Rejected Eclipse Screenplay

This was harder to do than my New Moon screenplay, which came together in a single afternoon. I am not sure why I had more writer's block with this one. Eclipse has a lot more action in it, and in many ways is a better story, and a better book. Maybe it is harder to make fun of? Maybe I'm so sick of the Twilight "saga" that I might start carrying a black marker to give pictures of Robert Pattison Dali-style mustaches.

Seriously, Patticakes?

Yet, though I generally preferred it to the second book, watching Bella, a deeply flawed (or maybe just 17 year-old?) heroine mercilessly play with the emotions of her two true loves is a bit unsettling. Okay, more than a bit. There is one point where she refers to herself as the most selfish person alive or some other hyperbolic drama . . . but she has a point.

Anyway, there were aspects to this book on re-reading it that I really enjoyed. I liked the legend that Meyer built up around her wolf-warriors. I like indigenous creation myths, and this one was very original and well-crafted. The myth, and the fireside telling of it, firmly puts her unique story in the fantasy camp. (Team Jacob!) I greatly dislike her discussion of genetics and chromosomes in the 4th book. It is just so unnecessary, not to mention terrible science. To enjoy the books the reader has already suspended all sense of reality: there is no point in trying to pretend she is writing science fiction.

Anyway, here is my rejected screenplay for Eclipse. It probably will best hit its mark if you either love or hate these books, but is likely to be meaningless if you haven't read them. Laugh if you can. Forward it if you want.

Eclipse Screenplay

Scene 1: (Bella’s Kitchen)

Bella: (talking out loud as she writes on a sheet of paper) Dear Jacob, Do you still like me? Check the box. Yes. No. Maybe. Love, Bells.

Charlie: (entering) Is there some dinner ready?

Bella: On the stove.

Charlie: (looking, musing to himself) Does it seem like we eat a lot of spaghetti?

Bella: Could you take this to Jacob’s dad?

Charlie: Why don’t you just call him?

Bella: He won’t answer the phone.

Charlie: E-mail?

Bella: He isn’t on-line.

Charlie: Text?

Bella: He doesn’t have a phone.

Charlie: What is it, 1998?

Bella: Just take it, please, Dad.

Charlie: Maybe you should just leave it alone. (Doorbell sounds)

Bella: (over-eager) There’s Edward!

Charlie: (scowling) All right, I’ll take the stupid note. (Bella squeals and runs in the other room. Charlie yells after her.) Don’t forget, you’re grounded! Freaky boyfriend out by ten!

Scene 2: (Bella’s Bedroom)

Edward: You know, it can hardly be called grounding if I sneak back in here after ten every night.

Bella: (giggles) I’m 18. I can do what I want.

Edward: Not exactly.

Bella: What do you mean?

Edward: You cannot see Jacob Black.

Bella: But he’s my friend—he is the one that put me back together when, you know, you weren’t here. Remember when I was the only girl in the world who'd ever had my heart broken?

Edward: Young werewolves are too dangerous.

Bella: Good grief, one girl gets a little bit mauled by her boyfriend and you are so ready to judge. It is Jacob. I’m totally safe.

Edward: No you aren’t.

Bella: Yes I am.

Edward: I say no.

Bella: I say yes.

Edward. Uh, no.

Bella: Oh, Edward! I hate arguing with you.

Edward: Then just do what I say.

Bella: Why?

Edward: Because we are in love. And that means you will do whatever I say.

Bella: (sighs, giving up) Whatever you say, Gorgeous. You clearly know what is best for me. Just don't leave me again.

Scene 3: (In front of school)

Edward: Yuck. What is he doing here? (Looking across parking lot)

Bella: (Squeals and runs) Jacob!!

Jacob: (On motorcycle, grinning) Hey Bells.

Bella: You got my note?

Jacob: Sure did. (Edward approaches, Jacob’s tone becomes really seductive) And my answer is yes.

Edward: (snarls) Back off, dog.

Jacob: Bella is safer with a dog than a monster.

Edward: Hey, I’ll have you know I haven’t had another human to eat in decades.

Bella: Uh, this fight over me is really adorable, but here comes the principal and he doesn’t look too happy.

Principal: Mr. Cullen, is everything all right here? Your grades, money and whiteness tell me that this other young man clearly is at fault here.

Edward: No problem. Jacob was just leaving. He wanted to talk to Bella, but she doesn’t want to talk to him.

Jacob: (Hurt) Is this true?

Bella: No. (glaring at Edward) But I have to do what Edward says, because that is the hallmark of a healthy relationship.

Jacob: Fine. I’m going, I just wanted to warn you Bella.

Bella: Warn me?

Edward: Jacob, don’t.

