China and the US are the countries most vulnerable to damage from future asteroid impacts, according to preliminary new research. [...] The team focused on smaller asteroids because they hit the Earth more frequently. An asteroid a few hundred metres across hits the planet about once every 10,000 years, on average, while those larger than 1 kilometre hit only every 100,000 years or so. Small asteroids are also harder to spot. "We're more likely to be hit by one without much warning," Bailey told New Scientist.
Using maps of population density, the researchers charted the places likely to suffer the most casualties. As might be expected, countries with large coastal populations turned out to be most vulnerable, with China, Indonesia, India, Japan and the US in the top five spots. [...] The US faced the worst potential losses, perhaps not surprisingly, since it has a lot of infrastructure on coastlines facing two different oceans. China was second, followed by Sweden, Canada, and Japan. [...] The researchers also produced maps showing the worst possible places on Earth for an impact to occur. The Pacific coast of Asia shows up as an especially bad place in terms of producing casualties. Impacts in the north Atlantic Ocean, which can send tsunamis to both Europe and North America, tend to produce particularly high infrastructure losses.
The biggest source of uncertainty for the results is the possibility that a single incoming asteroid might not make it to the ground intact, fragmenting in the atmosphere instead to produce multiple, smaller impacts – a scenario not considered in the model, Bailey says.
Can anyone tell me how this doesn't affect every country in the world?
And it's not just a matter of saving people's lives (not to mention whole species) but it's also an economic issue, as this report clearly shows. That should get the politicians' ears, shouldn't it?
King is one of my favorite writers because of the sort of worlds he's able to create and how utterly credible and both ordinary and extraordinary they appear.
Carrie was his first book and already a smashing success (it's been in print since 1976, enough said).
It tells the story of a teenage girl everyone likes to pick on. Her life is miserable, in school and at home, where her widowed mother is a religious fanatic that wastes no occasion to remind her daughter that she's the spawn of the devil.
Luckily for Carrie, not so much for anyone around her, she possesses a special power that allows her, in the end, to take revenge over her abusers.
The book was captivating and totally engaging as read by Sissy Spacek, the actress who, incidentally, played Carrie in the movie version of the book. She was mesmerizing in her ability to render not only the characters' voices but their very existence. The best audio book reader so far for me.
The story was also the first to ever arouse such strong feelings in me from an imaginary character. I felt so bad for that poor girl, teased by all her schoolmates and abused by an insane mother who was totally clueless of the world and valued the Bible more than her own daughter's life and happiness.
A couple times I actually had to put the book aside for a while because it was just too painful to witness what was happening to her. Which showcases another great skill of King's, the ability to make you sympathize with the bad guy, no matter what they end up doing.
That's a question that this report has been trying to answer, and the results are hardly optimistic for some species:
Some climates may disappear from Earth entirely, not just from their current locations, while new climates could develop if the planet continues to warm, a study says.
Such changes would endanger some plants and animals while providing new opportunities for others, said John W. Williams, an assistant professor of geography at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. [...] Tropical regions in particular may face unexpected changes, particularly the rain forests in the Amazon and Indonesia, Williams' researchers concluded.
This was surprising, Williams said in a telephone interview, since the tropics tend to have little variation in weather.
But that also means temperature changes of 3 or 4 degrees in these regions might have more impact than a change of 5 to 8 degrees in a region that is accustomed to regular changes.
Species living in tropical areas may be less able to adapt, he said, adding that that is speculative and needs further study. [...] And they said mountain areas such as in Peruvian and Colombian Andes and regions such as Siberia and southern Australia face a risk of climates disappearing altogether.
That doesn't mean these regions would have no climate at all -- rather their climate would change and the conditions currently in these areas would not occur elsewhere on Earth.
That would pose a risk to species living in those areas, Williams observed.
And then there's this tidbit:
"The potential consequences and how these new regimes will be populated are poorly known, and the potential for new threats to humans through disease vectors could be a real danger," he said.
Besides obviously feeling upset because entire species of animals and plants might be lost forever, two things are particularly worrying here.
First, the fact that some of the most at risk climates (and by extension all the living organisms they envelop) are in the rain forests, where thousands of species of animals and plants haven't been studied or even discovered yet, and they are often the source of many of the medicines that cure us.
