Ernest Alba's Blog

Oscar Noms: The Rundown

Well, it's that time of year again when the red carpet is rolled out and the best of the best come to receive their accolades and statuettes. And that means, I'm here again to predict the winners. So, let's get started.

Best Film

• Babel
• The Departed
• Letters from Iwo Jima
• Little Miss Sunshine
• The Queen

Hmm, Babel isn't good enough to be the best of the year. The Departed is far from good enough. It's a tie between Little Miss Sunshine and The Queen, but I think in the end Little Miss Sunshine will pull ahead, as it probably deserves to.

Best Original Screenplay

• Babel
• Letters from Iwo Jima
• Little Miss Sunshine
• Pan's Labyrinth
• The Queen

Pan's Labyrinth should definitely win this one. It's endlessly inventive, beautiful, and deep. However, I bet Babel will win this one.

Best Adapted Screenplay

• Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
• Children of Men
• The Departed
• Little Children
• Notes on a Scandal

Well, who knew that Borat would be as successful and impactful as it was? I alluded to that in my review, but I didn't expect an Oscar nomination. In fact, it will probably win the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay. Children of Men might take it, but sci-fi movies don't usually fare well in these categories. Perhaps Little Children, but my money is on Borat.

Best Actor

• Leo DiCaprio in "Blood Diamond"
  
• Ryan Gosling in "Half Nelson"
• Peter O'Toole in "Venus"
• Will Smith in "The Pursuit of Happyness"
• Forest Whitaker in "Last King of Scotland"

I've only seen one of the performances. From what I hear from friends, Will Smith was excellent in Pursuit of Happyness. I've seen clips of O'Toole's performance on several talk shows, and I don't think he'll win it. He's simply too old. He comes across as an old man more so than anything else. Have you seen him speak? He shakes, stutters, and mumbles. He's already established himself as an iconic actor; he doesn't need an Oscar. Whitaker will definitely win. His performance is one of the most powerful I've ever seen.

Best Supporting Actor

• Alan Arkin in "Little Miss Sunshine"
• Jackie Earle Haley in "Little Children"
• Dhimon Hounsou in "Blood Diamond"
• Eddie Murphy in "Dreamgirls"
• Mark Wahlberg in "The Departed"
  

Though I didn't see Dhimon Hounsou's performance, I remember him from Gladiator and Amistad, and undoubtedly he's a powerful actor. Without having seen his performance, I believe he should win it. The clear favorite, though, is Eddie Murphy. Mark Wahlberg's performance was good, but not Oscar-worthy. Likewise, Alan Arkin's performance in Little Miss Sunshine was charming, but apparently Eddie Murphy's was more amazing or important.

Best Actress

• Penélope Cruz in “Volver”
• Judi Dench in “Notes on a Scandal”
• Helen Mirren in “The Queen”
• Meryl Streep in “The Devil Wears Prada”
• Kate Winslet in “Little Children”

Well, Helen Mirren seems to be the clear winner, according to most analysts. Don't ask me why - I only saw Volver of the movies here. Penelope Cruz was excellent, but the role didn't give her much emotional range. She was mostly earnest and alternately excited/subdued.

Best Supporting Actress

• Adriana Barraza in “Babel”
• Cate Blanchett in “Notes on a Scandal
• Abigail Breslin in “Little Miss Sunshine"
• Jennifer Hudson in “Dreamgirls”
• Rinko Kikuchi in “Babel”

I'm really excited about this category. Abigail Breslin is incredible cute - and on that alone, she should get the award. No, just kidding. She was great in LMS, but not up to par with the other amazing performances that are competing in this category. Two actresses from Babel were nominated, and I predicted last December that one would receive the nom and the other should. Well, they both did! Adriana Barraza should receive the Oscar, though Rinko Kikuchi was incredible, too. I was shocked to find out that Jennifer Hudson's claim to fame is being a contestant on American Idol. More shocking is the fact that she's the front-runner to receive the Oscar. Amazing.

