Another pleasant night @ ATOT . . .
Thats right baby. If you ever watch his show he always has a fact sheet study he is basing his conclusions on and when he doesn't he'll say so.
I stopped watching him in part b/c his facts are no different from any other talking nub that typically collects information CONSISTENT with his preformed OPINION. A priori (for the Latin-literate) perspectives do not make your viewpoints anymore accurate. It just makes them more internally consistent.
The Oscars bite b/c it's mostly pomp with minimal circumstance. I don't understand the indignance from the WSJ editorial page . . . nevermind I'm being redundant. I don't understand why so many here want to trumpet "there go the Negroes setting themselves apart" or "can't those people ever NOT talk about race?" . . . pure poo, people.
Tunku Varadarajan devoted how much of his column to talk about the significance of Sidney Poitier's achievements or the quality of film last year? how much did he spend bitching about how the black people (and their white accomplices) detracted from the Oscars? Do you get the impression he wanted something to bitch about other than long speeches and what people were wearing? He still provided minimal substance to a generally inconsequential event; other than proclaim how it lacked substance? But it's the Op-Ed page where a select few get to talk about everything they know nothing about.
Do you have any idea why a black actor might want to bask in a little spotlight? Do you have any idea what life must have been like for GENERATIONS of American blacks, Native Americans, and Asians to watch WHITE people play blacks, Native Americans, and Asians? And what were the first roles available . . . slaves, butlers, maids, farm labor, savages, railroad labor . . . Personally, I'm willing to cut Mr. Poitier a lot of slack for his hyperbole b/c I really don't know what the man's experience was like, but I doubt it was pleasant. He succeeded b/c some saw talent. His hardship was caused b/c many see color. Is he supposed to act like that was history and doesn't matter? How many grissled old 'blank' men play leading roles to nubile women? Rhetorical but if you have more than one answer for the 'blank' you must be watching anime.
I excuse your ignorance; if not stop acting like the Oscars occurred in a vacuum devoid of history. Denzel did a damn good job . . . best actor . . . certainly good enough. Whoopi, her dress, her jokes, and her movie credentials over the past decade do not appeal to me so I ignore it all. Sidney Poitier, a great actor, gave a decent and relatively short speech. The monochrome tribute to him is understandable given my previous paragraph but if Russell Crowe, Tom Cruise, or Julia Roberts said Poitier was their inspiration SOMEBODY would claim they were pandering. Regardless, what is gained by smearing these elements into one blob and then proclaiming from on high, "invite too many black people and they will ruin any party". It really sounds like some wanted them to take their awards and sit down . . . well here's the news flash; beautiful people (Berry) without anything of any real importance to say (Berry) have been giving dodo speeches (Berry) for as long as there have been Oscars. Her true significance is she is the first woman to wear latex and hit a golf ball in a none-too-short skirt in two terrible movies but STILL win an Oscar . . . that's talent.
In AaronP's case, I think what he's saying is that he's tired of people feeling the need to make that distinction in the first place. At least that's what I'm gleaning from his posts. If not, then, well, then he's an idiot.
He's probably not an idiot. I will give him the benefit of a doubt; he's probably ignorant.
Facebook
Twitter