Jacob: (Ignoring Edward, though a crowd is gathering) She’s back. And she’s coming for you. Tell the Cullens to stay off our side of the line; she’s ours. (Revs motorcycle and drives away)

Principal: Mr. Cullen, if you and your “brothers” are contemplating some kind of rumble with this tribe of miscreants, I have to tell you that I need to let Police Chief Swan know about it.

Bella: (Laughs) Are you kidding? Charlie would love it.

Edward: Just come to class Bella.

Bella: Whatever you say, My Love.

Mike Newton: My money’s on the big Indian.

Scene 4: (In class)

Bella: (Under her breath to Edward—they are supposed to be listening to a lecture) Did you know about Victoria coming back?

Edward: Yeah. For some reason she decided not to bother you at all for the six months that there were no vampires in Forks. Her return coincided almost exactly with ours. And we’d have had her too, if it hadn’t been for those meddling kids. I mean dogs. Yuck. I can still smell him.

Bella: (Sniffs her own armpit) Maybe I just need new deodorant.

Edward: Have you seen the way he looks at you? And his thoughts!

Bella: Thoughts?

Edward: He isn’t really interested in your friendship. You are NOT going to see him.

Bella: (whiney) Am too!

Edward: I tell you; there is nothing more dangerous than a young werewolf.

Bella: Nothing?

Edward: Okay. Young vampires. And really old vampires. And red-headed vampires. Motorcyles. Glass seems rather problematic for you. Oh, and Jasper of course.

Bella: Anything else?

Edward: Nuclear holocaust. But that’s beside the point.

Bella: Please, Edward. I really need your permission to make even simple decisions.

Edward: (Dejected) Fine.

Bella: (loudly) Yipee!

Teacher: (sharply) Miss Swan? Why have you written the word “smoldering” all over the margins of your paper?

Scene 5: (At the Reservation, looking out over the ocean)

Bella: He really is a nice guy, you know, down to the core.

Jacob: Except for the part where he eats people, right?

Bella: He doesn’t eat people. Not anymore. And he is really, really good looking.

Jacob: I'm good looking.

Bella: But he's rich.

Jacob: So good looks and money.

Bella: (standing up and stamping) How dare you suggest that I am shallow? I’m like, you know, so mature and stuff.

Jacob: I’m just saying that when people fall in love with each other, they should stick within their own species.

Bella: Newsflash Jacob! (Shouting louder) YOU ARE A WEREWOLF. NOT HUMAN, WERE. WOLF.

Jacob: Only part of the time. It’s not the same at all.

Bella: (Big Sigh)

Jacob: (After a pause) Did I tell you about the imprinting?

Bella: Imprinting?

Jacob: Well, there is a long and boring story about how the wolves came to be, but the most interesting part is that when one of us sees the woman we are meant to mate with . . .

Bella: Mate with?

Jacob: (Ignoring her horrified look) You know like soul mate.

Bella: I’m not sure that’s exactly what you are talking about.

Jacob: Sure I am. It is like you see each other and BOOM the whole world is focused on that one person and nobody else matters any more.

Bella: Like love at first sight?

Jacob: A bit more absolute.

Bella: Oh no! Holy crap! You haven’t imprinted on ME have you? Because I’m pretty sure I’ve imprinted on Edward! That can't be right.

Jacob: (flatly) No, Bella.

Bella: (rambling) That’s a relief, because sometimes it is almost like you are in love with me, which is really hard to believe because I never even had a date in Arizona and here the boys just can't seem to stay away from me. Humans, half breeds, blood-suckers. I'm just so popular.

Jacob: I AM in love with you.

Bella: You mean like a friend, right?

Jacob: No, not really.

Bella: Sure you do. (Nervous) I’m just a stand-in until your soul mate arrives.

Jacob: (Yelling) I don’t care about what I’m forced to do. I choose to love you. And you love me too, don’t kid yourself. The blood-sucker doesn’t know what’s best for you! I do! (Suddenly kisses Bella.)

Bella: Don’t. Stop.

Jacob: Which is it?

Bella: (slugs Jacob)

Jacob: (laughing) I knew you liked it.

Bella: Oh! You’re the worst! I’m going now. (Stalks off beach and climbs into truck. Jacob is still laughing.)

Scene 5 (In Bella’s kitchen; Charlie and Edward are eyeing each others suspiciously over coffee; Charlie turns away and reads the paper.)

Charlie: So what are you two kids up to this weekend?

Bella: Not much

Charlie: You can’t go near Seattle.

Bella: Why does everyone tell me what to do! (Jumps up and leaves room.)

Charlie: What was that all about?

Edward: (shrugs) PMS. What’s this about Seattle?

Charlie: Mass murderer. A bunch of creepy, unexplainable deaths.

Edward: Any leads?

