'We live in a culture of violence, and that culture is nurtured and glamorized by the movies...'

To contact us Click HERE
From the letters at the Los Angeles Times, "Feedback: The culture of violence":

Betsy Sharkey's premise, "A Critic Says the Problem Isn't the Movies but Real Life, Where Killing Is All Too Common," is misguided and unrealistic [Feb. 17]. If killing and violence are all too common in real life, does producing more films, which seem to glorify gratuitous killing and violence, alleviate the problem? I don't think so.

After all, fashion, sexual behavior and language in films seem to have an influential and imitative effect in people's lives. Why would violence be exempt?

Sharkey claims that nothing she's seen in movies comes close to what she's witnessed firsthand. How can this be? In real life, one kick to the head could end a life, or most likely end the fight, but in films, a dozen kicks to the head seem to prolong a fight rather than end it.

We live in a culture of violence, and that culture is nurtured and glamorized by the movies. We can become only more inured to that violence and more violent as a society, because ultimately, life imitates art.

Giuseppe Mirelli

Los Angeles

More letters at the link.

And see Instapundit, "SHILLING FOR HOLLYWOOD: L.A. Times: Violent Movies Don’t Cause Violence, but Guns Do." Also, "IF YOU’RE WATCHING THE OSCARS TONIGHT — OR IF YOU’RE NOT — you might want to read my Wall Street Journal column: The Hollywood Tax Story They Won’t Tell at the Oscars: It’s easy to demand higher levies on the ‘rich’ when your own industry gets $1.5 billion in government handouts."

Daniel Day-Lewis Wins Best Actor for 'Lincoln'

To contact us Click HERE
Well, I would've been a little disappointed if he didn't win.

The Los Angeles Times reports, "It was Daniel Day-Lewis by a landslide for “Lincoln”."

If Daniel Day-Lewis doesn't win Best Actor it will define injustice. #Oscars2013
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) February 25, 2013

I haven't seen "Silver Linings Playbook." I'm sure it's a wonderful movie. But I thought Jessica Chastain would get Best Actress in what would've been at least a minimal recognition by the Academy of the tremendous movie that was "Zero Dark Thirty." Maybe she'll reject the radical left's progressive antiwar (anti-Bush) agenda, to say nothing of the progressive hypocrisy. In any case, I'll have more on this later. A complete shutout for director Kathryn Bigelow (well, not a complete shutout, if one considers the movie's tie for the sound editing category).

RELATED: "F*ck Your Consideration: Kathryn Bigelow's Zero Dark Thirty Doesn't Need You, Oscar."

Democrat Gov. Jerry Brown to Funnel More Public Funding to Poor Schools

To contact us Click HERE
Interesting.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Brown's school funding plan draws mixed reactions":

In the Anaheim City School District, where most students are low-income and struggling to learn English, teachers need special training, extra tutoring time and lots of visual materials to help their pupils achieve at grade level.

In the well-heeled Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District, poverty and limited English are not widespread problems. But officials there say their student needs include more expensive Advanced Placement classes to challenge them with college-level material in high school.

Who should get more state educational dollars? Last week, school districts got their first glimpse of how that question would be answered under Gov. Jerry Brown's proposed new funding formula: Anaheim would receive an estimated $11,656 per student annually; Palos Verdes would get $8,429 by the time the plan is fully implemented in seven years.

And that disparity draws distinctly different reactions.

"It's great news," said Darren Dang, Anaheim's assistant superintendent of administrative services. "Given our demographics, we'll be getting much-needed resources for our students."

But Lydia Cano, Palos Verdes' deputy superintendent of business services, said she believed the new scheme would shortchange her students. Disadvantaged students already receive a bigger share of state and federal dollars, she said.

"It's not fair," she said. "It will make the divide even bigger."

In the most significant change in four decades in how school dollars would be distributed, Brown is proposing to give all districts a base grant, then add an extra 35% of that for each student who is low-income, struggling with English or in foster care. If such students make up more than 50% of a district's population, another 35% supplement would be given.

The formula is part of Brown's proposed budget, which requires the Legislature's approval.

