Sunday Morning Open Thread

Yes, I still exist. Busy busy. But not too busy for some "investing" fun today - Oscars Edition, on the flip:

Oscars - Best Costume Design - Les Miserables +300

Best Original Song - Suddenly - Les Miserables +500

Best Original Score - Lincoln - John Williams +110

Best Animated Feature Film - Brave +125

Best Original Screenplay Winner - Wes Anderson and Roman Coppola - Moonrise Kingdom +1500

Best Adapted Screenplay Winner - Tony Kushner - Lincoln -140

Best Supporting Actress Winner - Sally Field - Lincoln +1400

Best Supporting Actor Winner - Tommy Lee Jones - Lincoln +110

Best Actress Winner -Jessica Chastain - Zero Dark Thirty 10/3

Best Director Winner - David O. Russell (Silver Linings Playbook) 14/1

Best Picture Winner - Lincoln 4/1

And a pop culture special - What gender will Prince William and Kate Middleton's first child be? Girl -110

Open Thread.

< OR Man Acquitted for Killing Marine He Thought Was a Bear | Oscars Red Carpet >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    At times I think our country has gone (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 10:00:23 AM EST
    completely insane.

    Montana Bill Would Give Corporations The Right To Vote

    Alabama Rep. McClurkin: Fetus is the "Largest Organ" in a woman's body.
    Another woman to support just because she is a woman and is sure to do a better job protecting woman???? :-(

    Parents Sue School For Making Children `Religious Guinea Pigs' -- By Teaching Them Yoga

    Rep. Louie Gohmert: We Need Guns to Protect Us From Sharia Law

    Rep. Gohmert Suggests Voters Need 'at Least 50 Rounds' in Magazines to Take Out Drones
    Warning Gohmert failed to include: Shooting down drones might label a person a "terrorist" and put them on a secret list.  

    corporations as people laws (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by DFLer on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 12:16:44 PM EST
    Voting rights is a natural extension of this nonsense. Will bankruptcy be classified as manslaughter?

    That was funny. ;-) (none / 0) (#17)
    by shoephone on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 03:16:18 PM EST
    I have understood those "corporations are (none / 0) (#35)
    by Peter G on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 06:14:17 PM EST
    people" laws to be sardonic criticisms of the Supreme Court's "corporate personhood" decisions, not as serious proposals.  Anything on the sponsor of this one that might shed light?

    Bill introduced by (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 06:31:05 PM EST
    Montana state Rep. Steve Lavin(R)

    According to the Center for Media and Democracy, Lavin was a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council's (ALEC) now defunct Public Safety and Elections Task Force. Last year, pressure from progressive groups forced ALEC to disband this task force, which, among other things, pushed voter suppression laws.

    Based on his affiliation with ALEC, I doubt that bill was meant as criticisms of the Supreme Court's "corporate personhood" decisions but who knows.

    Also, in the linked article:

    In fairness to Lavin's fellow lawmakers, this bill was tabled shortly after it came before a legislative committee, so it is unlikely to become law.

    Comcast has added Argo (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 10:22:50 AM EST
    and Anna Karenina. We have a big blustery snowstorm today, they might be fun to watch before the red carpet since there's no way I'm going outdoors.

    Good to see you BTD!

    Direct has them also, along with Skyfall (none / 0) (#6)
    by nycstray on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 11:01:51 AM EST
    looks like it's going to be a nice day here, so I'll watch them post Oscars prob :)

    Direct TV has added Anna Karenina too (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 11:55:29 AM EST
    Thank you for the heads up to check Jeralyn.  How fun to watch it with my daughter at home today!!!!

    My sister just convince me (none / 0) (#18)
    by shoephone on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 03:17:27 PM EST
    I have to see "Amour." She thinks it's even more gut-wrenching than "Beasts of the OSuthern Wild." Yikes.

    "OSuthern" being the Latin derivation... (none / 0) (#19)
    by shoephone on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 03:18:34 PM EST
    of course.

    Silver Linings Playbook (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 11:42:09 AM EST
    was really, really good.  I just saw it and had expected a standard-fare romantic comedy.  It is funny in places, but more of a drama....