Charlie: No. (Laughs out loud) Listen to this (reading from paper) “Eyewitness claims to have seen one of the victims bitten on the neck before being carted off down a dark alley.” Can you believe that? Now this creep has given rise to some idiot vampire myth. People are so gullible.

Edward: You have no idea.

Charlie: Still, better to stay away . . . . Bella seems to attract negative attention of this sort too often.

Edward: You have no idea.

Scene 6 (In Bella’s bedroom; same day as above. Bella is still sulking.)

Edward: Bella, you didn’t want to go to Seattle, did you?

Bella: No; I just don’t like being told what to do.

Edward. Ah. Well, quit your crying, it turns out there actually is a plot to this story after all.

Bella: What’s that?

Edward: Pack of vampires loose in Seattle. Wait, does it smell in here?

Bella: Smell?

Edward: Not like you, My Flower, more like another vampire. Not me. A stranger.

Bella: What?

Edward: Oh, no! The vampires in Seattle are clearly after you.

Bella: Oh—so it IS all about me?

Edward: And me, of course.

Bella: Right. What about Jacob?

Edward: Honey, there is just no room in this story for Jake. Oh—except you do need to tell him that a whole coven of bloodthirsty young vampires is coming to Forks and we might need their help.

Bella: WHAT????

Scene 7 (In the large clearing where the baseball game took place in Twilight. Several of the pack are there, though not in werewolf form. Edward is speaking to them.)

Edward: Now, the vampires are coming. Victoria has created an entire army of them to get Bella, of course. It is equally obvious that we should all put our lives on the line for her. The plan is pretty simple. We will rub her scent all over everything to lure the vampires into the clearing. Then we kill them. Questions?

Generic Native American Boy #1: What’s your name again?

Edward: Edward. Any others?

Generic Native American Boy #2: When do we eat? I’m starving.

Generic Native American Boy #3: Yeah, we were told there was going to be pizza.

Edward: I meant questions about the plan.

Jacob: Where will Bella be?

Edward: In a tent with me.

Jacob: What the . . .

Edward: But I need one of the pack nearby so that I can read all your thoughts.

Jacob: What the . . . .

Edward: Anything else? (Confused looks) Good. Now, we don’t know when they are coming or how many there will be. Alice’s gift is very conveniently out of order again (glaring at Alice).

Alice: Werewolf problem! Not my fault.

Edward: Anyway, just keep hanging around here until something happens. (Boy #3 raises his hand again.) And yes, Fluffy, Esme’s Hummer is filled with pizza. (Werewolves all metamorphosize and converge on Esme’s car.)

Bella: (Voice low) You didn’t tell me about the whole tent thing. Does this mean we’re gonna do it?

Edward: Do what?

Bella: Please tell me you aren’t that dense.

Edward: Uh . . .

Jacob: What you two talkin’ about huh?

Bella: Nothing.

Edward (at the same time) I have no idea.

Jacob: Well, just in case you had any funny ideas Cullen, it is me that is going to be standing guard at the tent.

Edward: Oh, that's just great.

Alice: By the way, Bella bring an extra sleeping bag. It is going to snow tonight.

Edward: Let me get this straight—your telling the future power has been reduced to weather forecasts?

Alice: Pretty much.

Scene 8 (Small tent with a couple of flashlights lit inside. Bella sits in one corner holding her legs and shaking. Edward sits opposite with a worried expression.)

Bella: It is just so c. . . co. . . .cold.

Edward: We could cuddle?

Bella: You are the c . . . c . . . co. . . .coldest. . . . thing in the p . . . p. . . place.

Edward: Sorry.

Bella: Unless . . .

Edward: Unless?

Bella: I mean first aid for hypothermia says that we should . . .

Edward: Sorry Bella. We aren’t doing that either.

Bella: Oh c’mon! Every guy has had the hypothermia fantasy at one time or another. You really can’t be telling me no.

Edward: I really am. Unless you marry me.

Bella: Groan.

Edward: Sorry, babe. That’s the deal.

Jacob: (Unzipping tent and letting a blast of cold air and snow in.) Is Bella warm enough?

Bella: As a matter of fact, no.

Jacob: I can help (seductive).

Edward: He is definitely having the hypothermia fantasy.

Jacob: (Shrugs) Whatever works.

Bella: Just get in here. (She snuggles up next to him.) Oh, yeah, that is more like it. Edward, you are really smoldering now. (Jacob crawls in the sleeping bag next to her.)

Edward: This is a means to an end, Jacob Black. If you lay a hand on her without her permission I will rip your throat out.

Bella: So much drama Edward. Just let me sleep.

Scene 9 (Morning outside the tent. Jacob and Bella are talking.)

Jacob: I’m glad Edward had to run and talk to the others. I need to ask you something.