Second, the fact that new climates could give rise to unknown species that could pose real threats to our health or even survival.
I'd say those two risks alone are worth fighting global warming. Unless you're George Bush.
Elton John just celebrated his 60th birthday and The Sun published 60 of his most famous quotes to fête him. Here are some of the best:
On Hear’Say: “They have to be the ugliest band I’ve ever seen. If you’re going to have a boy band or a girl band then they’ve got to be good-looking. The guy Danny looks like Shrek. I feel sorry for them.”
On Grammys, while reviewing a Stevie Wonder video on a kids’ TV show: “Grammys only go to disabled people.”
On Madonna’s victory at the Q Awards in 2004: “Madonna Best Live Act? Since when has lip-synching been live? Anyone who lip-synchs on stage when you pay £75 to see them should be shot. That’s me off her f***ing Christmas card list, but do I give a toss? No.”
On George W Bush: “The worst thing that has ever happened to America.”
On the Diana Memorial Fountain: “It’s purely ugly. It looks like a sewer.”
On the present he would give Liza Minnelli to celebrate her 2002 wedding to David Gest: “A heterosexual husband.”
On aggression: “I’ve always wanted to smash a guitar over someone’s head. You just can’t do that with a piano.”
On spending £2million in a month: “I’m not a nest-egg person.”
And this one takes the cake:
On sex: “There is nothing wrong with going to bed with someone of your own sex. People should be very free with sex – they should draw the line at goats.”
A new report studied the effects a flu pandemic would have on the US economy and the results aren't pretty:
A severe flu pandemic "would almost certainly lead to a major economic recession," according to a new report from a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization.
The report, titled "Pandemic Flu and the Potential for U.S. Economic Recession," projected that a pandemic would kill 2.25 million people and force 87.75 million people to miss work for three weeks. [...] "The U.S. is not prepared to face an economic shock of this magnitude," said Jeff Levi, executive director of the Trust for America's Health, which issued the report. "While important government preparedness efforts focusing mainly on medical and public health strategies are under way, efforts to prepare for the possible economic ramifications have been seriously inadequate. Stepping up pandemic preparedness is vital to our national and economic security." [...] Health experts say another flu pandemic is inevitable. They worry most about the possibility that the highly pathological H5N1 strain of bird flu could mutate, gaining the ability to spread easily from person to person.
The report said a severe outbreak would make at least 30 percent of the population ill, and would kill at least 2.5 percent of those who got sick. In the United States, that would translate into 90 million people getting sick and 2.25 million dying.
Tough numbers there. I really hope that someone in charge heeds the warning, because the assessment that "another flu pandemic is inevitable" is quite scary.
I posted about this issue previously, and I'm glad to see that, at least for now, we'll be spared the annoyance of strangers chatting away for hours into their cell phones while sitting next to us during a flight:
The Federal Communications Commission will give up on the idea of allowing cellphone use on airplanes, the chairman said, because it was not clear whether the network on the ground could handle the calls.
While the chairman, Kevin Martin, cited a technical reason on Thursday, thousands of air passengers have written to the FCC, urging rejection of the proposal because of the potential for irritating passengers. [...] The problem cited by Martin did not have to do with flight safety or the mood in the cabin, but a problem raised by the cellphone industry.
The system is designed for phones to communicate with a single cell tower at a time. But a cellphone that is several miles in the air can contact many towers at once, tying up circuits in all of them, the industry argued.
So they found a technical issue to reject the proposal, which is fine by me, as long as the end result is the same. Social concerns are, however, a known issue:
But he also alluded to the social problem. "From an in-flight perspective, there is some talk of, 'O.K., maybe cellphone conversations would drive people crazy,'" he said.
As for the old adage that if you use your cell phone during flight you might bring down the plane:
The issue for aviation safety is that planes navigate by way of faint radio signals from the ground and from satellites.
These are on frequencies different from the ones authorized for cellphone use, but safety experts worry that any electronic equipment might emit signals at a frequency that would drown out the navigation signals.
So there could be problems, but economics, followed by social considerations, are the basis for the current decision.
Airlines are gonna go ahead with implementing web services on board, but for now cell phones are still gonna be off-limits.
