Attention readers. Please be on the lookout for this man:

Dammit! I lost the picture. OK, well, he's about my height (all right, he's a little taller), chestnut hair, hazel eyes, sloppy dresser, a little overweight, wears a baseball cap all the time...no, not Michael Moore, I said chestnut hair.

Let's see, how can I describe him? Oh, I know! You know that movie where the mob guy's car blows up and he finds out who does it and tries to kill that guy's whole family for revenge, but there's a surprise ending? I don't want to say what the surprise ending is, because I hate spoilers, even when people use that stupid 'WARNING - SPOILER' crap, plus with it being Oscar nomination day and all. Anyway, he looks just like that guy's brother. Not his brother in the movie, his real brother - are you paying attention?

How else can I describe him? Wait, remember that post Ace did not long ago with the picture of the short guy standing with two women? Not the guy on the left, the other guy. He looks just like that guy, only picture him about thirty pounds heavier and three inches taller, different hair and eye color, worse posture, badly in need of a shave and with a baseball cap on his head. Got it? OK, that's who you should be on the lookout for.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation in this matter.

Posted by John from WuzzaDem. You think Ace would waste your time with something this stupid? What are you, an idiot?

Posted by: Ace at 09:32 AM | Comments (8)
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

Zero nominations.

The Passion is effectively shut out as well.

UPDATE: Yeah, I say "effectively shutout" because the Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, and Best Screenplay (adaptation) snubs are a pretty unified front.

Notice Farenheit couldn't really have gotten music, make-up, or cinematography nods.

Now all we have to root for is The Icredibles (Animated Feature, Screenplay, Sound).

the UNPOPULIST

Posted by: Ace at 08:01 AM | Comments (6)
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

I saw Jen's posting over at Demure Thoughts last night and thought, "Huh."

And then I forgot about it.

Now, Michelle Malkin has more details. Very disturbing details. Like, "connection to 9/11" kind of details. Not to mention an interesting hook with the Boston terror investigation.

All co-inky-dinks? Hmmm. . .

-- Dave at Garfield Ridge

Posted by: Ace at 08:01 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 72 words, total size 1 kb.

Rep. Bill Thomas speaking on Meet The Press (via Tempus Fugit).

MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you something else you said at the National Journal Forum that raised some eyebrows: "Women are living longer relative to men today than they were in 1940. Yet, we never ever have debated gender-adjusting Social Security. ...But, at some point if the age difference continues to separate and more women are in the workforce and you have more of an equality of pay structure in the workforce, at some point somebody might want to suggest that we need to take a look at the question of whether or not actuarially we ought to adjust who gets what, when, and how."

A gender adjustment--what does that mean?

REP. THOMAS: Well, it was one of my ways of getting people to focus on the issue of age. To move from 65 to 68, which we did in 1983, was a benefit cut. But it also creates hardships based upon the occupation that you have, and it creates inequities on who you are and how long you live. You could just as easily have a discussion about occupations as to when would be a fair or an unfair time to require. We also need to examine, frankly, Tim, the question of race in terms of how many years of retirement do you get based upon your race?

There is no clearer indication that Social Security is broken then the fact that our politicians are now talking about defining the number of years of "security" you can receive based on your race and/or gender. As a young, white male I can almost feel the screws tightening. If we don't make some radical changes to Social Security, now, myself and people like me are going to get screwed.

I can only hope the Bush administration has enough political clout to keep this issue on the table and put me in charge of my social security fund instead of politicians who would use my race and gender to determine the amount of social security money I get. We certainly can't expect any help from Democrats, who would rather put their heads in the sand and pretend that nothing is wrong.

[Cross-posted at Say Anything]

Posted by: Ace at 07:22 AM | Comments (10)
Post contains 384 words, total size 2 kb.

For psychotic grandstanding over "a foregone conclusion."

See.

the UNPOPULIST

Posted by: Ace at 07:16 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

Blair's back up.

the UNPOPULIST

Posted by: Ace at 07:07 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 7 words, total size 1 kb.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Taking off from Ace's post last night about Andrew "Whiny-Ninny Pants" Sullivan, here's a link to a posting I wrote on the subject a few weeks ago.

First taste's free:

What distresses me and so many others about this line of historical inquiry is that it is so often undertaken with the intent to focus *all* of our attention on a subject's sexuality. Much like many insist "the personal is political," some argue that the "sexual is political." It is certainly the case that the sexual Id is a strong, and sometimes overpowering influence in our lives. However, it is not always the case, and in fact, is rarely so. There is no need to suggest the influence of sexual desire in choices made in the grocery checkout line. There is also no need to suggest it when ordering the blockade of the Confederacy, or the emancipation of the slaves.

Yet, many insist that the *only* thing that is important is sexuality. I don't know why; perhaps it's a search for some historical validation as to why sexuality seems so important in their lives. Thus begins the spiral downward of innuendo, gossip, and ultimately outing of historical figures.

Those who pursue such a line of thought often maintain that they are merely seeking "role models." In the case of Lincoln, is there anything sadder than reading his incredible story and concluding that, for all his heroics, he'd only be complete if we could prove that he was homosexual to boot?

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Posted by: Ace at 06:26 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.

ALBANY, N.Y. - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton complained the Bush administration is shortchanging family planning efforts and said that may be causing abortion rates to go up in some parts of the country.