Bella: Okay.

Jacob: Last night was incredible. Wonderful. Amazing.

Bella: I get the point.

Jacob: You can’t tell me you didn’t feel anything, Bells.

Bella: Uh . . . . I think you need to start shaving?

Jacob: (Rubs his face) Maybe so. But that isn’t what I meant.

Bella: What did you mean? Like attraction? (Nods.) Jacob! How could I be attracted to you? You are my best friend and you are super funny. I mean, you are muscled and bronze instead of being skinny and pale. (She looks a him closer and speaks slower.) You are warm instead of cold. . . . O. M. G. Jacob! You are smoking hot! (Kisses him hard.)

Jacob: You can’t tell me you didn’t feel anything, Bells.

Bella: You DO need to start shaving.

Edward: Bella? (Coming out of the clearing, having just seen the two of them kissing.)

Bella: Edward. I WILL marry you!

Jacob: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Runs off into the woods.)

Edward: Then what was the kissing all about?

Bella: (shrugs) Just messin’ with him.

Edward: So, we’re engaged huh?

Bella: Don’t say it so loud.

Edward: And we’ve got this tent to ourselves the rest of the day. . .

Bella: What about the big vampire fight?

Edward: We aren’t really involved. (Starts kissing her)

Bella: What about the wait until you are married thing?

Edward: I’m less committed than I was last night (More kissing.)

Bella: Now I want to wait. (Pulls back)

Edward: What?

Bella: (Smiles sweetly) Now I’m messing with you.

Edward: (sniffing) Vampires.

Bella: What?

Edward: Victoria. The young ones were a distraction. She knew that I’d never leave you unprotected.

(Victoria arrives. There is a big vampire fight. Edward wins. Duh.)

Scene 10 (In Bella’s truck. Edward and Bella are speeding along at a rocking 45 miles per hour. Bella is clearly panicked.)

Bella: So tell me again what happened?

Edward: Well, we thought it was all over, but one of them snuck up out of no where and Jacob had to be a hero . . . .

Bella: Oooo! He’s hurt?

Edward: Yes, But he’s healing quickly. It’s a werewolf thing. Carlisle got to him and stopped the blood flow. The real problem was that his bones healed too fast and Carlisle had to re-break them all to make them set correctly.

Bella: Yuck.

Edward: He’s a tough kid.

Bella: Yep. I’ll invite him to the wedding. Then we’ll see how tough he is.

Edward: Speaking of the wedding. . . .

Bella: Yes?

Edward: Alice wants to make it a huge fancy deal.

Bella: (groan) You know I hate people making a fuss over me. (sigh) Oh, well. I guess I’ll just have to be the center of the universe again.

Edward: You’re the center of my universe, baby.

Bella: Oh, Edward! (Start kissing while he drives.) I'm gonna be a vampire! I'm gonna be a vampire!

Cookie Dough Truffles. Really.

I made these for book group last night.

I used Paula Deen's recipe. (This it the woman who once made a hamburger topped with a butter-fried egg and used two Krispy Kreme donuts in place of a bun, so you know these goodies ain't got a Weight Watchers label attached.) I added 1/2 cup more flour than the recipe called for because it seemed too runny. Then I chilled the dough before using a 1 inch ice cream scoop to form them into balls. Before dipping them, I put them on a cookie sheet in the freezer for an hour.

My other modification was that instead of using her chocolate bark candy coating, I used ganache made by heating a cup of whipping cream until it is steaming and then adding a whole bag of semi-sweet chocolate chips. (Milk chips won't work.) You then wisk and wisk the mixture until it is smooth and dark. When it cools slightly (so your balls don't turn to mush . . . . uh, did that come out right?), use your mad chopstick skills to dip the cookie dough filling into the ganache.

Leftover ganache can be used on strawberries, cupcakes, pumpkin bread, ice cream, walnuts, your spouse's lips . . . or just whatever.

When you go to your book group with a plate of these goodies, it won't even matter if the book was any good or if you have a single intelligent thing to say.

What Were YOU Doing Three Years Ago Today?

You probably can't remember, huh?

I do.

Happy 3rd birthday, Scamp.

Spill, Baby, Spill

What has been spoiled through man's fault
can be made good again through his work

- I Ching




I sincerely hope so.

Law

My last post perhaps generated as many questions in my own mind as it answered. Some time ago I was reading on a blog about a political issue. Though I can't remember the issue, the discussion became one of personal freedom, indicating that the more laws that are passed, the fewer freedoms people in fact have. There was actually a general conference talk last year on moral responsibility that addressed this very issue. While I agree that if people took greater care for the way they behaved, paid closer attention to traditional (and might I add, God-given) commandments, and then assumed responsibility for the consequences of their bad actions, we would have far fewer societal problems, I am not sure that I agree that laws are the hallmark of a society in decay.

