But each year I have to squelch disappointment at the Academy's inexplicable choices. Dream Girls was just o.k., nothing to discuss over beers, not a film that leaves an after-image. Jennifer Hudson has got charm, but her acting is hammy and self-concious. Looking at Kate Blanchette and Adrian Barraza sitting down while Hudson stammered out a surprised (as well she might be!) acceptance speech, one gets a minor, unsettling flashback to the days just after the 2001 presidential inaugeration, when it became clear that Americans vote for the person they'd like to drink beer with, not the kind of person who might be too serious or too smart to relate to. It's a bizaare attraction to affability over excellence. Hudon's no Kate Blanchette, but she's damn likeable. That's right, likeable. Not brilliant, not nuanced, not disciplined, not even prodigiously talented. But someone you'd like to be friends with.

The Departed is a good movie, but if the Academy liked it that much, they would doubtless be moved to joyful tears over Infernal Affairs, the original and superior film. Children of Men was the film of the year, and the Academy proved their irrelevance once again by snubbing it.

Besides kitty-bitties that is.

I love Will Farrell and anyone who doesn't love Will Farrell is a poopie-head, because:

He is cute.

He has very small, beadly eyes.

He is so funny. So very, very funny.

Did I mention that I heart Will Farrell? John C. Rielly? Hot. Jack Black? Hot in that high school class-clown insecure but egotistical jerky boy way.

Thanks for reminding me Rob!

James Spader is hot too.

Didn't see Hustle and Flow but I'll definitely check this one out.

I love this response and it is advice that everyone needs sometimes. SIAB's conundrum is not minority specific or limited to people who dramatically remake themselves - it resonates with anyone who's ever struggled with self-identity and the urge to be accepted for who we are not who we're supposed to be. Bravo to Cary.

Andrew O'Hehir has an extraordinary way of giving a film a good review while at the same time making it sound utterly revolting. How do you do it? I notice this in particular when he reviews French Cock-driven pseudo art films. He describes then with such evocative accuracy that one cannot fail to conjure up a picture of masturbatory pretenion, horridly unsensual sex, boring-as-hell cliches - a dirty old man wet dream dressed up as arty/frenchy/urbane film. O'Hehir paints a picture of unelightening sliminess that makes one shudder even in the comfort of ones study, then says he liked it! What gives?

Coulter's routines have always come off as very canned and stale. Watching her inarticulate, repetitive defence here, one wonders where all the famous charisma has gone. I think that she knows her goose may be cooked, but is defiant to the end (at least I hope the end). The right have figured out that Ms. Coulter's prominance as a spokesperson is very likely to alienate moderate republicans as well as socially liberal conservatives. I'm thinking that we may see a little less of this tense monkey in the future. Can't say I'll miss the rolling eyes, brittle, barking laugh; she's all false confidence and grinding teeth.

I am totally straight, in my 30's, woman, but you have the most attractive writing persona. I am enthrawled with the LW (sp?). If I were a man I'd date you in a second!

These recipes look scrumptious. I recently went vegetarian and I'm trying to get in the groove by cooking any veggie dishes that inspire me. I love the Eat Drink section of Salon and I hope you keep the articles and the recipes coming!

bushwakr000, or whatever your name is, and anyone who took me aside for a 'serious' discussion about the way I laugh, how loud I am, etc..., would be out of my life, permanently.

W admitted that he has a hard time with assertive women, and he doesn't have many friends. He sees the LW maybe once every month or two, so we're not talking about someone whose grating cackle and obnoxious opinions he has to live with, we are talking about someone, who, lets face it, probably disagreed with him about something a little too vociferously over breakfast. Then he used the old "and your other friends think so to.." cowards ploy to try to lend an air of truth to the knot in his undies. Good riddance.

You said: Woe to people who choose to read letters to the editor and can't handle blather.

What the frak kind of point are you trying to make? If you are saying that a person who publishes a widely-read column should be able to handle psycho trolls who use anonymity to trash anyone and everyone because they've had a bad hair day, point taken. If you are arguing that they've somehow lost the right to respond, then you've lost me. If a crappy thing is the case most of the time, that does not somehow mean that one should accept it. And putting one's opinion out their ought not to turn a scribe into a public shitting post (see Anne Lamott interview).

I am an avid tekkie geek internet user/opinion poster, and I used to be a vociferous advocate of no screening, complete freedom, let the discussion go where it may communication. Then I watched in horror as great political forums turned into hate-fests. The brainy, witty, informative posters left in disgust after they were inundated by racist, sexist, or just randomnly vicious attack postings that seemed to revel in bringing down the level of the discourse. I've changed my mind, and have come to see that complete freedom didn't broaden and elevate the discussion as I'd thought it would, but rather it often replaced dialogue with crude, banal attempts at provocation.