I will second the statement that Uncle Fester is smarter than most of the people here. His economic commentary earlier in this thread is nothing to sneeze at, and it effectively debunked the assertion that deregulation is a negligible cause of the recession. (It's strange to see Bush supporters still operating first from what they wish to be true, then reasoning backwards from there.) It shouldn't be any surprise that a non-thriving middle class isn't able to jump-start a non-thriving economy. Such is the end result of a policy based on rewarding the rich for being rich.

I think Walsh is being charitable in saying she occasionally believes Readerreader might have intellectual and political integrity. I gave up on him due to countless examples to the contrary. He's still at it: In the previous Walsh-column thread, he was caught lying about an assault incident involving "union thugs." It's hard to have a useful debate with somebody who doesn't care whether what he says is factual. (Citing a fictional character with the initials "R.O.T." as played by Cary Grant doesn't help.) Harder still to wrap one's mind around the concept of anybody wishing to elect Sarah Palin as a world leader. I can see Palin now, attending a global-warming conference and asking, "If the globe's so warm, how come we had record snowfall in Juneau last winter? And why are Snuggie sales up?"

Back to Fester and Said Dustari: Thanks for the links to the Iran demonstrations. I'm sure you've seen it, but if not I highly recommend going back and watching the Jason Jones segments from "The Daily Show" when he visited Iran. That this is my contribution speaks volumes about how up-to-the-minute I am with this stuff.

That was fun to read.

I like the Oscars show -- sometimes it's entertaining, sometimes it's a trashy spectacle. But I have never understood why movie critics participate in the horse race like sports analysts giving betting odds.

The Oscars have been proven, decade after decade, to have little bearing on the quality of films as art. And I thought such evaluations were the primary concern of critics.

Now, I can see that Andrew O'Hehir isn't just a critic but an industry commentator, which probably makes for better blogging opportunities and gives him more variety in his workday. As a reader, however, I am far more interested in the qualities of the movie itself than how well it can be wedged into an awards category. Any thorough discussion of the latter seems inane.

On the other hand, the Oscars do make a convenient entry point for comparing the relative merits of different films. In this case I enjoyed O'Hehir taking the opportunity to round up some of the contenders, even though I haven't seen about 90% of them (and given my haphazard movie-going habits, probably will end up seeing most of them a good 6 to 18 months from now).

So about the roundup: You missed an obvious selection, which is Meryl Streep as Best Actress for portraying Julia Childs. I haven't seen "Julia & Julia" but based on clips alone I would be very surprised if Streep weren't a front-runner, as this is exactly the kind of juicy movie role the Academy likes to spotlight.

I would also be very surprised if Christoph Waltz weren't nominated for Best Supporting Actor, and I think he ought to win it. That performance was what made "Inglourious Basterds" worth seeing. Waltz breathes wild life into the proceedings. Without him, the film would be just an above-average Tarantino lark.

I'm not sure why you even bothered mentioning "Star Trek" as a Best Picture contender unless you're trying to appease nerds or something. Perhaps having made a lot of money will be enough to get it a nomination, but otherwise it doesn't even come close to the usual formula of a prestige movie with socially redeeming value. Plus the characters and plot style are old 'n' familiar, so in spite of the new-cast "reboot," it would be a rather questionable selection. Maybe they'd throw it a nomination to appease fans. (Like I said, this is horse-race talk...)

I'm looking forward to the new Coen Brothers movie. They're at their prime and it looks to me as if they know it, because they're not wasting any time between movies.

Northern Bandit: "Who better than to lecture those of us who work for $65K per year than a grease ball faux socialist with a $175,000,000 net worth? And you thought Republicans were hypocrites."

So let me get this straight: If somebody becomes successful doing something, that person is obligated to cease doing it?

boredinmidwest: "Although I haven't seen this film yet, I think this sounds like a pretty reasonable take on MM. The guy's heart's in the right place, but his populist shtick and catch phrases underestimate the intelligence of his audience."

I haven't seen the movie either, so we're both shooting the breeze here. But I question the idea that Moore is underestimating the intelligence of his audience, because you haven't defined his audience (nor did Stephanie Zacharek). Does anybody really believe that Michael Moore aims his films at an erudite, well-informed subset of the population? Seems to me Moore is doing the opposite: Trying to present complex information to the Wal-Mart crowd. Casting a wide net.

boredinmidwest: "What alternative is Moore proposing? Does he advocate communism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, agrarianism, European-style social democracy, or just a return to a more progressive tax system? Most likely, he offers no actual positive policy or political proposals at all in this film."

That's quite an assumption on your part, and it's a shame Zacharek's review doesn't delve more into the message of the film. I don't get the impression that Moore is knocking capitalism, but rather the unchecked corruption and lack of regulation in the capitalist system of late.