    Just a wonderful movie.  It could scoop Argo and Lincoln for best picture.

    Jennifer Lawrence is apparently overtaking Chastain of Zero Dark Thirty for Best Actress.  And for good reason.  

    I hope Zero Dark Thirty and its (deceitful)darkness get zeroed out.

    If I had a vote, my nod for Best Actress ... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 04:46:32 PM EST
    ... goes to Emmanuelle Riva's haunting performance in "Amour." IMHO, she dusts both Chastain and Lawrence.

    I actually thought Lawrence deserved the Oscar a few years ago for "Winter's Bone."


    Chris Hayes has the best solution I've heard on (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 01:53:36 PM EST
    what to do with the sequestration.

    Go to work tomorrow, if you're in session, which you never are, but on the off chance you ever go to Congress, just pass a one-sentence bill that repeals sequestration.

    You're under the impression it would pass (none / 0) (#13)
    by CoralGables on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 02:08:09 PM EST
    House Republicans would almost assuredly vote it down.

    I really don't think I said anything at all about (none / 0) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 02:30:06 PM EST
    whether or not the bill would pass. I said it was IMO the best solution.

    I am sure if the Senate Democrats would pass the Republican House recommendations on the sequester, it would pass in the House. I am sure that if the Democratic Senators agreed to just cut domestic programs and entitlement programs included in Obama's proposal to John Boehner, put in the fake revenue numbers from the Republican proposals and added more breaks for wealthy corporations like they did in the fiscal cliff deal, it would pass the Republican House. Both would be an awful solutions to the manufactured crisis that Congress created, but they would meet your criteria of passing in a Republican House.

    This legislation that everyone agrees is piece of sh!t was devised to get it through the Republican House. It was not a good solution, but it passed the House.


    Frankly, at this point (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by shoephone on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 03:15:14 PM EST
    I'd like for the American people to storm the f*cking halls of Congress and force every single one of them to resign immediately. But, in my other fantasy...we institute a constitutional system of term limits on all public officials. Neither House reps nor senators serve more than twelve years. And they don't get their outrageous lifetime pensions after retiring. The job was never intended to be one of continual financial gain.

    But, these are just my fantasies, you understand.


    As long as we are doing fantasies (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 04:04:55 PM EST
    No taxpayer funded health care. Eliminate on-site health care facilities. Health insurance would have to be purchased on their state's exchange until they were eligible for Medicare. They would then go on Medicare like everyone else.  Their retirement would consist of their contributions to a 401k and Social Security. This would also eliminate the special state and federal tax breaks for government pensions. Members of Congress would have to abide by the same laws on insider trading as everyone else. Not one single exception or loophole.

    I am with you (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by shoephone on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 04:24:32 PM EST
    on every single item you named. The health care in particular. Many of them have been there for decades, so they're in the over-65 group. Make them pay it themselves. My rep is 75 years old, and even though I usually like what he stands for, he really doesn't have an ounce of influence in the House, and he doesn't need me paying his health care. I really would like to see them all have to retire in 2014 so we can start with a fresh crop.



    The House passed the bill banning insider (none / 0) (#40)
    by DFLer on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 07:39:16 PM EST
    trading by members of Congress Feb. 12 NYT link
    (I think Senate also passed, but don't have a citation)

    Proud to say this bill was sponsored by my Congressman, Tim Walz DFL 1st CD, MN. Last November he had only 4 others signed on to the bill, but the bill picked up steam after a broadcast by 60 Minutes

    about Congress being exempt from the insider trading laws that apply to other Americans who use non-public information to enrich themselves in the stock market.

    "... the people who make the rules are the political class in Washington," said Hoover Institution Fellow Peter Schweizer in the 60 Minutes story. "And they've conveniently written them in such a way that they don't apply to themselves."

    Schweizer has studied trades made by members of Congress and believes some lawmakers use the special access to information provided by their positions to enrich themselves in a way that would be illegal in the corporate world.

    "We know that during the financial crisis of 2008 they were getting out of the market before the rest of America really knew what was going on," Schweizer said.  60 minutes, . I believe the Senate also passed it, but don't have a citation.

