Yeah. Thanks For That.

To the two elderly couples this morning at McDonalds: Your conversation about the logistics of gender reassignment surgery really helped my appetite. Okay, okay, it was McDonald's after all. . . . maybe the food is what affected my appetite. Though your mention of the word "foreskin" probably didn't help.

Didn't Clear My Head

I went skiing with Tabula Rasa yesterday. It was a perfectly wonderful day, but then this morning the headline in three papers is the individual mandate to buy health insurance looks to be in serious jeopardy. Even the most perfect days can only last 24 hours.

My thoughts have been a little heavy this morning. I sent the following message to Mike, an attorney, to try and make a little more sense of things. Maybe you have some opinions too:


I have wondered for some time now if the everyone-buy-insurance thing would undermine this health care law. I am not sure that it sits all that well with me, however much it seems the only way forward. What I am wondering is, if the affordable care act clause about universal purchasing is struck down, how will this affect the Massachusetts law? Isn't the provision there nearly identical? in a New Yorker article from last June, the author found this statement from somebody close to Romney at the time they were debating the Massachusettes legislation:

According to Murphy, Lischko, and Gruber, Romney believed that the logic in favor of a mandate was impeccable. Federal law requires emergency rooms to treat patients regardless of their ability to pay. “This is not Calcutta,” Murphy said. “We don’t let people go and die in the street. And then the question is, Who bears that cost? Those costs get paid by increased premiums for the people who do buy insurance, or they get paid for through socialized costs and claim our tax revenues and come at the expense of other things that people might want to do, like building roads and bridges. And in the Republican Party that I grew up in—go back to the welfare debate, it’s about personal responsibility—that seems pretty reasonable.”

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/06/06/110606fa_fact_lizza#ixzz1qR5Iky17

In other words, requiring health insurance demonstrates more personal responsibility (making it more Republican) than eventually and effectively becoming a ward of the state anyway.

The whole article is wonderful. It made me hope that the Constitutionality might not be such an issue, but now the whole thing appears to be hanging by a thread. 

Also, if the personal mandate provision is struck down, the next step is to rule on whether or not the rest of the law can stand without it. I think there is one possibility. Another provision in the law requires that insurance companies spent 80% on health care. I read a commentary that said the provision will basically drive the for-profit groups out of business, leading to overall cheaper health care, allowing more and more people to buy it. This editorialist (democrat) was hopeful that it was a first step toward universal health care. . . . and I say not unless Obama gets a chance to replace another justice or two.

And one last thing. Rick Perry's campaign had an idea to amend the Constitution to allow each sitting president to replace a Justice every 2 years. The oldest justice would retire. This would mean that each Justice could only serve 18 years and have less long term effect on the court. It would also mean that the make up of the Court would shift, but not too rapidly and lag behind the political process by a few years. It would make the appointment process less contentious, and probably allow presidents to appoint justices with a little more time on the bench. No doubt you've noticed that appointees keep getting younger and younger so they can have influence longer and longer. Anyway, I just wanted your take on the idea.

Experience the Divine

Today was just a lovely day. Start to finish. Busy, but interspersed with moments of delightful peace. Late in 2010, a few months of remarkable missionary work led some wonderful people to join the Church. The first, a single sister, who later married her member boyfriend, is now getting ready to go to the temple and will be sealed to her husband in June. I'll be going to Salt Lake for the sealing. They came over tonight for dinner and we worked through a couple of lessons in the temple prep manual. The others who joined the Church in 2010 were a remarkable family. They also hit an important milestone today of which Plantboy was blessed to play an important role. Today was just what Sunday should be.

And I made this for dinner. You should make it this week. Really, you should.

Bacon and Blue Cheese Wedge Salad

Iceberg lettuce
Bacon
Blue Cheese Dressing
Blue Cheese crumbles 
Thinly sliced Red Onion
Pepper

Wash and quarter your lettuce. It will seem like a lot, but trust me, it is hard to stop eating once you stop. Quarters it is.

