Sarah PAC needs your money

Sarah Palin has a Super PAC, but I'm puzzled as to why this could possibly be. Sure the former half term governor and failed VP candidate is currently unemployed as Fox News decided her paycheck demands weren't worth it, and her constant need for the limelight is in jeopardy, but she's made it very clear she's no longer going to run for office. So what has the former reality television "star" done lately to keep the attention on herself? Well she's been speaking at events, most notably CPAC, where she's often paid a lot of money to show off her folksy wisdom and rally her base of the few fans she has.

So she's been trotting around the US trying to get others elected, and now her Super PAC has released a video showcasing her stellar skills at owning an audience. To be fair, she does own a stage. No that is not sarcasm. The video in question:



The video you just watched wants you to conclude that Palin is effective at rallying the voters to choose the GOP at the polls. Well crafted as it is, it can make even the most ardent liberal thank that. So I looked up the numbers for her 2012 picks, people she tried to help win their campaign. The results:

• Paul Gosar - Arizona: Winner. Not shocking considering the state.
• Representative Allen West - Florida: Loser, and we're all thankful for this.
• Mia Love - Utah: Loser.
• Representative Jeff Flake - Arizona: Winner. Again it's Arizona.
• Martha Zoller - Georgia: Loser. Yes she couldn't get this person elected in Georgia.
• Kirk Adams - Arizona: Loser, surprisingly given the state.
• Governor Scott Walker: Winner. What's weird about this one is that he thought he needed Palin's help.
• Dan Bongino - Maryland: Loser.
• Ted Yoho - Florida: Winner. I had a teacher named Mr. Yoho. Hell I'd vote for him just on his name alone.
• Senator Orrin Hatch - Utah: Winner. Yeah, being a solid Senator for years, and a Republican Mormon in the State of Utah, I doubt Palin's help was warranted.
• Ted Cruz - Texas: Winner. A Republican being elected in Texas? I'm shocked! Of course Cruz has come out and stated how he wouldn't be elected if weren't for her. Yeah.
• Deb Fischer - Nebraska: Winner.
• Richard Mourdock - Indiana: Loser. Not shocking as this is the same guy who claimed pregnancies as the result of rape are God's will.
• Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch - Wisconsin: Winner.
• Representative Sandy Adams - Florida: Loser.
• Sarah Steelman - Missouri: Loser. She even lost the primary election, which is a spectacular fail when you consider she had one of the most visible Republicans at her side.

For those not keeping score, Palin has a record of 7-8, which I guess is better than the Dallas Cowboys, but not enough to be impressed with. In fact, it's pretty damn awful and anyone who's graded on wins and losses with this as their accomplishment for the year could either be a) fired b) forced to resign with a small severance c) a five year contract with the Cleveland Browns d) found unconscious in the restroom of a transsexual bar in Oklahoma City.

So Palin, who laughingly had a documentary about her called Undefeated, is still a loser and her Super PAC, called Sarah PAC, wants you to donate to help a failure continue to be such. That is the logic of today's GOP, and it's pathetic. If the GOP is to ever turn itself around it needs to produce winners, and Palin is clearly not the one to do that. Republicans shouldn't be known as the party of bad investments.

"Buck up or stay in the truck." - Sarah Palin

Wrong

I've written about my thoughts on gay marriage already, so I won't bore you with why I think those that aren't in favor of marriage equality are thinly veiled bigots. No this won't be a well thought out point by point argument for same sex weddings. It'll just be a gentle reminder for anyone who opposes people getting married, for they are wrong.

Yes you're wrong, and history will remember you as bigots. Remember when you saw those students being denied access to a public education because they were black, or how people look back at those who vehemently protested interracial marriage? You looked down on those people, and rightly so, but people years from now will see you just as you did those racists who rallied to the defense of Jim Crow. Well that's assuming you disagree with segregation, and your stance on gay marriage seems to indicate you're all for it.

You've failed. You've failed to create a compelling argument against gay marriage in every respect. To be fair, there is no reasonable point to make regarding barring adults from getting married, so it was a lost cause anyone. Yet, oddly enough, you still continue to make these dumb arguments even though you have to know you're wrong. I mean seriously, when has denying adults rights gone well in our country's history?