    (60 min quote from bluestem prairie blog)

    Yes they did pass legislation (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 09:01:20 PM EST
    An exact quote of what I said on congressional insider trading:

    Members of Congress would have to abide by the same laws on insider trading as everyone else. Not one single exception or loophole.

    To the best of my knowledge this loophole has not been closed:

    But CNN uncovered that the law that members of Congress thought they voted for earlier this year isn't exactly as advertised. A loophole could still allow family members of some lawmakers to profit from inside information.

    The STOCK Act requires that any trades of $1,000 or more made on or after July 3 have to be reported to the House and Senate within 45 days. But the House and Senate have two completely different interpretations of that rule.

    In the Senate, the Ethics Committee released one page of guidelines last month ruling that members and their spouses and dependent children all have to file reports after they make stock or securities trades. But the House Ethics Committee disagreed.

    Its 14-page memo notifies House members and aides covered by the law that their spouses and children aren't covered. The Office of Government Ethics, which oversees all federal executive branch employees, sided with the House, informing its employees that their spouses and children don't need to file these periodic reports.

    Both of the lead sponsors of the Senate bill didn't realize the discrepancy until CNN brought it to their attention. link

    The problem is that both sides need (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Anne on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 06:50:28 PM EST
    the sequester to keep this manufactured crisis going; if the sequester gets killed, so does the constant message both sides are pushing, and it makes them look like the frauds they are.

    Can't have that, can we?  I mean, by the time the media and our not-so-esteemed legislators get finished scaring the crap out of people about the lack of air traffic controllers, the scientists heading for Europe because the research funding is going away, our exposure to danger because of the defense cuts, the furloughing of food inspectors, pretty soon people will be so scared they will offer up Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid just to make all the scary stuff go away.  This is a first-class mugging, no different than having a gun to our heads so we'll give up our wallets and jewelry if only we can be allowed to live.  Except these f**kers won't be content with wallet and jewelry - they'll want the house and the car and the furniture.

    The whole thing just makes my blood boil, it really does.  How people cannot see what's really going on - well, I just don't understand it.

    They truly do have the power to make it all go away - as easily as they made it happen - but they're not going to do that.


    Not my criteria (none / 0) (#23)
    by CoralGables on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 03:58:08 PM EST
    It's the criteria needed to stop sequestration.

    We really don't know what the (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 04:34:11 PM EST
    Republicans would do if the Democrats held their ground and refused to pass bad legislation that screws the poor and gives more to the obscenely wealthy. If all the Dems took every opportunity to level with people on what a Grand Bargain would really do instead of spewing the same crap as the Republicans on this manufactured deficit crisis, they could possibly generate enough public opinion to force enough Republicans into at least eliminating the sequester.

    But no, it is much better to force more and more people into poverty using deceptive policies like the chained CPI, and further reducing their income by making them assume a large portion of their initial medical expenses. The last act of this scam is to "reform" the tax code to reduce the tax rate for wealthy individuals and corporations. This why we would be sacrificing ordinary people. It is to satisfy the greed of the "Fix the Debt" CEOs.  

    Quite a few of those CEOs head firms that pay a negative tax rate, like Honeywell, GE, Boeing and Verizon. And as the Public Accountability Initiative notes, many lobby to preserve costly tax breaks for the wealthy (including the "carried interest" tax loophole that made Peterson a rich man) and to prevent a tax on Wall Street speculation. Fix the Debt-tied firms are even pushing for a "territorial tax system" that will increase the debt by $1 trillion over ten years and encourage the offshoring of American jobs. Why would supposed debt slayers favor this boondoggle? Because, IPS calculates, at least sixty-three Fix the Debt firms would divvy up a $134 billion windfall. link

    Repeal sequestration? (none / 0) (#38)
    by KeysDan on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 06:55:21 PM EST
    Given the situation, I think I am more on Howard Dean's team (let it proceed) than I am on Chris Hayes.   First of all, the sequestration was not dropped down on us from outer space, but is a law that would not be so if it was not passed by both the House and Senate and signed by the president.

    Second of all, there are important exemptions. Third of all, it is probably the only serious opportunity to reign in defense spending in the lifetime of all Americans now on earth..

