Dear Japan:

Stop hogging all your awesome mobile phones while us North Americans have to deal with our own crappy models... or buy underground unlocked phones from shady dealers.

In May, I had to go hunting for a new phone before I let go of the old BlackBerry, and I fell in love with the Infobar 2. If I remember correctly, it was priced at around $150 and critics were calling it a tough competitor to the iPhone. But as it is only available in Japan, I settled on a Sony.

Admittedly, my love for the Infobar 2 is largely due to its aesthetic qualities, but its technical specs are pretty impressive as well (long battery life, large screen, etc, etc).

But when you visit the design company's website, KDDI au, you realize that there are even MORE gorgeous phones that put Western devices to shame. It's ridiculous: even their mobiles from 2001 look much more advanced and beautiful.

Among my favourites:
- Ishicoro - designed to look like a smooth river stone that GLOWS FROM WITHIN when receiving a call.
- Apollo 02 - inspired by 2001: A Space Odyssey, it does have a 1970's sci-fi look. And the keys are raised at an angle!
- Vols - named after the Volstead Act in the United States, which began Prohibition, it's designed to look like a hip flask. The screen is contained length-wise in the body of the phone.
- Kaos

Why does no one put this kind of artistic thought into American cells? Why?

I also love KDDI au's new Sorato and Actface models (I want the Actface!).

Not fair, Japan. NOT FAIR.

EDIT: I have also discovered the Toshiba Sportio phone.

As something of a fitness nut, this is doubly unfair. Wah.

To whomever it is who's trying to reinforce the idea that the Republican Party in the United States is a party filled with racists and sexists: as the current Commander in Chief would say, "Heck of a job."

A booth at the Republican state convention (Republicanmarket) was hawking pins reading, "If Obama is President... will we still call it The White House?"

This news item hit the blogosphere with something of a vengeance yesterday (yes, sorry, I wasn't on the ball here). John Aravosis at AmericaBlog.com is asking why presumed Republican nominee, John McCain, won't stop "fraternizing with racists". My friend, Michael Stickings at The Reaction is also covering this story.

However, there's more to that button. The same group selling the pin in question is also selling the following bumper sticker: "KFC Hillary Special: 2 Fat Thighs, 2 Smalll Breasts... Left Wing".

Denigrating women on the basis of personal appearance? Classy, G.O.P., very classy.

Do I think McCain should be held responsible for this? Absolutely. As the representative and leader of the Republican Party, he must stand up and disassociate the party from these extreme racist and sexist elements. Stop negotiating and fundraising with those who would allow this kind of disgusting nonsense to be distributed during their official functions.

As my friend, Michael, put it, McCain has been getting a free pass while Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have had their feet held to the media fire. No more, McCain. You have to start taking responsibility now.

As someone was entering and is now part of the film industry, I was fighting Bill C-10 tooth and nail.

The bill, tabled by the Conservative Government in February 2008, would allow the Heritage Department to deny "funding for films and TV shows it considers offensive". This prompted an outcry from Canadian artists and film industry professionals, including director David Cronenberg, stating, "You have a panel of people working behind closed doors who are not monitored and they form their own layer of censorship."

Film-makers such as Sarah Polley added that her Oscar-nominated film, Away From Her, would not have qualified for funding under the new rules (same with Cronenberg's Eastern Promises).

The major concerns included that writers and producers would have to "to self-censor and second-guess how a government committee might respond to any given production" in order to secure government funding. This, of course, compromises the artistic integrity of the project (but do not fret, Canuck taxpayers - pornography is already and has always been excluded from funding).

Bill C-10 would have hobbled Canadian productions which rely heavily on funding; investors may not be so keen to put money into a project if the certainty of the tax credits are in question. The legislation could "retroactively withdraw tax credits or force producers to repay grant money", which could throw the entire industry off balance.

Tucked into budget implementation, C-10 was made into a matter of confidence and managed to glide through Parliament.

However, today, Liberal Senators stated that they would make amendments to the bill, removing sections "that would allow the minister of Canadian Heritage to deny tax credits to films that don't meet public policy standards." After this, it will be sent back to the House of Commons.

I'm extremely relieved and filled with something-like-glee right now. To the Senate: Thank you. Ladies and gentlmen, they have cojones.

Score one for the artists.

Unfortunately, I can just imagine Prime Minister Stephen Harper's reaction to this development. He's probably concocting a Senate reform bill now.

I'm a Discovery Channel geek. Thanks to my friend, black hat, for bringing this to my attention.

This puts a smile on my face everytime I watch it. Hope it does the same with you.

I just heard about this today, but producer/director/actor Sydney Pollack passed away on Monday. The official cause was cancer.

