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.

The Greatest Love of All

If you were in middle or high school in the late 1980's like I was, this album might look familiar to you. We didn't have very many tapes that were the sole province of the children in my family, but this was one. My sister and I used to plug our old boom box into an outdoor outlet on our deck. We would turn the volume all the way up, stand on the opposite side of the yard on an A-frame swingset and play "rock concert." We would fight over who stood on the platform singing, and who had to watch. We weren't very good, and our repertoire wasn't very large, but Ms. Houston was a staple. There is nothing that unleashes your inner diva like singing at the top of your lungs with Whitney Houston (Somewhere, Out There was another favorite!) Perhaps like you, this remarkable and tragic woman has been on my mind somewhat this week. Though, it is probably true that she has been less on my mind than a track from this album. A song titled, "The Greatest Love of All."

Here is the other thing about growing up in the 1980s: the concept of "self-esteem" became an essential part of the post-baby-boom Generation X. It is a thing that has not always served us well as adults, this constant validation as children for simply breathing. Whitney's song teaches us that "learning to love yourself, it is the greatest love of all." Hearing that angel-voice through the radio telling me that children were the future and admonishing my parents to teach me well, and let me lead the way, did a lot for my budding self-esteem.

It is too bad that Ms. Houston maybe never understood her own advice, that her addictions kept her from the self-actualization she tried to bring a generation of children. My generation.

For all that I love that song and that voice and could probably still sing it word for word if I heard it on the radio, I don't actually agree with her. I don't think that self-love is the greatest love. And while it is important, I believe it cannot really be obtained unless we focus on other kinds of love. God-love. Family-love. Other-love. *gulp* Enemy-love. Then, you can, as Whitney Houston reminds us, "find your strength in love."

Chocolate IS the Answer

What is the question? Who cares?

I'm in a bit of a funk. I think a Texas sheet cake is just the answer. With pecans.

And Rick Santorum? Really? He's so far right he makes me look pro choice. *grrrr* He doesn't want the federal government to mandate anything but morality. The idea that we'll defund education AND make it harder to get birth control? Don't we want the teen birth rate to go DOWN??

Chocolate it is.

Second Time's the Charm

I am actually looking forward to Star Wars Episode 1 on Saturday. The movie sucks, and it seems somehow wrong to release Episode 1 in 3-D first. Still, there will be nothing better than the looks on the faces of three Jedi when we podrace in three dimensions. Good times.

Sometimes It's the Little Things

I just have to say it. There is nothing quite like a new bra that fits just right.

Too much information?

Probably. I don't have a lot of time for subtlety today.

Wanting to Start a Conversation

So what do you all think about the accumulation of wealth? Hugh Nibley and C.S. Lewis have much to say on the topic that is very thought-provoking. However, neither of these men were actually leaders in any organized church, just very deep thinkers.

Obviously my thoughts are coming from the recent release of Mr. Romney's tax statements, and the ironic reaction to it from within the Republican Party establishment. It seems that Gingrich won in South Carolina on the strength of arguments that Mitt Romney must, by virtue of his vast wealth and low tax rate, be out of touch with regular folks. So out of touch, in fact, that there is really no way for him to ever be in touch. That by using the system to become a 1%er he is somehow unfit to lead the ninety and nine. The irony in all of this is that Mr. Romney is the embodiment of every policy the Republicans have spent the last 30 years pushing with increasing success. He is a practicing Christian who gives generously to his church (reinforcing the belief that the government shouldn't do what charities should); his income is primarily invested so that is taxes are low and his money is used ostensibly to create jobs; he started his own company; he was the beneficiary of inherited money; he is well-educated . . . . the list goes on and on. In fact, if the Republicans could, in a secret lab somewhere, create the perfect example of what-conservative-policies-can-do-for-a-person, Mittens Romney would come out on the other side. (A recent poll says that 2% of Americans think his name is actually Mittens, though Mitt is actually his complete middle name.)

And yet, his own party is attacking him as being too wealthy. As a non-Republican, I find this all very hard to understand. If the purpose of conservative policy is to create an America that creates men like Mr. Romney, then what is the problem?

At the end of the day, are we, with our upstart American attitudes, still basically distrusting of those who have a lot of this world's goods? Even if we laughed at and scorned the Occupiers and their 99% mantra, do we really believe that the 1% has way too much power, influence, opportunity, leisure, and, quite frankly, stuff.