This program explicitly makes children from more affluent neighborhoods bear the costs of helping children from less affluent neighborhoods. Not all of the kids in the more affluent districts will be affluent, so the policy could have an exponentially negative affect on those less fortunate students in the more fortunate districts. But this is what happens when the state decides to redistribute resources to lift those who're more disadvantaged. In theory, this is exactly backward of what good public policy would promote. We should be boosting (relatively) the performance of the more advantaged students, because they'll be positioned as the next leaders of industry and society. They'll help lift the rest of their generation as they rise. In disproportionately assisting those least well off and those least advantaged, public policy is looking to achieve equality of result. It won't happen, not perfect equality of result, and indeed far from it most likely. But that's the progressive agenda in action.

France: Leader of the Free World

To contact us Click HERE
A great piece, from Philip Delves Broughton, at Newsweek: "The French are a decisive, manly superpower. Unlike America."

France, of course, is nowhere near being the leader of the free world. But with his intervention in Mali, French President François Hollande has made a tremendously important statement about the need for leadership in the fight against global jihad. On objective measures, France can't do the job alone, which is why the U.S. is sending drone contingents to North Africa. But the moral statement is uniquely powerful. And the intervention raises questions of a renewed "idea of France" as a powerhouse of international relations. Read the essay at the link. France probably can't afford a long deployment, but if it gets other countries to face up to facing down the terrorists with real material capabilities --- i.e., boots on the ground --- it'll be worth the costs.

Don't Miss Nikki Finke's Snarky Oscar Smackdown

To contact us Click HERE
This is the ultimate takedown, "Nikki Finke's Oscar Live-Snark.

"Uh-oh. Seth MacFarlane opens the show with a lame joke. No one laughs. He does an impression. No one knows who he’s imitating. Does this guy even have any experience doing standup? Obviously not. This is one of the lamest show openings I’ve ever watched. The worst part is that Seth is killing every punchline by laughing over it. And here comes the inevitable Mel Gibson putdown.

This is going to be a loooooong night. “The room is dead,” says one agent from inside the Dolby Theatre.

Thank God, William Shatner (as Capt Kirk) is saying what I’m thinking; “The show is a disaster.” And I agree with that newspaper headline, “Seth MacFarlane Is Worst Oscar Host Ever.”

Read it all at the link.

And more from Ed Driscoll, "Hollywood Sucker Punch."

George Will Picks 'Zero Dark Thirty' for Best Picture

To contact us Click HERE
A rebuke to Senators Levin, Feinstein, and McCain.

From this morning's "This Week":


My preditions: Best Picture: "Argo." Best Actor: Daniel Day Lewis for "Lincoln." Best Actress: Jessica Chastain for "Zero Dark Thirty."

Not sure about Best Director or any of the others. We'll see tonight.

RELATED: At the New York Times, "A 9/11 Victim's Family Raises New Objections to ‘Zero Dark Thirty’." (At Memeorandum.)

Whiney bitches. Sorry for you loss, but sheesh.

'We live in a culture of violence, and that culture is nurtured and glamorized by the movies...'

To contact us Click HERE
From the letters at the Los Angeles Times, "Feedback: The culture of violence":

Betsy Sharkey's premise, "A Critic Says the Problem Isn't the Movies but Real Life, Where Killing Is All Too Common," is misguided and unrealistic [Feb. 17]. If killing and violence are all too common in real life, does producing more films, which seem to glorify gratuitous killing and violence, alleviate the problem? I don't think so.

After all, fashion, sexual behavior and language in films seem to have an influential and imitative effect in people's lives. Why would violence be exempt?

Sharkey claims that nothing she's seen in movies comes close to what she's witnessed firsthand. How can this be? In real life, one kick to the head could end a life, or most likely end the fight, but in films, a dozen kicks to the head seem to prolong a fight rather than end it.

We live in a culture of violence, and that culture is nurtured and glamorized by the movies. We can become only more inured to that violence and more violent as a society, because ultimately, life imitates art.

Giuseppe Mirelli

Los Angeles

More letters at the link.

And see Instapundit, "SHILLING FOR HOLLYWOOD: L.A. Times: Violent Movies Don’t Cause Violence, but Guns Do." Also, "IF YOU’RE WATCHING THE OSCARS TONIGHT — OR IF YOU’RE NOT — you might want to read my Wall Street Journal column: The Hollywood Tax Story They Won’t Tell at the Oscars: It’s easy to demand higher levies on the ‘rich’ when your own industry gets $1.5 billion in government handouts."