And more to the point: Why should we care?

As we wind down to the final days of publicizing and politicking for the 77th annual Academy Awards, hundreds of thousands of normally rational adults - including quite a few who haven't bothered to actually see a movie in a theater since the Reagan Administration - are heatedly debating the odds for and against this or that nominee. For many folks in my racket, this is the very best time of the year, a bodaciously ego-boosting period when our opinions are actively sought (if only to be angrily disputed or derisively mocked) by colleagues and civilians stricken with that most discombobulating of diseases: Oscar Fever.

And yet, even I try to sound sagacious while providing sound bites to fellow journalists on tight deadlines, or tips to friends placing bets in Oscar pools, I can't help feeling slightly foolish, if not downright hypocritical. Because, truth to tell, I've never understood why so many people devote so much time, effort and emotional intensity to handicapping the annual horserace hosted by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

Sure, the Academy always gets the final word in defining Oscar-worthiness. But you must remember this: The Academy is nothing more (or less) than a trade organization. The Academy of Tile Cleaners might vote EZ Duz-It as Best Mildew Remover of 2005, and that title might carry some prestige because, hey, the award was voted by experts in the field. But that doesn't mean I must accept that judgment call. I might prefer to buy Takes-It-Off mildew remover instead, especially if my neighborhood Grocery Megaplex store is running a triple-coupon special. Likewise, if you think "Shrek 2" is infinitely better than the five finalists for Best Picture honors, well, are you going to change your mind because a few thousand Hollywood insiders say you're wrong?

Try as I might, however, I rarely manage to persuade editors with this kind of logic. Several years ago, back when I toiled for the now-defunct Houston Post, I foolishly suggested to the entertainment editor: "Look, let's not bother with Oscar predictions this year." Instead of agreeing, the editor -- sounding a great deal like one of the village elders in Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery" - replied: "We must have Oscar predictions. We have always had Oscar predictions. We always will have Oscar predictions. Readers want Oscar predictions…"

OK, OK, I get the message.

So, here we go again. The envelopes won't be opened until Feb. 27, but I'm already ready to soothsay. As usual, I'm offering my personal choices as well as my predictions, along with honorable mentions of the non-nominated. In two categories, my picks and their picks are perfect matches. Which only goes to show you that, just as a stopped clock can be correct twice a day, even the Academy can get it right once in a while.

BEST PICTURE:

WILL WIN: "The Aviator"
SHOULD WIN: "Sideways"
SHOULD HAVE BEEN A CONTENDER: "A Very Long Engagement"

BEST ACTOR:

WILL WIN: Jamie Foxx ("Ray")
SHOULD WIN: Jamie Foxx ("Ray")
SHOULD HAVE BEEN A CONTENDER: Paul Giamatti ("Sideways")

BEST ACTRESS:

WILL WIN: Hillary Swank ("Million Dollar Baby")
SHOULD WIN: Annette Bening ("Being Julia")
SHOULD HAVE BEEN A CONTENDER: Audrey Tautou ("A Very Long Engagement")

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:

WILL WIN: Thomas Haden Church ("Sideways")
SHOULD WIN: Thomas Haden Church ("Sideways")
SHOULD HAVE BEEN A CONTENDER: David Carradine ("Kill Bill, Vol. 2")

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:

WILL WIN: Virginia Madsen ("Sideways")
SHOULD WIN: Cate Blanchett ("The Aviator")
SHOULD HAVE BEEN A CONTENDER: Sharon Warren ("Ray")

BEST DIRECTOR:

WILL WIN: Clint Eastwood ("Million Dollar Baby")
SHOULD WIN: Alexander Payne ("Sideways")
SHOULD HAVE BEEN A CONTENDER: Jean-Pierre Jeunet ("A Very Long Engagement")