy” but you knew I meant “the guy”.
DeleteWow. That’s is very strange because I don’t remember doing that.
DeleteI rarely check my own posts for typos.
Anonymouse 9:54Am, that’s a pity. I guess we all get old.
DeleteAnonymouse 9:45am, you wouldn’t know funny if it has its way with you.
Delete12:15,
DeleteDo you mean bigotry?
FYI, it' not as funny as the Right thinks it is.
Israel has the right to defend itself.
ReplyDeleteVince McMahon has resigned.
ReplyDeleteThe gun show loophole is an interesting choice of an example of a problem our country can't seem to solve. If I recall one party--and one only--has offered legislation to solve the problem. And one party--again, just one--has demagogued the issue at every opportunity. Now how does one begin to address this state of affairs without being guilty of partisanship?
ReplyDeleteNot illegally or immorally.
ReplyDeleteTrump did this before. He said everything sucked, and he alone could fix it. (Remember him saying that?) And he proceeded not to fix anything. He played a ton of golf, and took bribes from foreign countries. His talk of creating a health insurance system better and cheaper than Obamacare came to nothing, because he didn’t even try. His constant hinting at infrastructure initiatives also came to nothing, because he refused to negotiate. And so on.
ReplyDeleteNow, almost eight years later, the voters have no excuse for believing him. They have his record to examine.
Somerby recently expressed a desire to understand why people voted for Trump, but he then claimed that it wasn’t an irrational choice. But he can’t know the latter if he doesn’t know the former. And in this case, the idea that Trump voters are just anxious to see problems solved, like the “gun show loophole” (seriously, Bob?), is not clearly true. There are various reasons, unexamined by Somerby, that deserve an analysis.
“it amazes us that that statement by Trump would strike anyone as odd. “
ReplyDeleteHe’s a (h/t Somerby) deluded, demented narcissistic sociopath and pathological liar (h/t Bernie Sanders and the msm), but it’s amazing that this broken, garbled statement struck anyone as odd (after Somerby paraphrased it). On the other hand, Trump’s constant harping on the stolen election, which Somerby takes as evidence of Trump’s delusion, is now an article of faith within the Republican Party.
That same restriction should apply to Hamas, except they are the aggressor not the defender.
ReplyDeleteEveryone hates Joe Biden:
ReplyDeletePew Research: Biden Job Approval
Approve: 33%
Disapprove: 65%
—
White: 30-68
Black: 48-49
Hispanic: 32-65
Asian: 39-59
Postgrad: 50-49
College grad: 36-62
No college: 27-71
Ages 18-29: 27-71
Second worst in nearly 70 years, behind only Jimmy Carter in 1979-80. Biden is obviously going to lose the election. Overwhelming majorities don't like him and don't want him.
DeleteBiden will win in a landslide. Just as he did in the 2020 Presidential election.
DeleteAnonymouse 9:30am, you can take that to the bank.
DeleteThe checks already cashed.
DeleteA landslide may be difficult to pull off.
DeleteEasy-peasy.
Delete(Except aging white men who went to college.)
ReplyDeleteArno Allan Penzias has died.
ReplyDeleteUS healthcare spending has been basically flat for over a decade.
ReplyDeletehttps://jabberwocking.com/raw-data-health-care-spending-in-the-us/
We can all be grateful to President Biden for bringing prescription drug prices down also. Especially insulin, which is now capped at $35 for most.
DeleteMelanie Safka has died.
ReplyDeleteThat same restriction does apply to Hamas.
ReplyDeleteNot according to pro-Palestinians.
ReplyDelete