I'm not sure how I feel. I don't begrudge anybody the opportunity to work hard and make something of themselves. In fact, the main reason I align my thinking more closely with the Democratic party is that I believe its basic platform is an attempt to correct the imbalances of birth through programs that create opportunity. (And yes, I fully acknowledge that this approach also carries its own set of un-intended consequences, it just sits easier on my conscience than a fend-for-yourself approach.) I guess I just don't see, to use a current and famous example, how someone like Mr. Romney who has basically coasted on his investments the last several years and exorbitant speaking fees, can really be considered as more worthwhile in our society than an awesome English teacher who runs a painting business on the side just to feed his kids. Or a woman of color who works shift work at two 30 hour a week jobs only to be denied insurance by each because she only works "part-time." Or a pipe fitter who works in the sweat and mud every day not knowing if there will be more work next month. Or a wife and mom who spends years working and sacrificing for her kids and never sees a paycheck. Or a Hispanic laborer living on a shoestring in order to send money to his aging mother in Mexico, all the time knowing he might be stopped at a moment's notice to prove his right to be in this land of opportunity.

At what point does wealth become so extreme that the notion of "earning it" is preposterous? At what point do we view the things we have accumulated and accept that it is just too much? If we believe the Creator endowed men to be equal, then what exactly does that mean when the circumstances of birth are so clearly unequal? What role do we play in helping to equalize people? Do we play any role at all?

What are your thoughts on the Christian's accumulation of wealth?

The Story Isn't Yet Written

Though I have a lot of thoughts I would like to share (most of which originated with listening to the FAIR podcast over the last few weeks), I will narrow the focus here in an attempt to get these thoughts out so I can move on to my homework!

At the temple on Saturday I saw a woman at her locker who was very  obviously pregnant. She asked me for a favor and when I said yes, she turned around and asked if I would zip up her dress. I chuckled and said that I would and asked her how far along she was.

"32 weeks. It might be my last time here for a while."

"In this dress, I think you are right!" We both laughed as I wrenched the zipper and she explained that she was having a third boy. I empathized and as I finished zipping I noticed a large-ish, faded, though once brightly-colored tattoo between this sister's shoulder blades. Her temple dress just barely covered it. She smiled, thanked me, and moved on.

And it was at that moment that I learned what I was meant to learn in the temple that day. When Sister Preggers got that tattoo a decade or so ago she was likely in a very different place in her life. Perhaps she'd never heard of the gospel and was just doing what all of her friends were doing; perhaps she'd been a member all her life and this was an act of desperate rebellion; perhaps her mother cried her eyes out when she saw the tattoo wondering if her daughter would ever come back the fold . . . . there are many possible scenarios. However, it is probably safe to say that she wasn't thinking/didn't care about what the prophets have counseled in the last 15 years regarding tattoos and piercings, nor how her Heavenly Father might feel about her marking her body that way.

But it occurred to me that even if there was sorrow among those who loved her at the moment of her marking herself in her rebellion, that it doesn't matter now. Her temple dress handily covered the outward manifestation and her covenants have taken care of the inward decisions that drove her to it. When we willingly come to Christ, the atonement can take care of everything. But unlike the temple dress, the atonement doesn't just cover the sins, it obliterates them.

And I realized something else: the story isn't yet written on any of us. A tattoo might mark the body, but there are other, darker things that mar the soul. Things that only Christ in his mercy can root out; only His grace can make us new people with changed hearts and willing hands. My story isn't yet written for good or bad. Just as I'm engraven upon His palms, I want His admonition and love and healing sacrifice written in the fleshy tablets of my heart. I want His words written on me. His countenance in mine. My hands to be His hands.

Openly and In Secret

A couple of things this weekend have turned my mind to deeper thinking about prayer. The first is a conversation that may have likewise occurred at your house this week. Tim Tebow has certainly become a household name here, not least because my husband is a Broncos fan from way back, but also because he might be an actual anomaly: the man who seems to have it all and still wants to put God first.

My dad has followed this young man's career for some time and became an instant Broncos fan two years ago for his recruitment there. I was less enthusiastic, as I am about most things related to pro football, and never gave him much thought until I saw him on John Stewart during this year's NFL lockout. I was blown away. Self-deprecating. Candid. Smart. Unflappable. And, well, he projected an aura of humility that is utterly disarming in a person of his standing and with his fame. I came away from the interview thinking, "This is guy might be the real deal." Even Stewart seemed fazed by his genuine and magnetic niceness.