That's what NASA officials said regarding the search for all the asteroids that threaten to hit Earth with devastating results, but since there isn't enough money to pay for the task, it won't get done:
The cost to find at least 90 percent of the 20,000 potentially hazardous asteroids and comets by 2020 would be about $1 billion, according to a report NASA will release later this week. [...] These are asteroids that are bigger than 460 feet in diameter -- slightly smaller than the Superdome in New Orleans.
They are a threat even if they don't hit Earth because if they explode while close enough -- an event caused by heating in both the rock and the atmosphere -- the devastation from the shockwaves is still immense. The explosion alone could have the power of 100 million tons of dynamite, enough to devastate an entire state, such as Maryland, they said.
The agency is already tracking bigger objects, at least 3,300 feet in diameter, that could wipe out most life on Earth, much like what is theorized to have happened to dinosaurs 65 million years ago.
But even that search, which has spotted 769 asteroids and comets -- none of which is on course to hit Earth -- is behind schedule. It's supposed to be complete by the end of next year. [...] One solution would be to build a new ground telescope solely for the asteroid hunt, and piggyback that use with other agencies' telescopes for a total of $800 million. Another would be to launch a space infrared telescope that could do the job faster for $1.1 billion. But NASA program scientist Lindley Johnson said NASA and the White House called both those choices too costly.
A cheaper option would be to simply piggyback on other agencies' telescopes, a cost of about $300 million, also rejected, Johnson said.
So, let me get this straight, we've already spent half a trillion dollars in Iraq (that's about $2.5 billion a week people), with very little results, I might add, and we can't come up with one lousy billion dollars to save THE WHOLE FREAKIN' PLANET!?
What's wrong with this picture??!
I just can't believe that this issue doesn't resonate more with the people and the government. Actually, this should be an effort undertaken at the UN level, because it's one of those events that would will affect every living organism on the planet, and should therefore be supported by every nation in any way they can.
Who knows, it could even have the unintended consequence of bringing Earth's peoples closer together by giving them a common goal to focus on.
Dave passed away unexpectedly a few days ago, and his loss is still inconceivable to me.
He was Ray's brother and I didn't know him very well, because he was a very private person and dealt, throughout his short life, with many issues that caused him to withdraw from the people that surrounded him and loved him dearly.
In the last few years, he lived in Florida, and the physical distance didn't help in getting to know him better.
We've all lost a great guy on March 7. Caring, loyal, funny, loving.
My biggest regret is that now that he's gone, he'll never be my friend. I'll never have the chance I wanted to get to know him better, and only now, after hearing all sorts of "Dave stories" over the past few days, I know how much I missed out on.
I also regret that the kids will hardly remember him and how much he loved them. Every now and then, Ray and I think of an experience they would certainly have had thanks to Uncle Dave, an experience that now they will not be able to enjoy.
He was a great uncle for the little time he had to spend with the kids. We'll make sure they know that.
The only consolation, if there is any, is that in the past few months Dave was Ray's Best Man at our wedding and Godfather to Ray's sister Cathy's son, Michael.
We know he was happy, honored, and proud to participate to both events and to hold those roles. Roles that showed him how much his brother and sister loved him and wished him well.
I wonder how last Saturday's lunar eclipse looked like from Italy.
We were fortunate enough to have a clear sky and we got to see the Moon in all its eerie beauty. It actually didn't look anything like the image on the right, which is stunningly beautiful.
The Moon we saw was a pale gray, clearly visible in the sky but only if you looked for it, since it looked like it was hiding.
Nonetheless, it was truly a spectacular view. It looked like a ball throw up in the sky, just gravitating there.
Our only satellite is beautiful when reflecting the Sun's light in the dark night, but seeing it in that color, it looked like a very shy, reserved Moon, so different from the usual bright beauty.
It actually looked like someone had put a black veil on it. Pure magic.
This miniseries, starring the fascinating Peter Krause, intrigued me from the beginning, but left me with a bitter taste in my mouth by the end of its run.
The story centers around a series of objects that seem to posses amazing 'properties' that make them extremely valuable. For example, the key allows you to open any door in the world, the comb stops time, the glass eye heals any wound, the bus ticket throws everyone who touches it somewhere in the middle of nowhere in Kansas.
All these objects come from a mysterious motel room, where something happened to cause them to acquire their powerful properties. The objects have been sought after, collected and lost again through the years by individuals and groups, all seeking them for their known powers and the possibility that by getting them back together unknown ones would be unleashed.