Best Director

• Alejandro González Iñárritu for "Babel"
• Martin Scorsese for "The Departed"
• Clint Eastwood for "Letter from Iwo Jima"
• Stephen Frears for 'The Queen"
• Paul Greengrass for "United 93"
  

I will say this once and then repeat it. Martin Scorcese should not receive the Oscar for "The Departed." Martin Scorcese should not receive the Oscar for "The Departed." However, given the competition, he will. The only movie that has a fighting chance against "The Departed" is "Letters from Iwo Jima." The one that should win is "United 93" which I reviewed back at the beginning of 2006. It's an incredible film, and a lot of that is due to the direction.

Best Documentary

• Deliver Us from Evil
• An Inconvenient Truth
• Iraq in Fragments
• Jesus Camp
• My Country, My Country
  

This one is easy. Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" is the winner. Not because it is good, but because it is relevant and important. It's not a great movie nor even a great documentary, but the impact it has had is worthy of the Oscar.

Best Foreign Film

• After the Wedding - Denmark
• Days of Glory - Algeria
• The Lives of Others - Germany
• Pan's Labyrinth - Mexico
• Water - Canada
  

We reach the final film category. Two of the people whose opinions I respect when it comes to movies, Jose and Angelica, both strongly recommended "Water." It should probably receive the Oscar. But I'll be happy if Pan's Labyrinth wins, since I loved, loved, loved that movie. And it very well might.

Well, that's all. The Oscars are this Sunday, so make sure to watch!

Bush is right

Am I the only one who backs George W. Bush on his troop escalation? It's absolutely necessary to bring in more troops, way more troops into Iraq. Clearly, the force we have there already is not capable of completing the job. Iraq is a huge country, and the ~140,000 that are already there aren't enough. In fact, 20,000 more doesn't seem like it's enough either. General Kinseki, before he was retired, said we needed at least 250,000 troops. Sounds about right. And I bet Bush knows this by now. The only reason he can't ask for more is because he won't get anymore. It doesn't even look like he'll get the 20,000 he wants. This is only going to get more disastrous for the troops already there and for the citizens of Iraq.

Gilpin is President of Harvard

What's wrong with the fact that Harvard has until now never had a female president? Plenty, unfortunately. The fact that Drew Gilpin Faust is the first woman president raises some questions that put this historic event into perspective. Questions like: how much longer will it take for the ratio of men to women presidents of Harvard to not be 27:1? For it to be 1:1? Another 50-100 years? Longer? The statistics aren't much better here at MIT. Our ratio is 15:1 - and that can be attributed to the fact that we're only half as old as Harvard. How long until we reach the 1:1 ratio?

Gilpin is a woman who is capable and intelligent. She attended Bryn Mawr and UPenn, eventually becoming a professor of history there. She is the Dean of the prestigious Harvard Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, and she is becoming, of course, the first female president of Harvard. She is also a woman who as a child had to endure the insistence from her mother that "this is a man's world, sweetie, and the sooner you learn that, the better off you'll be." When people that even have to confront that discouraging notion are only now beginning to become the leaders of this world, you know that we have a long, long way to go.

People like Drew Gilpin Faust clearly show that women are as competent as men. But how long until people see clearly? How long until I don't have to embarrass myself by arguing something that should be self-evident?

These brilliant lay people know it all

For most news articles at news websites, there is a section after each article in which users can comment. I love reading the comments after global warming articles because there will always be a few brilliant Joes who can debunk global warming in less than a paragraph. These brilliant individuals believe that they have figured out what scientists can't figure out (that global warming is a hoax) because the scientific community is either being paid off by The Weather Channel and liberal activists, or because scientists are just plain stupid. Do they seriously expect anyone to believe anything they say?

These are some gems from Wired:

• If Global warming is the scientific fact that they claim it is, then why have 15,000 scientists signed a petition expressing doubt that man has caused it? Why has the Medieval Warming Period been removed from the chart showing the climate graph for the past 1000 years? In 1996, it was there, but in the 2001 release, that period was missing.
  
  It comes back to follow the money. Most of the scientists that are proclaming global warming are recieving grant money for their research into global warming. No global warming, no money."
  

Yeah, most scientists don't care about discovering the facts; it's all about exploiting the extremely lucrative field of climate science.