Fast-forward to the non-lockout part of the NFL season. A couple of Sundays ago, I happened to be in the Denver airport, where many down-in-the-mouth Denver fans in full fan-gear lamented that no "miracle" had happened that week. And I found myself rooting for the young man who puts God in the center of his life even when it would be so easy to put himself there. And yes, for the Broncos too. It makes Plantboy happy when they win and I like my man happy.

Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not one of these folks who thinks that God is a Broncos fan. (I think there is plenty about professional football and its cultural accompaniments that He would love to see go away entirely.) I do, however, think He is probably a Tim Tebow fan. Isn't He always on our side when we attempt to do what is good and right and persuade others to follow? Doesn't He want young people to have a role model who is more likely to point to the Savior than to himself?

Plantboy and I, in a role reversal for us, have different opinions. Plantboy is skeptical . . . particularly in Tebow's claims of chastity. He also patently disapproves of Tebow's public "tebowing." As he pointed out the other day--aren't we to pray privately? And, as the scriptures say, God who sees in private will reward in open? I'm not so sure. I think there is something refreshing about such a display of public devotion. If it disconcerts me then perhaps I am the one who needs to rethink my level of commitment.

On to the next topic, which is closer to home and much closer to my heart. Last night we showed the boys the movie 17 Miracles. I hadn't seen it so I wasn't quite prepared for the level of "disaster peril" in which the characters would be placed. It was a very emotional experience for all of us. My four year-old was a little bit less enamored (it was largely over his head) and at one point he asked my teary-eyed seven year old, "Why are you so sad?" Padawan looked at him and said, "Sometimes you can have a happy cry." I think it was his way of describing the Spirit, for he wasn't particularly happy at that moment. Nor was he sad. I think he was in that area where your emotions are so profound and unexplainable they just leak out your eyes.

At bedtime, Plantboy asked Padawan if he would pray for us. I always enjoy Padawan's prayers. He rarely repeats. Each phrase is deliberate and carefully thought out. His prayers are actually relevant to what is happening in our lives. And he does this without prompting. Last night, however, Plantboy did prompt him to remember the pioneers in his prayer. We all bowed heads and there was a very long pause. Padawan's tender seven year-old voice was infused with emotion throughout his simple prayer. He didn't specifically pray for the pioneers, though I could tell from the "happy cry" he had going on that he was thinking about them. He said at one point, "We are thankful for the Spirit. Help us to remember who we are . . . and who we are meant to be." The last phrase was slow, deliberate and almost whispered.

It isn't phrasing I've ever used. The idea was original, or at least originated from the Spirit he was feeling. I marveled at the gift of this little spirit in our home, and prayed that I would know who he is and who he is meant to be. God surely will hear his prayers in secret and reward him openly.

These thoughts led me this morning to the place where I'm ready to choose my goals for the year. Some time ago (18 months?) I posted about a visit that Elder Whitney Clayton made to our area. He was at a meeting for Stake Presidents where I was serving. In an effort to keep the noise down during his talk, they asked the kitchen folks to refrain from washing dishes until he was done. He then asked us to join the group. It was a unique opportunity to be tutored intimately by a man so close to the apostles. As the church grows, no doubt such experiences will become more and more rare. I listened very carefully, and in a talk filled with wisdom and love and good humor, there was one moment that stood out to me above all others.

I will paraphrase Elder Clayton now. He said that there was no way that the councils of the Church could ever hold enough meetings to address the needs of those in the stake/ward/Church/etc. There are just too many problems. Real problems. However, he pointed out, the Lord could take care of those needs and use our service where He needed it the most if we were in tune enough to know what He needed us to do. To that end, Elder Clayton counseled, we must do everything we can to have the guidance of the Holy Ghost in our lives. He gave just three suggestions for keeping the Spirit daily in our lives:

1.  Maintain and nourish your relationship with your spouse.
2.  Read the scriptures regularly. Daily if possible.
3.  Pray regularly. More than once daily if possible.

