It's a long tradition to offer celebrites very expensive gift-bags when they come to industry functions.

Very expensive. Really top-of-the-shelf stuff. And the gift-bags get more and more extravagant every year.

The IRS has decided it wants its fair share:

Guests who took home gift-packed bags from yesterday's (05MAR06) Academy Awards ceremony may have to pay $30,000 (GBP17,500) in taxes on their new acquisitions. The bags, which included a $7000 (GBP4,000) Victoria's Secret underwear set and a coupon for LASIK surgery, are worth approximately $100,000 (GBP58,000) each. And unfortunately for the celebrities present, the Unites States [IRS] has declared that the bags given to Oscar attendees count as taxable income.

Well of course it's taxable income!

No wonder celebrities don't mind higher tax rates. So much of their life is completely tax-free, rising rates don't impact them as much as one would expect.

Higher taxes are to help "the little people." But paying taxes are apparently aslo for "the little people."

Since the money is just being taken from the little people to give it back to them later (after deducting 50% for paying bureaucrats to shuffle it from one account to another and then cut a check), maybe celebrities would do us all a favor and just leave it where it lays. Their super-comped lifestyle, plus their squads of high-paid tax-avoidance lawyers, squirreling away their money into sheltered trusts and such, means they're not paying into the kitty anyway.

So really, they shouldn't get to have an opinion.

I've said this before, but I'll say it again: There is nothing illegal about overpaying your taxes. The IRS will not throw you in jail if you pay double what is demanded of you.

So Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, Alec Baldwin and the like can institute a do it yourself tax-hike plan, leading by example, by simply paying taxes at the higher rates they would like to see inflicted on the rest of us.

Go ahead, guys. If you're serious, start paying double or even triple your taxes, and show us all that it's not such a burden. (And pay it on your actual income, not the much-diminished income you declare after failing to include all the gifts and free travel you receive as well as all the money sheltered away in trusts.)

Posted by: Ace at 12:05 PM | Comments (18)
Post contains 391 words, total size 2 kb.

Diversity-- catch the fever!

Are there no limits to how arrogant and out-of-touch America's Ivy League schools can get? Last week it emerged that Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, former deputy foreign secretary of the Taliban, is now a student at Yale while at the same time the school continues to block ROTC training from its campus and argues for the right of its law school to exclude military recruiters. King George's troops played the music to "The World Turned Upside Down" as they surrendered at Yorktown. Perhaps the Ivy League should adopt that tune as they surrender all vestiges of common sense.

Yale's decision to admit Mr. Rahmatullah is particularly jarring given constant reminders of the Taliban's crimes--both past and present. Last week, as President Bush visited democratic Afghanistan, its TV news aired fresh footage of beheaded bodies being paraded through a street. The men had been murdered because they opposed local Taliban and al Qaeda terrorists.

...

You would think Yale would feel compelled to explain its decision to admit Mr. Rahmatullah. Instead, a cone of silence has descended over the university. Yale officials didn't return my calls or those of other reporters for several days last week. Finally on Friday, spokesman Tom Conroy said the university would have no comment, citing privacy concerns that preclude it from discussing any individual student.

Almost no one will now defend Mr. Rahmatullah's presence as a special student, even though a week ago many had no such inhibitions in a splashy New York Times magazine piece, which broke the news that he had been at Yale for eight months. In that piece, Richard Shaw, Yale's dean of undergraduate admissions before he took the same post at Stanford, explained that Yale had missed out on another foreign student of the same caliber as Mr. Rahmatullah but that "we lost him to Harvard," and "I didn't want that to happen again."

Now Mr. Shaw isn't returning phone calls, and much of the reaction from Yale to the outside world is downright hostile. ...

At the same time, many Yale alumni and students tell me they are concerned that Yale refuses to explain why it honored Mr. Rahmatullah with a prize perch when countless well-qualified Americans--not to mention other Afghans--would jump at the chance but will never get it.

Clinton W. Taylor, an angry Yale alum, has rewritten Yale fight-songs to reflect their embrace of the Taliban and dhimmitude.

So why did Yale do this? I can think of several reasons. more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:57 AM | Comments (23)
Post contains 992 words, total size 6 kb.

Can we settle on "murderous Islamist racist rage"?

I could live with that formulation.

Posted by: Ace at 11:22 AM | Comments (5)
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

Sorry for all the entertainment/culture blogging today, but Dave at Garfield Ridge has a good question.

Hollywood didn't want to make a movie about Pat Tillman when he was a hero.

Now that he's a victim of Bush (well, he's still a hero, but you know what I mean-- he died due to friendly fire), think we'll be seeing a Pat Tillman movie now?

I mean-- now that the biopic would have the desired happy ending and all.

Posted by: Ace at 10:56 AM | Comments (11)
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.

Not good:

This is a production for the kind of people who slow down and gawp when passing a car crash. Altman’s direction clunks and many of the cast seem downright apologetic about their lines – that is on those occasions when they can remember them. I have rarely seen a professional production in which there was such a stiff awkwardness about so much of the acting, as if almost all those on stage fervently wished they were somewhere, anywhere, else. But when one considers the play one can hardly blame them. It is tragic that the author of The Crucible and Death of a Salesman should have believed Resurrection Blues fit for production.

