kimmy

I doubt the idea of getting a little gold trophy was really the motivation for much of the ass-busting, whether you were working on a "serious" movie, or an action-adventure thriller, or a documentary about a serious issue. On the other hand, the little gold trophy might help direct some viewers towards that documentary. I think that's the real value of the Oscars. It can still be a way to bring attention to projects that deserve more recognition. -k

I think August seeks to draw a distinction between the liberal voters of the West Coast and the Northeast, as opposed to the voters in "folksy" states where Trump will clobber Clinton. There's definitely a divide of some sort, but I don't think that "metrosexual" vs "folksy" quite grasps the nature of it. Last election I recall some people presenting maps of where the strongest liberal support is vs where the strongest conservative support is, and concluding "we're still fighting the Civil War!" -k

Yeah, bot Spotlight was a contender for the "real" awards. Most of the awards voters are withered old fossils who don't know what "sound editing" is, how it's done, or which of "The Force Awakens" or "Fury Road" had superior sound editing, even if they had watched either of those movies, which is pretty doubtful. -k

So many other films weren't nominated for 10 Oscars. -k

All the critics I read before the event said that Mad Max would clean up the technical awards, and it's not because they're experts in things like "Production Design" and "Sound Editing", it's because every year these awards get awarded as consolation prizes to movies like Fury Road... good movies that don't have a chance at the major awards for whatever reason. "Ten nominations? Would seem a shame to send those chaps home empty handed. Here, let's give them a Costume Design award." By far my favorite movie of 2015, though. -k

The technical awards aren't actually about technical excellence, they're consolation prizes for pictures that won't win any of the major awards they're nominated in. -k

What an odd website. It's almost entirely pro-Hillary edictorials ... with an NFL mock draft squeezed into the mix. -k

My personal opinion is that anybody who thinks Hillary is "in their corner" is a sucker, unless they happen to be a bank or a mega-corporation... Certainly the things Bill Clinton implemented during his time in office-- crime measures that included 3 strikes laws, anti-drug laws, welfare reforms, punishments that made it more difficult for released prisoners to return to society-- were not aimed at the black community. But the unfortunate truth is that those things disproportionately impacted on black Americans. Bill himself concedes the role he played in mass incarceration of "minor actors for way too long", as he put it. Hillary is fond of saying "we did that" when she's talking about good things that happened during her husband's time in office, but she seems less enthusiastic about acknowledging her role in anything people might not be as happy about. Nonetheless there's videos of her circulating around lately, clips taken from speeches she gave back then promoting the anti-crime laws that resulted in prisons full of people, disproportionately black people as we know from research and statistics. Phrases like "super-predators" and "bring them to heel" have come back to haunt her. -k

I'm skeptical whether anything Trump has said would meet the legal threshold for "hate speech" in Canada. As a self-interested Canadian, I think Trump worries me most in the field... he seems to favor protectionism. If I were an American, the idea of Ted Cruz's hardcore social conservatism in the White House would be more worrying to me than anything Trump brings to the table. -k

Thanks, that's an interesting read. ...so why DO black people think the Clintons are in their corner? -k

Merging the Kesha thing with the Swift thing, Taylor Swift has given Kesha $250,000 to help her financially during her ongoing stand-off with Sony and her producer. I assume most of it will probably pay legal fees. -k

Warning points may be exchanged for valuable Kimmy Points on a one-for-one basis! The magic number is "Yes!" You can never have too many warning points! Ask your friendly moderators how you can get more warning points. -k

I think SC will provide Hillary with her first decisive victory. The Nevada results show that she seems to have a significant edge among black voters, which will serve her well in the southeastern US. Why do black voters like Hillary so much? Apparently because she has positioned herself as Obama's BFF in the public imagination. -k

I'm not really sure I understand the complaint here. Are you angry that BC2004 didn't immediately respond to your question? I doubt that BC2004 has anybody on his block list, btw. One thing I can state is that nobody is required to respond to questions, or even read anybody's messages. People can use their ignore lists as they wish. If you feel somebody has ignored a pertinent question, you could point it out and if they still refuse to reply, you can raise your arms in triumph and move on. -k

I'd just like to mention that this isn't really a science. Everybody is asking for black-and-white clarity, but these really aren't black-and-white decisions. It's all highly subjective. Charles and I have spent all weekend flipping tables over and throwing liquor bottles at each other, arguing over several different topics that all boil down to differing opinions on subjective matters. Forum members won't always agree with the moderators, and they don't always agree with each other, and I don't always agree with them either. I invite anybody who is upset over moderator actions (or inaction) to send me a private message, and I will try to "facilitate" a happier forum experience by expressing your concerns to the moderators, or at least explaining the rationale behind the decision. If you would like me to act as an ombudsman on your behalf, let me know and I will try to help. -k

There is a lot of anger at Obama, but there was a lot of anger at Obama in 2012 as well, and they don't even get to vote against Obama in 2016. I can understand that a lot of people think it's really important for the Republicans to win the presidency this time, but I don't expect Hillary to bring out the alarmists quite as much as Obama did. Perhaps some of the high turnout at Republican events is due to the importance of retaking the presidency, but I also think a lot of it is because of Trump. Trump has got a lot of people to participate who would normally not bother (the same can be said of Sanders, as with Obama in 2008, and to a lesser extent Ron Paul in 2012.) And conversely, Trump's success to this point in the campaign has probably energized a lot of more traditional Republicans who feel it's important to get involved this year to prevent Trump from winning the nomination. This is a real concern. Obama won in 2008 in large measure because young voters cared. People thought that Obama was vulnerable in 2012 because young voters would be disenchanted or lose interest, but he won again largely because young voters still turned out to support Obama. Bernie Sanders has decimated Hillary among voters under 30, and beaten her handily among voters 30 - 45. Hillary can thank old-people for her narrow victories in Iowa and Nevada, but in the general election the majority of old-people tend to vote Republican, so Hillary will have to do something to win over younger voters. One thing that could get younger voters to the polls to support Hillary would be if the Republicans select a candidate who is so socially conservative (ie, Ted Cruz) that younger voters could be convinced he poses a serious threat to their values. But if the Republicans select Rubio, that might not work. -k