    Now, it is clear that sequestration will negatively impact the fragile economy with spending cuts.  But, it is equally clear that the president's alternative of a "balanced" plan will also involve spending cuts and  plugging tax loopholes may also impact, at this time,  economic stability and growth.(e.g., the history of luxury taxes).

     Of course, the spending cuts are described as meat ax rather than the more surgical chisel, but cuts are cuts as far as the economy.  A reasonable remedy would be to allow more discretion by departments--Obama should like the greater executive branch authority, although he would have to own up to his cuts.  Actually, I do believe the executive should have more specific authority, and Congress should provide a general budget with stricter oversight.


    Effects of the sequester. A state-by-state (none / 0) (#47)
    by caseyOR on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 09:59:38 PM EST
    breakdown of the cuts that will be triggered by the sequester has been released by the White House.

    Those of you playing along at home can see just what will be wrought in your home state.

    At times like this I yearn for a parliamentary system just so parliament could be dissolved.


    Paging Ga6thDem... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 10:39:49 AM EST
    saw your comment from the closed Friday thread regarding living off the banking/finance grid.

    A couple thoughts...

    I can't say it makes surviving any easier, it just feels right to avoid the leechery of our corrupt banking and finance sectors whenever possible.  I think it has served me well in that I have no debt and a degree of economic sovereignty many of my peers do not have.  My money to eat can never be frozen by the bank or government, nor is spending it dependent on electricity.  Post-Sandy a lot of stores that were able to open had no working credit/debit terminals, cash only and I had debit card dependent people asking me for loans till they could access their cash.  I may be crazy for foregoing so much of it, but not as crazy as those who play the game who keep no cash on hand at all.

    All I have to fear is my house being robbed and my savings account being found.  I was robbed once, but the thieves didn't find my bank.

    But it comes with some sacrifices...no instant gratification purchases on the CC, ya gotta save before you buy anything big ticket.  Absent an unforeseen windfall I will never own property or a car that costs more than a couple grand.  Slight inconvenience and costs at times paying certain bills.  I broke down and got a prepaid cc to book hotels and to buy sh*t online like airfare...but I only load the card with what I plan to spend and then spend it, I never leave a balance on it.

    Any questions happy to help...but I feel it is more a principle thing than a survival thing...at least at this point.  Maybe someday soon it will be an outright survival thing for all of us to cut out the leeches once and for all.

    "Man, I never understood why all my money.
    Goes down to man at the bank.
    And all he does is sit and think.
    About the money that I'm gonna make."

    - Ryan Bingham, "Dollar a Day

    It's a racket (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 11:14:24 AM EST
    It might be a pain living off the grid, but it's a pain living on it too.  At the end of the day it's probably a wash.  My mailbox is full of $HIT everyday.  We have a very common boring VA mortgage.  I am being spammed all to hell by brokers claiming the VA has "authorized" refinancing for us.  No appraisal needed, no closing costs, interest is 2.5% 5 yr ARM.  It is predatory.  They have what is owed to pay off the mortgage too, WTF?  Want to know how much I owe on this house?  Visit my junk mail, it's all right there.

    Wanna know something else I feel almost certain is going on?  TIME did a piece on hospitals charging outrageous fees to the uninsured who don't have insurance companies contractually controlling their charges.  I have a friend from high school though much like you, off the grid, and like most people has no insurance.  When she gets medical care she does the emergency room thing, and after 30 days they slash the bill in half and would call it good....but after 90 days they'll take 25% and zero that out. She'll show you the bills while she laughs. They do the same for my daughter too but she's not worth much yet and can't afford insurance yet either.  But if someone is worth a bit there is no reduction in charges.  The hospitals are running all of our credit, they know what they can get out of us right out of the gate and that is what they will fight for.  If there is blood in your turnip they're coming for it.


    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 11:26:14 AM EST
    on the medical billing practices...they've got it backwards.  The customer with no insurance who can pay C.O.D. should get the absolute lowest rate offered for the service.  A little higher for Net 30 cash terms or something.

    The insurance cos, with all their hoops the hospitals and doctors have to jump through just to get paid dollar one, should be charged the highest rate, which can always be coupled with a volume discount or 2% 10 Net 30 terms type deal.