This will be the framework for what I want in 2012. I am ridiculously busy and over-committed right now. However, I don't know yet what might be cut out. That is another long story, but suffice it to say that my current commitments need to continue for at least a while longer. There is no way for me to accomplish what is needed without additional help. Divine help. There is no way for me to logic my way into the decisions that we will need to make in the next couple of years. Ephiphany, as has been given in the past, is the only thing that will show me the way forward. Seldom in my life have I felt so keenly the need for spiritual guidance. It has not been forthcoming. It is time for me to take ownership over that state of affairs.

This year I will:


1. Maintain and nourish the relationships within my immediate family. I will continue all those good things I have going with Plantboy (the one place in my life I feel truly successful). I will encourage my boys to be each others' best friends and I will foster an atmosphere of trust and love in my relationships with them.


2.  I will work out a regular scripture reading plan, including making time to study the Book of Mormon regularly with a recently baptized friend who is heading to the temple later this spring. She is shy and still adjusting to Mormon culture. Our study times, when we get them, are marvelously valuable to both of us. I will not let this opportunity go.


3. I will learn to pray like my seven year old. Sincerely. With the spirit filling my heart and mind with just the right words. I will pray more often. 

I'll check in from time to time. I'm grateful to those of you who are still along for the journey. I have lately felt rather a dearth of sincere friendship.

Ephiphany

I've spent the last week digging out from being on vacation the week between Christmas and New Year's. The holiday was nice and it was very good to see so much family in Denver, but coming home was a bit rough. Walking into the house with a car load of immediate to-deal-withs (at 2 a.m., no less), only to remember that, because we left on the twenty-fifth, the house looks like a Christmas Bomb exploded in the living room. We watched the Rose Bowl from behind a two hundred pound pile of laundry. Good times.

 An now life begins again. One of my classes started yesterday; the other today. This is, of course, in addition to all the other things we do. So, like you, I am busy. I am not sure that my time off from school was the recharge I had hoped. Though there was much time to relax and sleep over our week's vacation, the time leading up to vacation was punctuated by too much commitment, very cold weather, and a ridiculous share of illness. Every year I say that I will . . . I don't know. . . simplify? So that the Christmas season might be more spirit-filled. This year I found it nearly impossible to do so without letting every one down--a thing that is entirely against my nature. After my initial burst of warm fuzzies and delightful memories, the next four weeks flew by in a flurry of survival-mode living.

Taylor Swift has a holiday song titled, "Christmas Must Be Something More."

You see that the day holds something special
Something holy, not superficial
So here's to Jesus Christ
Who saved our lives . . .

I can't help but feel that it is another Christmas lost instead of one gained. I hope not to lose the next season too. Maybe two early January events will help me. The first is the inevitable review of the goals from last year and the setting of new. You'll have to pardon the seeming sarcasm--I really do believe in the setting and renewing of goals and find that it is a good exercise for me. The "inevitable" bit is just self-deprecating. If you have been reading here for a while then you know to predict certain things.

Here is last year's list (bold) with an overview of how I did.

1. I will balance my Mary and Martha tasks so that I gain a good measure of both internal and external peace on a daily basis. I did better with this. When school and church gets really busy it becomes more difficult. I still like this goal a lot, but I'm starting to wonder if Sister Mary didn't have it right after all. My current calling is overwhelming in ways I would have never anticipated and I think that without a closer connection to the Spirit then I just don't have a chance of keeping my head above water.

2. I will have meaningful prayer at least once daily. I'm a work in progress. Very slow progress, but at least I think it is forward.

3. I will continue my current course of scripture study, at least 5 days each week, and earn my Personal Progress Award along with my study. Still trying. I need to take a closer look at my schedule and determine the quietest part of each day and fill it with this.

4. I will spend less time on the computer social networking, and more time writing. By fall I want to have two manuscripts (one unfinished and one in need of heavy revision) ready to send to a publisher. I did spend my computer time more productively, in general, but my schooling started up earlier, and perhaps more intensely, than anticipated. I fell short of my manuscript goal. I have to admit to taking some discouragement from my reviewers. Some of my drive is gone. I'm not sure what this means for the next step forward.

5. I will spend less time reading and more time exercising. Yes, really. A friend and I are trying to put together a group to run a 200 mile race in August in central Oregon. If it doesn't pan out, we still want to do a half marathon in Portland in May. How do you put a raspberry sound into writing? PBBPTTTHHH!! After a fantastic start to the year, things fell apart quickly. We couldn't collect enough racers. Then I got sick (and everyone else did too!) and my careful routines disintegrated. Between my husband and I, church obligations ballooned and I didn't anticipate just how difficult my paper route would make a regular exercise regimen. Is that enough excuses? It is all I have.