The story is well developed, interesting, even fascinating, at least for the first 5 parts. Then, when you get to the last one, right when you'd expect to get some kind of answer to all the questions posed throughout, you're left empty handed, stranded on your couch, looking around for answers to the question, "Did I black out and missed half the show, or what the hell happened?"
That's too bad, because the premise was good, but the flaw in the execution of the last part of the show is unforgivable. They spent a lot of time showing us what many of the objects can do, which is great because that's at the core of the whole concept. They tried to flesh out the main characters, sometimes effectively, often not so much because there are so many, and not enough time, but you can still root for or against them. And then, in the end, it looks like they suddenly realized they had no more time left to dilly-dally and so they rushed to close up the main character story line, and be done with it. But what about all the other lose ends that got left in the dust?
Up to that point the quality of the show was pretty good, but I really can't recommend it because of its length and the lack of a serious conclusion to the story. At the end, you really feel like you've invested so much time in this, and you ended up with nothing.
This article talks about the increase in the number of people living in poverty, specifically in "deep or severe poverty" in America since Bush took office 6 long years ago:
Based on the latest available US census data from 2005, the McClatchy Newspapers analysis found that almost 16 million Americans live in "deep or severe poverty" defined as a family of four with two children earning less than 9,903 dollars -- one half the federal poverty line figure.
For individuals the "deep poverty" threshold was an income under 5,080 dollars a year.
"The McClatchy analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26 percent from 2000 to 2005," the US newspaper chain reported.
How on earth do these people get by? Less than ten thousand dollars a year for four people?! How is that possible?
Meanwhile, the richer get richer, and richer, and richer, thanks to Bush's economic policies:
The surge in poverty comes alongside an unusual economic expansion.
"Worker productivity has increased dramatically since the brief recession of 2001, but wages and job growth have lagged behind. At the same time, the share of national income going to corporate profits has dwarfed the amount going to wages and salaries," the study found.
"That helps explain why the median household income for working-age families, adjusted for inflation, has fallen for five straight years.
Thanks, Mr. President. You're doing a heck of a job... for your rich friends at least.
Some Native American tribes are pushing for the removal of the word "squaw" from any geographical location in the country, because the word has now acquired a negative connotation for their women, equating it to the "N" word for African Americans:
"It's like saying the 'N-word' to a black person," says Bernal, a member of the Shoshone-Bannock, one of five tribes with reservations in Idaho.
"To me, it's a slap in the face. It belittles me and it belittles all Indian women."
Bernal is among Native Americans across the West fighting to excise "squaw" from the names of region's waterways, peaks and river valleys.
The 55 tribes of the Pacific Northwest say the "S-word," once commonly used when referring to an American Indian woman, is demeaning and never uttered on reservations.
They claim the term evokes the painful chapter in American history when Indian lands were confiscated and native peoples were subjugated by whites.
Yet the word litters the national map, with more than 800 place names including the word "squaw" and some resistance from local officials who object to what they say is a push to be politically correct.
I believe everybody deserves the uttermost respect, but in this case I'm not on the side of the offended. I actually happen to agree with Jeff Ford, former member of the Idaho names council, who said, "It's not meant to be demeaning and that term's been there forever. There must have been a reason for people of European descent to call places that. It probably wasn't a nice reason but we can't keep whitewashing history. A geographic name should reflect the story that brought it about."
I agree with that position. There's a town in Italy named "Bastardo," I heard of a road somewhere named "Dick," a river in Argentina is called "Negro," and a town in Austria is called "Fucking." Should we change them all? I'm sure those names are upsetting or insulting to someone.
What we're talking about here is rewriting history because now those words have a different meaning, or because now the people offended by that meaning have more powerful outlets to vent their frustration, anger, and dissatisfaction.
We're not talking about a word used in comedy skits or in movies or TV shows with the sole purpose to offend the recipients or earn a cheap laugh. These are names of peaks, rivers, cities, with a history behind them. Maybe it's not a pretty history, but it's their history. Are we going to wipe out everything we don't like about the past?
How long before someone demands the deletion of all references to the Holocaust from history books, so as to avoid hurting the feelings of Jewish students?
