I'm as mad as hell (but I can't be bothered to open the window).

One of the popular topics among liberal bloggers last year was "astroturf" campaigns conducted by conservative websites. Specifically, these sites would allow users to easily submit a form letter to newspapers parroting the latest GOP party line. Numerous times, there would be three or four newspapers across the country printing very well written "Letters to the Editor" that were exactly alike, but attributed to different people. Two of many examples here and here. Also, this is one site dedicated to keeping an eye out for such tactics.

What's wrong with this? Well, there's something to be said for using your own words. I'm not the most eloquent of men, but I try my best to impart my arguments the best way I can. Then there's the issue of being able to write to newspapers you may have never even seen before. After all, the "Letters to the Editor" section is supposed to reflect the varied views of the community, not some lazy nutjob in some other state who's never even heard of your burg.

But most of all, it's rather pathetic that people that are supposedly so passionate about a subject can't even be bothered to take the normal steps to make their views known.

All of this is background to this story. Being one person and not a newspaper, Ken Olbermann has some fun at the expense of those who feigned some very half-hearted outrage at Olbermann's coverage of the Spongebob Squarepants Brouhaha. In his original post, he describes some of the "angry" e-mail he has gotten:

"Something approaching 20 percent of them were simply blank. Others began with, or consisted entirely of, the preamble "(Please delete these words and type your own message here.)" Others referred to Dr. Dobson as Dr. Dobsin, Dr. Dobsen, or Mr. Dobbins. Many were cut-and-paste repetitions of one another, and about 20 percent were from false e-mail addresses."

There were more comments, such as the great many different way people chose to spell "sponge", but I'm not going to criticize people who don't know enough to use spell check. I will criticize those that think we should give a toss to what they think when all they're doing is clicking a few buttons that some conservative blowhard told them to.

Although it's certainly not to be taken seriously, George Carlin's gets to the heart of my basic gripe with this thought about anti-abortion protesters:

"And you won't see a lot of these pro-life people dousing themselves in kerosene and lighting themselves on fire. You know, morally committed religious people in South Vietnam knew how to stage a g*dd*mn demonstration, didn't they? They knew how to put on a f*ck*n' protest! Light yourself on FIRE! Come on, you moral crusaders, let's see a little smoke to match that fire in your belly!"

Hundreds of thousands Iraqis risked their very lives to vote in their election yesterday. Americans are able to risk far, far less in order to make their opinions known. The least they can do is put forth some effort.

Super Bowl Countdown: Six Days Left

And so it begins.

For the record, Mrs. Mosley and I aren't really big football fans outside of FSU, so we won't be attending any of the 587 different Super Bowl events going on around town. We're not very big party people, anyway. But I can comment on how the city handles the influx of players, bigwigs and fans.

Speaking of players, both teams arrived here yesterday an hour apart at Cecil Field airport. The Philadelphia Eagles will be staying in luxury at the Sawgrass Marriott in Ponte Vedra Beach. The New England Patriots, on the other hand, will be staying at the Renaissance World Golf Village. These are very nice places to stay and shows that the Super Bowl Committee is putting it's best foot forward to show these players a nice time.

However, it's interesting to note that both of these locations are not even in Jacksonville (Or Duval County, which is one and the same with city of Jacksonville since their consolidation in 1968). They are in St. Johns County just south of us. Now, one of the reasons for this is probably to avoid traffic tie ups and so forth, but the other reason I suspect is that, well, it's more interesting down there.

St. Johns County is home to three major attractions: The Ponte Vedra Beaches, St. Augustine and World Golf Village. The appeal of the beaches is self-explanatory. St. Augustine is perhaps the most popular tourist attraction in these parts short of Daytona during Spring Break or a NASCAR event. It has lots of old buildings, museums, shops and such, and is just a joy to stroll through. It also happened to be where Mrs. Mosley and I spent our honeymoon. World Golf Village is the Cooperstown of Golf and is a great place to...well...play golf (or, like me, see an IMAX show). The location is in the middle of nowhere, so I imagine that the proprietors are gleeful at having a Super Bowl team stay there.

It's interesting to note the descriptions of the players given in that article I linked to. The Eagles, staying in Ponte Vedra, came off the plane with "open-collared shirts and video cameras", clearly ready to par-tay. Whereas the Patriots, staying at World Golf Village, "landed in jackets and ties...with briefcases", clearly ready to relax and stay focused on the big game. So even though these players have not been placed in locations that show off Jacksonville, it would seem that they have been placed in locations that match their personality types. And that's some evidence of some higher brain functions organizing this thing. We'll see if it's in evidence for the rest of the week as well.

One last Iraq election headline to end the week

From the "Duh" department:

Bush: Vote won't bring instant peace

Gee, ya think?

Review: "Million Dollar Baby" (2004)

Very few movies dare to be quiet nowadays. From action films to comedies, the theme of most current films is volume (in both audio and video). Even dramas can depend too much on soundtrack swells and histrionics in order to get audiences to shed tears when they might normally not give a damn. But there are quieter films that use an economy of sound and barest minimum of light in order to tell a story. For a boxing movie, it seems appropriate for a film to be trimmed of every ounce of fat, leaving only lean muscle.