6. I will study my options and apply for colleges this spring; I will then decide by fall whether or not I'm actually enrolling. One goal, done.

My 2012 list is forthcoming. I want to really think about it this year. 

But on to the title, finally. Epiphany is a word I love. When I think of this word, I think of having a moment of inspiration or insight. It is not a bad way to describe a sudden and sometimes unexpected, spiritual experience. My desk calendar had the word "Epiphany" written in tiny script above the date last Friday--the place in the calendar reserved for holidays. I looked it up and, sure enough, Epiphany is a Christian holiday celebrated in Eastern Orthodoxy. It is to honor the magi coming to visit the Christ child. But the word comes from a Greek word with a more religious definition than I have ever ascribed to it, "manifestation or striking appearance" and is closely related to the word theophany, which is a manifestation of some deity to a person. (Joseph Smith's first vision is sometimes referred to as the Theophany.)

When I saw that word in my planner, I felt my heart leap in my chest. Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a day set aside to receive a marvelous moment of spiritual insight. Almost like it was part of my to-do list. "Friday, I AM having an epiphany!"

But of course it didn't work that way. And it doesn't work that way.

As I think about my goals this year, I think this idea (ideal?) of epiphany is going to figure prominently. Never in my life have I needed the guidance of the Spirit so much. And yet, I know that I am not doing the things necessary to receive the regular manifestations that will keep me moving forward and allow me to serve to the degree I have been asked. Maybe my first step will be to write "epiphany" on my calendar every day, to keep my mind on the things of God.

It isn't just Christmas that must be something more.

So Tired

I hope that when we are on vacation next week my excellent mother-in-law's feelings aren't hurt when I sleep until ten every morning.

Here is is. Time once again for the year end book review. Truthfully my list is a bit pathetic this year. Repeats. Kids' books and lots of audio books. Going back to school fully and completely slammed me. Even now, on break, I'm not entirely certain I'm going to be able to rest enough to properly gear up for next semester. Of course, getting slammed with my second massive head cold in like three weeks isn't exactly helping either.

I also did not get around to reading your recommendations from last year. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I've actually always hated that idiom. I have loads of good intentions. Good actions, too, I hope, but my ambition seems to nearly always outstrip either my capabilities or the logistics of a normal life.  In order to give myself one less thing to feel guilty about this year I am NOT going to ask for your recommendations for next year. I have no doubt whatsoever that they will be wonderful, but I hope they will keep.

These books are presented most recently read backwards to January. 