The Supreme Court may not rule in favor of gays being married in all states, but they will at some point, and you will go down in history for your wrongness. How does that feel? You'll be in the same company as racists, Sarah Palin supporters, and people who think baseball is a game that should be enjoyed. Eventually your time will come, and you will be defeated in every conceivable way. You know it, so give it up now and allow people the right to marry and to enjoy the many benefits therein. Be on the right side of history for a change.

"Those who condemn gay marriage, yet are silent or indifferent to the breakdown of marriage and divorce, are, in my view, missing the real issue." - Malcolm Turnbull

Steubenville

They say it takes a village to raise a child, and they're right, but what happens when that community fails on every level imaginable. That's what's happening with the story from Steubenville. Yes I know most of you are sick of hearing about it, but really, we should always remember events like these and continually engage in discussion about it. The only way we can possibly, well humanely, prevent rape is to take a stand, speak out, and list those complicit in it for the worthless scum they are.

Now the events of the Steubenville case, while shockingly barbaric, are none too surprising. The town seemed to try to harbor the rapists for whatever reason, probably because they were athletes, maybe because they were popular, or maybe because people don't want to accept that rape happens. It could be all of those reasons, but I'll never know, nor care, because it's baffling to me that anyone would defend someone who sexually assaults another person. An vocal group in the community rallied in support of the two boys pictured above. The same two boys who stripped naked and sexually assaulted an intoxicated girl in the middle of a party. A party where no one defended the girl, nor even went so far to tell those two boys to stop. The same two boys who were filmed doing such an act, and then even going further as to mock and ridicule the girl online and off. Yes these are the town's heroes.

The reason why I say it's none too shocking is the fact that in some small ways a lot of us have indirectly condoned rape. Many Catholics still go to mass and tithe even after they are fully aware that the church was complacent in harboring child rapists. Many called, and are still calling for whatever reason, to the defense of Joe Paterno when he didn't do enough to stop a subordinate from molesting small boys, which is fucking unbelievable. Seriously if you're a Paterno supporter, go to hell. I'm not kidding. Go to hell. There are countless other sexual assaulters who've gotten free passes for whatever reason and still remain largely in the public eye, such as Mike Tyson, Roman Polanski, and many others. Politicians (and when I say politicians, I mean Republicans) have brought the issue of rape into the public discourse in ways so stupid it's disturbing.

But to say these two men are the only ones who destroyed this young girls life is naive, if not ridiculous. All the citizens of Steubenville, and even the ones who live outside of the borders of that shit hole, who have defended these two, mocked this girl, or made light of the crime in any way do not deserve to breath oxygen. Harsh I know, but it's true and you know it. They have made her life that much more miserable, if you can imagine it. They posted nasty things about her, the victim, online and as we all know, the internet is forever. Pictured below are just a few of the online threats and taunts the victim received from people who apparently think men having their way with women is not a big deal:

 

Yes even girls are defending these guys. I mean, what the hell?

 



Then there are the adults in the community and much like many archdioceses across the nation, if not world, they attempted to shield these two boys from prosecution. Seriously, they didn't want them to face a trial for committing such a heinous act. Even their coach tried to sweep it under the rug, going so far as threatening a reporter who was working on the story.

Look at this face, for this is the face of a pig fucker who deserves to die of cancer of the ass.

 

I have a daughter now, and to think I have to have a conversation about rape with her saddens me to no end. Things I should never have to say to my daughter, but feel compelled to:

1. Do not get drunk at a party - She should be able to drink more than a member of the Kennedy family and not have to worry about a man, or woman, attacking her.
2. If you know you're going to be around guys, watch your behavior or dress - She should be able to walk naked through Hooters and not have to worry about groped, or worse.
3. You should carry mace, or a gun - Daughters around the world should not have to feel more comfortable brandishing a weapon just for simply going on a date, or to a party, or anywhere for that matter.
4. If something happens, report it immediately - I can't think for the life of me what other crime exists where people are hesitant to go to the authorities and rape should be no different.

It's truly up to us to stop this nonsense, and I wish everyone and anyone who threatened or harassed this girl will serve a massive amount of jail time. Those who witnessed and cheered, or did absolutely nothing to stop this, deserve worse. Yes I'll go all medieval and say they need to live in Oklahoma for the rest of their lives.