The play is set in a South American banana republic, with all the action taking place on a ponderous set of vast Inca ruins. The corrupt head of state has decided to crucify one of the local rebels, believed by the natives to be the son of God, and whatÂ’s more he has sold the TV rights to America for $75 million.

Miller clearly felt he had the perfect plot in which to wax indignant about the evils of both military third world dictatorships, and the crass commercialism and vulgarity of his fellow Americans.

The tone veers wildly between hectoring moral lectures, a far from penetrating analysis of the nature of religious faith, and ghastly attempts at satirical comedy that almost invariably prove dead on delivery.

You don’t really know what embarrassment is until you’ve witnessed Schell, as the wicked dictator, lamenting his impotence with the words: “My dog won’t go hunting anymore”.

Ouch.

Everyone get that? A corrupt militarist wants to execute a (assumedly heroic) rebel, and a big bad American pharmaceutical company wants to stage it as a crucifixion and broadcast it in America, where people will, I guess, be thrilled to see someone get crucified right after Cops.

Nuance is for little people.

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan, who doesn't seem to be writing about the Oscars at all for some reason.

Posted by: Ace at 10:52 AM | Comments (2)
Post contains 350 words, total size 2 kb.

Bush below 40% for the first time -- at 39%. Plus, a sizable majority want the Democrats to win the House this year, and most Americans are against the Dubai Port deal.

Which has hurt him with Republicans:

This is also one of only a handful of times that BushÂ’s approval has dropped below 80 percent among Republicans. Today 77 percent of Republicans approve, down from 82 percent in early February. Disapproval among Democrats went from 79 percent in early February to 84 percent today. Approval among independents is essentially unchanged at 35 percent.

There is a very disconcerting vibe I get from this Administration, quite often. I feel sometimes that they don't feel like they have make a vigorous and thorough case for their decision-making, because they believe, incorrectly, that no one's paying attention anyhow.

They don't set the agenda, often. They are just always reacting from one (usually self-made) crisis to the next.

Inversion: Some pundits -- Jonah Goldberg for one, I think -- have argued that the liberal media often hurts Democrats. The theory is that Democrats always think they have the media protecting them, so they are free, or at least free-r, to do what they want to do without suffering too much from public opinin.

And, while this is true most of the time, sometimes Democrats are snakebit-surprised when what they had assumed would not be an issue at all, or an issue embargoed/buried by the MSM, suddenly gets a lot of play and leaves them scrambling to explain themselves.

The theory goes that Republicans are less prey to this effect because they assume they media is always against them, so their are fewer ugly surprises. They know everything they do will be played in the most negatively light possible, so they have their rhetorical ducks in order and have anticipated each coming media hit.

Bush, however, seems to be the refutation of this theory. He seems to behave like liberal Democrats do -- always assuming he'll be insulated from controversy by an accomodating media. Sorry, George, the conservative media is still very much an alternative and relatively minor media. And then he's always surprised when there's a blow-up or media firestorm, unsure about how to respond forcefully, because he's still trying to figure out what went wrong.

I don't get it. There's a certain amount of "reign don't rule" insouciance to the Bush Administration that is rapidly running out of charm.

Posted by: Ace at 10:19 AM | Comments (47)
Post contains 431 words, total size 3 kb.

Nikki Finke again complains that many in Hollywood didn't bother to see Brokeback Mountain, thus ensuring it wouldn't win.

She claims it's pure homophobia that kept some Academy voters from watching. Errrm, I doubt it. I think actual homophobia is probably pretty hard to find in Hollywood.

People are not stupid. When there's this sort of gushy critical reaction to a controversial "issue" film, people realize that 90% of that positive reaction is just towards the film's message/politics, not necessarily about its actual artisitic or technical merits.

Was Brokeback a good film? It depends on where you draw the line for good -- including mediocre films or excluding them. If you include mediocre movies that have some slight merits to recommend them, sure, it's "good" by that low threshold. The movie was often obvious, didactic, ponderous, slow, tedious, self-indulgent, self-important, self-righteous, and self-satisfied. The dialogue was often absurd-- and had this been a non-gay film, critics would have had a great time ripping into the silly hick-speak ("There ain't no reins on this thing we got" -- imagine Kevin Costner saying that in a non-gay western romance, and what the critics would have said).

People in Hollywood know, as does the rest of the country, that critics (and industry types) often promote films for reasons having nothing to do with a film's actual appeal. Probably they know that better than anyone, having either been the beneficiaries of such liberal-politics goodwill in the past, or perhaps on the bad side of it. (Can't imagine that anyone who lost to Philadelphia can't help but suspect the loss was largely due to political goodwill towards that earlier gay-themed film.)

When you think about it, what the hell was Brokeback about? Sheepherders. Not even cowboys with six guns blazing. Sheepherders herding sheep in some pretty hills. And then a romance, and cheating, and arguing with wives. If this had been a straight-romance, who would have been gung-ho to run out and see this snoozer?