• The Best Christmas Pageant Ever: Reviewed best at Nemesis this weekend. I love this book. I laugh and cry every time. This was the first year I read it to my kids. We all loved it. 
• Granta 116: Granta is quarterly journal published in England. I might have mentioned it before? Anyway, every three months this volume comes to my house. And yes, it is technically a periodical, but at each issue being a whopping 200 pages, I'm totally counting it as a book. Hey, it is my list. Granta 116 was called "Ten Years Later" and was filled with stories of post-9/11 living. The shocking thing was that most of this stories were written by non-Americans, mostly living in places besides America. One of my gripes with Granta is that there is no explanation of which pieces are fiction and which are personal essay. I think there is a reason for that--after all, there probably is a fine line between truth and fiction when it comes to learning and teaching bold statements about the human condition. If I didn't already have pacifist leanings before, this collection of stories and essays sealed the deal for me. I still want to write that post about America's lost decade. These essays also demonstrate that when we think of American loss, it is such a drop in the bucket compared to the whole pantheon of human suffering. This year's fourth issue of Granta is still sitting in my bathroom, the topic is "Horror." It might sit for a while longer!
• Little Men: I rediscovered Louisa May Alcott this year because I found a series of Librovox recordings in iTunes carrying all of her works. This was my fourth of the year and it was probably one (or two) too many. I loved Alcott as a kid, and now I think she is maybe just a little too precious. In her books, only the good die; all the lost boys are redeemed; and Jo can witticism her way out of any scrape. Still, the characters are rather endearing and she just writes about such good, Puritan values; I do wish that more young people would tackle Alcott. It would be good for them. This novel, like her others, seems more like a series of anecdotes only tenuously strung together by a very simple plot. 
• The Distant Hours: This book was a great Gothic piece to read in October. My book group did it and the discussion was fantastic. If you are looking for something for your next book group that is a little more page turning, a little more tantalizing, and a little less literary than your usual fare, then this might be just the thing. Oh, don't get me wrong, it is still pretty clean and quite well-written, but it is rather a juicy page-turner. World War II. England. Secrets. Big old castle. A really, really good-looking mystery man. Oh yeah.
• Hunger Games: This book hit the list a long time ago because I was reading it chapter by chapter with a tutoring student. Laborious, yes, but it gave me time to really think about it. This was my second reading and I think I enjoyed it even more this time. I caught the subtleties I had missed the first time in the jarring non-stop action of the plot. This was a really great book group discussion and I think I'll probably re-read the series now. 
• The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society: Also a re-read for book group. I reviewed this last year. Lovely and wonderful.
• Sylvester (The Wicked Uncle): I love this book. The author is Georgette Heyer and everything she writes is delicious. Her period pieces focus on Regency England and are hilarious. This book is about a hapless young maiden (of course) who, after a disastrous first season out in London, writes a wickedly clever novel parodying everybody in "The Ton." Through a random series of events she comes into contact with her novel's villain just before publication. Naturally she falls in love with him. Naturally. A delight.
• Rose in Bloom: Another Alcott title. It is hard to seperate this one from the next, as it is basically a sequel and very little time passes in between. Alcott had very clear ideas about what womanhood should look like and some very definite opinions about the type of education it took to churn out such women. This is a recurring theme in her books.
• Eight Cousins: This book reminded me of The Secret Garden in some ways. Both books are really based on the premise that lots of fresh air and exercise and positive thinking can change everything. Not a bad thought really, but I found the eternal optimism in both books a little bit on the annoying side. As for Eight Cousins, again, it is more anecdotal than plot-driven. In that way, it reminded me more of the Anne books.
• The Confession: John Grisham hit another slam dunk in my mind with this one. His early novels are page turners because of their intense and often unexpected plots. His characters, even the barest sketches, are always spot on and just fascinating. The last few books I've read still demonstrate that gift for pacing and characterization, but thematically they are just so rich. Grisham forces the reader to ask piercing questions about the judiciary and political systems that determine so much of what happens in our country. In this particular novel he is intensely critical of the death penalty system. What makes the case so compelling is that our death row inmate is actually innocent.
• Their Eyes Were Watching God: This is a beautifully written and heart-rending novel by Zora Neale Hurston. Reading her own historical background in the edition I had helped immensely in trying to ferret out what this book is really about. This book is about freedom--for women, for African Americans, from repression. It is about hanging on to the things that are the most beautiful and taking the loveliness of nature deep inside you and making it a part of who you are. Thematically the book was ahead of its time. Spurnned by critics when published in 1937 and then left out of print for nearly 30 years, it is clear that folks had to do a lot of growing up before they were ready for this book. 