 

We all need to step up and be the village that raises the next generation to look and treat rape appropriately, and it's amazing that that needs to be typed, but it does, and this makes me sad. So seriously, talk to your kids about rape, be aware of it, and be vigilant about ending it. My mother, sister, wife, daughter, and all of my loved ones should live in a world free of sexual violence.

 

It's so simple not to rape someone, and I can't imagine why someone would even want to do it, or why someone wouldn't want to condemn it, but here we are.

 

"Rape, mutilation, abuse, and theft are the natural outcome of a world in which force rules, in which human beings are objects." - Chris Hedges

Ten years

March 19th, 2003: Then President George W Bush announced US forces would thumb its nose at the UN and launch a ground invasion of Iraq, with the goal of toppling the Bath regime and its notorious leader, Saddam Hussein. I watched in some agony as I couldn't imagine what it would mean to be a citizen of Iraq. Sure during the first Gulf War in the late nineties they probably saw war coming as almost every UN member state saw the occupation of Kuwait as ridiculous and needed to end immediately, and most Americans thought the action was necessary even though few of them could point the country out on a map. But there we were, watching an ignorant Republican declare war against a country that has never attacked us, based on the idea that they may or may not have wanted to, with weapons they may or may not have possessed.

 

I tried to rationalize what the administration was thinking, even going so far as to try to give them the benefit of the doubt, but was for naught, as there was no logical reason for this to happen. Many people would perish while we were busy taking a two bit dictator who could barely feed his country out of the world community. The faulty, and possibly falsified intelligence laid bare to the world wasn't enough to convince most rational thinking Americans that this was necessary, nor did it sway the Security Council.

 

Still we went in and toppled a mostly defenseless country, and in turn their citizens decided to strike back. Few hearts and minds were won and our forces ended up fighting non-uniformed insurgents who were none to happy to have their country occupied by a foreign power. Months went on and bodies piled up, and we wondered if this would ever end.

 

Sure no one misses Sadam, but in the war on terror he was hardly a player, much less a formidable enemy. Al-Queda grew in their solidarity against us, and their leaders kept popping as we claimed we killed the number two man in power over and over again. Do we feel any safer now that the Bath party doesn't exist?

 

Saddam was a lot of things, a horrible murderous tyrant who inflicted much pain and suffering on his people, but he was also the monster we created. We helped him stay in power for so many years, even going so far as giving him weapons of mass destruction to wage war with Iran. America became the irresponsible parent, and rather than try and reign in the spoiled brat we raised, we ended up killing him for the transgressions we helped him achieve. At the end, we saw images of him in his tightey whiteys and breathed a sigh of relief when he was put to death.

 

So what now for Iraq? We no longer hear about the nation we devastated, and now that they have democracy we may pay an ugly price for what we did there. I hope the country can forgive us, but I'm not optimistic. Hopefully they're enjoying their freedoms, liberty that they never had under Hussein, and maybe one day they'll be prosperous and we can look back and think something good came out of this expensive conflict, but I'm not optimistic.

 

"Politics is when you say you are going to do one thing while intending to do another. Then you do neither what you said nor what you intended." - Saddam Hussein

Wiwille's writing a book

When I'm not sparring ninjas or live underwear modeling I've been writing a book. Yes a book. It's got words. It even may have pictures.

But it's a book, and it'll be worth a read. Well granted it's written for a select audience and it may be only available online, but it's got like sentences and punctuation, punct-punct-punctuation.

It's ended up with me staying up late and writing, and it has kind of taken its toll. I just close the laptop feeling exhausted and finally rolling my ass to bed at a time that's not exactly reasonable. But oh well, it's a book and it should be written.

More details to come.

"I'm writing a book. I've got the page numbers done." - Stephen Wright

Wiwille plays North Korean video game, with results as you would expect

I've played a great many video games in my life, and consequently I've suffered through many a sup par experience with digital gaming. Yes I've attempted to conquer notoriously terrible games such as Superman for the N64 and the infamous and barely playable E.T. for the Atari 2600, but today I've come across a relatively new game made by the friendly folks that make up the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Yes when those wacky North Koreans aren't starving or being tortured in gulags, they make video games for the glory of Juche. Actually its made by a German company that outsources its IT development to North Korea (how the hell they got investors on that business model is anyone's guess). Thanks to a partnership with Koryo Tours, a Beijing based company that provides what I can only imagine as being a wonderful vacation in Pyongyang, the world can be exposed to communist video gaming.