• What has driven the global warming panic to the point we are today? The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. As an extension of the theory, since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory has effectively become a law, accepted before any testing of conclusions had started.
  
  Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this.
  Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!
  Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor).
  Human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not the cause of global warming. Belief in this is a matter of faith. 30 years ago global cooling was the biggest threat.
  
  The dominant contributors to global climate variation are sun activity, earth tilt changes, earth orbit changes from near circular to elliptical, etc. And if you must factor in atmosphere, changes in water vapor dominate this category.
  

Eureka! Water vapor! Now to inform the other scientists who have been studying this phenomenon for decades but forgot to take into account water vapor.

• "Global warming/climate change" is to "modern times" what "blind faith" was to "earlier times".
   Only the zealots, who take it all on faith, believe in this nonsense.

I had no idea analogies were a source of hard, reliable data from which to draw scientific conclusions.

Look, I don't know much about global warming. That's why I don't pretend to be able to fully explain it or analyze it. But when practically every single scientist agrees on something, it's pretty certain that whatever they agree on is true. Global warming is, to a large extent, happening because of humans, and it will get worse unless we do something about it.

No one believes that all of the science is in. There's still plenty of room to modify ideas of how climate functions. But, apparently, enough of the science is in to realize that the problem exists and that a solution is necessary. And we need to start working on the solution NOW.

That's why last semester, I joined an environmental group on campus called SAVE or share a vital earth. If you are on a college campus, you should consider joining an environmental group. Or at the very least, always recycle and always turn the lights off.

The Evolution of the iPod-wearing Human

Everyday, I take my iPod wherever I go. I hardly go anywhere without it, and any spare minute I have during the day is spent listening to music. I love music passionately because it makes me feel passionate. It stirs emotions in me. It makes me marvel at the brilliance of the women and men who wrote these songs, who played these instruments, who decided to invest so much of themselves in producing music.

Everyday, I use my iPod, and I marvel at the ingenuity of its design. I imagine the intricately designed minutiae that must be at work, deep inside the slim plastic casing of my iPod. The iPod is an engineering triumph and a triumph of science.

But more and more, as I distance myself from science, I see the point of view of those who aren't scientists - the people who object to scientific breakthroughs and technological achivements. Many of these people point to nuclear weapons as an example of the horrible consequences of scientific "progress." I scoffed at them. I know scientists. They may have egos, and they may have fame seeping like a poison into their brains, but they are not war mongers or irresponsible with their science. They take it upon themselves to understand the politics that surround their work, and they voice their opinions - which tend to be strongly in favor of peacable applications of science and technology.

The critics say that it is too little. Politicians and non-scientists seize the technology and use it to force their will upon others. Technology hasn't done anything for us except bring us closer to a terrible world in which complete global annihilation is possible. Defenders protest in the following way: Hasn't science brought us all a higher standard of living and many life-saving medical breakthroughs? Isn't it obvious that it is a good thing? You detractors complain about technology, but I bet you too have iPods.

Let's consider the position, though. What has technology done for us? I want to prove right here that it has done nothing for us.

Take music, for example. I have a sophisticated system for listening to music. I may download individual songs from iTunes or entire albums using BitTorrent (illegal!). I may listen to music on a Logitech 2.1 speaker system connected to my Macbook or through earbuds on my iPod. Thousands of years ago, all people had was their voices, their bodies, and crude instruments. None of their music could be recorded and replayed whenever they desired. But do I enjoy my music experience any more than they enjoyed theirs? No! While I mostly listen to music by myself, music to them could be personal if they sang to themselves or with their families, or it could community-oriented if they all sang and danced together. With all our technological prowess, we haven't bested that. We have clubs with high-tech lights, lasers, and sound systems, but do we derive more joy from them than our ancestors did from dancing together outside on the dusty earth? Probably not. At least they didn't have to deal with the uncomfortable stench of crowded, alcohol-soured, smoky rooms.

My point is this: the basic experiences that composite the human experience have existed in various forms throughout the centuries and for thousands of years. Technology has pretended to enhance them and enhance the quality of life, but it really doesn't - not much anyway.