At least in regard to the global warming effect on the ice caps:
A critical meltdown of ice sheets and severe sea level rise could be inevitable because of global warming, the world's scientists are preparing to warn their governments. New studies of Greenland and Antarctica have forced a UN expert panel to conclude there is a 50% chance that widespread ice sheet loss "may no longer be avoided" because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Such melting would raise sea levels by four to six metres, the scientists say. It would cause "major changes in coastline and inundation of low-lying areas" and require "costly and challenging" efforts to move millions of people and infrastructure from vulnerable areas. The previous official line, issued in 2001, was that the chance of such an event was "not well known, but probably very low". [...] Areas such as the Maldives would be swamped and low-lying countries such as the Netherlands and Bangladesh, as well as coastal cities including London, New York and Tokyo, would face critical flooding. [...] The new report is expected to say this means there is "a significant probability that some large-scale events (eg deglaciation of major ice sheets) may no longer be avoided due to historical greenhouse gas emissions and the inertia of the climate system". [...] The report's conclusion poses a conundrum for governments of how to address a problem that is inevitable but may not occur for hundreds or thousands of years. "That's for the policy makers to decide but it really is a very difficult question," the source said. "Those are moral questions and the answer you give will depend very much on which part of the world you live in."
Isn't it unbelievable that we don't take stronger action on this issue? We're all going to be affected, one way or another.
Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, announcing he is pulling out of the 2008 Democratic race for president, citing financial difficulties in a campaign that lasted 15 weeks:
"The reality, however, is that this process has become to a great extent about money, a lot of money."
And they used to say anyone could become President. No more.
Well, this is amazing and I salute them if they do it. The United States really does risk becoming the ugly cousin surrounded by the attractive ones, now that Canada to the north, Mexico to the south and Cuba to the east are all going toward recognizing their gay citizens are such:
And now this country is on the verge of enacting a law that gives same-sex couples some form of legal status.
"We have to abolish any form of discrimination against those persons," said Ricardo Alarcon, president of Cuba's National Assembly. "We are trying to see how to do that, whether it should be to grant them the right to marry or to have same-sex unions."
Alarcon said he expects Cuba's communist government will soon enact a law to do one or the other. "We have to redefine the concept of marriage," he said. "Socialism should be a society that does not exclude anybody." [...] How ironic is this? While a country that successive U.S. governments have called a totalitarian state is moving toward expanding the rights of gays and lesbians, the president of the United States - the world's leading democracy - wants to restrict their rights.
I used to love driving much more than I do now, but I still like to get behind the wheel. This, however, would have me first in line: a car that drives itself. I just think of all the time I'd get back on any given day, since my commute is now 2+ hours per day:
Scientists are developing the next generation of robot-driven cars and predict they could be shuttling humans around by the year 2030, a conference was told. [...] Stanford's entrant "Junior" is a converted 2006 Volkswagen Passat whose steering, throttle and brakes all have been modified by engineers to be completely computer-controllable.
An array of lasers fitted on the car bumpers, radar and global positioning systems feed data into the on-board computer to determine its location and position.
Thrun predicted that leaps in artificial intelligence would lead to driverless cars on the roads by 2030.
"Today we can drive about 100 miles (160 kilometers) before human assistance is necessary, by 2010 I expect this to go 1,000 miles (1,160 kilometers), by 2020 up to a million miles (1.6 million kilometers)," he said.
"By 2030 you'll be able to see them on the highway, with a driving reliability that will exceed humans by orders of magnitude.
It would really be amazing. You could read a book, watch a movie, take a nap, all the while your car takes you where you need to go.
This is the kind of action that should be taken in every country of the world. Every step, little as it may be, counts:
Australia will be the world’s first country to ban incandescent lightbulbs in a bid to curb greenhouse gas emissions, with the government saying on Tuesday they would be phased out within three years and replaced by compact fluorescent lighting.
By 2009, Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull told local radio, "you simply won’t be able to buy incandescent lightbulbs, because they won’t meet the energy standard." [...] In incandescent light bulbs, perfected for mass use by Thomas Edison in the late 19th century, electricity flows through a filament to create light. Much of the energy, however, is wasted in the form of heat. [...] Under the Australian plan, bulbs that do not comply with energy efficiency targets would be gradually banned from sale. Exemptions may apply for special needs such as medical lighting and oven lights.