• Little Women: Alcott's best work, in my mind. Her character focus is narrower than in the earlier reviewed books and the story holds together a little bit better. I still can't believe Jo doesn't marry Laurie, however. I'm not quite sure the author even got over it; in Little Men (which takes place five or six years after the end of this book) Laurie, as benefactor to the Plumfield School often comes to visit. He and Jo are as affectionate as best friends and probably rather moreso than married and unrelated grown-ups should be. If I was the German professor I think I'd want to pop Laurie one. I will say, however, that the European section of the book is much more deliberate than the movie and the Laurie-Amy romance is not quite so sudden or unbelievable.
• Among the Hidden: Jedi Knight read this for Oregon Battle of the Books. (Or OBOB. The next few also.) It is an interesting plot, though maybe a bit old for my nine year old, even if his reading tastes are a bit precocious. It wasn't too hard for him to read; it was short and quite easy, but thematically there are a some difficult issues. It is about illegal third-born children who have to hide so they and their parents aren't killed. It ended rather abruptly with only the barest resolution.
• Jeremy Thatcher, Dragon Hatcher: Another OBOB title. Stupid. JK Rowling really put a lot of other kids' fantasy books to shame. Jedi Knight liked it okay, but that isn't a huge recommendation!
• Earthquake Terror: Also OBOB. This is kind of a sweet, though highly improbable, survival story about a brother and sister. I feel like in some ways the author spent a very long time mapping out exactly how to get these kids stranded, alone, in the woods, after an earthquake. Not as much time was spent in figuring out what to do next. Another abrupt ending.
• Number the Stars: OBOB. A wonderful way for younger children to first learn about the Holocaust. Much easier to read than Anne Frank, based on true events, and with plot elements just scary enough to instruct and hold interest without terrifying. A brilliant little novel. Winner of the Newbery around 1990.
• The Last Newspaper Boy in America: Another OBOB title. This is a great book for boys. The main character is clever and funny and creative. The plot is rather improbable, but is a good way to explore current events. I really enjoyed reading this aloud with my son.
• Granta 115: The summer Granta was about feminism. My own feminism post this summer was probably an outgrowth of thinking about what I'd read. I also wrote a personal essay I'm quite happy with in relation to this issue. If anybody is interested in having a copy, please let me know.
• Foxmask: This book is by one of my favorite authors, but was a new read for me. It is a sequel to the next title down. I don't think I connected to this particular set of characters quite as well as to another series I've read by the author. Although her fantasy-romance telling is always good value, I have found her novels have generally gone downhill. I found myself not caring nearly as much about the fates of these characters as others. A little bit too much love at first sight in this one. She also left a couple of her characters kind of hung out to dry. I think it probably guarantees a third installment. *sigh* One last note about the author--I am impressed with the way that just as many of her female characters are domestic and motherly as they are tough and adventuresome. She really demonstrates that there is no one way to be a woman who is both good and strong.
• Wolfskin: I read this book first a few years ago. I remember devouring it in one sitting. I was even working full-time as a teacher (with two little kids!) at the time and still stayed up until 3 am in the middle of the week to finish it. Very stupid. After all, I had more days ahead of me and then I had nothing to read. So is it a page-turner, yes, of course. Marrillier excels at putting her characters in impossible situations and then getting them out. She loves rescues. And though her women are very strong, she can't quite get over the romance of the damsel in distress. 
• Getting Things Done: I had to read this for a class over the summer. Pretty much hated it from the beginning, but what really sealed the deal for me was when the author's sample "to-do" list had the following bullet point, "decide what to do with million dollar inheritance." What the? At first I thought he was being facetious, but other items in the book made me think otherwise. The only good pointer I took from this book was never to have more e-mail in the "inbox" than can be viewed on one-screen. I haven't let my g-mail account go over 50 since reading that and I've actually been a much better e-mailer (word?) because of it.
• First Things First: I didn't dislike this quite as much as Getting Things Done, but almost. Also read for a class. I just am not a big fan of self-help books.
• The Last Olympian: A Percy Jackson book. I will review all five of these under the first "The Lightning Thief," although about this one I would like to say that the choice of the last Olympian was a pleasant and touching surprise.
• Saving Cee Cee Honeycutt: My mom loaned me this one, which is not always a good thing. I had mixed feelings about this title. She told me that it reminded her of "The Secret Life of Bees." I think the comparison is apt, though this book isn't nearly as good. I really liked some things about it. Others were just really tacky . . . and one of the tacky things was, admittedly, laugh out loud funny. I find I like books about the South better after having lived there. In these books, the heat becomes a character. That was something I never understood until I spent nearly 6 summers in Houston.
• The Battle of the Labyrinth: A Percy Jackson book. I will review all five of these under the first "The Lightning Thief."
• The Star Garden: Oh, dear. What to do with this book? This and the next reviewed are sequels to the rather excellent "These is My Words." The diary format isn't consistently carried through these two books though it is supposed to be; the voice is much stronger in the first. I think a major problem with the series as a whole is that she got rid of Jack at the end of the first book. The love story of these two is such a major part of the first book that some of the heart is sucked out of the other two, leaving Sarah harder than ever. Some of the border dispute issues are interesting, but they end in such dreadful violence that I felt quite depressed. Most of the reviews I've read, however, have nothing but praise for all three volumes. My take? Meh.