He was prolific and talented, his producer/director credits spanning well over 70 films and TV shows (which includes awards, including Oscar, for Out of Africa); his acting credits number over 30.

We've lost another shining star in cinema (the unexpected and sudden death of Anthony Minghella in March caught everyone off guard).

Goodbye, Mr. Pollack. You will be remembered and missed.

How excited am I that The Fall has finally got a North American release date?

It's slated to come out on May 9, 2008, but it's in limited release. Whether it opens in Toronto at that time is another question entirely (My Blueberry Nights came out last week, but it's not being shown anywhere in this city).

So, I'm crossing my fingers that it gets here!

Until then, check out its beautiful trailer, starring the equally beautiful Lee Pace:

News broke today of violence in the streets of Dhaka, Bangladesh. Activists protested against draft legislation that would allow for equal inheritance laws for men and women, among other changes that would promote gender equality. Various Islamic groups and political parties took part in the demonstration.

Although Bangladesh enjoys a mostly secular constitution, its state religion is Islam. According to Sharia law, a female is allowed to receive only "half of what her brother gets"; women's groups have long protested against this practice.

All I can say is that I'm extremely disappointed. I was in Bangladesh last year and it left an indelible and positive impression on me. For a Muslim country, it's fairly laid back. Even one of the young female members of the Canadian post there said she felt safe walking down the street alone (during the day, of course). It's unfortunate that they still have such a long way to go in terms of women's rights, and even more disheartening that there has been such a violent reaction to these proposed changes.

The 2007 Academy Awards have come to a close.

A pretty predictable race, both good and bad. Speaking of which, how did I do?

Best Picture
Winner: No Country For Old Men
Prediction: No Country For Old Men

Best Director
Winner: The Coen Brothers, No Country For Old Men
Prediction: The Coen Brothers, No Country For Old Men

Best Actor
Winner: Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood
Prediction: Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood

Best Actress
Winner: Marion Cotillard, La Vie En Rose
Prediction: Julie Christie, Away From Her
Reaction:
I was a little bit... well, not quite disappointed... kind of nothing, really, but Cotillard was expected, which served to soften the blow.
EDIT: Dear Oscar, I love you dearly, but can we PLEASE give biopics a rest in this category? In this decade alone, six of the past eight winners have been actresses playing famous people. What about actors who have to work with only the script in terms of developing characterization? What about veering away from mimicry for the next, I don't know, five years? Please?

Best Supporting Actor
Winner: Javier Bardem, No Country For Old Men
Prediction: Javier Bardem, No Country For Old Men
Reaction: Adorable! The words tumbling out of his mouth in a fast, giddy way. And a shout-out to the haircut which he will always hate! Cute.

Best Supporting Actress
Winner: TILDAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!, Michael Clayton
Prediction: TILDAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!, Michael Clayton
Reaction: There was a loud whoop at my house. I'm very happy that Tilda won this. So very deserved. And the acceptance speech was a cherry on top of it all: anyone who mentions "buttocks", "rubber Bat suit" and "nipples" in one go at the Oscars has my vote.

Best Animated Feature
Winner: Ratatouille
Prediction: Ratatouille

Okay, very tired now, so away to bed I go.

Tomorrow! Tomorrow is Oscar night!

I must admit, this has been the most invigorating race in a while - GOOD nominees and tough competition. There are a couple of categories where the contenders are almost neck-and-neck. However, I realize that I always say this and a lot of times, as much as I love Oscar, he can be boring and predictable.

So, here are my predictions:

Best Picture
Will win: No Country For Old Men

Should win: No Country For Old Men

Dark horse: I have to say - there isn't a real dark horse in this face; considering the momentum it has (not to mention precursor awards), BP will more than likely go to No Country For Old Men. If I had to name another film, it would be There Will Be Blood.

Best Director
Will win: The Coen Brothers, No Country For Old Men; quite honestly, I'm a little antsy about this prediction. The Academy doesn't tend to give the statuette to a pair - just one. But their work has been so talked about this year, it's hard not to call it in their favour.

Should win: Julian Schnabel, The Diving Bell and The Butterfly. Beautiful and inventive work. For thinking outside the box of traditional storytelling, I SO want him to win this.

Dark horse: Julian Schnabel, The Diving Bell and The Butterfly. Yes, seriously. If the Academy sticks by wanting to award a single director, Schnabel's got a shot. His film got a lot of late buzz - not enough to catch a nomination in the Best Picture category, so they may reward him here.

Best Actor
Will win: Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood.

Should win: I won't mind if Daniel Day-Lewis won; also wouldn't mind seeing Viggo Mortensen take the little guy home.

Dark horse: Many critics are predicting one actor and one actor alone - without even a hint of a dark horse - and that would be the same one I listed. Even George Clooney's already conceded defeat to him. 'Nuff said.