I used half a package of bacon when I made mine. For ease in crumbling and cooking, don't separate the bacon, but cut the slices into 1/2 inch strips and throw them all into pan on medium heat. Use a spatula to stir the bacon often. It will cook beautifully. Drain onto paper towels and let it cool.

I purchased a good quality blue cheese dressing, and it was really thick. I wanted more drizzling than scooping consistency, so I mixed in a couple of teaspoons of milk.

Drizzle the dressing on the wedges. Sprinkle with onions, cheese crumbles and bacon. Liberally add fresh cracked pepper on the top.

Let's just say that bacon and blue cheese are pretty much the match made in Heaven. The above picture isn't mine, but my result was similar. I did not use tomato because they are so horrible this time of year. Late in the summer, when the cherry tomatoes start coming out our ears in the back yard, I would definitely add them. Other on-line recipes used variations with green onions, purple cabbage and cucumbers.

But really, just admit it, it's all about the bacon.

Help Me Understand

I know politicians speak in hyperbole to make points.
I know that most people would rather hear sound byte moments than policy details.
I know that when attacks on politicians turn personal then all meaningful discussion degrades.


But I need a little bit of help here. If any of my Republican friends can help me understand then please, please explain some things to me in a way that make sense of some things I've heard this week. I will try to listen without contradicting or arguing. Really. 

Some weeks back, Mitt Romney spoke about not being concerned about the poor because (an important because often left off for how valuable the quote preceding his explanation was seen by the left) there was a safety net in place. By that safety net, I'm assuming he meant welfare assistance, medicaid, medicare (?), unemployment benefits, etc. On the other hand, he pointed out, he wasn't concerned about the very rich either, they were doing just fine. His greatest focus was going to be the middle class. I had the impression, from that, that he was interested in preserving the status quo for the rich and the poor.

I think many people from the middle of the political spectrum can get behind that idea. Disagreements arise, of course, from the best policy for helping the middle class. Jobs, of course, are the current main concern. This is where a healthy and robust and factual debate can be held about the best way to do this.

Instead, the Republicans yesterday released their long term budget plan. It is basically the same idea they keep presenting . . . an idea that even the Congressional Budget Office says will do nothing to actually reduce the deficit in the long run. This plan further cuts taxes for the wealthiest Americans (already historically low and not helping create jobs). It makes drastic cuts to social programs. Most economists claim there will be no benefit to the middle class. 

So if this is the party for which Mr. Romney declares himself the best leader, why doesn't his rhetoric match the policy? Or does it, and he just isn't playing straight with us? Does he mean the poor are more than fine and should be cut off? Does he mean that the best way to help the middle class is through the favorite rich-man notion of trickle down economics? If the rich get richer eventually there will be jobs for the middle class? If that is really what the policy will be under a Romney government, then he needs to tell it like it is. Or does he recognize that his own philosophy is so difficult to swallow for people of ordinary means that he is keeping it on the down low?

Second point.

In last night's self-congratulatory speech politicians love to give, he leapfrogged straight over Rick Santorum to Barack Obama boldly declaring that it was time to take our freedom back.

Huh?

Can somebody help me understand (I asked the same question multiple times during the interim election) what on earth he is talking about? How has Mr. Romney's freedom in any way been curtailed in the last three years? As near as I can tell he makes several tens of thousands of dollars a day for doing nothing more than running for president. This money is taxed at a shockingly low rate. He owns multiple, beautiful homes and flies about in a private airplane. He is free to worship as he wishes. Say or print whatever true or untrue thing he wishes about the current administration. Carry a gun if he wants (because, remember, the only thing we've ever heard from Obama on gun rights is that the Supreme Court was right to overturn Washington D.C.'s restrictive gun law). Unless the government has forced him to quarter soldiers in his house . . . I am not sure which freedoms he has lost.

Unless of course he is referring to the stipulation in the Federal Health Care Plan, which hasn't actually been enacted yet, that he be required to buy health insurance. But wait. Mr. Romney already lives in a state that requires him to buy health insurance. By law. A law he signed. A decision over which he agonized for many weeks himself . . . and in the end decided that overriding public interest in this case superseded the individual right. (That bill might be one of the finest and most courageous bits of legislation ever signed by a governor, and if he was running on a states rights platform as opposed to repealing, then he wouldn't even have to face the question of how "Romneycare" is appreciably different from "Obamacare." It isn't--he needs to re-frame the issue entirely.)