 

Now I have a weird obsession about North Korea and spend more time following the news of the hermit kingdom than is reasonable or healthy. The fact that it's still a country fascinates me, and I can only imagine visiting there to be a trip back in time, given their limited technology and infrastructure. To me it would seem like stepping into 1947 USSR, and I'm really curious what that travel experience would be like.

 

Often I'm told that the DPRK is nothing like what we see or hear of it, but if this game is any indication of how backwards Pyongyang is, I'm skeptical of such opinions. The game is laughably bad. I've found and played better games in the bargain gaming bin of Target for $3 in 1997 than this drek. The game is called Pyongyang Racer, which the title alone makes me chuckle at the idea since there's reportedly very few cars in the country. To the game's credit, it reinforces such stereotypes as you rarely encounter another vehicle. You race around Pyongyang, an area most visitors are restricted to visit anyways, but you don't actually race any opponents. With controls that are actually worse than any game I've ever played, you drive around the DPRK capital with no indication of how fast you're actually going. The goal is to drive into barrels of oil, which convert to fuel, so I'm guessing the car's a diesel, but who the hell knows. You start with a horribly animated traffic girl telling you to drive straight and not to stare at her, as she's on duty. I would imagine a better reason would be that you're driving an automobile and staring at women while in operation of one can be dangerous, but since there's little to run into I guess that makes sense. Staring is rude even in the land of people who believe in unicorns.

 

Funny how she doesn't want you to look at her when she's larger than the actual car you're driving and takes up a quarter of your screen.

 

You keep driving and continually fumble with frustratingly horrible controls and sometimes you come across some weird black thing hovering in the road, which gives you information about the site you're coming up on. Sure you can stare at where the Mass Games are held, but looking at a woman is frowned upon. I started to get bored, so I decided that I wanted an off road experience, but the game reset my car back into the horribly pixelated road. Yes the graphics are so terrible they can't even make a street convincing.

 

There's only two ways you can lose Pyongyang Racer, you can run out of fuel or you can hit a car three times. 

It tells you that you can't hit three vehicles, but as I painfully learned you can't even hit one vehicle three times. Thanks Dear Leader for not clearing that up.

 

There are three things I can positively say about the game:

 

1. It's free.
2. It was better than I expected, and is still better than some games the US produces.
3. The sites you see are well crafted, compared to the rest of the game.
    

While you're on your journey you are being constantly being fed a loop of music that is so awful I can only imagine the state police use it to torture people in their gulag prison system. Not surprisingly I got bored, closed the browser, and reflected on what the hell it was I just played.

 

While I do believe the only humane way to free the North Korean people from their ruthless oppressors is to open up communication with them and the rest of the world, this game is a poor start. It reinforces the idea that the DPRK is backwards, totalitarian, and behind the times in everything imaginable. If this was supposed to be an example of how glorious Juche is, then as a marketing venture it failed more miserably than New Coke. I do hope Kim Jong-Un can motivate his people to make something a bit better next time. Perhaps a RTS game with famous battles from the Korean conflict? Maybe a bit tasteless, but at least it would be more interesting. Then again it would probably be filled with scenes of Americans throwing babies into a well and South Koreans raping farm animals. How about Kim Jong-Il golf? Since he was far better than Tiger Woods, one can only think a game honoring his epic acheivements in the sport would make sense.

"This game was developed in 2012 and is not intended to be a high-end techological wonder hit game of the 21st century, but more a fun race game (arcade style) where you drive around in Pyongyang and learn more about the sites and get a glimpse of Pyongyang." - Pyongyang Racer's about page



I hate it when this happens

There are politicians that I despise, and those I find amusingly stupid, but there are times when even I have to break down and agree with them, well at least once in their miserable careers. Enter Rand Paul, son of the civil libertarian, cartoon character Ron Paul, who for whatever reason named his kin after a philandering self indulgent atheist hack writer, who has now taken his father's place as a self described white knight of the precious Constitution. Railing against the TSA, IRS, and any other easy target, Paul Jr came off as atypical of libertarian leaning Republicans, quick to hate on the government and proclaim themselves the last line of defense of liberty.