Best Actress
Will win: Julie Christie, Away From Her.

Should win: Julie Christie, Away From Her. Sorry to Cotillard and Page fans, but Christie's a legend - and rightfully so.

Dark horse: Marion Cotillard, La Vie En Rose. She and Christie have been running very close races; both have won Golden Globes and other various precursors. However, the handicap here is that her role was in French, and the Academy tends to be biased towards English-speaking characters. Who knows? Maybe she'll pull off a Roberto Benigni.

Best Supporting Actor
Will win: Javier Bardem, No Country For Old Men.

Should win: Javier Bardem, No Country For Old Men. "Friendo." Chilling! A screen villain for the books and a performance most definitely worthy of Oscar.

Dark horse: Bardem's been blowing through the competition like nothing else. It would be a total surprise to see anyone else win. However distant, though, I would call Casey Affleck (The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford) the dark horse in this competition.

Best Supporting Actress
Let me just say that this category is agonizing for me. Because one of my favourite actresses/acting HEROES has NEVER been nominated before and... I want her to win like nothing else. So, I've been waffling on who I think will win, because it keeps getting clouded over with who I think SHOULD win. Wishful thinking to the extreme.

Will/Should win, Dark horse (because I can't see straight on this, I'm blending it all together): It's a tight race between Cate Blanchett (I'm Not There), Ruby Dee (American Gangster) and, of course, my dear Tilda Swinton (Michael Clayton). Blanchett has Academy love, but was nominated in two categories this year - meaning she may split her votes.

For those who've seen it, in her final scene in the movie, Ruby Dee packed a GUT PUNCH. "She will leave you. I... will leave you." Yowza. She was one of the few gems in a fairly mundane film.

And then there's my dear Tilda. Her BAFTA win was a (pleasant) surprise, but it might be a little too late. However, I'm hoping that the strength of her performance and her reputation as a true artist will carry her through.

I'm calling Best Supporting Actress in favour of Tilda Swinton.

Best Animated Feature
Will win: Ratatouille. It's everything Oscar wants to see in this category. Light and fun. And Pixar is just an unstoppable force in the world of animation (next to Hayao Miyazaki, of course).

Should win: Persepolis. I saw it and sort of fell in love with its the characters (the grandmother in particular) and its humour, despite the protagonist's circumstances.

Dark horse: Persepolis.

Tomorrow night, we'll see how it all turned out.

Two years ago, I blogged about the controversial cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad being published in Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten.

I wasn't pleased with it then because I thought it was disrespectful towards Muslims and their beliefs, and that it was irresponsible on the part of the editors to put it in print. However, I must also emphasize that I thought the violence was overboard and unmerited and I do not condone any threats against the cartoonist or the publishers.

My post was re-printed on another, more widely read blog and I received a lot of negative feedback, and backlash over my comments because they were interpreted as being against free speech. Everyone's entitled to disagree with me (but no personal attacks, please). Believe me, I'm as pro-free speech as anyone else, but in the interest of keeping the peace, there is something called "self-restraint". But I digress.

That was then. One could argue that Jyllands-Posten did not have the foresight to anticipate the kind of controversy or world-wide protests and violence the cartoon would cause, and that would be fair. However, this time, they have no excuse.

European newspapers have re-printed the Prophet Mohammad cartoon in response to a thwarted assassination plot against the cartoonist, Kurt Westergaard, in Denmark.

I understand the outrage towards wanting to kill an editorial cartoonist. His work was uninformed and he did not necessarily have any ill-intentions. There's absolutely no justification for murder. However, re-publishing the cartoon is a foolish way to retaliate against the perpetrators and their supporters, and it's not just because they're dumping fuel on the fire.

The controversy over this issue had largely died down, but now, violence has flared up again. As I said before, the publishers can no longer claim they didn't know what would happen. Call it a lesson stubbornly not learned. Since anger has been directed towards Denmark, they've put Danish embassy staff members' lives at risk. Their consulates in predominantly Muslim countries have had to close due to demonstrations and safety concerns (including those in Pakistan, Indonesia, Iran and Syria). Again, they knew this would happen, because events unfolded in the same way two years ago.

Muslim leaders in Denmark have denounced the plot on Westergaard's life, but are deeply unhappy that the cartoon has been published again. Once again, they have to calm their flock and reach out for an open dialogue.

The violence is still indefensible, especially where a peaceful discussion would be much more productive. I want to be clear on that.

Call it free speech. Fine. It's a right and one that I deeply believe in. But by provoking violence and putting the lives of Danish government workers abroad in danger, the newspapers that have chosen to re-publish this cartoon have forgotten one very important thing: every right comes with responsibility.