    Don't ya think that makes more sense, if this truly was a free market system?  What am I missing?


    You're missing their ability (none / 0) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 11:38:29 AM EST
    To know what is in all of your accounts more accurately than you do :). Harvard Business graduates run the medical industry right now.

    I was very happy when ACA meant that doctors determined what medical care my son would receive.  It used to be that the insurance company had to approve everything done, it was creepy and often abusive.  You had to fight fight fight.  Our healthcare ship listed for years and briefly righted.  Now it's listing on its other side because all those graduates from Harvard Business bolted out of the insurance company, ran across the street and barged into the doctors office yelling, "You people aren't making as much money as you could over here and we have arrived to help!"


    Well put... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 12:04:23 PM EST
    I can't wait to see how we get f8cked when the HBS mafia goes back across the street to the insurance companies.

    I don't even know what to think anymore kdog (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 12:18:31 PM EST
    The part I hate... (none / 0) (#61)
    by fishcamp on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 12:25:37 PM EST
    Hospitals always get paid instantly by most insurance companies because their printed stacked bills are done perfectly and I have found many mistakes every time.  Some doctors insurance billings aren't  always perfect and the ones rendered by hand usually don't get paid the full amount.  Then there is always some dribbling amount that finally gets to me and I have to pay full fare and that's just not fair.

    I am fighting with Atlanta Children's right now (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 01:01:51 PM EST
    Over the difference between what the doctor order was and what was billed for by the hospital.  The doctor's order was for admittance to be monitored outpatient, but the hospital admitted Josh Inpatient and Tricare refused $10,000 of payment due to the discrepancy.

    Once upon a time though I was the person calling people over their bills, small hospital though so I also reconciled Medicare payments and adjusted for the contractual prices.  If someone told me there was an insurance error though I would take the account to the insurance clerks.  Often there was a billing error and they were happy to take care of it.  Payment was made though months down the road...but things could be solved somewhat.

    I tracked the error down with Tricare and called Atlanta Children's and explained to accounts receivable what had happened, figured that would be it.  Nope, they never sent the account back to billing.  They call once a month for the past three months now.  This last go around I was super hopped up pissed, and the clerks will not give you their names.  How can that be?  I always gave someone my full name when we were working out their medical bills, how can my identity be a secret when I have sway over a bit of your financial well being?

    I am an odd duck though with Josh being Tricare Prime, there are no Copays and we can't be made responsible for billing errors, you can lose your ability to serve Tricare insured if you scam though....you can at least be fined for it.  When I discussed all this with the collector she understood none of this or claimed not to.  How can this be?  Who trained her? How many people are they forcing to pay for billing errors? I wondered what was driving this fresh insanity, and I think TIME has answered some of my questions to self.  It isn't about serving patients though for some providers, it about raping people for everything you can get out of them.  They need to get the business executives OUT.


    No guess on Best Actor? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Belswyn on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 08:56:32 AM EST
    Or do you think DDL is a lock?

    Best price (none / 0) (#2)
    by CoralGables on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 09:42:36 AM EST
    I could find in DDR was 1/25.

    Other odds on choices:

    Jennifer Lawrence (Best Actress) 4/7

    Argo (Best Picture) 1/5

    Anna Karenina (Best Costume Design) 1/3

    Steven Spielberg (Best Director) 4/9

    Anne Hathaway (Best Supporting Actor) 1/33

    Amour (Best Foreign Language) 1/25

    You could get a better price on Secretariat


    Make that DDL (none / 0) (#3)
    by CoralGables on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 09:43:08 AM EST
    I should always spell things out

    Beasts of the Southern Wild (none / 0) (#8)
    by shoephone on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 11:52:48 AM EST
    was the best movie I saw this year. And the musical score was great, much better than that for Lincoln. But I'm very biased against John Williams--other then the Star War franchise, I think he writes the same score for every movie. He is one of the most overrated, over wraught, uncreative film composers ever.

    You forgot "bombastic." (none / 0) (#29)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 04:55:10 PM EST
    I totally agree with your opinion of John Williams' work. His manipulative score for Steven Spielberg's "Amistad" simply overwhelmed the film at times, to the point where you had to strain to hear the dialogue.

