Clearly Nebulous

Closing "The Office" Door

 

I was a little late to this party, too. I didn't start watching The Office until November of 2006 at the urging of my then college-age daughter, Julia. She had been telling me for months how much I was going to like it, so when she came to town to be there for the birth of her baby brother, she brought along the show's DVDs.

I lay in bed, hugely pregnant, and watched episode after episode. I was hooked. A new little world, found in a fictitious paper company in Scranton, PA, became a part of our weekly Thursday viewing.

Soon after, my husband and I tore ravenously through all the seasons of the original British version, and -- as different as it was -- enjoyed it a lot as well. We were devoted fans, seeking out interviews, extras, and news stories about our favorite dysfunctional "family."

 

And of course, who could resist watching Jim and Pam go from best friends to married parents of two?

Sure, the familiarity of the awkward situations was cringe-inducing. But they were performed so effortlessly with such comedic commitment, based on such excellent writing about characters that showed such vulnerability. The format, in which the characters talked directly to the cameras -- we couldn't help but feel a kinship with these average working folks.

And now it's over and I feel as though I have lost good friends -- as if they have moved away and I'll never see them again. Come on, it's only a tv show. Yeah, sure...

But it will always hold a special place in my heart if only for this reason: Remembering how the theme song soothed my newborn son -- apparently hearing it so many times right before he was born made an impact.

And every time I hear it from now on, I will feel that wee bit of melancholy for good times past...

 

Disney Listens to Moms and Daughters this Time

 

I'm a little late to this princess party, but this was something I took personally. I was a bit of a feisty tomboy with a princess streak growing up, and it's been interesting to watch where each of my six daughters has fallen on the spectrum. But like me, they weren't as concerned about how a heroine looked. It was about her character. We admired that each Disney princess was a strong, independent woman, even if she did end up falling for her Prince Charming.

Then along came Merida in the Oscar-winning "Brave." She was head and shoulders above the others in her determination no to be put on the typical princess track -- so much like my daughter, Deirdre. (Though she is not a fellow ginger, Deirdre even has the long curly -- often tameless -- locks that Merida has.) Now I was not a mom who shunned Barbie dolls or princess parties -- I'm teaching my girls that a woman can be smart and beautiful, rugged and feminine -- but it was disappointing to discover that Disney had given Merida a glam makeover.

The creator and co-director of "Brave" -- who thanked her daughter for being an inspiration when accepting the Academy Award for animated feature film -- called the makeover "atrocious." The new image also seemed in direct contrast to the promotional video that Disney put out at the same time entitled "I Am a Princess" that celebrates being "normal" while still doing great things.

Sure, you could argue that the new image was simply Merida a few years older. But how could you argue that a young girl who couldn't be bothered with the constraints of fashion would suddenly look like a runway model? She sprouted luxurious eyelashes, lost her normal-sized waistline -- and where the devil was her bow, quiver, and arrows?!

Now, being the strong, independent girl that she is, Deirdre rolled her eyes at this development and didn't let it bother her. But she agreed that we should still speak up and let Pixar and co. know that we feel they have betrayed the very essence of Merida's story. That the heroine of "Brave" is all about breaking the mold, not conforming to it.

And it seems Disney has responded to the backlash. If you go to her page on their website now, there is no sign of the made-over Merida. The original may look a little out of place in the line-up of doe-eyed princesses, but that's the way we like her. Power to the "normal" princesses.

UPDATE: Apparently the success of the petition regarding Merida by change.org has prompted them to take on another Disney princess. They are now asking that Mulan be returned to her normal appearance.

Friday Movie (Non)review: "What's Your Number?"

There has to be a very compelling reason to get myself over to the mall, pay way too much money, sit in a freezer-cold room in an uncomfortable chair and watch a movie straight through without being able to hit pause. And that vibrating phone in my pocket during the show had better be because one of the kid's hair is on fire.

Rarely are there must-see-in-the-theater movies -- the new Batman series has me waiting until next year... nothing else right now screams at me, "Get thee to a cinema, pronto!"

So writing movie reviews of movies I haven't seen seems ridiculous. But it's my little way of protesting the garbage that is coming from La-la Land. Reading the bad reviews of those who have actually seen the film is enough to reinforce what I said a couple weeks ago: What is wrong with Hollywood? Why is it so hard for them to make movies women want to see?

 

How good can a movie be when it is based on telling your "number"? Why repeat that to anyone else?

 

Latest fiasco: What's Your Number?  From the three reviews I read,  it seems this movie is obviously trying to cash in on the success of Bridesmaids. Tinseltown thinks we want to see a movie about a non-existent Marie Claire article (apparently it's actually based on a book called 20 Times a Lady) compelling a woman to go back and revisit possible romance with all her exes.

Ok, the premise ain't that bad -- but they have taken what seems like an interesting odyssey (according to Amazon reviews of the book -- although they could all be penned by friends of the author...) and turned it into even more crude sex jokes and clumsy slapstick. (The reviewers stopped counting the number of times they heard the word "vagina.") But we can't even point the finger at the usual suspects -- men writing what they think is a funny chick movie.

 

Skip Number and rent the comic genius of Bridesmaids instead.

 

This was written by three women, including the book's author. I would love to ask them: Is this the movie you intended, or did you simply write what you thought would get the green light? If this is not the movie you intended, why did you cave to the studio execs' re-write requests?

Yeah, I haven't seen this movie myself, nor Bridesmaids for that matter. But I would choose a rental of the latter over paying way too much for a bad movie that once again misses the mark of what women want in a cinematic experience.

Pottymouth's Apology to Palin Falls Short

So Bristol Palin had a run-in with a kinda drunk guy at a bar in Hollywood. He started calling her mom names, and Bristol stood up to him. She asked him to say specifically why her mom deserved such a verbal attack. Of course he had no response and continued with the insults, eventually throwing some Bristol's way.

In the aftermath, Palin-haters called it staged and gave Bristol a lashing for bringing up the man's sexual orientation. But Bristol explained on her Facebook page, that she only brought it up because of the rampant misconceptions by those in the gay community regarding her mother. She said the main reason she chose to confront him was to make him see that

"You can disagree with her politics without vilifying her or lying about us. Isn’t it time for this crazy hatred to stop?"

Bristol had guts, standing up to this guy who is pretty buff, and she kept her cool as she did it.

Well, apparently the guy has sobered up and is feeling some remorse... sort of. In a statement, he apologized to Bristol, but fell short of apologizing for what he said about her mom. (He also said that this was not staged.) 

" ...I have come to the conclusion that no matter what my feelings are towards Sarah Palin, I should not have expressed them towards her daughter, Bristol Palin... I expressed my feelings in an improper manner in the heat of the moment, and allowed my emotions to get the better of me."

I'm sorry, but that falls a little short.

Sure the guy is entitled to his feelings -- and at least he acknowledged that he expressed them in an improper manner. But no direct apology for the names he called Sarah? Don't make him question and face exactly what those feelings are based on? Does having a differing political opinion entitle you to think someone is "a whore" and "the Devil"?

I try to challenge people all the time, even when they use less crude language. Hillary did not deserve to be called "a b*tch," Obama does not deserve to be called "a communist," and Sarah Palin (and Michele Bachmann) do not deserve to be called "dumb."

But amazingly, over and over, I hear mature adults defending these types of comments with "Well, they act like that" and that they are "entitled to their opinion." Really?

If you heard your child calling their principal, their teacher, heck even their sibling such names and they presented those same arguments to you -- would you say "Yep, you're right."

Vilifying someone is never right, and in the political realm, all it does is confound an already highly contentious atmosphere. By all means, express your opinions about issues, policies, and any politician's positions on them. But leave out the name-calling -- if it ain't right for the school yard, it ain't right anywhere else.

The Hollywood He-Man Woman Haters Club

Why can't Hollywood get women right? More often than not, female characters in the movies and television shows that come out of Lala-Land are an insult to the better sex.