"Laws" of course is a very general term, and not all laws can be classified as either being detrimental or beneficial to every person, but my opinion is that our laws demonstrate an attempt to make order out of chaos. Laws are a recognition that there are people in society, even if it is a small number, who will flout and even destroy conventions that keep us safe. Laws are an attempt to right centuries of poor traditions. Laws help us deal with the world as it IS, not just how we wish it to be, though laws can also help create a world that is more ideal. Laws can protect those in our world who would otherwise be the most marginalized. For example . . . .

* Sexual harassment laws have made it possible for women to progress and excel in the workplace. It might be argued that it men had just acted better then they wouldn't have been necessary, but in centuries of running the show, men didn't act better.

* Child labor laws and education statutes make it possible for children to be educated instead of being forced into sweat shop at very early ages.

* Laws have helped preserve some of the most beautiful places on earth--places that might have been lost or ruined due to greed and profit and carelessness.

* Environmental laws make the air cleaner to breathe now than it was 100 years ago, and give even American cities better air quality than many countries where no such laws are in place.

* Immunization rules help to make my son's school safe, instead of deadly incubator of disease.

No doubt we could make a negative list in the opposite direction, or add to the positive list, but I think the point is made sufficiently.

Back to the blog post about freedom I started this entry with: In one of the comments, a reader noted her frustration over having bought a home with some acreage outside the city limits. She was technically still in a subdivision, though the properties were all substantial. Due to some robbery issues, the majority of the neighbors wanted to hire a security guard to man the gate. All of the neighbors would be expected to share the cost of his wage. The reader was furious about this decision that she had voted against--believing that her individual right to spend her money as she wished was more important than a majority decision made in her community. She was considering moving.

Another example: My parents' community recently passed a curbside recycling program. The program costs each homeowner an additional $7/month on their garbage bill. People are not required to recycle, but all were required to pay the additional $7. The man in their community most adamantly leading the crusade against recycling claims that he is being "taxed without being represented," that only people who want to recycle should have to pay. The problem with his idea is that if there is an opt out (or the opt-in he favors) costs would skyrocket for the recyclers and the whole program would probably flop, which is not in the long-term interests of the community.

In my state, a liberal governor in the 70's saw that part of Oregon's draw was its lovely green space. He didn't want to see a time when the I-5 corridor was a solid city within two hours any direction of Portland. (Can you say Ogden to Provo?) Laws were passed regarding how much a city could grow. If your family farm was inside the city limit and you wanted to sell? Awesome. You could make a fortune. But if your farm was just outside the boundary then you couldn't sell. In addition, other laws made it nearly impossible for these same folks to bequeath land to their children or add houses to it. The result? Oregon's home values stay high; neighborhoods don't become deserted, just renewed; and five minutes from my house there are local farms, lovely open space and traffic is never a nightmare. The small farmers hate it. Personal freedoms to do what they want with their property and so forth.

On a broader scale? The civil rights laws of the sixties were in direct opposition to popular sentiment, at least in certain parts of the country. But the legislature and the courts were firm: the majority has no right to oppress the minority in its quest for the Constitutional (and natural) freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

As our society grows increasing complicated, how can the needs of the individual be balanced with democracy- where the majority chooses for everyone? Is it worth giving up some of our freedoms to maintain peace in our society as a whole? When have we given up too many freedoms? How much freedom are we actually entitled to?

It's Only "Activism" If You Disagree

One of the favorite get-out-the-vote techniques among conservatives is the question of the appointment of judges. The reasoning has been that conservative judges are less likely to "legislate from the bench."

My understanding of this phrase is that courts, at any level, will not write laws, but merely rule on whether or not certain laws are constitutional. This is why California's high court began allowing marriage between gay couples (18 months ago now?) despite a referendum against them passed by the people the previous year. The court ruled that the law was inherently discriminatory and that, as such, was in violation of the California State Constitution. Voters responded with a stronger referendum amending the constitution itself. The Court then had to reverse its decision and now marriages between gay couples cannot be performed in California either by law, or by mandate. Of course, it is only a matter of time before a case goes through enough appeals courts to ask the Supreme Court whether or not laws regarding marriage between people of the same sex are in violation of the federal Constitution.

Can you see the difficulty? My own reading of the Constitution makes it clear to me that the states are allowed the ability to regulate laws regarding marriage, because it is not a power specifically given to the feds. However, the Constitution also states in Article IV that, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." Marriage, being a public act with a public record should therefore be valid from state to state, like a driver's license, right? But what about the law in Utah, dating from the mid-nineties (I was on the floor when it passed) that no marriage would be recognized in that state unless it was between two people of opposite sexes? Similar laws exist in many other states.