So, if it isn't his own freedom that is being curtailed then what does he mean by "our?" More like how somebody says "we lost" when talking about a favorite team's defeat? In other words, Mr. Romney has as much freedom as ever, but those he is attempting to represent have had freedoms removed and he is trying to show solidarity? Okay. But again, what freedoms? If he is talking about the health care thing again then that seems pretty disingenuous--after all, again, he lives in a state where health care will never be a problem. For many Americans, gaining access to health care will mean MORE freedom, not less. If he is talking about something else then what is it? Freedom from a federal deficit? A reasonable point, but only the democratic plan put forward for budget reduction lines up with the bipartisan committee's recommendation for budget reduction. Is he talking about jobs? Only the democrats put together a jobs bill in the last few years. Which his party refused to even compromise on.

A third quote from Mr. Romney, however, is the one that is the hardest for me to reconcile with the other two. At a student rally in Illinois, a young woman raised her hand and insisted that she wasn't talking about birth control but, "you have said you want to defund Planned Parenthood. If so, where will poor women go for mammograms and pap smears?" His reply, "They can go wherever they want. It is a free country. But I don't see any reason these people have to pay for it." Huge cheers.

So wait . . . it is a free country now? But only if you are poor? Does he not understand that if they had ANYWHERE ELSE TO GO they would not be at Planned Parenthood in the first place? That funding birth control for poor women saves the governments tens of millions of dollars in the long run? If he is pushing for policies that seek to get rid of the safety net for the poor, then what of his earlier statement about the poor doing just fine? Is it really then, that the stolen sound byte is the truth? That he just doesn't care about the poor? Poor women in particular?

Okay. My logic has probably strayed too far. I know that somebody will read this hear and imply that I'm getting personal. That Mr. Romney personally cares for the poor--he has a track record of donation and ecclesiastical service. That may very well be true, I don't know the man. So help me to see how the policies he is advocating show compassion and concern for his fellow countrymen. All of them.

Whackadoodle Sunday

Between the most overtly political talk I've ever heard in Church (can you guess which party he advocated for in his talk about self-reliance?) and the singing "If You Could Hie to Kolob" during the rest hymn, I can't help but understand why people think we are a little . . . . um . . . . out there.

Then the last speaker spoke about his mother's conversion. Generous to a fault, his mother ended up feeding the Mormon elders one Friday night. They left her a copy of the Book of Mormon. Being a curious and voracious reader she finished it by Saturday afternoon. She was baptized on Sunday and has never, in thirty years, looked back once. He shared scripture after scripture from the Book of Mormon and bore his own powerful testimony. I felt the Spirit. I thought of my own many and remarkable encounters with the Book of Mormon, and I remembered why I love this Church so much.

But I still might have to say something to somebody about that shocking talk . . .

Living in 1993 This Week

I had this great, angry post all prepared in my head this morning about birth control, but I've gotten all dressed up in my red and black and my furor has ebbed.

I think that is probably a sentence that requires some explanation. Through the 80's and early 90's, there was a principal in the community in which I grew up that became the center of life at our high school. As it was a fairly small community--smaller than than it is now--the high school was the center of the community. Needless to say, that this remarkable man and his lovely wife were, by extension, a very important part of my high school years and our little hamlet. In a small town, people end up infiltrating your lives in unexpected ways. The wife was my parents' loan officer. And though she must have been the same for hundreds of people she never forget to say hello and remember everyone's name. Her husband was our principal, but he also was the man who taught my older brother much of his love for the outdoors, and maybe even took him ice fishing a time or two. Even years later, before his health declined so terribly, when I would go home to visit, I would see him at community functions--a parade, a wrestling match, a fair. He always said hello. He always remembered names.