Many think the filmmakers (including the actors) in Brokeback were brave for making the movie in the first place. Fine-- then they can fete them for their bravery, but I, for one, understand if they don't want to take the additional step and spend two tedious hours watching this snoozer.

More Whining From the HeartBrokebacken: America just hates gays, that's all. At least that's the thrust of some reactions:

"Perhaps the truth really is, Americans donÂ’t want cowboys to be gay," said Larry McMurtry, the veteran Western writer who shared the award for best adapted screenplay.

...

But the Oscars saved their big surprise for the end. There were astonished gasps around Hollywood's Kodak Theatre as Jack Nicholson announced Crash's victory in the Best Picture category over hot favourite Brokeback.

No overtly gay love story had ever won a Best Picture statue and the critics immediately asked whether Oscar votes had not backed off from breaking that taboo.

"Film buffs and the politically minded will be arguing this morning about whether the Best Picture Oscar to Crash was really for the filmÂ’s merit or just a cop-out by the Motion Picture Academy so it wouldnÂ’t have to give the prize to Brokeback Mountain," said Tom Shales of the Washington Post.

The Los Angeles Times critic Kenneth Turan saw BrokebackÂ’s failure as a sign that Hollywood was not yet ready to grant the topic of homosexual love mainstream respectability.

"Despite all the magazine covers it graced, despite all the red-state theatres it made good money in, despite (or maybe because of) all the jokes late-night talk show hosts made about it, you could not take the pulse of the industry without realising that Brokeback Mountain made a number of people distinctly uncomfortable," Turan said.

"So for people who were discomfited by Brokeback Mountain but wanted to be able to look themselves in the mirror and feel like they were good, productive liberals, Crash provided the perfect safe harbour."

Maybe they just thought they had already overly-praised Brokeback for nominating it for everything except Best Visual Effects and figured that was sufficient to reward the "bravery" of making a dreary, lifeless, obvious film.

Why No Oscars For Open Range, Then? Nice scenery, a sweet romance, a slow, easygoing cadence, good performances in all of the leads.

A good movie, although slow and a little corny, especially in the middle bits. ("They shot our dog!")

So: Why no Oscar love for Open Range, a superior film in all ways?

Oscars are, theoretically, given to high artistic and technical achievement-- not just for tacking a particular subject-matter. Although, of course, we all know that "bravery" in tackling certain subjects is often the true reason films win Oscars. Oscar loves the handicapped, or the mentally challenged, or those who suffer predjudice, or domestic violence, or who suffer the worst possible deformity, by Hollywood reckoning -- physical ugliness (see Theron, Charlize, and Monster).

Still, just because that's often the way Hollywood convinces itself it's doing something ennobling and important, as opposed to just making movies like Porkie's II: The Next Day and Daredevil, doesn't mean it's actually required to do so.

'Sides, they gave the Oscar to another overrated bit of feel-good liberal cinematic piety, Crash. Isn't that penance enough?

Posted by: Ace at 09:30 AM | Comments (99)
Post contains 884 words, total size 6 kb.

No, not on the battlefield, but in the United States Supreme Court, thanks to a unanimous court led by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Details here.

The fact that it also will enrage all manner of leftist college professors and moonbats is icing on the cake. Excuse me while I go have a celebratory cup of coffee.

Update: More, including a link to the opinion, at Michelle Malkin's site.

Ace's Update: I'm glad the Court did not recognize the "Progressive Exemption."

When "progressive" protestors illegally gather and intentionally stop traffic or disobey police or destroy property, they're rarely arrested, and even when they are, they're sentenced to time served (i.e., the few hours or days they're in jail before coming before a judge). And of course no prominent leftist is ever charged for going overseas to make "promises" to world leaders not in the US interest (see Jackson, Jesse, and Carter, Jimmy).

The left has convinced many of our institutions that they are permitted allowances that the rest of us aren't. Because, of course, they're acting according to their "conscience" and assumedly for the public good.

The law makes no such exceptions. Certainly it doesn't make exceptions for only one political persuasion (i.e., liberalism). Can you imagine any college refusing to accept black students -- out of a racist, but sincerely-felt, objection of "conscience" to the races mixing -- and then demanding to still receive federal money?

Of course not. It's just too absurd to contemplate. And yet for years the left has managed something quite similar.

Posted by: Harry Callahan at 06:56 AM | Comments (56)
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.

Eddie Van Halen looks like he's moving into the cat-throwing phase of his life.

Posted by: LauraW. at 06:26 AM | Comments (46)
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

Many people said this film glorified terrorism. Liberals, leftists, anti-semites, and the like countered that no, it merely adds much needed "context" to the "discussion" between Israelis and Palestinians (a discussion generally punctuated with bombs detonating in schools).

Well, if authorial intent is any guide (and I think it is), guess who was right?

Lefties always want to "contextualize" terrorism.

Do they similarly wish to "contextualize" racist murders, such as the dragging mutilation/murder of James Byrd?

Why are only some murders fit for this artistic mitigation?

Posted by: Ace at 09:00 PM | Comments (36)
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.