Just look at the theater marquee today and you'll see a perfect reflection of how the movies forsake women. For every  gem like The Help, you have a dozen movies that do women wrong.

 

Why can Hollywood only come out with great stories like The Help once or twice a year?

Run far, far away from I Don't Know How She Does It that apparently takes a beloved book and once again ruins it by glamming up the lead character and then using cliches to tackle the mommy wars. The Salon review's response to the title is "Why would anyone care?" Enough!

You may get a strong lead character like Helen Mirren in The Debt, or strong supporting roles like Kate Winslet in Contagion -- but for the most part, the dearth of even likeable ladies in films predominantly aimed at the male demographic is astonishing.

The good news in television, according to Hank Steuver's preview of the fall season in the WashPost, is that women are writing, producing and starring more than ever before. But the excellent article -- titled "Bunnies, babies and broads: What is TV trying to tell us about women?" -- has the author writing in his notes again and again as he watches premiere episodes of new programming WHAT THE [EXPLETIVE] HAPPENED TO WOMEN?

From the Charlie's Angels reboot that is nothing like the new movies (despite the presence of producer Drew Barrymore) and is just a jiggle show on high octane, to The Playboy Club which once again glamorizes the sexist environment behind those doors, to the seemingly benign Whitney which tries hard to make obnoxiousness in a woman seem desirable.

 

Another good thing about Up All Night is a stay-at-home dad who is manly, supportive, and realistic.

 

There are a few new shows that are getting it right. Up All Night is fresh and fun -- and Maya Rudolph's send-up of an Oprah-esque character is spot-on (without going over-the-top as she hilariously did on SNL). And Pan Am shows promise with what Stuever calls a "watered-down proto-feminist ideal" (although he doesn't know if it will "fly.")

But overall, one has to wonder why Hollywood gets it wrong over and over again. Even knowing how messed up they all are, they have millions to play with. Can't they find writers who can create characters that truly reflect the substance and depth of real women?

Vegetarians Love Sarah Palin...

 

... or, at least, this one does.

After reading The Time Machine at age 16, I stopped eating red meat and poultry. (Not The Jungle as more than a few people surmised...) The way I saw it, I wasn't going to wait until the 8028th century to decide whether or not I was an Eloi or a Morlock. But I have never been militant about it, just encouraging others to consume less meat for the health benefits.

I grew up with a Dad who went hunting a couple times a year, and relatives with a long tradition of hunting regularly. I was never thrilled about their stories, but I didn't give them a hard time. I found the argument about controlling animal populations hard to swallow -- but I matured and realized that the argument is valid. (Better for Bambi to starve/get hit by a car and die in vain, rotting on the ground -- or feed a family?) 

I am now married to a man who usually chooses meat for dinner, but doesn't mind veggie chili over con carne. We have raised our children the same as he, although one chose to go vegetarian on her own. Another has sworn off pork products (which I almost never serve anyway) since she saw the movies Charlotte's Web and  Babe. (Hmmm... maybe we should watch Chicken Run again...)

So when Sarah Palin talked about the hypocrisy of those who may have found her hunting adventure in last night's "Alaska" episode -- the ones who still eat meat and wear leather -- I heartily agreed with her. But I also believe that there are those among us who don't eat meat that do not have a big problem with her recreation of choice.

 

Sarah wears her "Girls with Guns" hat out on the tundra -- hunting looks boring to me, but to each her own...

 

For as much as I personally dislike the notion of killing another living thing for my consumption, I still recognize that they are animals, lesser beings that are not on the same level as humans. And whereas, of course, I "refudiate" any blood sport -- if the hunters put the food on their dinner table, then that is making good use of a natural resource.

Sure it makes more sense if there are few options due to one's geographical location, or if one has a limited income and supplements the Wal-Mart groceries with some of Mother Nature's bounty. But if a family that could go vegetarian -- who have the means and opportunity to -- decide not to, that is their choice. We are talking about animals here. (Don't get me started on the notion of how ridiculous it that many of those vegetarians who object to the killing of an animal have no problem with the killing of a pre-born human.)

Just as I personally chose not to be a surgeon (because I would suffer the loss of a patient too hard) or a soldier (because it would be difficult to pull the trigger), I personally choose not to hunt. But I would do all three if I felt I had to, and I'm not going to find fault with those who have the gumption to do so.

 

The Bigger Lesson Lost on the Anti-Bristol Crowd

The kerfuffle is all about stuffing the ballot box. People on websites have bragged about inventing fake email addresses and voting up to 300 times. They say they want to teach a lesson about voter fraud. Those who don't like Bristol Palin have cried foul, claiming that the integrity of the show is threatened.

Seriously? Ok, whatever -- here's my take:

I believe that ABC's voting fraud control is probably far better than that of any typical urban area in the U.S. (which more often than not are controlled by the likes of whom would not vote for anyone named Palin). Bristol has not made it to the finals because of voter fraud, but because her fans (who more likely than not also happen to be Sarah Palin fans) have made it a point to vote her in. They have spread the word about how to vote and have actually voted (unlike the many complaining reporters etc who, when questioned by the producer of DWTS, admitted they did not vote).

 

The producers have had a lot of fun playing up who Bristol's mom is -- and both Bristol and Sarah have been very good sports about it.

The bigger hypocrisy that Bristol's haters won't admit is found in their very own words. When they say in essence that "this is not a popularity contest" and "the most qualified should be voted for" and "the integrity is being called into question" -- I'm sure they have no clue how familiar those words sound.

Two years ago, when we were trying to pick the winner of a contest that did not involve a mirror-ball trophy, but the selection of the leader of the free world, to a position that had been esteemed for 219 years, to lead a nation of over 300 million -- they had no problem with voting for someone with no experience that they liked better, who they could relate to more, who they felt deserved it.

As for myself, I didn't actually vote during this season of DWTS either, but I would have split my votes between Bristol and Jennifer Grey. I'm thinking I will vote tonight, choosing a single winner and basing my vote on several factors, not just likability.

 

Many made comments that Jennifer Grey became unrecognizable after her nose job, but she was unmistakingly stunning in her performances on DWTS. Not bad for a mom who just qualified for AARP membership this year!

 

Whereas Jennifer Grey has experience with performing (point Team Bristol), the only other way she loses points in my book would be because she was in that movie that liberals think was pro-access-to-abortion. But it wouldn't be fair to hold that against her in a dance contest. She has overcome some tremendous health scares, danced while injured, and shown such tenacity for a 50-year-young woman. And she has danced like an angel.

If she outdances Bristol tonight like she has every time before, Jennifer will get my vote. Bristol's Pistols have proven their point. I hope the better over-all contestant will be awarded the prestigious title-that-Bristol-doesn't-need-but-will-certainly-mean-something-to-a-lovely-but-aging-and-therefore-hard-to-get-cast-in-Hollywood-star.

And that's the way it should be -- in La-La Land. 

"R" Parents Aren't Cool

Another study has been released that indicates that children who are exposed to R-rated movies are more likely to engage in "sensation seeking" and "risk taking."

This one shows that kids who are allowed to watch R movies are more likely to be underage drinkers. Other studies have shown that exposure to films for more mature audiences leads to smoking, sex, and violent behavior at a young age.

My husband and I have always been sticklers about not letting our kids watch movies we felt they were too young for -- just ask my oldest (and probably all our other kids) how sick she was (they are) of the word "inappropriate." But I found that it wasn't enough just to enforce rules in our own home.

Some parents think R-rated movies are harmless. This may be true for their kids, but you have to decide what you want for your own -- even if you think they are mature or do not exhibit risky traits.