A couple of favorite memories. One more personal, the other less so:

His first love was biology; he had the degrees to show it also. He would sometimes show up in my AP Biology class and after he sat and listened for a while, he would just start booming out questions from the back of the room. We never knew enough to keep up with him. A couple of times he even took over our teacher's lectures (it was all done in a very friendly spirit) and he was remarkable. He would take a glance at where we were at in the textbook and just start talking . . . never missing a beat. We loved and respected him. We wanted so badly to please him. There was a personal congratulation when I passed that AP test with flying colors. It became one of the first important markers in a rather stacked high school resume. When I was a senior, he gladly wrote a letter of recommendation as I advanced in a very competitive scholarship offering. I knew, without a doubt, that he had my back.

At every assembly or pep rally he would stand up and talk. You could hear a pin drop for the respect nearly every kid gave his booming voice and bulky presence. There were 1000 of us. He would talk about what it meant to be a Warrior. He talked about pride and respect and achievement. No honor or achievement or win was too small to celebrate. He created a culture of celebration in each others' accomplishments. At the end of each speech the tension and power in his voice would build and then he would say, "I just have one question for you . . . ." there would be a long pause and the potential energy around you would crackle in the air as we waited . . . waited . . . for the question we were exploding to answer. "How does it feel to be a warrior???!!!" And we would go crazy loco.  Because, after he spoke, there was no question about how good it felt.

So much past tense today is not just about the fact that so much of this happened long ago. It is because this wonderful, caring man passed away this week after many years of health struggles. He may not have been known outside our small community, but he held a generation of kids together. He was an educator first and foremost--a man of modest means and simple tastes--but the real wealth he spread will have effects for generations yet to come. He is on a short list of people who inspired me to become a teacher. It is one inspiration out of hundreds and hundreds. What did we become because we knew this man? Volumes could be written.

I hardly ever wear red and black together; they were my high school colors and after wearing hardly anything else several days a week from 91-93, it is still "too high school" for my taste. But today I'm decked out. I left the letter sweater in the box, though I think if I was still in my hometown today I would have had to wear it. And it must be admitted, I still bleed red and black. Because, Mr. H., it still feels pretty darn good to be a Warrior.

It's Not a Train This Time

Sometimes all the right things just come together at the right time. Prayers you didn't even know you were still praying are answered. You know the kind I mean . . . . the ones that become such a part of you they are like a mantra. . . . until you've forgotten what you were even praying for in the plea to just make it through one more day.

Some of those good things have happened this spring. And for the first time in my married life, I'm being able to legitimately look at taking a year off employment. Don't get me wrong, I will still be plenty busy, but what I won't have is this nagging tiredness that never quite leaves. The ache deep in my hips from jumping out of my car more than seventy times every morning. The edginess I sometimes nearly have to bite through my tongue to swallow. The feeling of being spread so thin that you are sure people can see right through that facade of everything being okay.  The inability to write because my eyes won't stay open long enough to accomplish anything beyond the homework. I don't even know what to say anymore when people ask how I'm doing. Because the truth is that I'm not doing that well. I'm also fully aware that most everything that keeps me burning at both ends and in the middle is entirely of my own choosing. So what can I say? "I'm fine. Everything's fine. We are all good. Things are good. Doing great." Until that hollow reassurance becomes a new kind of mantra to try and kid myself.

But now there is a real light at the end of the tunnel. It feels a little too good to be true now, and there are still some "ifs," and it will be July before I really know for sure . . . . but maybe, just maybe, I will get that year "off." That year I have wanted so many times in the last, well, a long, long time. A year to regain my center and decide how to move forward into the next phase. A year to live and not just survive. Please Father. Help me to make it through one more day. And then a week. A month. Four months. Just four more months.

Mother Teresa I Am Not

Sometimes the needs of those you love are just overwhelming, you know? I have plenty of friends that have all their kids in school and have chosen not to work full or part time. I used to wonder how they kept themselves busy. But as my own brood gets older and I find myself on the threshold of that next phase, I am beginning to understand. For the first time in ten years I'm not so wrapped up and occupied with the day to day minutiae of feeding, diapering, wiping, entertaining, etc. etc. and I'm able see beyond my four walls. There really is so much need. Volunteers in the schools. Sisters and friends in my ward. Always more to be done for my calling. I know that I will be one that does go back to work . . . but I hope I don't forget the powerful lessons from this in between time too. I am gaining a deeper and deeper respect for those sisters who forgo the accolades and paychecks that come from the work force in exchange for a life of quiet service even once the needs of their children change.