The controversy and lawsuits on both sides make it a given that a case regarding the legality of marriage between homosexuals will make it to the Supreme Court in the next few years. There is little precedent here. State sodomy laws were struck down by the High Court nearly a decade ago based on the "right to privacy" that formed the basis of the Roe v. Wade abortion decision. But marriage is different--marriage is inherently public. People get married in order to publicly declare their commitment to one another; to give legitimacy to their relationship and to their children.

I've gotten sidetracked. This post wasn't meant to be about the issue of "gay marriage." I treated that at some length last summer. I merely use the complexity of the issue to illustrate a point about the Court.

It is this: People of conservative values have worked very hard in the last generation to ensure the election of public officials who will appoint conservative judges with the end goal of helping to preserve laws that maintain some level of public morality. On its surface this seems like a very worthwhile thing. However, it has been mentioned here on more than one occasion, that government will often create a set of laws hoping for a certain outcome, but there are other, unintended, consequences that come along as well.

Conservative judges don't just rule on "values" types issues--abortion, marriage, rights of churches, etc. They also tend to rule favorably on other things--torture, political breaks for big business, broad gun laws, etc. . . . things that a person vehemently opposed to abortion might also dislike. The courts have become as politically extreme as the politicians--when most Americans count themselves as somewhere in the middle.

No where is this more telling than in the Supreme Court decision that came down late last year regarding campaign finance reform. Here is a description:

"Most notoriously, Congress passed the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance bill, which President Bush signed into law; earlier this year, in a decision by Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court eviscerated that legislation and decreed that corporations have the right to spend unlimited funds to elect the candidates of their choice. In that case, known as Citizens United, the majority also reversed two recent Court decisions."

Stevens, the Justice who will soon retire, wrote a scathing descent in the case. His anger was based primarily on how broad the ruling was. He felt that the majority could have easily ruled in favor of the particular corporation in question, without applying broad Bill of Rights-type protection to a company and overturning precedent. The court, if it had truly been outside the political system should have ruled on the case without overturning the bi-partisan legislation that took years to pass.

The above referenced article continued, "[Chief Justice] Roberts and his allies, like the conservatives of seventy years ago, profess to believe in judicial restraint (the opposite of activism) and respect for precedent, but their actions belie their supposed values."

The "seventy years ago" refers to the conservative court that was seated when Franklin D Roosevelt came to office. Limited government proponents from California to Maine declared war on the New Deal by filing law suit after law suit, hoping that at least ONE would find its way to a friendly court who would then gut the New Deal and banking reform. Longevity won out: FDR ultimately appointed eight judges during his 3 1/4 terms, effectively ensuring that his particular vision of government would last a very long time.

Whether or not this is a good thing depends entirely on whether you see FDR as one of the finest presidents we ever had or if he started our country on a collision course with socialism. History repeats itself: President Obama was elected in a time of financial crisis, to a country already at war on two fronts (instead of later, as in FDR's time), high unemployment, in a razor thin election and with courts unfriendly to his agenda. Unlike that time, he is also faced with real-time reactions to his speeches, pundits with more sway than reporters, and comments "published" with every single news article on the web.

Like the conservatives at the time of the New Deal, our modern Republicans have also sworn to repeal Health Care (and whatever else might come out of this administration). The irony is that the more moderate Republican party of Bush Senior and the early Clinton years proposed a health care bill in essence very much like the one that just passed--back then it was the Democrats who screwed up. They were pushing so hard for a nationalized system they didn't see what was being offered as a good compromise. Now the most conservative Republicans are pushing so hard for what? A complete dismantling of government? that they can't see that what they are being offered IS a compromise.

What lessons will we take from history? Will the current Supreme Court foil the most progressive political agenda in a generation? And who ultimately will benefit/suffer if it does?

A Wicked Dilemma

So . . . I need some advice.

Do I buy season tickets in order to be guaranteed tickets to Wicked next spring?

Here are the facts:

* The run of the show is about two weeks, with two performances held for season ticket holders.

* I have never seen Wicked.

* The other two performances in the package are Legally Blonde and The Color Purple--both musicals.

* I can't just buy ONE set of season tickets, but have to spring for both. (Plantboy needs some culture.)

* Even mediocre seats average about $50/show for the series. You do the math. (And NO, you were not told that there would be no math.) I know it sounds like I must be independently wealthy to be even contemplating this, but it is not the case. (I'll probably put it on credit card and hope to sell a novel before then . . . or maybe I'll raid the boys' mission fund. Are you picking up on my sarcasm? 'Cause I'm layin' it on pretty thick.)

* Our population center is pretty small, and the show is running this spring for a few weeks in the largest city near us, so we may not get a lot of traffic from other areas to our smallish venue.