Whenever we allow a sleepover at a new house, we mention to the friends' parents our wishes about movies. We headed off a viewing of the PG-13 Mean Girls by 11-year-olds when a mom told us she thought it would teach a good lesson about choosing nice friends. Her heart was in the right place, but when I explained that I had checked it out and told her about some of the scenes... Well, she agreed it was not a movie for pre-teens.

And thankfully there are all kinds of sites on the web which give the exact content and grade all movies that are released in theaters. (There are also sites that suggest family-friendly movies to rent or go see for those families that are struggling to find something for the enjoyment of all.) Hollywood is always doing their best to sneak in as much lewdness, violence and sensationalism as they can. As parents, we have to be vigilant.

I'm not naive enough to think that simply keeping my kids from watching unsuitable movies will prevent dangerous behavior -- but the proof is in the studies. It can make a difference, so why wouldn't I make the choice to shield my children?

SNL's Will Forte Catches up to FFL's "Herstory"

Well look who just caught up! Will Forte had a pretty funny bit on Weekend Update last week on SNL where he recognized that March is Women's History Month, "Or should I say herstory?" Forte asked.

 

Pretty funny song, although -- as Seth Meyers points out at the end -- Emily Dickinson was known for her poems not books! (warning: a little bit of slightly crude language) 

Well,  Feminists for Life of America has been honoring women each March for years now with their Herstory Worth Repeating profiles of the founding foremothers of feminism.

Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and all the women who first fought for women's rights were, without exception, pro-life feminists. FFL has featured the stories of many of these great feminist pioneers in their newsletter and on their website.

Today's featured profile is Elizabeth Blackwell, the first woman to receive a degree from an American medical school. In her diary, she wrote this about a notorious female abortionist of her day :

Elizabeth Blackwell, the first American female physician, was a pro-life feminist.

"The gross perversion and destruction of motherhood by the abortionist filled me with indignation... That the honorable term 'female physician' should be exclusively applied to those women who carried on this shocking trade seemed to me a horror. It was an utter degradation of what might and should become a noble position for women…. I finally determined to do what I could do 'to redeem the hells,' and especially the one form of hell thus forced upon my notice."

Be sure to check out more of the stories of these brave women throughout the month -- you can sign up for emails and/or membership on the website.

Polanski is an Unrepentant Pig

Harsh words? Hardly.

First it must be said, Roman Polanski did endure unspeakable tragedies in his life. Forced into the Krakow ghetto under Nazi persecution, he and his father survived, but his mother died at Auschwitz. And years later, both his wife, Sharon Tate, and their unborn child were brutally murdered in an incomprehensible rampage. 

AND the miscarriage of justice for his own unspeakable act, and the sympathetic support he is receiving from a certain sector, are just as incomprehensible to me.

For those who may have heard some vague account, it should be made clear --  Polanski was charged at the age of 44 with forcible rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious acts upon and furnishing a controlled substance to a 13-year-old girl. He got a 13-year-old girl drunk, gave her half a quaalude (the "date rape" drug of the time) to further sedate her, and then raped her. (I think everyone who has taken interest in this case should know exactly what he did, so all the lurid details are recounted by the victim here.)

I would also add something I have not seen in most of the recent accounts of this case. He allegedly was disgusted when he asked if the 13-year-old girl was on birth control, and she said no. So he stopped regular intercourse and sodomized her so that he wouldn't risk getting her pregnant. How thoughtful. What genius.

The charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain. The transcript shows that the sole reason the prosecutors agreed to the arrangement was that the 13-year-old girl and her parents were desperate to avoid the publicity of a trial. Polanski pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, and expected to be given probation. The maximum sentence he could have faced was 50 years, although prosecutors had said at the time that the typical sentence was 16 months to three years in prison.

Now, there has been a determination of wrong-doing by the now-deceased judge originally assigned to the case, who it seemed was dazzled by the limelight, and may have been set on handing down an unusually harsh sentence. (Of course, this would have been compared to the above-mentioned "typical sentence" -- which was far too lenient in my opinion.)

So fearing he faced the rest of his life in jail, Polanski fled. Now I don't have a total run-down of his appeals in this case, but I have found no story recounting that his lawyers tried at the time to have the judge dismissed in order to receive a more fair sentencing. It seems at various times all they have sought is probation, dismissal of all charges, or clemency.

Polanski unfathomably believes that the time he served -- about 45 days in jail -- was enough punishment for what he did. Actually, he probably thinks it was too much. He has never expressed any kind of remorse.  And in his autobiography, he defiantly claimed that the 13-year-old girl was a willing participant. To this day the woman who was 13 at the time, although she has said she wants an end to all this and that he should not serve any jail time, categorically denies it was consensual.

And still there are throngs that cry for clemency. They believe he was a victim of a stage mom and an ambitious Lolita intent on fame, a judge looking for his own distinction, and (most laughably) a puritanical American society that just doesn't understand the looser mores of Europeans. He is an artistic genius, they say -- so that means we should excuse his criminal behavior?!

Even though psychiatric evaluations back then determined he was not a pedophile and not a danger, I beg to differ. He soon afterward had an affair with a 15-year old Nastassja Kinski, so this cannot be called a one-time indiscretion. (And who knows if there were other victims who never stepped forward?) Though maybe he wasn't a hard-core predator, he certainly did not see anything wrong with sexual relations with minors.

So yes, he may have directed some impressive movies -- I begrudgingly watched The Pianist because I wanted to see Adrien Brody's performance. I had to separate the director from the criminal, and I have to say it was an outstanding movie. But when I watched the Oscars, and Polanski won -- well, I was not standing up and emphatically applauding like Scorcese and his ilk.

So while Polanski's victim had to face inconceivable circumstances -- first his attack, the grand jury testimony, and then decades later an occasional return to this horrific spotlight -- her attacker fled and lived a life of luxury in France. Though thankfully she seems to have come to peace with what happened to her, that does not mean that Polanski should avert his long overdue punishment. 

Not directing a masterpiece -- nor enduring terrible tragedies in life -- excuses despicable acts.

Swift Response -- You Gotta Love Taylor!

Okay -- not so swift a response, considering this happened a couple days ago...

I'd been looking for a good reason to write about Taylor Swift -- there are so many reasons to like her. Now I have the opportunity to point out what a sweetheart she is, as well as a professional and a class act.

Taylor was so genuinely flabbergasted by her win on the MTV Awards -- she was sweetly gushing when she was interrupted. And whereas Kanye was so out of line, he did look like he regretted what he did mid-stream, he apologized in a text(right after he was kicked out), and he looked very penitent on The Jay Leno Show the next day (although he didn't get around to calling her personally until two days later).

And I loved that the President chimed in -- calling it like he saw it. "He's a jackass," declared the POTUS. I hope this is one statement that BO does not back down from.

Now the cynical person would say that Kanye simply got an earful from his agent -- and that the damage had already been done, what message was sent to kids? Well, I'll tell you the message they got: If you do something dumb, face the music, own up to what you did, and apologize!

(It's a lesson these kids could learn. Glad to hear they don't think it was racially motivated, but it was still terrible and I think an expulsion is too good for the attackers. I hardly think these guys learned anything -- maybe Kanye could give them a personal note?)

Kids also got the message to stay grounded. When Taylor was asked how she was able to perform immediately after that fiasco she responded that it was knowing people were behind her all the way that kept her going. Though she could easily have lashed out, she never once had an unkind word for Kanye.

So I already loved Taylor for her amazing singing and song-writing abilities, and her good sense in staying a young girl and not resorting to the show biz tactics of using nasty lyrics and grinding stage moves to get attention... (Britney, you are a foul taste in the mouth, while Taylor is a breath of fresh air! Miley -- which one are you gonna be?) ...but now I admire her even more.

Her songs capture the innocence of being a young girl in America that resonate with the tweenage set ...and anyone who was once a tweenager. Older sisters and moms secretly -- or not so secretly -- sing along. Thanks Taylor for continuing to be a wholesome role model for and touching the hearts of young women and young-at-heart women everywhere.