The New York Democrat told about 1,000 fellow abortion rights supporters Monday, two days after the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, that family planning funding was a priority during her husband's administration and "we saw the rate of abortion consistently fall."

"The abortion rate fell by one-quarter between 1990 and 1995, the steepest decline since Roe was decided in 1973," Clinton told the 28th annual conference of the Family Planning Advocates of New York State, referring to the Roe v. Wade decision. "The rate fell another 11 percent between 1994 and 2000."

Asked about the Clinton criticism, White House spokesman Ken Lasaius said, "The president believes we ought to work together to promote a culture of life.

"He's made it very clear that whether we agree or disagree on the issue of abortion, that we can all work together to take practical steps to reduce the number of abortions that occur," Lasaius added.

If Senator Clinton is so interested in reducing the number of abortions in America maybe she'd like to chance her pro-abortion stance on the issues.

I don't understand these politicians who take the "make abortions legal but rare" stance on the issue. That seems like a vain attempt to get on both sides of the issue. To me there are no such gray areas in this issue. Either you're for abortions, or you're against them. Either you believe that an abortion ends a life or you believe that it is no more than a procedure to remove some excess tissue from a woman's body.

Trying to keep abortions "rare" while working to keep them legal is a self-defeating cause. As long as they are legal, they will not be rare.

[Cross-posted at Say Anything]

Posted by: Ace at 06:12 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 329 words, total size 2 kb.

The Supreme Court will not get involved with the Terry Schiavo case.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court refused to get involved Monday in the case of Terri Schiavo, clearing the way for the husband of the severely brain-damaged Florida woman to have her feeding tube unhooked by a state court order.

Barring an unlikely change of heart by Florida judges, Schiavo, now 41, could die soon in a nursing home — nearly 15 years after she lapsed into a vegetative state.

"It's judicial homicide. They want to murder her," Robert Schindler, Schiavo's father, told reporters Monday. "I have no idea what the next step will be. We are going to fight for her as much as we can fight for her. She deserves a chance."

The justices dismissed without comment Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's claim that he had the power and responsibility to keep Schiavo alive after a state judge authorized removal of the tube through which she received food and water.

The governor was appealing a September decision by Florida's Supreme Court that found "Terri's Law" — a measure passed by the state Legislature that gave Bush the one-time power to order the tube reinstated — violated the separation of powers.

What an ugly situation. I'll not get into the details of this particular case as I haven't really been following it closely enough, but since I do know that the situation became complicated because no one knew (for sure) what Mrs. Schiavo's opinion on the matter is I will ask this question: Has the time come for the government to begin requiring the creation of wills on behalf of its citizens?

A lot of judicial time is used up by court cases involving the last wishes of deceased people. A lot of that time and energy could be saved if citizens were required to keep on file at the local court house a copy of their will. We could also require that they address situations like Schiavo's in the will, choosing the conditions under which they'd like to be kept alive or allowed to die.

Wouldn't that save everybody a lot of headaches and heart aches?

[Cross-posted at Say Anything]

Posted by: Ace at 06:00 AM | Comments (13)
Post contains 367 words, total size 2 kb.

Tuesday morning the Oscar nominations are coming out. And I can guarantee you, not a single Carrot Top movie will be on the list.

Unfortunately, we all know which other annoying beast (I call him "Annoyobeast") may end up with a nod today.

However, in the happy face, cheerful spirit of the Oscars, I offer you two gifts:

1. The Garfield Ridge 2004 Movie Lists. What I liked best, and least, out of the 50+ movies I saw last year. Plus some rather unique awards.

2. The Movie Cliches List.

Here are some examples:

In a prison or a gym, when someone is about to be threatened, it usually takes place when the subject is on his back pumping iron and the bar is lowered onto his neck thus reshaping the windpipe and driving some point home.

When foreigners appear in movies (Hispanics in particular) they seem to be able to speak perfect english without making one single mistake except it seems they NEVER manage to learn how to say "Sir" or "Thank you"... they always say "Senor" and "Gracias"

The correct military honor for a hero who saves the world by sacrificing his own life by flying directly into the alien death ray is to clap and cheer wildly in front of the hero's family immediately after he perishes

When you go to rob a bank in a film, you will always choose the teller who has just started his or her first day on the job.

With regard to that last entry, c'mon, that's not just a movie cliche-- that's common sense.

Not that I would, uh, personally know that, or anything.

Oh, and be sure to check out the special Indepedence Day cliche section, which pretty much sums up everything I can't stand about that movie.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

---
UPDATE: Oscar noms are out, you can read them here at Yahoo.

Some quick observations:
-- No nominations for Fahrenheit 9/11. Not for picture, not for documentary.

The terrorists have surely won.

-- The only movie out of the top five I haven't seen yet was Finding Neverland, which, let's be honest, looked pretty sleepy. I guess I'll have to go check it out.

-- It's criminal that Collateral didn't earn Michael Mann a directing nod, nor a cinematography nod. Blinding oversight.

-- Otherwise, this is a very solid list. I'm quite happy to see the excellent Hotel Rwanda represented, as well as Sideways, my favorite film of 2004. Alas, I suspect the good-but-overrated Aviator will clean up on Oscar night.

Take up the comments with your predictions!

Posted by: Ace at 11:10 PM | Comments (15)
Post contains 445 words, total size 3 kb.