In which I foolishly question Nate Silver

For those of you unfamiliar with Nate Silver, he is the scary-smart political analyst whose blog, FiveThirtyEight.com, was a daily stop for me in the run-up to the election. (In fact, I would refresh the page over and over, hoping for any new analysis or predictions). His final electoral predictions were almost entirely spot-on. I will leave it to certain other people to question his take on climate science, but I consider him to be a reliably intelligent and well-informed source of excellent thought.

And so, it is with some trepidation that I disagree with his Oscar predictions. Or rather, his prediction for Best Supporting Actress. (I agree with him about all the others. Bet your house on Heath Ledger.) His pick:

Supporting Actress
Taraji P. Henson.......................51.0%
Penélope Cruz..........................24.6%
Viola Davis................................11.6%
Amy Adams...............................11.6%
Marisa Tomei.............................1.2%

Most of the major awards in the Supporting Actress category have been won by Kate Winslet for The Reader—a role the Academy misguidedly considers a lead. That’s nice for Winslet, not so nice for our computer. Penélope Cruz, who won the bafta for her role in Vicky Cristina Barcelona, would seem the logical default. But computer sez: Benjamin Button’s Taraji P. Henson! Button, which looks like a shutout everywhere else, is the only Best Picture nominee with a Supporting Actress nod, and Best Pic nominees tend to have an edge in the other categories.

Well, I'm sure that the calculations are rock-solid, and Nate's prediction is based upon the best artificial intelligence in the world. Sadly, there's a nuance that no computer can fully take into account -- Taraji P. Henson is a nobody. (Well, a nobody compared to Penelope Cruz. She is an Oscar nominee, which is no small potatoes. Real nobodies write blogs about them, after all.) While it's hard to predict this category given the muddying factors Nate mentions, I'm putting my money on Penelope. She's been nominated once before (for her wonderful role in Volver), and the Academy will probably give her the Oscar.

I also disagree with Nate's take on Kate Winslet's role in The Reader, which the Better Half and I saw the other night. While it would have been preferable for her to have been nominated for Revolutionary Road, a more clear-cut leading role, if the Academy can lob a statuette at Judi Dench for a glorified walk-on role then it can nominate Winslet for a Leading Actress award for her central role in The Reader. She is excellent, as always, in both films, and really, really deserves to win. (On a related note, Ralph Fiennes's work in The Reader makes him a shoo-in to win this year's Lifetime Acheivement Award in Cinematic Sad-Sackery.) It is ludicrous that Reese Witherspoon (who I generally kind of like) has an Oscar for Walk the Line but the best actress of her generation doesn't have one yet. FIX THIS, ACADEMY!

To placate the indomitable Nate Silver, I will also refer you to this excellent post on progressivism in America. Like him, I consider myself a rational progressive, and share his sentiments about those with a radical bent.

Dept. of earth-shattering surprises

Pardon me as I pick myself up from the floor. Who could have seen this coming?

A month to the day after he was sworn into office by Dick Cheney, Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) is under an ethical cloud that threatens to upend his turn on the national stage.

In an affidavit made public on Saturday, Burris for the first time said that he had been solicited for campaign contributions by the brother of Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who named him to the seat. The governor, who’d already been arrested on charges he’d sought to sell the appointment before selecting Burris, was subsequently removed from office by the state Legislature.

I am shocked. SHOCKED!

Update: Oy.

Since when did equal = "special"?

There was a "big" rally in Augusta last night to oppose two bills that have been introduced in Maine to extend the rights of gay and lesbian couples. ("Big" is relative. In Maine, 1,000 people is a relatively decent crowd.)

Staff members for the Washington, D.C.-based Christian Family Research Council, which organized the event, estimated the crowd at close to 1,000. Those in attendance were there to show their opposition to two bills that would legalize same-sex marriages in Maine.

On the other hand, one should be wary of head counts conducted by the people that organized the event in the first place. The above paragraph is also incorrect, in that one bill would legalize same-sex marriage, and the other (submitted as an alternative) would essentially create civil unions but would not call it marriage. If the protesters oppose both bills, then their argument is about legal protections for gay relationships period, not about marriage per se.

As usual, the arguments proffered are about God and the sanctity of heterosexual marriage as ordained thereby.

Marta Sisco, 56, a homemaker from St. George, said she believes marriage is actually instituted by God.

"It's largely about the family," Sisco said. "It's his intent to save us as families and that children are entitled to be born in families that have a mom and a dad."

I wonder why Ms. Sisco thinks her beliefs about God are sufficient argument against specific public policy. I wonder why Ms. Sisco fears that my potential gay marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage. (I would prefer to marry the Better Half, not snag myself some previously-married straight guy. They never buy the right drapes.) I wonder which steps Ms. Sisco is taking to make heterosexual marriage stronger, like maybe making divorce more difficult or mandating that heterosexuals that procreate get married.

Michael Heath of the Maine Family Policy Council, formerly known as the Christian Civic League of Maine, said this is a moment of crisis and people need to band together to uphold traditional marriage.