Oscar on Speed

I put Oscar on DVR this year. I forgot that we get the Oscars in real time even here on the West Coast, so the show started at 5:30. I missed the first 15 minutes and lost the last 15 minutes. So I missed the most minor award (Best Best Boy in a Short Film) and the biggest (Best Movie of this or Any Other Year). When I checked the last award on-line, Plantboy heaved a huge sigh and said "We could have just checked on line instead of watching?" I informed him in my most haughty tone, which lasted all of about four seconds, that HE might have gone to bed any time he liked.

Let's get started, shall we?

Over all, this year's show was entertaining and more lacking in that self-important tone it has taken some years. (With the obvious exception, of course, being the lion's share of nominations and awards going to films saluting classic Hollywood and/or the film making process.) I credit the complete absence of Sean Penn for that pleasant turn of events. I won't soon forget the year he was nominated for some (one?) awards and Chris Rock was the host. Chris Rock, the ultimate outsider with his big-money-one-character acting chops and his well . . . blackness. (A recent survey of the "Academy" reports that it is mostly old, white men over 60. Clearly not Chris Rock's peeps.) He made a very funny joke at Jude Law's expense only to be soundly put down by Sean Penn when he finally got his turn to speak. It is clear that Mr. Penn thinks the center of the universe is himself . . . or at least him and about six cronies who happen to be in favor at the moment.

Already digressing? Sorry. NOW let's get started. 

Emma Stone was beyond adorable. I loved this dress, though the keyhole was a bit much. The cast of Wait . . . Wait . . . Don't Tell Me! does a very funny red carpet bit. They said that Ms. Stone was channeling a Lexus on Christmas, but I loved it. Her skit with Ben Stiller may have been the best moment of the whole night, particularly since Ben Stiller usually takes the cake the category in which he always presents. (Costume Design) Emma's snarky jokes about Stiller's past performances were just spot on, especially after he teased her. Also, who knew that Emma Stone was so tall? I didn't have that impression in The Help. Of course, she often was playing opposite Allison Janney or Viola Davis in flat shoes and a smart girl slouch.

It seems like after an "experimental year" (last year's brilliant use of Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin as hosts, for example) the Oscar ceremony always reverts to something really classic. The graphics and everything were very subdued and understated. This year's salute to classic Hollywood were these awful popcorn servers. They reminded me of the original playboy bunnies meets airline stewardesses. And do we honestly think that Angie ATE that popcorn in her Prada (or whatever) dress? Though, I have to admit. I wish she would. She is looking pretty skeletal.

See? And this dress made her look like she had a third leg. Or was it just the way she kept sticking it out there like that? At one point, Plantboy mentioned that the entire audience looked spray-tanned; like they showed up naked and just walked through a hose before wardrobe. He may have a point, but if so, then Ms. Jolie took a different entrance. Also . . . should we talk about Brad's hair. For example, why for the love of all that is good and holy is he wearing it like that? I saw him on John Stewart a few weeks ago and he kept slicking it behind his ears. Yuck. Just yuck. 

And while her screenplay might be brilliant . . . I won't ever know . . . do we really have to say "Academy Award nominee Kristen Wiig?"

And "Academy Award Nominee Kathy McCarthy?" Though maybe I can stomach the second better than the first. Her episode of Saturday Night Live might be one of the funniest I've ever seen. If you don't know what I'm talking about, enter "Ranch Dressing Skit" into Hulu. Make sure that you have used the bathroom first.

 I use the above two pictures to talk about clothes at the Awards. J.Lo and Cameron, clearly relishing their roles as the mermaid sex kittens gave the following quote, "A dress should be tight enough to show you are a woman, and loose enough to show you are a lady." I don't think J. Lo quite got past the word "loose." For that matter, neither did Sandra Bullock. And, in case you didn't pick it up, there are too very different definitions of "loose" going on there.