So enter President Obama and his National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012, which affirms the Executive branch the power to detain someone indefinitely without trial, which flies in the face of our Bill of Rights and is not shockingly something I'm highly against. Granted, the President has claimed he would not abuse said privilege and will not allow the military to do such a thing, but allotting that power is scary and should've never been done. Thankfully the Supreme Court agreed and all is well, but of course the Pauls take full credit for this.

But now we face an even stranger and more disturbing Executive power, the privilege to kill an American citizen with a drone strike on or off US soil, without Constitutional due process. Granted Eric Holder's office claim that it could only be used in extreme circumstances, and really I'm not entirely concerned that Obama will just go off and kill anyone indiscriminately with unmanned aircraft, but to have that ability in the hands of lesser men seems terrifying to me, and I can't see why the White House wouldn't just let go of this.

As Rand Paul got a letter from Holder describing the right to kill an American citizen, and the highly unlikely scenario that would trigger that order, he decided that the Justice Department has gone too far and filibustered the nomination of Brennan to head the CIA. Paul tried to get the Senate to pass a resolution that would restrict the use of drone attacks on non-combatants, but it seems that has gone nowhere.

The thing that sucks is I agree with Paul, and his cohort Sen Ted Cruz. Yes normally I find their rhetoric stupid, such as Cruz's conspiracy theories and Paul's belief that the Tea Party is a legitimate grass roots movement and that abortion is somehow the only social issue that shouldn't be left up to the states, but today I hate to say that I stand with Rand. Fuck I can't believe I just typed that.

American politics has never been black & white, nor ever will be.

"You must surely be making Jimmy Stewart smile," - Ted Cruz to Rand Paul

After almost 13 hours, Paul ends filibuster that thrust drones into spotlight


Where Oscar went wrong

I don't watch the Oscars, which sometimes puzzles those that know me as I love movies, but I haven't sat and watched the award show in years. It really makes little sense to me why it's so popular as it really is useless. I really have little desire to see celebrities vote for themselves and have the largest circle jerk of the year. While I don't watch them, I do see the results later in the news, shrug my shoulders, and carry on my business as if they never existed. Granted some of the winners baffled me and still do, and shows how much of a wide disconnect the viewing public (including paid critics) and industry insiders have. So I'll list the most baffling Oscar wins and nominations according to me. You may think this is an opinion, but oh no, this is fact, because I said it. So there.