Beyonce showed some class of her own when she allowed Taylor to finish her acceptance speech.

Twilight Trumps Obama Girls

A 16-year-old neighbor reports this from the Jonas Brothers concert on July 13:

Audience members were able to text messages, and some were selected to be shown on a big screen.

When a message read "Scream if you like Sasha and Malia" a yell went up. (Probably in appreciation that the Obama sisters' attendance did not delay the start of the show, which actually started 3 minutes early.)

"But," said this wise conservative young lady, "when the next one said 'Scream if you like Twilight!'  Three times as loud."

Wonder what it would have been if it said "Scream if you like Sarah Palin."

Probably somewhere in between...

A picture of the screen at the Jonas Brothers concert on July 13.

"Away We Go" to a Surprisingly Poignant Movie

I took a chance on this one. I needed to see a romantic movie with the husband. The romance tank was running on empty.

So there was this movie with mixed reviews that was written by Dave Eggers and his wife. I am on the side of those who loved A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius. Plus I have heard that they are very much in love, and have a happy family.

But it was directed by Sam Mendes. Yep, Mr. American Beauty and Revolutionary Road. I would have figured this film was all about putting down the middle class -- angst and alienation. Well, we decided to go for it and discovered that, while there is a sense of both in this film, overall the movie is sweet in its earnest look at love and parenthood.

Now the very first scene is not for the shrinking violets out there. It is a very...um... intimate scene in which a long-time couple, Burt and Verona, discover they're pregnant in an unusual way. (A scene I think the Foley artists worked overtime on.) But if you can get past it, and don't mind a bit of bad language here and there, you will follow this couple on a journey of discovery as they try to decide where to raise their child.

I hear that The New York Times "sniffed" that "this movie doesn't like you." And the Washington Post reviewer had this to say (my emphasis):

"Burt and Verona practice the same brand of exceptionalism that sends countries into wars, marriages into crisis and children into lifelong therapy... (it) has a happy ending every bit as synthetic as the middlebrow entertainments its protagonists no doubt despise... the final shot of the movie features Burt and Verona alone, with their backs to the audience and, by extension, the world. Ready, finally, to become someone else's idea of hell."

Why do I suspect that the WashPo reviewer and other nay-sayers like her -- in addition to being ardent liberals (sends countries into wars?!)-- saw themselves in one of the characters that was frowned upon in this movie? Either that or they have doubts in general about their parenting and don't like the idea of being "judged" -- or they've chosen not to have children and have contempt for all parents -- but those are wild guesses. Because the movie I saw was none of the things she mentioned.

Instead, I saw a movie that examined the extremes of under-thinking parenthood (as seen in a loud-mouthed mom who says disparaging remarks in front of her daughter) and over-thinking it (the couple with the family bed that eschews strollers), and how we all must find a balance we can live with, so we as couples and we as families can find our way.

SPOILER ALERT

In addition to the caricatures of poor parenting, Burt and Verona also visit a very happy couple, who apparently have adopted four children of various ethnic backgrounds. Burt and Verona decide they want to be like them, and consider living nearby. They then discover that there is a sadness in this couple's lives.

They have just endured their fifth miscarriage. The husband speaks of how maybe they shouldn't have waited so long to try and have a baby, and how tragic it is that so many young girls get pregnant... They love their adopted children, but they have this unbearable feeling of loss.

Now, Roger Ebert described this couple as not really being happy, and the WashPo reviewer scoffed that this was portraying adoption as "second-best." I would argue that this couple was indeed happy, but there was this separate desire that had not been fulfilled. People can have both dreams. Mourning the loss of one does not take away from the other. (Maybe the reviewer had closed herself off and did not hear the heart-breaking line about watching their babies fade away. How could you not have sympathy for that?)

SPOILER OVER

But what I really liked about this movie was that it reminded me that we all need to be mindful of who we are as parents. At one point, Burt points out that he thinks that being a parent should bring out the best in us. That it should make us better than we normally are. It sorta reset my parenting compass.

And it also filled the romance tank. Verona says, "No one is in love like us, right?" I squeezed my honey's hand. Because that really describes us. I hope it describes you, too. For that is a great part of being a parent. Remembering that we love each other, like no one else, and that we're in this together.

Letterman Could Learn a Lesson from Ramsay

First of all, you'll have to excuse me -- I'm still in shock as I just read a statement from NOW regarding the lacivious Palin family "jokes" that David Letterman made recently.

http://www.now.org/issues/media/hall-of-shame/

Whereas they didn't mention the "slutty flight attendant" line, and they took a shot at conservatives -- not every one of us is as rude as Rush can be sometimes -- they are right about one thing: Neither side should be making any kind of pot shots about any woman's looks or her attire.

I'm in the camp that thinks that Letterman's "apology" fell short. He played the victim -- poor misunderstood old guy just trying to make a joke -- and how could we think he meant the 14-year-old? Oh you're rigth, Dave, it was our fault. It was our fault that we knew that only Willow had accompanied Gov. Palin. It was our fault for treating the Palin family respectfully as individuals and not lumping them into the white trash bunch that you seem so intent to classify them as.

You need to try again, Dave. Try taking a peek at the apology that Gordon Ramsay gave for some very rude comments her made about an Australian tv host.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5e7_n1InBU

I don't know much about Ramsay, other than the hothead I have seen on commercials for Top Chef.  I can't say for sure whether he was truly sincere, or was actually only concerned about his bank account. Ramsay said that he realized he needed to apologize for his boorish behavior after a call from his mom -- which she has disputed. But he seems genuinely penitent -- a route that Letterman should consider.

So whatever it takes. An induction into NOW's "Hall of Shame," a call from his mom, a smack upside the head from his wife... Dave needs to try again.

Maybe in a venue far from a sniggering audience would be a good idea. Get Oprah on the phone... NOW.

Gov. Palin met Ladder Co. 10 after stopping at the Ground Zero visitor's center. 

 

Land of the Lost Innocence

I'm not embarrassed to say it. I loooooooooooooved the tv show Land of the Lost. (Ok, maybe I'm a little embarrassed.)

I was 9 years old when it hit the small screen in 1974. I was a little younger than the golden-haired heroine, Holly. I wanted to experience the adventures and exhibit the bravada of the spunky Miss Marshall, in the face of a menacing T-Rex and the spooky Sleestaks.

So when I heard that this cheesy series was next in line for the Hollywood movie treatment, I was thrilled and looked forward to taking my daughters to see it. Then I heard that Will Farrell was the star, and I thought -- hmm, could go one of two ways here.

Will we have the goofy borderline fun of Elf and Kicking and Screaming, or will we get the really-not-for-kids edginess of Anchorman and Blades of Glory? When I saw a trailer last month, the MPAA rating had not been assigned yet. But what I saw led me to think what I feared.

For some reason, in a trailer that is "approved for all audiences" I saw Holly -- who apparently is considerably older in this incarnation (played by a 33-yr-old actress) -- introducing herself to the hairy caveman Cha-ka by placing her hands just below her collarbone and saying her name.

Of course, just below the collarbone is just above the bust -- so Cha-ka is then seen repeating her name and grabbing at her breasts. Hoo-boy, I thought, definitely shooting for the PG rating -- not.

I remained hopeful that perhaps after reviewing the box office receipts of Farrell's films -- as well as  other adventurous PG movies -- that more family-friendly heads would prevail.

Come on -- Elf brought in $173M domestically, while the National Treasure films earned $173M and $219M. The original Night at the Museum grossed $250M, and the sequel has already earned $108M in less than 2 weeks. Pixar's Up has made $80M in just under a week. Heck, even a very similar, yet weaker movie like Journey to the Center of the Earth wound up with $101M.

But then they probably remembered that Kicking and Screaming only mustered $52M, while Blades of Glory raked in $178M. Hmmmm... this Land of the Lost is costing over $100M... hmmmm... what to do, what to do...