    Like his longtime collaborator Spielberg, Williams often appears to be enamoured by his own brilliance and is thus anything but subtle in his approach, with sometimes spectacularly wooden results.


    That ain't on the composer... (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by unitron on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 05:31:23 PM EST

    "His manipulative score for Steven Spielberg's "Amistad" simply overwhelmed the film at times, to the point where you had to strain to hear the dialogue."

    ...that's all down to whoever mixed the sound not doing it right.

    And there's been a lot of that the past decade or so, especially on television.


    But all of J. Williams' scores are manipulative (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by shoephone on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 05:35:17 PM EST
    and schmaltzy. IMO.

    I hear you on that. (none / 0) (#44)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 09:31:32 PM EST
    I quit watching Kenneth Branaugh's "Wallender" on PBS because the music soundtrack would overwhelm the dialogue. Terribly annoying.

    That's one thing... (none / 0) (#48)
    by unitron on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 11:59:51 PM EST
    ...about USA's Burn Notice---

    The sound is so professionally done, you don't even notice how good it is if you aren't specifically listening for that.

    Never have to back up to re-hear a piece of dialogue.


    movie sound (none / 0) (#49)
    by LeaNder on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 07:49:28 AM EST
    The sound is so professionally done, you don't even notice how good it is if you aren't specifically listening for that.

    I have a friend who works in sound. He once explained to me, that is the way it should be. I was the most striking experience with a movie had to study in university, and in hindsight it is still the most striking feature I have kept in mind. It made my task much more easy.

    Unfortunately there is a trend to not obey this basic soundtrack law, as perceived by my friend.

    Sometimes I wonder if the directors do not trust their script or the actors and that is really the core of the problem. Especially with with turning up the volume of music to the extend that you cannot understand what is spoken. Or maybe they subconsciously want to really advertise their special tastes in music with story, script and actors playing some type of minor role.


    yes indeed (none / 0) (#39)
    by DFLer on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 07:18:12 PM EST
    Williams paints with such a broad brush....like a 5 inch house painting brush for chrissakes

    Personally, I think ... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 09:28:33 PM EST
    ... he uses a roller.

    Thank you (none / 0) (#45)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 09:32:38 PM EST
    I have been saying that about Amistad forever. That score completely ruined the film for me. Such great actors, and they had to have music behind e speeches? Ridiculous. I know it is ultimately Spielberg's fault, but I don't like Williams' other scores much either.

    Moonrise Kingdome??? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dadler on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 01:02:31 PM EST
    Dear God, no, that was a movie about absolutely NOTHING, imo.

    Worst.non nominated movie: Quartet. What (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 03:16:15 PM EST
    was Dustin Hoffman thinking?

    Frank and the Robot was better.

    I haven't the fortitude to see Silver Lininhgs

    I liked Quartet (none / 0) (#20)
    by shoephone on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 03:20:59 PM EST
    Thought Tom Courtenay put in a great performance. But, admitedly. I'm not a bog opera fan...

    And I think you would like Silver Linings!


    Did you see "Girl, Interrupted"? (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 03:23:13 PM EST
    Yes, I saw it. (none / 0) (#22)
    by shoephone on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 03:28:19 PM EST
    That was years ago! I remember I thought it had some good moments, but I also thought it was overrated. And Anjelina Jolie bugged the he[[ out of me.

    Silver Linings works on a few different levels. It's not a masterpiece about mental illness, but it does make a good effort in that regard. And honestly, the two leads are so appealing and so funny in the dance scenes it's hard not to like.


    Have you seen "Seven Psychopaths"? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 04:38:58 PM EST
    Don't you be giving out any "Worst Non-Nominated Movie" awards until you've seen "Seven Psychopaths," which is my nominee for the "Biggest Waste of Perfectly Good Celluloid" award for the year 2012.

    I'll ditto the others who are telling you to see "Silver Linings Playbook." Honestly, I wasn't too keen on seeing it either, but it wasn't what I expected at all, so I was very pleasantly surprised. It's the first film in 30 years to receive Oscar nominations in all the major categories, and deservedly so. It won't win, but it's still a very solid effort by everyone involved.