Fluorescent bulbs are currently more expensive than incandescent bulbs, but use only about 20 percent of the power to produce the same amount of light and last longer, making them more competitive over time, advocates argue.
The article says that similar measures are being considered in California and New Jersey in the US, and in Venezuela and, of all places, Cuba.
Unfortunately for Australia, its desire of wanting to cut greenhouse gases is grossly shortchanged by its unwillingness to ratify the Kyoto protocol, for fears of damaging its economy.
A museum exhibit of one of mankind's oldest relics, Turkana Boy, the most complete skeleton of a prehistoric human ever found, has brought out of their caves the religious fanatics that exist in Kenya:
But his first public display later this year is at the heart of a growing storm -- one pitting scientists against Kenya's powerful and popular evangelical Christian movement. The debate over evolution vs. creationism -- once largely confined to the United States -- has arrived in a country known as the cradle of mankind.
"I did not evolve from Turkana Boy or anything like it," says Bishop Boniface Adoyo, head of Kenya's 35 evangelical denominations, which he claims have 10 million followers. "These sorts of silly views are killing our faith."
He's calling on his flock to boycott the exhibition and has demanded the museum relegate the fossil collection to a back room -- along with some kind of notice saying evolution is not a fact but merely one of a number of theories.
Against him is one of the planet's best-known fossil hunters, Richard Leakey, whose team unearthed the bones at Nariokotome in West Turkana, in the desolate, far northern reaches of Kenya in 1984.
"Whether the bishop likes it or not, Turkana Boy is a distant relation of his," Leakey, who founded the museum's prehistory department, told The Associated Press. "The bishop is descended from the apes and these fossils tell how he evolved."
Actually, maybe the bishop is right, after all, how could such a moron have descended from the same ancestors as myself?
They were this past Sunday and I can finally report on them too. The ceremony, although enjoyable, was not, alas, memorable. I was looking forward to the first Oscars presented by Ellen DeGeneres, whom I simply adore, but she was just average. Not worse than Jon Stewart, as good as Steve Martin, and certainly more likable than Chris Rock, but not as good as Billy Crystal has been.
My favorite, Whoopi Goldberg, I won't even put in the same sentence because her flair is simply unmatched by any other host.
Ellen was probably very nervous, although I've seen her hosting other awards, I've seen a couple of her comedy shows, and I've seen her talk show, and I can't say she behaved much different here. She was probably told not to be too harsh or to be politically correct, but she was mostly just being herself, which maybe isn't exactly what the Oscars need.
The Oscars need Whoopi.
As for the ceremony itself, I’m not one of those who complain about the Oscars being too long. They are the celebration of a year of achievements by some of the most talented people on the planet, and the Academy should be allowed to do it with all the pomp it wants. I, for example, enjoyed the several montages throughout the show, especially the one of all the Best Foreign Language Film winners from the Oscar history, which was a nice (and due) acknowledgment on Hollywood’s part that other countries make movies as well (and sometimes they’re better than its own products). I actually proudly watched as the movies’ titles rolled on, one after the other, as Italy was by far the country that won this award the most in the past.
I mistakenly thought the show started at 8, so I ended up watching a good half hour of the lousy pre-show that simply reinforced my dislike for it. It’s nice to see the stars on the red carpet, but those so called “interviewers” they are subjected to are so daft and inept that you feel ashamed at the questions they ask. It’s just baffling that they can’t think of anything smarter or more pertinent, or that there simply aren't any better people to do that job.
The most shocking one was the guy from Vogue (I think) that was (poorly and boringly) commenting on the stars’ outfits and dresses. I saw him with Jennifer Hudson, whom he actually followed around and filmed in the previous days, while she was picking her dress, shoes and accessories. He had the audacity of calling her “The New People’s Princess”!! I was astounded. Besides the fact that the People’s Princess was actually a Princess, how can he compare Jennifer Hudson to Lady Diana?! That's not even a funny joke!
I’m a little put off by all the adoration for this girl. I haven’t seen the film and therefore cannot speak of her acting abilities, but I heard her sing and she certainly has a beautiful voice. She has also lived a Cinderella-like story, since she was a regular nobody until she auditioned for American Idol, where she eventually got eliminated, was then picked among hundreds for this role and has since won virtually every award out there for it.