Plantboy lamented the stupid convention of keeping the microphone at Natalie Portman height, making everyone hunch over at the microphone. Then, when I see the (half drunk?) Ms. Diaz leaned over the microphone I think I understand the low height a little better.

Aren't some of the awards ridiculous? What IS the difference between Best Sound Editing and Best Sound Mixing, anyway? When Hugo won BOTH awards, given to different people, the exact same clip was used. I say pick up another acting award or two by separating dramas and comedies of giving character actor awards and consolidate some of these that nobody cares about anyway.

How does Will Farrell keep a straight face? Ever? This was nearly as good/better (?) than Emma Stone.

Glen Close. Really? Wikipedia says that she spent years working on getting this film made with multiple re-castings through the process. The end result was a much-lauded performance in a much maligned movie. In addition, Glen Close's old "man" character takes a love interest played by Mia Wasikowska. Who is 22, and brilliantly played Jane Eyre. Now that is just wrong.
 

The above picture is cute . . . Streep is super matchy with the background, daring people to choose somebody else less Oscar-y toned. Frenchy is so classic and debonair in his tux. His expressions, however, through the night, made me wonder just a little bit if he thinks film is STILL silent and that his face must always speak for him. His face here is saying, "I'm a handsome man." 

But if we are going to talk over-acting, perhaps Billy Crystal is the night's real winner. He seemed so stale . . . so 80's to me. I think his shtick gets old. And I think if I had to hear him laugh at one more of his own jokes I was going to lose it. His best bit was the "what-is-everybody-thinking" thing.  Maybe his ONLY good bit. Especially when he lampooned Nick Nolte. So worthy of lampooning. "Ughhgggughgh."

I'm sure this movie was a lot of fun to be in. At the very least, the cast of Bridesmaids presenting their awards did provide a bit of much needed comic relief. And tackiness. There was some of that too. "Scorsese!"

 
While it might be true that I won't be seeing Bridesmaids, or maybe even Hugo any time soon . . . I think that maybe I will need to see The Artist. It may be something I have to rent when Plantboy is out of town and watch it myself to appreciate it, but I have to admit to being highly intrigued. In addition, I think the actress in this movie is about the cutest thing I've ever seen. I like that this year's big award movies got more family friendly ratings than is typical.

Colin Firth and his wife looked lovely. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is another movie I wish hadn't gotten an R-rating. It should be noted that last year I posted about whether or not it was "okay" to see an R-rated movie. I stand by the post. (And King's Speech really was remarkable.) My point was that  movie should be judged on its merits. The on-line reviews of Tinker, Tailor, Solider, Spy point to a movie that is simply too rough for my taste. The balance of the great performances there won't make up for the pervasive violence in my book.*
  

 Did it seem that the French contingent did a lot of kissing? I guess that is what they do in France. Plantboy pointed out, however, that they didn't French kiss. Small favors. 

Now on to some dresses. Of Glenn Close, the Wait . . . Wait . . . Don't Tell Me! folks put it best. On the bottom is looks like a prom dress. On the top it looks like she just won the Masters. Really. Was this the best the fashion team could come up with? A forest green blazer over a mermaid dress?

Ah, Gwenyth.  Thou art the Queen. She was so elegant.  Her bit with Robert Downey Junior was classic; it made me think that they must have a lot of fun on the set of Iron Man. She strikes me as such a genuinely nice person. If you know for a fact that she is not, there is no need to tell me otherwise. I will happily keep this delusion.

Ah! Miss Klum. Didn't anybody tell you that the Oscars are meant to be classier than the Grammy awards? In all fairness, this picture did come from a viewing party instead of the Red Carpet. Still . . . so tacky. And what is going on with that hair?