* I am not willing to sell my first (or second or third) born child to get tickets otherwise. Okay, scratch that last. It really depends on the day. In a moment of weakness, perhaps. . . .

Please weigh in here.


Also, YANKEE GIRL is the winner of the Star Wars contest from May 4th. Send me your physical address, Yankee Girl, and I will send you your prize. I will not stalk you or add you to my junk mail list. Promise.

A Trio of Favorite Things

Mother's Day weekend involved three wonderful things--movie night with my boys, Jane Austen and a culinary creation so sublime that I'm daydreaming about leftovers at nine in the morning.

Last summer we started a tradition of Family Movie Night on Friday nights. These boys forget to tie their laces, change their underwear, make their beds, wipe their bottoms . . . but they never forget a Family Movie Night. Sometimes they start asking about it on Monday. Last weekend we went to How to Train Your Dragon. 2D.

I'm not sure if this movie is for everyone. It was surprisingly violent, at least in a cartoon dragon-y sort of way. The Jedi loved it, even laughing uproariously in parts that I worried would scare them. My gripe with Dreamworks movies (a la Shrek) is that they are generally laden with pop culture references and mild innuendo in an effort to interest parents. How to Train Your Dragon, however, avoids this stupid trap and instead just tells a great story. I loved every part of this movie--the action, the father-son angst, the coming of age bit, the puppy love story--but mostly I loved the dragon. "Toothless" is the sweetest/most terrifying creature in recent imagination. This movie is great family fare. If your kids are old enough/willing to wear the glasses, there were a few scenes in this that would have been completely awesome 3D.





And if the wonderful Astrid doesn't inspire a whole line of Gothic-Viking-Chic this fall, I will be very surprised.




I downloaded a reading of Northanger Abbey onto my iPod last weekend and spent my paper route with Jane Austen's snarky voice in my ear.

But is she too snarky in Northanger?

I know that Northanger Abbey is meant to spoof the Gothic novels that were gaining so much popularity the same time that Austen wrote. She does this rather effectively. In my mind, however, Austen is spoofing far more than the Gothic novel. She is also writing a gentle reproof of romance novels in the way that she characterizes her heroine, and she warns the reader before she takes the protagonist down any path--reassuring the reader that she isn't going to break the expected mold. Catherine Morland is as bland as any heroine anywhere in literature. I can't decide if Austen's point is that even a girl totally average in every respect can have her own kind of adventure, or if her point is that what seems adventurous in a moment is really just entirely mediocre and worth mocking.

Poor Catherine. Her chief charm in attracting her hero is that in adoring him, she becomes adorable. He is funny and sarcastic, when he isn't working hard at forming her opinions, but she misses almost all of it. He likes her for her childlike demeanor, un-sophistication and modesty. I think he is hoping that if he gets her young then he can train her up right. Yuck.

This is one of Austen's last-published novels, and my latest listening of it made me think that her writing tone is tired, jaded and deeply cynical. I was surprised to learn that it was her first written novel. The brilliant Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility are not, therefore, earlier on the spectrum of her biting wit, but are instead a pulling back of Austen's natural inclination to tease, mock and parody. Northanger Abbey has all of the bite and very little of the charm of her more famous works.

I can appreciate the bits that parody the Gothic novels, but Austen's mockery seems to stem from the fact that the gruesome only exists in run-away imagination and doesn't in any way reflect any situation that could actually happen. And yet, two generations after her publication, Jack the Ripper terrorized the streets of London. As lovely as Austen's world is, her's is the truly imaginary one.

As narrator, Austen says some interesting things in defense of the novel and its importance, while complaining that boring authors of history, etc. got all the legitimacy and pay. There is something to be said for this: Austen was paid ten pounds for this novel. A pittance even then. Her brother published it posthumously, as the family was in abject poverty; a situation that might have been entirely avoided if a much younger Austen had not once rejected a wealthy suitor. Even the poverty-stricken Jane couldn't help but appreciate that irony as she lay dying.

As for my Mother's Day dinner, I cooked it myself. If this sounds lame, please realize that this is exactly as I wanted it. I whipped up an amazing dinner, created a huge mess, and didn't do a single dish. Bliss.

Here is what we had:

Chicken Florentine Fonduta
Spring Greens (from the garden)
Lemon Rosemary Bread
Rhubarb Crumble with French Vanilla Ice Cream

I will only give the recipe for the first. The second is one of Plantboy's delicious salads including every vegetable available in my fridge or garden; I've posted Lemon Rosemary bread before, and if you haven't made it by now then there is no hope for you; I modified the crisp recipe so heavily that it doesn't really bear writing down. The biggest difference in rhubarb crumble as opposed to an apple or berry one, is that you need to find a recipe that makes some kind of super sweet batter mixed with the rhubarb. I believe the one I used is a modification of one that Desmama posted a year or two ago? I forget.