Now, she has even won an Oscar for her very first part in a movie, all the while admitting herself that she never thought of herself as an actress, although now she feels validated by all this success. Honestly, she might have deserved that Oscar, but the jury’s still out on her acting career. She’s, after all, a singer, and she played one, so whether I’ve seen the movie or not, I’ll hold my judgment until I see her in a role that doesn’t require any singing. I wish her well, especially because she’s "full figured" (and girls need role models like that) and she’s black (and black girls need role models like that), but she might just turn out to be a one-hit wonder, like many others the Academy anointed through the years.
Anyway, that guy who called her that, is a moron. She might be liked and all, but not any more or less than countless other actresses or singers, so what exactly makes her the new people’s princess I don’t know. And it remains to be seen whether all this love showered on her is real or is just manufactured by a media hungry for a new cover girl to call their own. Only time will tell, but I hope someone in her circle tells Jennifer that sticking her hands in her dress’ pockets while being interviewed is a big no-no. She looked so bad I cringed, poor thing.
After Ellen's good but short introduction, the show started with two gorgeous presenters, Nicole Kidman (whose face looked so pulled I almost put my hands up in fear of an explosion) and Daniel Craig. What. A. Stud.
Anyway, they presented the first award, which wasn’t for Best Supporting Actress (poor Jennifer had to sweat it for a couple hours), as it had usually been for years, as a way to give the audience the impression that they’d be served up with big ticket awards mixed up with “less important” ones. Bad omen. In fact, all the technical awards came first, and the first acting ones appeared only midway through. Bad, bad, bad.
On the other hand, a few nice additions helped better understand the value of these supposedly “second tier” awards. For example, reading a couple lines from every screenplay while the scene is played from the final product; or showing the different video streams that get merged into the final movie by the editor; or how important it is to pick the right sounds and splice them together in the right spot.
A few things I liked:
The set was nice, very majestic, very... cinematic.
The pairing of a drop-dead gorgeous guy and girl on stage to assist with the statuettes, instead of the usual couple of girls. Finally some equality.
The Pilobolus’ white-sheet performances, all very clever.
The strong international presence among the nominees.
And finally, the “Elements and Motion” choral performance, without a doubt one of the most amazing things I’ve ever seen.
One thing I could have done without was the song-and-dance act of Will Ferrell, Jack Black, and John C. Reilly: very, very good point (and it’s unfortunate that it has to be made in the first place) but they looked awkward at best.
Jaden Smith and Abigail Breslin were cute, showing their age in a scripted presentation, while Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore were funny and poignant in their wake-up to global warming's dangers message to the masses. An Inconvenient Truth, the documentary whose star was Gore himself, went on, as expected, to win for Best Documentary, prompting another appearance on stage by the former Vice President. You just can't buy exposure like that, whatever your cause.
I loved that documentary, so I was very pleased to see it triumph, as I was for Melissa Etheridge when she was awarded the Best Song Oscar for it. I liked the song from Cars, which I found very sentimental and nostalgic, and I thought the three nominated songs from Dreamgirls (a record, I'm sure) were excellent, but Melissa's performance really brougth the point home that we need to wake up!!
Speaking of Dreamgirls' nominated songs: I think Beyoncé has a wonderful voice, and Ms. Hudson's pipes were a perfect match to hers in terms of both power and range. The other girl was great too, by the way and I sure wish I saw the movie. The elaborate musical number they put up for the show was great, as was the display of costumes on stage when the Best Costume award was assigned.
Another funny couple of presenters was Anne Hathaway and Emily Blunt, who brought an unaware Meryl Streep into their own skit, giving her yet another chance to make us marvel at what a talented and histrionic actress she is. She was in and out of character, seamlessly. No wonder she holds the record for the most Academy Award nominations by an actor. Ever.
Actually, I'm starting to think that one actress who has a shot at beating that record could be the wonderful Kate Winslet, who, at 31, is the youngest actress to have already garnered 5 nominations. Wow!
Ellen's skits with Martin Scorsese (look at that, I'm holding a script) and with Clint Eastwood (can I take a picture for my My Space page?) were very funny, especially when she gave Steven Spielberg advice on how to frame the picture. Meanwhile, what the hell was the guy who accepted the Best Animated Film award for Happy Feet thinking with that silly and ugly tuxedo?!