Mitt Romney is allegedly now about to endorse Marco Rubio. Romney has been holding back from doing this sooner due to his respect for Jeb Bush, but with Bush now leaving the race, Romney is going to endorse Rubio. Does a Romney endorsement matter at this point? It seems to me that Trump's support comes from people who are completely fed up with the party establishment, which includes Romney. And Cruz's support comes from the right wing of the party that hated the idea of Romney being the nominee in 2012. I guess this would help usher the Jeb supporters over to the Rubio camp, but they were probably headed there anyway. -k

I think that's a pretty good comparison. Jeb and Joe, whatever their merits, somehow convey a doofus image that's difficult to overcome. Harper wasn't charismatic either, but he didn't have the same doofus quality. I think that George H.W. and his sons are basically decent people... I think if you look at W's participation in humanitarian causes in Africa since leaving office, you can find that there's a good heart inside him, even if you disagree with every single policy he supported while President. I think that Jeb probably had high hopes of conducting a dignified campaign and acting with class and decorum. But clearly voters in both parties are tired of the status-quo and the only thing more status-quo than a 2nd Clinton presidency would be a 3rd Bush presidency. Maybe at some point we'll look back at this moment and think "you know, change isn't always good and the status-quo isn't always bad. We'd be a lot better off if the voters had picked the status-quo." I am not sure what to think. Cruz and Trump both seem too "out-there" to win a general election, but Rubio seems too "lightweight" to beat Cruz in the primaries. If it comes down to Trump, Cruz, and Rubio, I think Cruz will tear Rubio apart and unify the anybody-but-Trump votes behind Cruz. Maybe I'm underestimating Rubio's ability, or overestimating Cruz's ability... but one guy was a champion Ivy-league debater, and the other guy got completely clowned by Chris Christie on national TV. I don't think it'll go well for Rubio if it's just the three of them on stage together. I'm not convinced that Clinton would be a lock to beat any of the Republican front-runners. She's got the same major liability as Jeb-- people are sick of the status-quo, and post-Jeb she's the most status-quo thing in this race. Isn't there a cut-off date for candidates to enter? Doesn't the amount of delegates already awarded, and about to be awarded in the next couple of weeks, make it pointless for anybody new to enter the race at this point anyway? -k

That's a key point... these pop star feuds are interesting to a certain audience, and that audience is Not Me. I doubt any on this forum are actually part of that audience. The people who care about this sort of thing are the same people who buy those magazines you see in grocery check-out lines. Which celebrity is dating which other celebrity. Who's breaking up with who. All of those crappy stupid gossip magazines, or their online equivalent click-bait websites. I'm sure this sort of stuff exists to fill some kind of human need, but I can't figure out what it is. Maybe our culture has created this pantheon of celebrities for the same reason that ancient peoples created pantheons of mythological figures. The ancient Norse had Thor and Loki and all their friends... we have Taylor and Kanye and the Kardashians? The ongoing Kesha case is a completely different kettle of fish. Kesha Sebert (formerly known simply as "Ke$ha") was a budding pop-star at one point... she provided backing vocals for other singers, she wrote songs for a number of other popular artists, and her first record was a huge success. (don't ask me to comment on whether she's actually any good at any of this, I haven't heard any of it.) But she hasn't worked in 2 years due to a dispute with her producer "Dr Luke" who is apparently a big deal in the music industry. (I have never heard of him either.) She claims that he has abused her physically and emotionally, and that he used GHB on her and raped her. He claims that she made everything up in order to get free of her contract. Due to her contract with Dr Luke she can't record or write songs for anybody except him, so she has basically been unemployed for the past 2 years. She is in court trying to have her contract with Dr Luke annulled. -k

So hypothetically if Dr Carson was wildly popular in one Congressional District he could still get a delegate for winning there, even though he finishes dead last in overall votes in the state? -k

What's that got to do with creationism? -k

Trump comes away with a 'uuuuuge 11-point win, while Rubio and Cruz virtually are tied at about 22% as I type. The delegate counter says Trump gets 38 delegates and everybody else gets zero. Is that true? Is SC a winner-take-all state? Kasich and Bush are tied for 4th at 8% each and Carson is 6th with 7%. -k

Hillary comes away with a closer-than expected 52.5% to 47.5% victory in Nevada. Clinton can't be very happy with a narrow win in a state that was supposed to be a landslide for her, but at the same time this must also be very disappointing for Bernie supporters who believed they were in a tie just a couple of days ago and might win. Clinton's supporters apparently blitzed Nevada in the past few days to promote her as being the candidate that Latino voters could trust. -k

Passive-aggressiveness is unbecoming. I have no complaint about the Bible being part of the curriculum in courses where it's actually relevant. (geography? astronomy? how do you figure? transportation? huh?) But the concern here is, obviously, that this is just another attempt to get creationism into biology class. -k

I don't know first hand, as I neither "hip" nor "hop"... but isn't misogyny pretty endemic to the whole genre? -k