"Million Dollar Baby" is indeed a boxing film, but it is also something more. Frankie Dunn (Clint Eastwood) was and is one of the best "cut men" in the business (quick and effective surgery on the edges of the ring). In his old age, he has turned to managing a grungy gym and a handful of promising boxers. His best, and only, friend is Eddie "Scrap-Iron" Dupris (Morgan Freeman), a former boxer who damaged his eye in his last fight and now helps maintain the gym for Frankie. One day, a 31 year old woman from Missouri named Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank) walks in and asks Frankie to manage and train her. He refuses flat out, but she hangs around all the same. With some convincing from Eddie, he relents and begins training her for her own chance at the bigtime.

As I said at the start, this is a spare film. The music, which was composed by Eastwood, is not a rousing anthem in which to cheer Swank in the ring. We only hear the brutal puches during her matches and then hear tiny snatches of a recurring piano theme for the more emotional scenes. Visually, there are many scenes in dark rooms where only a face, a hand or a profile is seen. Some might liken this to Noir, and certainly the subject of boxing has seen its share of coverage in that genre, but the real purpose of this lighting technique is to draw even more focus on what really matters: the characters themselves.

I saw this film recently not only because of all the good reviews, but also because I kept hearing everyone talk about the big plot twist the film has. There have been films in the past that become so popular in conversation that I have ended up hearing the twist before I got to see the film ("Primal Fear" was one of these). Considering all the Oscar attention this film was getting, I didn't want this to happen this time around. I'm refraining from mentioning it in this review and will just say that the twist in not nonsensical and does take the plot in a new, worthy direction.

So, without touching on more plot specifics than I already have, I'll talk about the characters. The definite standout here is Swank. As we witness her earnestness and determined zeal for the sport, we cannot help but be on her side and rooting for her. And, despite those who would pigeonhole her as less feminine due to this role and "Boys Don't Cry", let me just state for the record that she exudes charisma and sex appeal even through the muscles she builds up.

Eastwood and Freeman, who are once again teamed as grizzled old friends since their turn in "Unforgiven", both turn in fine performances. Both also adopt a harsh rasp that is meant to indicate their rough and tumble lives in the Boxing world. It's momentarily disconcerting at the beginning, but this passes. I also have to say that between scenes of Frankie teaching boxing to Maggie and scenes of Frankie sharing a tender moment with Maggie, the later ones are the more believable. In terms of real emotive acting, Eastwood has still got it.

Two other minor characters come into play halfway through the film, and they both turn out to be villains of a sort: fellow boxer Billie "The Blue Bear" (Lucia Rijker) and Maggie's mother Earline (Margo Martindale). The role of Billie is understated but effective in the bare screen time she is give. The role of Earlie is something else altogether. She has two large scenes in the film, and in both she is backed up by several members of the family. Though I could accept how cruel she could be in the first scene, her and her family's actions in the second scene bordered on farcical. I understand why these scenes are in the film and what function they serve, but putting these shallow characters alongside Eastwood and Swank is a little too disconcerting.

The boxing ring is one of the brightest lit objects in the film, and there's a reason for that. Just as the film is whittled down to the barest essentials, so is the sport venue that is the focus: a simple white square where two people fight each other until the fight is done. And in reverence to this style, let me sum up this film in the barest language possible: This is a story that stays with you.

Nine out of Ten

No Moore Oscars

I was 95% sure yesterday morning that "Fahrenheit 9/11" wouldn't get an Oscar nomination for Best Picture. I had two reasons for this. First, I figured the two controversial films of the year, "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "The Passion of Christ", would cancel each other out in terms of Oscar. More importantly, the category is called Best Picture. There's a separate category for the Best Documentary. When Moore refrained from submitting in the Documentary category in order to focus on a Picture nod, he pretty much sealed his own Oscar fate.

Moore has a tumultuous history with the Oscars. When he released his first documentary "Roger & Me" in 1989, it received very high praise. When it failed to get an Oscar nomination for Best Documentary, Siskel and Ebert were very vocal in their anger at the snub Moore received from the Academy. Although it's tempting to call the omission personally or politically motivated, the actual reason is that the Academy can simply be daft at times. Other well respected documentaries such as "The Thin Blue Line" and "Hoop Dreams" have also been shamelessly overlooked in past years.

I'm guessing that Moore carried the resentment throughout his career. He finally got his first and only nomination to date last year with "Bowling for Columbine". When he was named the winner, he got on stage and did his rant against the Bush administration only to receive boos from some of those assembled. He has since stated in a number of interviews that "Fahrenheit 9/11" was made in order to state his case to those who would ridicule his statements from that night.