• Sarah's Quilt: I felt like there were major plot holes and inconsistencies in character. There were issues from the first book that were just left dangling and could have been better resolved in the second and third books and they just weren't. I would have certainly liked a better resolution of Sarah's relationships with her daughter, for one. The whole Lazarus character was confusing and disconcerting to me. As with the above, there is a plot line that ends in some rather horrific violence that I just felt was unnecessary.
• The Good Earth: I chose this for book group back in April. It is a remarkable book, and a clear definition of a true classic. The simplicity of the story and Buck's language belie just how much depth is to be uncovered here. This is a book to read and then talk about and then feel changed by.
• The Titan's Curse: A Percy Jackson book. I will review all five of these under the first "The Lightning Thief."
• A Wrinkle in Time: Another book group pick. I knew I went out on a limb for this one; it wasn't very well-received. Whatever. This was probably the first book I remember really loving and read my first copy into an early grave. This was the book that unlocked fantasy for me and helped me to think about the universe and spirituality in terms bigger than anything I could imagine on my own. It is so wonderful.
• Granta 114: This particular Granta was called "Aliens" and was about people who end up living in a different place than where they were born or raised, and their experiences in the foreign place. Good stuff. But like all the Grantas I've read: some of the pieces are wonderful and other pieces are just rubbish. Don't think I'll be renewing.
• Of Mice and Men: Again, the simplicity of this story, its characters and the coarseness of its language is deceptive. This little novel speaks to many aspects of the human condition, and it will probably never run out of things to say. Another true classic.
• The Sea of Monsters: A Percy Jackson book. I will review all five of these under the first "The Lightning Thief."
• House of Mirth: Depressing as hell. But then, it is Edith Wharton, so maybe that goes without saying? I am really glad that I read this as a book group title because I think the discussion is pretty essential to having a good experience with this book.
• The Lightning Thief: This is a very original kids' book series. Just like the slough of Harry Potter knock-offs from a few years ago, this series has been much copied in recent years. (The author is even capitalizing on his own success with a second series that is only marginally different.) The first book uses the formula of two guy friends and a girl, appealing to both male and female readers. However, throughout the other books, this formula is sometimes shaken up so that Percy (the main character) takes each quest with a new assortment of characters. Other successful elements from the Harry Potter stories pop up here, but the context is so new and the writing so funny that the stories are really great on their own. Though not as brilliant or with the depth of the Potter books, I think it is safe to say that the Percy Jackson books will be a mainstay in children's literature for years to come. The same cannot be said of the movie franchise. Loads of mistakes were made in the plotting and casting of this movie (including kids that were way to old to begin with), and a sequel would be nearly impossible. In addition, these books were aimed mostly at tweens, but the movie is a terribly scary PG and was way too much for my little kids. 
• The Associate: Though not as political charged as The Confession or The Appeal, Grisham has plenty to say about the ridiculous lenghts companies will go to in order to defend lawsuits. In the end, only the lawyers stand to benefit. Not the public. Not the corporations themselves. If we need an answer for why products are so slow to come to market and so expensive when they do . . . There is also some discussion of mistakes we make when we are young coming back to haunt us later on.
• Cry, The Beloved Country: This is one of my very favorite books, and two recent readings were both in the context of book groups. The first was wonderful, the second not so much. In this book, I see the author essentially on the side of the Black South Africa as he casts blame upon the White minority for their indifference and calculated oppression. He is pleading with his countrymen to find a better solution and a new way forward. Our discussion devolved into the question of how poor people need to better help themselves, with one woman sitting next to me even pulling out the word "Negro." Really. In 2011. I nearly fell of the couch. Our lovely host that night seemed a bit disappointed. She had much she wanted to discuss, I could tell, and the conversation got rather away from her. I have also read this book just because I like it, on several occasions. Some people say it is hard to get through, but I don't see it. The rhythmic language and flowing style are remarkable and lovely. The intro to my book said that Alan Paton wrote the book while he was touring the world speaking on educational reform. He had just read "The Grapes of Wrath" before he left. He wrote this manuscript every night in his hotel room. What a fascinating paper would result from a combined analysis of both texts.
• A Short History of Nearly Everything: I actually read about half of this book before the end of last year and I believe I reviewed it there. This book is delightful.
• Madame Bovary:  I actually read about half of this book before the end of last year and I believe I reviewed it there. This book is much less than delightful.  

 That brings my total to 38 (or 37 and two halves). Not my best showing. Not even close. But there are more years and more books. My anticipated titles this year are The House at Riverton, The Help, Grapes of Wrath, The Warmth of Other Suns and Left to Tell. Of course, I am hoping for many more books to happen my way also. Maybe it is, as Juliet says in "The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society," maybe books have a way of honing in on their perfect readers. May 2012 be the year you find your perfect book.