    I've only seen four of the eight (none / 0) (#30)
    by CoralGables on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 05:00:32 PM EST
    Lincoln, Life of Pi, Zero Dark Thirty and Silver Linings. Of those the one I'd most likely watch several more times was Silver Linings. but all the inside scoop says Argo is a winner (with Canada mentioned in the acceptance speech for being snubbed)... and if Jennifer Lawrence doesn't win for Best Actress I'll be shocked.

    She probably will. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 09:23:01 PM EST
    But she shouldn't. It's not that I didn't like her in "Silver Linings Playbook;" I thought she was great, but not in a standout way.

    Honestly, Jennifer Lawrence could've phoned in that performance while sleepwalking, she's simply that talented, and frankly, I'd have nominated her for "The Hunger Games" over "Silver Linings."

    Emmanuelle Riva was just so much more memorable in "Amour," and I'd give the Oscar to her.


    I enjoyed The Hunger Games (none / 0) (#46)
    by CoralGables on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 09:35:03 PM EST
    but thought the book was much better. I suspect just like with the Harry Potter Series, the second film in the Hunger Games trilogy, Catching Fire, coming out later this year will be far superior to the first.

    I believe I did see Seven Psychopaths. (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 05:10:40 PM EST
    Repressed it.

    Martin McDonagh. Excellent writer. A (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 05:13:32 PM EST
    Mixed genre effort. Kept my attention.

    Pistorius's brother charged with homicide ... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 08:59:04 AM EST
    ... in a completely separate incident involving a motor vehicle crash in 2010.  He was scheduled to be tried last Thursday.

    Not relevant to OP's situation, but what are the odds?

    Diary at Orange, a drug dog alerted on (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 09:40:41 AM EST
    the backpack of an autistic student.  Kid was handcuffed and interrogated all day, parents were not notified, he simply did not come home from school.  I would have been freaked the holy frick out, if it was my child I would have lost my mind.  This insanity must stop.  They have a petition to sign.  Signed it....what must be done here though...this is crazy?


    Reminds me of my experience... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Dadler on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 10:51:18 AM EST
    ...when I was 12 and a cop held me face down on the pavement with a shotgun on my back, thinking I'd robbed a liquor store next door to my house. I was twelve, maybe I looked a tad older, but nothing about me said danger, I weighed about a buck ten at the time, wasn't exactly armed...though I did pee my pants. Never even got an apology from the guy when he found out it was a false alarm. Like you, I'd freak if this, or something similar, had been done to my son. As it was for me, my mom and second stepfather were in the middle of their own sh*t, and I remember coming home and not even mentioning it. Nothing like repression for he adolescent mind. Ahem.

    You just made the hair on my arms (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 10:56:12 AM EST
    Stand up.

    my son is the same age i was then (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Dadler on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 11:22:03 AM EST
    and i have a hard time even imagining him in that position, much less my reaction to it were it to occur. tho i will say, a few months ago, he and his buddy, who are both kind of tinkerers, building odd crap in the garage out of other crap, and one day they made two bow and arrows out of old PVC scraps and twine. they were damn good, too. they fashioned flat-tipped "arrows" out of other pvc pieces, and started testing out their creations in the back/side yard. ten minutes later i hear a siren, and my first thought WAS actually that eli and his friend had aimed wrong and sent one of their arrows astray. but then i thought, no, couldn't be. but sure enough, a few minutes later, eli skulks into my room and says, "uh, dad, there's, um, a police officer outside who, uh, wants to talk to you."

    i go outside and the officer's first reaction is to assure me that there's nothing to worry about, and he genuinely seems like he's used to people having a very bad reaction to the sight of a police officer. he proceeds to tell me, how he saw my son and friend shooting arrows, kind of toward each other, and as he's saying this he's checking out the quality of these garage-made junk bows and harmless arrows, and he suddenly says, "jeez, you guys made this? it's really good." then he turns to me and says, "listen, if this is the worst thing they're doing, you're doing pretty damn well. just don't shoot toward each other boys, okay? you made good bows, and they're strong enough even dull tips they could do some real damage, so be careful, but keep working hard on stuff like this." and he went on his way. it was the most pleasant experience i've probably ever had with a police officer, and i am trying to keep it fresh right now.