1. 2006 Best Picture Winner "Crash" - A lot of hate was tossed around for this film after it took Hollywood's most coveted award, but I can't bring myself to completely dislike it. It wasn't a bad ensemble film, but it was far inferior to the rest of the movies in the category, including "Brokeback Mountain", "Capote", "Good Night and Good Luck", and "Munich". Since Crash had such a star studded cast they may account for the amount of votes it got, but I still can't fathom a universe where it ranks as the top, when it's nomination was questionable.
2. 2004 Best Picture Winner "The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King": I love the LOTR trilogy and it's probably the best adaptation of Tolkien's masterpiece that anyone could've hoped for, but I'm hard pressed to rank it higher amongst other superior films nominated that year, namely "Mystic River" and "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World". I can understand the academy giving Peter Jackson the Oscar though, given the great achievements of the three films, but I still think a film should stand on its own merits, especially when judged amongst others.
3. 2003 Best Picture Winner "Chicago": This is quite possibly one of the most plotless Best Picture winners that I can think of. While visually impressive with good musical numbers, there's very little story here and when the actors are clearly better suited to the song and dance rather than reading lines. I doubt anyone can say this movie is better than "The Pianist" with a straight face.
4. 2002 Best Picture Nominee "Moulin Rouge!": Why the hell was this nominated? I mean I get how some people were excited to see a resurgence of musicals, but instead they got this annoying dreck. There's nothing subtle about this heavily edited nonsense and the visuals jump from being beautifully striking to murky and horrific. The covers of various pop songs are highly inappropriate considering the film's setting, and the love story just falls flat. Somehow Academy voters thought this should get a shot above far more engaging films such as "Memento" and "Monster's Ball".
5. 2001 Best Picture Winner "Gladiator": A not terrible film that has a thin plot and only two memorable characters, but in no way should be honored higher than "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" or "Traffic".
6. 1999 Best Picture Winner "Shakespeare in Love": The best achievement of this film is how it masks itself as cinematic wonder when really it's just corny and not as funny as it, or audiences, think it is. It's a remarkable take on the marketing of a film that this is held in such high regard, when in reality the jokes fall flat and are about as humorous as a Family Circle comic. Given all its flaws, I kind of enjoyed it, but what's even more remarkable is how this ranked higher than the four highly superior films in its category that year. Yes even "Life is Beautiful" is better, and you know it.
7. 1998 Best Picture Winner "Titanic": I think the fact that this film won so many Oscars over the vastly superior "L.A. Confidential" is enough evidence to lay claim as 1998 being the lowest the Academy has ever sunk.
8. 1995 Best Picture Winner "Forrest Gump": This was the award that solidified my already held belief that watching the Oscars were a complete waste of time. This syrupy, melodramatic, and devoid of humor film takes an overly nostalgic look through modern American history, but fails to entertain in any way. Sure it has its merits, such as acting and cinematography, but its too damn silly to be taken seriously. Stupid is as stupid does, and this movie is indeed stupid. This is another film that was the least of the pack, but still got the highest honor for reasons I can't explain.
9. 1994 Notably absent film from the nominees "Malcom X": Sure Spike Lee may be a self righteous prick that nobody likes, but its hard to overlook Malcom X as a great film, and it should've at least taken a nomination. The performance from Denzel Washington alone made it worth watching, but that's no the only element in this movie that makes it remarkable. The photography and editing are almost flawless.
10. 1991 Best Picture Winner "Dances With Wolves": Dances with Wolves is a stunning acheivement and a sweeping epic that will be remembered for generations. It's a great story that was marvelously directed by Kevin Costner, shockingly enough. With all its greatness, it's not better than Goodfellas. It's just not.
11. 1982 Best Picture Winner "Chariots of Fire": There are few best picture winners more dull than this, and why this beat out the far superior in every way "Reds" will remain a mystery.
12. 1981 Best Picture Winner "Ordinary People": I like this movie. I really do. It has some great acting and really is worth a look. But to think this movie is superior to "Raging Bull" is committing a film blasphemy so sinful one should be forced to spend the after life watching "She-Devil" and "Leonard Part 6".
13. 1976 Best Picture Nominee "Barry Lyndon": While I love Kubrik's body of work, this is quite possibly my least favorite movie he did, and really I can't bring myself to watch it again. As dreary as it is dull and lifeless, Barry Lyndon serves no purpose and I can't imagine why it got nominated other than the fact it's the closest to an epic that year.
14. 1974 Notably absent film from the nominees "Save the Tiger": In what is quite possibly is Jack Lemmon's greatest performance, and that's saying a lot, Save the Tiger is a great film about an aging Korean vet trying to cope with an ever changing society that doesn't need him anymore. Yet somehow this didn't get nominated while American Graffiti did. Yeah...
15. 1967 Best Picture nominee "The Russians are Coming. The Russians are Coming": While this movie is charming and a funny indictment on cold war paranoia, it's not that good. When you consider such superior films weren't nominated, such as "Alfie", "The Professionals", and "The Naked Prey", one is left to wonder why this was even considered.
16. 1964 Best Picture nominee "Cleopatra": There are very few huge spectacles like this that have equated to being such a bore, but Cleopatra accomplishes just that. Even Elizabeth Taylor went on record to denounce how dull this movie was, and I can't imagine anyone ever enjoying this, much less wanting it to be nominated.
17. 1959 Best Picture Winner "Gigi": When it's not creepy (a guy singing about how he thanks God for little girls should've never happened) it's a dull tale of a girl who doesn't want to live in amongst the upper crust and abide by their rules as her genetics have paved for her. Yeah, it's just that gripping as it sounds. "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" should've taken the award home, and that is an indisputable fact.
18. 1957 Best Picture Winner "Around the World in Eighty Days": The fact that this film, which is more of a travelogue than a well fleshed story, got to be best picture is proof enough of how meaningless the Oscars should be considered. Again you have the least of the bunch get the highest award. Stupid.
19. 1953 Best Picture Winner "The Greatest Show on Earth": Out of all the Best Picture winners, this is my least favorite. It claims to have a story about a traveling circus that is neither engaging nor entertaining. As a spectacle it works ok, but to think it beat "Ivanhoe" and "High Noon" leaves me speechless.

And I'll leave it there, with this indisputable list of where the Academy got it wrong, so wrong.