PG-13 it is!

So much for the nostalgia we all felt for a show aimed at pre-teens. The almighty box office gods have spoken -- and so has this mom.

My kids will not be seeing this movie. I hope you will join us -- we're going next door to see Up.

Why the Hate for Jon & Kate?

Well, I hope Joel McHale is happy.

Ok, so he's not the only one to blame, but is was the likes of McHale's portrayal on The Soup of Jon Gosselin as a hapless henpecked husband that must have drove the poor man to try and escape the world of a father-of-8-under-a-microscope.

Last night's premiere of the 5th season of Jon & Kate Plus 8 was bittersweet considering the recent developments. I believe Jon's side of the story, and I still understand that even the most innocent version of his galavanting is enough for Kate to feel very hurt and angry.

That's all you can really say. Exactly what drove Jon to such poor behavior, exactly what the couple's relationship is -- it's all pure speculation. Only the two of them truly know. What's up to us is to let these two figure it out -- especially for the sake of the children. But unfortunately, the media does not seem content to let them.

Gossip rags run covers like this, with sensational stories from folks who are paid big bucks for their indelicate info (I don't care if one of them is purportedly her brother -- what kind of brother would reveal such intimate details?):

And just look at the review of the show's premiere from the Washington Post. The producers of J&K did not send out a sneak peak, so the writer decided this was an appropriate time to launch a personal attack on the Gosselins, and a general attack on large families.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/24/AR2009052402680.html?sub=AR

The show is deemed "appalling." Kate is then unkindly described as a "succubus" (that's a devil-woman for those of you without a dictionary handy) with a "bizarrely unattractive" hairstyle who may "claw you to death." Her love and pride of her children is inexplicably condemned as a "horrifying validation of her brood's importance."

Jon is described as "a shell of a man" and the couple's sex life is questioned. The admittedly materialistic turn seen on the show is somehow approximated to mild "abuse." I found this all an unnecessary, highly personal judgment coming from a tv critic. He should know (better than most) that such shows -- and the media coverage of them -- are focused on the sensational. By no means are they fair or accurate representations of the real lives involved.  

But the hate is not reserved for the stars of this show. The Duggars of 18 Kids and Counting are "pious," "epically backward," and "eerily sweet." Programs of this kind are "freak shows" and the moms' wombs are "clown cars." Couples who struggle with infertility are compared to wild animals. Large families are referred to as "litters" and those who watch the shows are psychoanalyzed as searching for the "soothing effects of belonging to the pack."

Even blogging moms are ridiculed that they "cannot shut up about every banal detail of their household." Harumph. No offense!

The critic then makes the PC leap to the consumption of resources, suggesting large families are not "green." He forgets that these households are run more efficiently than average, and therefore consume fewer units of resources per person overall. 

But this critic is not alone in his diatribe. It baffles me why so many choose the shrill attack mode, usually found only in unedited chat rooms. Why not a charitable tone for this particular family that is struggling with the trials of success and fame? And why drag other families, famous or not, into the fray?

I can only surmise that there is a sector that feels defensive about limiting their number of children. They feel that they must denigrate large families and assail the obvious drawbacks. There must be something wrong with those people and their colossal clans! Who knows why they vilify those who made a different decision.

So Kate is an easy target. She runs her household like a drill sergeant. So? She got way more than she bargained for when she signed up for this -- never did she anticipate being hounded by photographers. She is not only dealing with the obvious pressures -- what most people don't understand is the responsibility of being an ambassador for large families.

I do.

I know what Kate is thinking: We want the world to see that -- while we don't have unrealistic goals of perfection --  we want to show our best side. Otherwise, we give fodder to those who would cut us down. We want everyone to see that, whereas our lives have more than their share of challenges, it is a great life, nonetheless.

Again, the show is but a glimpse of the most sensational moments of Kate's life, for less than 30 minutes a week. We're not there for the mundane, quiet hours upon hours. I say, the next time all those folks are the mother of 6 babies at once, then they can voice their opinions. Until you've walked a mile... 

So enough sniping whether or not Kate is too demanding, enough speculation about Jon's actions -- let's all just root for a family in crisis to come out of this happy and healthy. 

Oh, and don't buy those magazines! 

Revenge of the Tweenage Girls: Kris Wins Idol

Newsweek speculated that there was a Christian voting bloc that would affect the outcome of the American Idol finale -- and others pondered that there  might be an anti-gay backlash against Adam. (Although no one but he knows for sure what his true inclinations are...)

I'm not going to suggest that there wasn't a whole bunch of conservative folks voting for Kris -- I'm certain there were, considering that Idol is one of the few shows that (for the most part) is family friendly and appeals to all ages. But honestly that would be a "Pro-Kris" vote, not an "Anti-Adam" vote.

Adam obviously was the more talented singer, with much greater range, and was more of a flamboyant showman. We know there is a contingent out there that likes that sort of performance -- David Cook was the more edgy performer and he prevailed. (Although that, arguably, may have been Revenge of the Rockers, inspired by the early exit of Chris Daughtry the previous season.)

But Kris was more universally appealing, and he also performed on both guitar and piano. When he was done with a song, everyone in the room could at least say -- well, that was nice, and often even more. With Adam, as much as I admired his vocal talents, I often fast-forwarded through the last minute of his performances. It was all too much, and I'm sure there were many others who felt that same way. And many were probably baffled by some of his performances. ("Ring of Fire" anyone?!)

But I truly believe that the tipping point for this contest had to be the female tweenage fans of the show. They were heart-broken last season when David Archuleta lost to the more talented edgy guy, and they were NOT going to let it happen this time! What else did they have to do last night? I would venture that many dialed, got through, hit flash, hit redial, got through, flash, redial, got through, flash, redial... For four... straight... hours.

In one way that bothered me this season -- that more talented singers were losing out to a teen heart-throb. But if that's what it took for the underdog -- the wholesome, came-out-of-nowhere boy next door -- to defeat the affectatious darling of the entertainment crowd and the media... Well, so be it. And maybe today's youth isn't as dumb as I thought.

Adam will still be huge. He didn't need to win. Plus, he can console himself: He never has to sing that "No Boundaries" song ever again!

Congratulations, Kris! May your career shine as brightly as your smile, and your life be filled with even more of the joy that is apparent with your wife and family.

 

btw -- why wasn't this commercial shown during the finale? I know it's not perfect, since many of the celebrities shown were adopted at an older age and therefore were not necessarily spared from abortion. But adoption is an important issue, not just in regards to the pro-life movement, but in recognizing the value and potential of every individual. No matter what obstacles they may face.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So Miss California isn't perfect...

Being a fan of pageants sure isn't easy these days... 

So yeah, I'm a feminist who played with Barbies and watched pageants growing up, and now I let my daughters do the same. Never had a problem with body image, because my mother and other women in my life gave balance to the parade of near-impossible "perfection." Pageants are all in good fun. Until now.

It was bad enough when I had to fast-forward past Perez Hilton's question during the Miss USA broadcast last month. Now I have to be viligant in keeping little eyes and ears around here from catching wind of all the "controversy" surrounding Miss California.

Today a website released a photo of her that is somewhat risque. (I hate to give the site more traffic, but for the sake of the argument, I guess you have to see it. It's at  www.thedirty.com) I would definitely not want my girls to see this photo, but it does not fall outside the realm of usual underwear ad material these days. Seriously, you see much worse in any Abercrombie catalog.

I'm not thrilled that Miss California did this -- more from the feminist point of view than the "moral" one -- but I think I was more disappointed when I noticed during the broadcast that she obviously had a boob job. And then to find out that the Miss CA organization paid for it after she won the state crown... It's really disheartening to hear they feel it is so important to win that they disfigure themselves, and that the pageant doesn't simply tolerate it, but encourages it and even pays for it.