Viola Davis was wearing a spectacularly lovely shade of green. Her bold earrings and dramatically short haircut made her impossible not to notice. Personally, I think she should have won. I think if Meryl Streep hadn't been upstaged by Sandra Bullock two years ago (she actually didn't get nominated last year), Viola Davis would have taken it. I like sweet Sandy in The Blind Side as much as anyone, but sassy Southern is way easier than Julia Child. The accent alone is nearly impossible to nail, let alone the odd mannerisms. In the clips I've seen from Iron Lady, Streep looks and sounds the part, but she also looks mechanical and stiff. Viola Davis, on the other hand, brought her character so vividly to life in The Help that I'm still wowed even after all these months. In the very first scene, Skeeter asks her how she feels about taking care of those white children while her own are at home being looked after by someone else. . . . the expression on her face as she gazes out that window, unsure what to say to Skeeter, even though she has a thousand things to say . . . well that scene right there is worth the award in my mind. This is where that bias of the old, white Academy comes in to play. Robbed, I say, Ms. Davis. Robbed!

But it is the next gown that had to be my favorite of the night. Remarkable color. Breathtakingly beautiful actress. Truly, tight enough to show she is a woman and loose enough to show she is a lady. A class act.

I've heard more than a few comments about the Hugh Hefnerish smoking jacket sported by Christopher Plummer. Plantboy said "I never heard of that movie," about Beginners just before they announced the winners. I replied that Plummer played an old gay man who just uncloseted himself and is dying. "We have a winner!" said Plantboy. And he was right. Gay performances have taken a lot of awards in the last decade. (And I don't mean that sentence the way a fourteen year old boy might say, "that's so gay.") Looking at the Best Supporting Actor category you might think it was actually the "Best Grizzled Old Man" award.  Even Jonah Hill was serious enough at the Oscars to be a contender.

Miss Piggy and Kermit are always good value. If you really want to see Piggy in her element though, look up their press conference response to the haters at Fox News after the Muppet Movie was released. 

This might have been the show stealing moment of the night. When she first started, I thought they were showing another retro moment--Diana Ross hair and the old school song. But no, this young singer is Esperanza Spalding and beat out the Biebster for Best New Artist Grammy a couple of years ago. With good reason, I might add. She is completely amazing. 

And a last red carpet moment . . . Tina Fey was so cute. I love the picture on the right. That arched eyebrow and snarky smile. She is a woman who knows about breaking glass ceilings. Her look says, "See, smart girls do sometimes come out on top. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise."

In other moments, there were a few great commercials. Ellen is always good value and there is a Matthew Broderick commercial that spoofs Ferris Bueller. There was an ad for the re-release of Titanic (a.k.a. The Most Overrated Movie Ever Made . . . Not Counting Avatar.). Plantboy said, "Oh, look, your favorite movie in 44 Double D!" I told him that even in 3D the lovely Kate would not be so ample. The upcoming Brave looks completely wonderful. Plantboy says he will go to it just for that girl's hair.

I loved the actors telling about their favorite childhood movie moment. None was better than Adam Sandler saying how much he envied Sean Connery's chest hair. It reminded me of childhood nights tucked in with popcorn at the drive in with Sleeping Beauty, Tron and Indiana Jones. Of my crush on Mark Hamil as Luke Skywalker and the old Cinedome in Riverdale, Utah. Of the first time I saw Annie. Yes "Let's go to the movies! Let's go see the stars!" They are ridiculous and human . . . but I still find myself tuning in ever year just to see what they will say and do.

* In a footnote to that post on R-rated movies, I read the rating board's home page regarding their system. They emphasized that the ratings system isn't intended to be a value judgment, but instead a guide for parents regarding whether or not their children should attend. A G movie is unlikely to contain anything that anyone would find offensive. A PG movie is a movie that will contain things that some parents find offensive, and probably should be reviewed before taking children to (We Bought a Zoo and Rango are great examples of this.) A PG-13 movie is one that is likely to contain inappropriate material for young children, though each family should make their own judgement call there. (For example, a movie like Captain America might be heavy on violence and low on sex, whereas a romantic comedy is just the opposite.) R-rated movies contain items that are certainly offensive to some audiences and better viewed through a lens of more adult experience or understanding. I liked her explanation. It is a perspective that certainly encourages families to ask the question, "What is worthwhile for our family?" There are also some great websites that contain common sense parent reviews of movies with details about story elements.