Happy Feet's win was actually a shocker for me, since I was sure Cars would have won it, as Pixar always does. Not having seen the movie, I can't say anything, I just hope it deserved it, since Cars was really, really good, especially on a technical level, which this prize takes into account.
Sherry Lansing's acceptance speech for her honorary award was a little stiff but thankfully short, while Ennio Morricone's was downright emotional, although I was stunned to find out he doesn't speak English! How did he work effectively with foreign directors for all these years? I was also astounded to hear he has composed over 400 scores. How does he even find the time to do all that!?!
The song he composed for Celine was nice, a little understated maybe, but very cinematic. What's the reason for it though? Is she going back to the studio for a new CD of fresh material?
Helen Mirren was very classy, as usual, and I'm happy for her. She deserves this Oscar and her recognition was long overdue. I was also happy for Forest Whitaker, but not for his performance, since I haven't seen it. Instead I was happy because a black actor won the Best Actor Oscar and I didn't hear anyone point out that it was a big step forward for African Americans or mention his race when talking about his chances of winning.
Actually, I only realized it myself when Reese Whiterspoon (who must have lost her mind for divorcing Ryan Phillippe) was about to announce the winner and the five nominated actors were up on the screen, and TWO of them were black!! I couldn't believe that I hadn't read anywhere how it was "extraordinary" for blacks to have filled not only one, but two slots in the category. I must say, that really pleased me, since I took it as a clear sign that perhaps, African Americans really have turned a corner and are now playing on the same level as their white counterparts.
At least, I hope so.
As for the other awards, since I saw so few of the nominated films, all I can say is that I'm glad The Departed won (by the way, this is the second year in a row that the great Jack Nicholson gets to announce the Best Picture winner, and for the second time, it was unexpected; this year, he also just so happened to crown the movie he starred in). It was a good movie, although I don't think it's Martin Scorsese's best work, so his win for Best Director is not justified if it's only just so that the Academy can right a wrong it committed decades ago and so that no one can say anymore that a master like Scorsese never won an Oscar for directing a movie.
Nevertheless, I'm glad he won, I just have the feeling that the day I'll watch Flags of Our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jima, I'll be upset that the latter didn't win Best Picture and that Eastwood wasn't recognized again, since after all last year he directed not one, but two of the most critically acclaimed pictures in years. Again, I reserve my judgment for when I will have seen them.
Another shocker was Alan Arkin's win for Best Supporting Actor over Eddie Murphy. I know that Arkin was gaining ground while Murphy was losing momentum (he'd have certainly won if the ceremony had been held a month earlier), but it was still a surprise. It also made me doubt (and others as well, judging by Ellen's comments afterwards) that Ms. Hudson's win wasn't such a sure thing after all (let's face it, Cate Blanchett is awesome in anything she does, so I'm sure she deserved to win just as much, if not more).
I was similarly surprised by Pan's Labyrinth's loss in the Foreign Language Film category after winning 3 technical awards earlier on. It just goes to show that you can never tell. One thing sort of cleared the mystery here for me though. At the end of the credits, when they explain the Academy's rules for voting, they said that everyone votes for Best Picture nominees, but only those working in a specific field get to vote for the other categories' nominations (like editors for editing, cinematographers for cinematography, and so on). The entire body of the Academy then gets to vote for the winners among the nominees, but for Foreign Language Film (as for, I believe, Shorts and Documentaries) only those who attend special screenings get to vote. Therefore, Pan's Labyrinth was able to win the technical awards because everyone could vote and felt it was the best, while only a few could vote for Foreign Film, and of those, the majority preferred The Lives of Others.
In the end, the big winner was The Departed, with 4 Oscars, while the big loser was Dreamgirls, which lead the field with 8 nominations but won only 2 awards, and 1 was technical. It didn't even get Best Original Song when it was a musical and had three out of five shots at it, although that's possibly the reason, since the vote probably got split among its three songs, allowing a fourth one, "I Need To Wake Up," to come up on top.
In the end, these few upsets were what made the ceremony interesting, since it's no fun to go in knowing all the results already.
I want to close by saying that I did like Ellen, I love Ellen, and I wish her to be offered to host the Oscars again one day, especially after I saw this video that clearly shows how much she loved and appreciated hosting the ceremony, and how hard she worked to do a good job:
One thing is clear, she poured her heart into it. Let that be acknowledged.