Heath said family is the building block of society. It exists, he said, for procreation.

This whole argument is a boon for Mr. Heath, whose sole claim to relevance these days is hating gays. His last effort to roll back gay rights in Maine was a total failure. By focusing on the "M word," his flagging ability to attract attention may get a boost, kind of like when roaches multiply when you leave leftovers out in the open. Again, I wonder when Mr. Heath will get around to corralling all the single moms and absent dads and forcing them to marry.

He said same-sex couples are seeking special rights.

"We are for equal rights, not special rights," Heath said.

I love it when people describe the rights that they themselves have as "special" when they are sought by other people. How does Mr. Heath delineate what is merely equal, and what is "special"? Does he support civil unions then, which would confer equal protection for gay and lesbian couples under the law? Because that would be a pretty big change in his tune. Or is he merely spouting meaningless claptrap in an effort to sound less like an ignorant bigot?

Stupidity is non-discriminatory

There are few things that I am less keen on that loudmouthed religious fundamentalists. As a Christian (and a gay one, at that), I think the following is a helpful reminder of how utterly ridiculous some of my coreligionists have managed to sound:

JERRY FALWELL [ed: discussing the terrorist attacks of 9/11]: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way--all of them who have tried to secularize America--I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."

Oh, Jerry Falwell. Let's hope God is more merciful than you believed, because it's hard to explain to the Almighty that you think several thousand innocents were incinerated to give the ACLU the what for. Add in other conservative Christian arguments that the terrorists were right to hate America, and that's one spicy meatball.

Now, Christians are hardly alone with this. Nobody really needs to be reminded of what the Taliban have wrought. Ultra-Orthodox Jews haven't exactly covered themselves in glory with some of their means of protest.

Still, I have to give it to the conservative Hindus in India that are protesting Valentine's Day. Nothing says "take my beliefs seriously" quite like burning a greeting card. I'm not sure how roughing up women who decide to have a drink in a local pub is meant to advance India's standing as a growing economic and political power, but it does make me feel less bad about my own religion when James Dobson opens his pie hole.

Emboldened. Embiggened. Embarrassed.

Oh, Politico. You are a delight. This remarkably silly article makes me smile.

Gregg flip-flop emboldens GOP

Those must be some serious, serious weeds the GOP is in if the sudden reversal of Judd Gregg is a particularly emboldening circumstance. What else do they find emboldening? Nicely pressed slacks? Mixing some regular Folgers in with their Sanka? Getting an extra packet of Funyons from the Senate vending machine?

I mean, come on, Rep. Jack Kingston.

"He made a difficult decision to turn down a job that a lot of Republicans could take," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.). "Here's a guy who's going to turn down his place in the history books."

Really? The history books? Can anyone honestly make the claim that Secretary of Commerce is a position of Historic Proportions? Outside of a few dusty academics and the odd political savant, can anyone even name any? Quick, who were W.'s? (No cheating with Wikipedia.) From my perspective, being Secretary of Commerce lands you in the history books somewhere between Thutmose IV and Chester Greenwood.

I especially love their rallying issue:

[B]y noting his differing view on the census, Gregg breathed life into Republican charges of a White House power grab over a critical Commerce Department function.

The right wing spinmeisters are also flogging this line.

On Fox tonight Sean Hannity called the Obama team's plan to have the Census director report directly to them "the biggest White House power grab ever."

His guest, some guy named Karl Rove, told Hannity he just might be right.

So I guess the GOP is no longer backing the unitary executive theory? Because they seemed all in favor of it a very short while ago, and to be worried about the Census being controlled by Commerce or the White House seems a wee bit intellectually inconsistent.

100% apropos of nothing

So, between patients this evening, I've been reading this lovely little article in the Times about the lesser-known nominees in this year's Oscar pool. Out of curiosity, I clicked on the link for Michael Shannon's name (he's nominated for Supporting Actor for "Revolutionary Road") to see what else he's been in. I don't know what to make of this:

Michael J. Shannon

Alternate Name: Linda Mason Rockstroh

Alternate name Linda Mason Rockstroh? In trying to pin this down (aka Google searching), I came across yet more ambiguity.

Is Linda Rockstroh female, as her own Times bio states? The following certainly doesn't clear anything up:

Linda Rockstroh

Alternate Names: Linda M Rockstroh, Linda Mason Rockstroh, Steve Posey

Is Linda the drag secret identity of Academy Award nominee Michael Shannon? Are they married, and "alternate name" is code for "spouse"? Who on earth is Steve Posey, and is he also Michael Shannon?

I totally hope Michael Shannon shows up to the Oscar ceremony as alter ego Linda Rockstroh. It would confuse Joan Rivers, whose baseline is generally pretty addled to begin with, into a mental state that would make for once-in-a-lifetime viewing.

One small, meaningless thought

I can understand why Judd Gregg would withdraw his nomination to be Commerce Secretary. If he can't see eye to eye about (for example) the Census, then I suppose it makes no sense to be part of Obama's Cabinet.

My first thought, however, was to consider how much it must suck eggs to be this lady.