But the unwarranted onslaught against the poor girl continues to escalate. It wasn't enough for the site to simply post the picture (they say they are more, and have hinted they are worse, but my guess is they're less provocative and the site is milking it). It wasn't enough to say, judge for yourself. No the site had to proclaim Carrie Prejean "homophobic" and "a sinner." (I'm sure they thought the latter about other women who have posed like this before this instance.)

All this hate against Prejean is puzzling. And hate is what it is. Prejean simply stated her opinion -- and during the pageant broadcast she didn't even mention religion, just a belief -- and she was immediately the newest whipping girl for the gay marriage crowd. It goes without saying how intolerant this crowd is of a dissenting opinion -- unless of course it comes from Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, etc, etc. who are all in favor of keeping traditional marriage. Maybe it's repressed feelings against those they have to adore that they save up to cast upon those they oppose.

But Prejean isn't the only one. The San Francisco Chronicle published a list of Prop 8 supporters and the witch hunt began in earnest. A woman who is a big supporter of the gay community in a S.F. neighborhood -- who even delivered meals to AIDS sufferers -- also happened to support traditional marriage. A crowd protested outside the restaurant she worked at, and she had to quit to keep the establishment from going out of business.

Maureen Mullarkey, an artist in New York, chronicled her experience -- the barrage of angry emails and unflattering news stories -- in an article for The Weekly Standard. Her account is mind-boggling. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000%5C000%5C016%5C252zsbwa.asp?pg=2 There are many more tales like these.

I just don't get it. The left is all about not judging people and not hating and there is room at the table for everyone, and every opinion is valid, every lifestyle is valid. Unless it's one that disagrees with certain hot-button issues: traditional marriage, choosing life, and school choice most prominently. Suddenly -- simply because an opposing opinion may be based on a religious belief -- it's worthless and unreasoned.

Funny -- when religious organizations open soup kitchens and shelters for the homeless, or when they build homes for the poor -- it is based on a religious belief. Are those actions and thoughts invalid? Are they attacked by the left as "imposing morality"? Of course not. Because they agree with those positions.

Sure there are those who support traditional marriage who are guilty of their own hateful words -- attacking the homosexual community, instead of staying on point about this single subject. That is just as bad. And I know it's not every one who wants gay marriage who are perpetrating these attacks, but it seems to be more prevalent and has gone mainstream enough to the point that Hollywood stars are speaking out (and even making videos mocking their opponents) and cable news anchors are calling Prejean -- and others  like her -- very harsh names.

If marriage for all is so right, it will prevail. If itis not wanted, bullying those opposed will lead to a backlash by those on the fence. I'm starting to think I'm one of those who will come down in favor of traditional marriage -- because I'm really tired of gay marriage being forced upon those who don't believe in it by activist judges who are having their arms twisted by thugs.

What has happened to civil discourse? What has happened to true debate? What has happened to the democratic process? Sadly it seems it has been lost somewhere in the midst of a torch-bearing mob.

So Miss CA may have presented an excuse for her title to be stripped. And if that happens, the spiteful will dance with delight and spout that it's a comeuppance. But Carrie Prejean will remain the thoughtful woman who stood up for what she believed and will continue to inspire -- even with a few naughty photos and fake cleavage on her record.

It's ideals that matter -- not packages.

Sorry Perez -- Miss CA's Answer Improved her Chances

Perez Hilton, and Miss California Carrie Prejean herself, have said that her answer to his question cost her the crown. Though Carrie has said that she wouldn't change a thing and she would choose her faith over a title any day, I think she can rest assured that her response actually did not lead to a loss. In fact I think it moved her up in the standings to second place.

Let's look at the numbers. After the swimsuit and evening gown competitions, the standings were:

Miss North Carolina   18.668

Miss Arizona                18.381

Miss California            18.308

Miss Kentucky             18.010

Miss Utah                     17.700

Now, it's my understanding that the way that the final decision is made is that the judges assign a rank for the five finalists. The girl with the top ranking takes the crown.

The final question can make a real difference, as it did one year, back when the final three contestants were all asked the same question. (Abandoned because...? they got tired of the repetition? they didn't want to pay for the sound-proof booth anymore? who knows...) It was after Miss Universe had caused a stir for gaining weight. The Miss USA finalists were asked if she should have lost the weight.

The young woman who was far in the lead answered first and said she should have lost the weight. A non-answer from the second contestant was followed by a knock-out punch by Miss Hawaii who immediately started shaking her head and said that the woman was chosen for who she was and that was what was important. The audience roared. The first contestant went from top position to third, and Miss Hawaii was crowned the winner.

But for the most part, there is little change in the final results without a real stand-out answer like that, or a real clunker of a response. I think the judges look at their old scores and pretty much hold those positions. 

Let's see what each of the other contestants were asked this year:

Miss NC was asked about bailout money. She said that she didn't think companies should be getting so much... and not much else. Not really anything worth noting, and therefore no change in the judges opinion of her.

Miss AZ was asked about universal health care. What's interesting here, is that her answer was like what Hilton suggested for Miss CA. A non-answer where she didn't offend anyone. But I think the judges felt that Miss AZ should have said that yes, health care should be a right, and so her response hurt her.

Miss KY took a chance in saying that she would have spoken up about the Chris Brown-Rihanna situation. I think this hurt her, as she went against what celebrities believe -- you don't criticize or judge another celebrity. 

Miss UT said Hillary Clinton did the right thing in recommending millions for elections in Afghanistan. Like Miss NC, it was an innocuous answer that didn't hurt her.

Miss NC was so far ahead, I really don't think that she could have been caught by anyone, barring a lights-out let's-all-go-home answer. Miss AZ had a small lead over Miss CA, yet Carrie and her convictions leapt past Miss AZ and her politically-correct, offend-no-one answer. Similarly,  Miss UT (innocuous answer) passed Miss KY (unfavorable answer).

Hmmm. So Hilton thinks MIss CA's answer cost her the crown. I've heard one other judge who declared that she is in support of gay marriage and agreed. But the judges scores are secret, so we'll never know for sure -- but the proof is in the numbers: Miss CA moved up in the standings. Maybe Mr. Hilton is a bit wrong in assessing what those in Hollywood think about certain hot topics.

Bottom line -- I don't think a PC, non-offensive answer would have given Miss CA the crown. But she would have compromised her integrity. I think Carrie Prejean made the right choice and will be remembered -- and make more of an impact in the world -- than this year's winner, or any other prior Miss USA.

She stayed true to her faith and her principles. That's a winner in my book.

 

Farewell to E.R. -- I Loved/Hated You

E.R. will always hold a special place in my heart. The biggest reason I feel such nostalgia for the show is that it started right before I got married. I associate its debut with my impending nuptials and beginning a new life with my husband and daughter. Six more kids, three moves, two housing purchases, and many other twists and turns in our lives later -- E.R. was still there. Until tonight.

Over the years, my husband lost interest, but would sit down to watch once in a while. Though my interest vacillated -- waning with the departure of Clooney, waxing with the arrival of Visnjic -- I seldom missed seeing a new episode on the night it aired. I'm pretty sure I have seen every single one.

There was so much to love about the show. The characters drew you in, the medicine was authentic and the dilemmas were topical. The show tackled everything from the potentially lethal dangers of forgoing immunizations to the role that health care providers play in abuse intervention. There was plenty of fun, romance and drama to bring me back each week.

Of course, there were a lot of times I wanted to throw a brick through the screen -- usually because of the obvious pro-abortion stance of the show. While an early episode showed Nurse Carol -- after Dr. Ross dismissed a girl's hesitation to abort -- taking the time to talk to her and eventually bringing in the girl's mother to facilitate a life-affirming choice -- more often than not, the pro-life perspective was antagonized.

Those who championed life -- who suggested better solutions than abortion -- were presented as religious zealots, control freaks or unsympathetic neanderthals.