In the end, "Fahrenheit 9/11" received both plaudits and ticket sales to dream for. On a more basic and important level, it received people's attention. In this respect, it fulfilled it's role (even though the man it argued against won re-election, anyway). It seems to me that Moore's pursuit of more awards are inconsequential given his larger motivations. Perhaps he wants to show people that, despite the election results, people like him will never simply fade away. Perhaps. But to a significant number of us out there that agree with him most of the time, his efforts to win Best Picture carries the unmistakable whiff of ego run amok.

It's OK, Mike. It happens to the best of us. Now do yourself a favor and forget about the Oscars. You have much better things to be doing with your time.

The Nominations are in.

OK. Here's my two cents.

Actor in a Supporting Role -
Alan Alda, The Aviator
Thomas Haden Church, Sideways
Jamie Foxx, Collateral
Morgan Freeman, Million Dollar Baby
Clive Owen, Closer

One of the most irritating things about the Oscars is how nebulous the categories are. Some would rightly claim that both Church and Foxx have starring roles in their films, yet they are relegated to a supporting nomination. It's of some solace to Church and Foxx that they are also the strongest contenders for the award. Freeman, like Meryl Streep, is so used to accolades that this one is simply a given. Owen will most likely blend in with his ensemble in Closer. And as for Alda, well, The Aviator has much bigger heads to crown than his (see below). Foxx's stronger chance is with Ray, so I'll call this for Church. Sideways, given its indie vibe, will probably miss the other big awards, and the Academy has been known to give conciliatory prizes for supporting turns in great films that fall into this category (See Chris Cooper in Adaptation, Jim Broadbent in Iris and James Coburn in Affliction).

Actress in a Supporting Role -
Cate Blanchett, The Aviator
Laura Linney, Kinsey
Virginia Madsen, Sideways
Sophie Okonedo, Hotel Rwanda
Natalie Portman, Closer

Barring an upset with Madsen getting the award in place of Church (see above), I think this is a race between Linney and Portman. Blanchett will eventually get an Oscar, but not this year (See Alda above). Okonedo may bring an upset, but more likely will stand as another representative of Hotel Rwanda itself and its greatness. Portman, as with Clive Owen above, will probably fade into the ensemble. Linney, however, plays the supportive wife of a controversial genius (See Marcia Gay Harden in Pollock), and like many of the winners of the past, she's long overdue for notice. Expect to see Linney on the stage.

Actor in a Leading Role -
Don Cheadle, Hotel Rwanda
Johnny Depp, Finding Neverland
Leonardo DiCaprio, the Aviator
Clint Eastwood, Million Dollar Baby
Jamie Foxx, Ray

Jesse Jackson may rejoice that there are two very strong black contenders for this category. Depp, who just keeps on putting out quality product, is destined to win on another occasion. Ditto for DiCaprio. Eastwood already has enough awards to fill a walk-in closet. Which brings us back to Cheadle and Foxx. Just as Liam Neeson missed his Oscar for Schindler's List, I'm guessing that Cheadle will also miss out. And just as with Neeson, it will be a crying shame. Still, Jamie Foxx is the acting success story of the year, and I think he's a lock for the win.

Actress in a Leading Role -
Annette Bening, Being Julia
Catalina Sandino Moreno, Maria Full of Grace
Imelda Staunton, Vera Drake
Hilary Swank, Million Dollar Baby
Kate Winslet, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

This is probably going to be the fiercest battle of the night, and is therefore the toughest to call. A lot of critics are crossing their fingers for Moreno. Maria was a brutal and brilliant film that unfortunately most people haven't even heard of, much less seen. Winslet in Eternal will probably be too trippy for most voters. Drake, about an abortionist, will probably be too small and controversial (even given Michael Caine's win in Cider House Rules). That leaves us with Swank and Bening, who have both been gathering accolades like posies. I'll give the edge to Bening since she hasn't won before, but I wouldn't place any heavy bets on that call.

Best Director -
Martin Scorsese, The Aviator
Clint Eastwood, Million Dollar Baby
Taylor Hackford, Ray
Alexander Payne, Sideways
Mike Leigh, Vera Drake

Best Picture -
The Aviator
Finding Neverland
Million Dollar Baby
Ray
Sideways

Not to by cynical or anything (too late), but the odd men out can be removed. Thus, Vera Drake and Finding Neverland can be eliminated, since they failed to get both nominations. Ray, which was a bit overlong, will have gotten it's notice with Foxx. Sideways, which is a little edgy and depressing at times, will have gotten it's notice with Church or Madsen. Thus we are left with Million Dollar Baby and The Aviator. Baby will be highly esteemed, like Eastwood's Mystic River last year. But in the end, it will be seen as a film whose recognition will be award enough. Plus, all three principles from Baby already have their own little gold men. Which leaves us with The Aviator. It's an epic biography about an American success story. It revels in the golden age of Hollywood. It's directed by a man who is one of the most sorely deserving of an Oscar who hasn't yet got one. In other words, It's a most assured lock for both awards.


And that's it. For those who are interested (and you know who you are), The Oscars will be awarded on February 27. See ya then.