Sure, Carol also yelled at a woman who tricked the staff into performing a free ultrasound so she could then abort the girl she didn't want. And another time a doctor fought through a couple's fear to do right by both of her patients -- the mother and her unborn child -- and told them with patience both would be alright and there was no need to abort. But for every one of these rare instances, there were myriad pro-abortion story arcs.

In an episode where an abortion clinic was bombed (eye-roll!), the few positive pro-life messages were drowned out by the pro-abortion cacophony. A scene had Dr. Weaver proclaiming the atrocious conditions she witnessed in Africa convinced her that "choice" was the answer. (Funny, I would have  dedicated myself to improving those conditions, not destroying the children as the remedy. Most Africans view every child as a precious gift, even those conceived as a result of an enemy's rape-as-warfare.)

Another night, a mom-of-many seemed overwhelmed by her brood and fainted from her latest pregnancy. Did the staff help her by finding some kind of parenting or childcare assistance? No, they declare -- after knowing and talking to them for all of a few minutes -- that the husband was "controlling" and that the woman really wanted an abortion. So she was secretly aborted against her husband's wishes. Infuriating.

I considered boycotting more than once. I did when House had the good doctor convince a woman -- bearing a child conceived by rape -- that her child didn't deserve to live and that she shouldn't punish herself by carrying him. She aborted. I stopped watching in protest. The following season, I happened to see when Dr. House performed surgery on a a pre-born and the tiny hand reached out and grasped his finger. The cynical surgeon was deeply moved and showed signs of reconsidering his viewpoint. Almost all was forgiven and I started watching again.

But as for E.R. -- I would still tune in the following week, and they would expose the latest medical danger or highlight the latest technology or procedure -- educating their audience in a way no brochure or PSA ever could. And I was in love again, and would keep tuning in.

But tonight the love/hate affair ends, and I have mixed feelings. I'm fairly certain no show will ever captivate me in quite the same way again. Or have as much a connection to my family life. But in a way, it's alright that it's ending. My marriage happily endures -- and so will E.R. in the land of reruns. And overall, the world is a slightly better place because of both of them.

Thanks for the memories.

Hey, have you heard the latest Britney song? Me neither...

[Here's the writer's paradox for the day -- do you still write a post that made you think "Hey, here's a clever way to show how UN-clever writing naughty lyrics is"? Are you stooping to their level or are you making a point? I'm afraid it's the former, but in the interest of the latter, I'll go ahead and post it...]

Ok I heard about Britney's new song, because apparently *gasp* it's stirred up some controversy! Yep, just like Madonna, http://www.lovehateoprah.com/lovehateoprah/2008/08/desperately-seeking-soupcon-of-relevance.html , La Brit has grabbed her crotch harder and expects us to pay her some attention.

Well, I'm on board that parents have to be aware of what's out there, and so here's the warning: Her latest song's title has a spelled-out double entendre. It's called "If You Seek Amy." Get it? Ooooh, isn't that clever, naughty, edgy -- whatever it is that seems to appeal to her fans.

(And just who are her fans these days? The likes of this guy?)

Seriously, is this supposed to be worth more than a yawn and an eye roll? I mean, come on kids -- your great-grandmothers blushed at songs about "hot dogs for their rolls" and your grandfathers crouched around "Louie, Louie" trying to figure out the lyrics. Your parents danced to "Superfreak" and just a couple years ago you were sniggering about "This Love" by Maroon Five. We all get it. You have not stumbled upon anything new.

So Britney's songwriter can take a four-letter word and a pronoun and turn it into a lewd homophonic sentence. That's hardly cutting edge or clever.

It took this stay-at-home mom of 7 about two minutes to come up with the follow-up hit while cleaning her kitchen. It's a song about all the fuss the paparazzi make when Britney goes to a restaurant. The chorus includes the line:

"They want to take pictures of me eating. See, oh see, chaos."

Get it? Yawn. Eye roll. Nothing clever or edgy about that -- just base, childish sex-think.

So be aware parents. But you might want to try my approach. Simply steer your kids clear, and pay Britney no mind. Nothing to see -- or hear -- here. Move along.

Kids' Choice Awards Need Parental Guidance

Chris Brown (or his representatives) finally realized that the proper (or more business-savvy) move was to withdraw his name from the list of nominees for two Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards. (There are now two big blank spaces on the "ballot.") It spares a potentially very awkward moment on the broadcast since he was probably in contention, having won last year. Nickelodeon had refused to remove him, saying that kids chose him as a nominee months ago. They proclaimed that they didn't want to interfere with the process.

Uh huh. Because you know, the choice of these awards is sacrosanct in our nation. Or not. Because it turns out that the kids only sorta picked the nominees.

The actual process goes something like this: Nickelodeon employs a pollster, which polls kids and comes up with a national sample. (Just how old these kids are, and whether or not they are given suggestions for possible nominees, I was not able to determine. Nickelodeon understandably wouldn't give details to a mere blogger.) Then Nickelodeon decides which are the final four nominees based on the sample.  

"The kids who vote will ultimately decide who wins in the category," Nickelodeon has said. But of course, since voting is done at their website, anyone who can log on and click buttons will be able to vote. Thought balloon: interns across the nation directed to sit at a computer all day and cast votes for their employers' nominated clients.

This process is dubious enough since Nick can then favor their own shows and stars, but there is another questionable aspect for a network that is geared for ages 6-14 and rarely has an episode of any show that goes above the TV-G rating. In what I can only guess is an attempt to be appear in the vanguard, Nick (a part of MTV's sphere, owned by Viacom) has chosen many questionable nominations over the years -- namely tv shows, movies, or actors whose only movies that year, that were rated as inappropriate for preteens. But this year they have really raised the stakes.

I guess the network feels they have to do something to bring in the dollars, I mean the viewers. While poking around the internet for info, I saw many a message board with arguments as to whether or not the KCAs were worth watching, and there were many who thought they were "lame" but others who proclaimed them as "edgy" -- now the thought balloon has Nick interns trolling sites to post these accolades.

So I sat down to check out the list of nominees with my 10-year-old daughter. I was really not happy with what we saw. There are more than a dozen nominees in over half the categories that raise an eyebrow in my book.

Starting with tv noms -- there's Jason Lee on My Name is Earl. A funny show I hear, but not for kids. Lots of sex and inappropriate language. (e.g. In one episode, a character said she wants to "do it on a pinball table like Jodie Foster did in 'that porno.' " Not exactly for the grade-school crowd.) And America Ferrara in Ugly Betty -- a show that's also definitely not for kids.

And, come on, America's Next Top Model?! With bad enough language left in and all kinds of bleeping, as well as the sexy photo shoots... What kids are watching that show? But I guess it's heartening that the likes of Gossip Girl or Family Guy did not pop up.

I wasn't thrilled to see the Twilight book series nominated, as it's really for tweenagers and up -- but I can look past that one. Same for Michael Phelps -- my kids did not see the dopey pictures, miraculously -- plus, he was penitent -- so he still has a thumbs up in our house. (Oh and let me mention that my girl, Candace Parker, ( http://www.lovehateoprah.com/lovehateoprah/2009/02/parkers-priorities.html ) is a nominee, so we gladly cast a vote for her.)

On to the movies and there's Iron Man and The Dark Knight, both rated PG-13. (Can't believe the latter is not rated R -- I loved it, but no way is my 14-year-old seeing that film anytime soon.) For acting there's Will Smith in Hancock, Jim Carrey in Yes Man, Anne Hathaway in Get Smart and Reese Witherspoon in Four Christmases. All rated PG-13. Thank goodness Adam Sandler and Jennifer Aniston both appeared in kid-friendly movies this year. Maybe more innocent heads will prevail and they'll win.

In music, in addition to Brown, there is Linkin Park whose albums are listed, at best, for 13-year-olds. And T-Pain? His two most recent albums are listed as explicitly not for kids of any age as they have racist language and a "let me get you drunk so we can get it on" misogyny.

But wait! There's more! The gyrating hoochie mamas known as The Pussycat Dollsare nominated. Just run over to YouTube and check out any one of their videos and tell me if you want your 10-year-old watching women dressed like that, prancing around like that. And while you're there you can check out the video for the most egregious nomination: "I Kissed a Girl" by Katy Perry for best song.

O...M...G...!

I think not only is this nomination objectionable because of that song's content, but there are so many other choices that Nick could have made -- especially in a song category. With a gazillion possibilities they choose a song that has no place on the iPod of kids. Why not Perry's "Hot 'n' Cold"? Or even Pink's "So What?" Or Lady Gaga's "Just Dance"?

But no, starting fights or getting drunk on the dance floor isn't "edgy" enough -- gotta push that envelope if we want to make that money, er, uh I mean push kids into adulthood too fast, oh crap, I mean give kids a voice.

Suffice it to say, we will not be watching this telecast. I hope you'll tune out too.

Hopefully the squeaky-clean Jonas Brothers will defeat the hypersexual Pussycat Dolls.

Penn is not Mightier

Yeah, so Kate Winslet won. Oh well. Hugh Jackman did a really good job, and for the most part I enjoyed the show.

Then Sean Penn had to open his big mouth.

I have expressed ambiguity about gay marriage. First I do not think it's an equal rights issue. It's about what we as a society will decide what marriage is. And people are allowed to have differing opinions about this, and that doesn't make them bad people either way.

But for Penn to say, "I think that it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect and anticipate their great shame and the shame in their grandchildren’s eyes if they continue that way of support” is ridiculous.

First, don't preach to anyone about shame when you forget to thank your own wife during your several minutes on stage.

Second, reflect on this, Sean: Telling people they should be ashamed of their religious beliefs seems intolerant and judgmental on your part -- and we know that's the worst of sins in your world.

Sorry, Kate -- I'm Rooting for You to Lose

Don't get me wrong -- I really like Kate Winslet, despite her propensity for full frontal nudity. She is a superb actress who can tackle any role handed to her. And it does seem a shame that she has thus far been ignored by the Academy.

I was rooting for her to win, until I heard specifics about her role in The Reader. Now, I'm hoping that Meryl Streep walks out with her third statuette. Streep hasn't won for 25 years -- even though you just know that she has acted rings around every one of the winners during that time -- and two previous wins should not continue to penalize her.

[I have to admit I haven't seen any of contending movies, other than The Dark Knight. There is no award that I will cheer about, other than the sure win of Heath Ledger. There will be no happy surprise that thrills me like last year's winner for Best Song, Falling Slowly.]

When I first heard that Winslet was playing a former Nazi, I assumed it was a character that was wrongly being held accountable for actions she unwittingly performed. But no, she's an unrepentant, willing participant. Oh, wait -- she can't read. That forgives everything. It's a parable about what can happen to people when they aren't enlightened with the ability to read.

Yes, illiteracy is a terrible thing. And a lack of education can lead to a life of violence. But we all know right from wrong. Just because one can't read, doesn't excuse locking 300 people in a burning building.

Or having an affair with a 15-year-old! Where is the outrage here? Just because boys of that age are horn-dogs and seem okay in a relationship with a much older woman, doesn't make it right. The only "issue" about it in the movie is that the young man is left heart-broken when his pedophilic girlfriend leaves without telling him goodbye.

But we're supposed to ignore all that and feel great that Ms. Winslet is winning awards left and right. A Holocaust scholar has actually campaigned against rewarding this performance with an Oscar. I hope he reached enough voters, and they chose not to give it to Winslet anyway just because "it's her turn." For certainly, she'll have a future worthy performance.

Because it's not a complex character Winslet has portrayed, it's a contemptible one. If Kate wins, I won't be cheering. I'll be shaking my head that this win was tainted.

Not your Grammy's Grammys

Remember when you could watch the Grammys and the biggest outrage was when Lionel Richie's Can't Slow down beat Purple Rain and Born in the U.S.A. for album of the year?

Alright, my complaints are actually few this year -- I won't argue how boring it was for Alison Kraus and Robert Plant to win so many awards. That kind of thing happens a lot.

But how about the language Mr. McPherson? Personally I like you and think you're funny, but this is sort of a family show so... I have to admit I was surprised when they cut to a shot of a mom in the audience covering her young daughter's ears.

And while The Jonas Brothers and Miley Cyrus and Taylor Swift were squeaky clean, and at least two of those acts showed some talent and were entertaining, why does a show like this have to have I Kissed a Girl performed as young women gyrated in front of each other? Made for an uncomfortable moment with my young teen:

"But Mom, it's a cool song!"  "Do you know what it's saying?"  "Um, not all of it... it just sounds cool."

I'm clinging to the belief that she really does think it's an innocent ditty with a cool beat whose lyrics she has not really heard that thoroughly and thinks is about an equivalent-to-an-air-kiss. *sigh*

But there were three great "Mom Moments" -- Jennifer Hudson acknowledging her mom up in heaven was heart-breaking.

Later, a country singer, Jennifer Nettles, said this in her acceptance speech: "To my mama, she's here tonight, she carted me around to every wedding and funeral, she's my date, she's beautiful!"

And M.I.A. -- performing on her due date alongside four men -- (we'll ignore she's not married yet since you couldn't tell that just by looking at her) -- showed that a very pregnant woman can be beautiful and stylish and can really work it!

 

 

 

Award Season is Now Open Season

Back in 1978 I didn't understand the controversy surrounding Vanessa Redgrave's acceptance speech at the Oscars -- and Paddy Chayevsky's admonishment later in the telecast. I understood the flak in 1993 when Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon ignored the script and made a plea for the people of Haiti. More people agreed with them but, just as in the former case, there was a consensus that the Academy Awards -- that award shows in general -- were not the place for political statements.

Sometimes folks were a bit more indirect. When Holly Hunter accepted an Emmy in 1990 for her role in the tv movie Roe v. Wade, she said she wanted to acknowledge people who stood up for what they believed in. (Really Holly? Like the Ku Klux Klan or Timothy McVeigh? Didn't you mean people who stand up for what you believe in?) Since she won for a role directly related, she wasn't taken to task.

But for the past few years now it has been creeping in little by little, getting more and more overt and now it's open season at award shows.

Whereas in 2004 Sean Penn made a vague reference to there being no WMDs, he accepted his SAG award last night making no apologies for his particular views. He and Tom Hanks are entitled to their opinions, but attacking those who disagree at the podium or on the red carpet has no place.

But tell that to Dana Delaney or Eva Longoria who seem to think that 1.2 million abortions per year in this country isn't enough -- we need more and we need to provide them beyond our shores as well. Don't be shy ladies, don't feel like you have to use veiled euphemisms. Tell us who you're wearing, and tell us how much money Planned Parenthood International should get.

But it's not just the stars shooting off their mouths: The SAG ceremony had a montage of "trailblazers" -- oh, how nice, I thought as they showed Lucille Ball and Gene Kelly -- oh wait, it's about those who broke the color barrier in Hollywood, ok that's cool -- but oh wait, now they have to throw in the scene from Maude where she decides to abort her baby.

Blazing a trail indeed. Just like Dr. Kevorkian.

Even though all is right with the world now that Obama is president, it apparently isn't enough. If anything, sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome have become emboldened, also coming down with Palin Derangement Syndrome and all kinds of other maladies that find them spewing political statements left and right. Everyone has an opinion and they're not afraid to tell it.

Come on folks. I want to see the pretty dresses. I want to hear about the exotic locations and the funny backstage stories. If I have to listen to a thank-you laundry list of everyone from your lawyer to your acting coach to your landscaper -- fine.

Just leave politics out of it.