But here is the piece de resistance:

Serves 4

2 large chicken breasts, pounded to uniform thickness
Olive Oil
3 cloves garlic
2 shallots
2 TBSP butter
3/4 cup apple juice
1 cup chicken stock
1 cup heavy cream
4-6 ounces of some kind of Italian cheese (like fontina or parmesan) or a blend that isn't too heavy on mozarella
Spinach and/or asparagus for four
Short, rough pasta for four (like penne or radiatori or farfalle)

Cook lightly salted chicken in olive oil one medium heat until browned on both sides and cooked through. Pull out of pan and set aside. Add butter to pan with chopped shallots and garlic. Saute over medium heat until they are translucent and soft. At this point, the smell in your house will be so fabulous that you might need to pick yourself up off the ground.

Add stock and juice to the pan and turn the heat up to medium high. Whisk it to deglaze the bottom of the pan. Boil about three minutes until the liquid reduces by half. Reduce heat to medium and whisk in the cup of cream. Allow the mixture to boil until it further reduces and thickens slightly. Stir often. Add cheese and wisk until it is all melted. If the sauce is too thick or stringy, add another 1/4 cup of juice. Keep the sauce covered on low, stirring every few minutes.

While the sauce simmers, put two pots of water on to boil and cut up chicken. Return the chicken to the pan and coat it with sauce. In one pot of boiling water, cook the pasta according to package directions for al dente. Put a steamer on top of the second pot and add loose, frozen spinach into it until warmed through; or steam the tender parts of the asparagus with the woodiest bits cut off. The veggies will only take about five minutes. On Sunday I had both kinds of veggies and it is impossible for me to say which tasted the best. They were both so good. Of course, if you sub the spinach for asparagus, you can't really call this dish chicken "florentine" as that designation is reserved for Italian chicken dishes with spinach in them.

Layer pasta, vegetables, and sauce on each plate or in each pasta bowl. Sprinkle a few pine nuts on top if you are feeling especially Mormet. Wow. So good. I found this picture on line for a very similar recipe. Mine was prettier.



The crumble was a lovely, sweet and tart finish to a wonderful meal. Those chocolate lava cakes wouldn't have been bad either . . . .



I was going to post about getting older as tomorrow is my birthday. This one feels like a milestone in many ways, but this post is already lengthy enough. I will think of you tomorrow as I take a slice of red velvet cake around to my local friends. This might have to do for the rest of you:

Dear Mom

I am not sure if I will ever have a daughter. Oh, certainly one day there will be daughters-in-law, but I am not at all sure that there will ever be a teenaged woman in the same household as myself. In some ways that makes me very sad. Yes, really. I got into the whole teaching gig to begin with because I really love young people. I love watching them grow, change, develop and learn. Even when I was an older teenager, I loved taking the younger girls under my wing--showing them around the junior high school, helping them transition into our Young Women group, listening to all their problems and stories at Girls' Camp. Though I have no actual parenting experience when it comes to teenage girls, I have loads of experience observing them in almost every other setting. In the last 12 years, I have continuously been serving in the Young Women, teaching teenagers at school, or tutoring them one-on-one.

It is interesting to note that these three activities have seldom overlapped. It is as if the Lord knows exactly what I need or something.

For Mother's Day, here is a letter from the young woman living in your house. . . . or who one day will be. It is not a letter she would ever dream of sending herself, it is only in retrospect that she will come to see just how important some of this might have been. The trick with parenting is figuring out ahead of time what is important.


Dear Mom,

Let me tell you first of all that I love you very much. Yes, yes, I know I yelled at you just yesterday about the skirt you told me was too tight for me to wear anymore, but my temper really is short-lived. I won't make any promises about not letting it happen again. I'm sure it will. Please forgive me anyway. Your love and forgiveness is my soft place to land.

I know I grumble about early morning seminary and scripture study with the family. Oh, and sometimes prayer too. But it really is such an important part of my day. I know that when I am part of these things the bad influences at school don't seem as hard to deal with. Please don't give up on these habits, even when my attitude leaves a lot to be desired. Completing my Personal Progress program would also be easier if I had your help.

School is hard. Please remember just how hard. There are pressures there that don't seem at all temporary. If I complain a lot about a class, it is probably because I don't understand the material all that well, or I think the teacher is mean, or the kids in the class are really getting under my skin. And if I tell you that a teacher is out to get me, or hates me in particular, it is probably not true. Again, my talk like that is most likely hiding other issues. But if you don't listen to me long enough; yes, even through all my ranting, then you will never learn what is really behind my surface comments.

That friend I casually mentioned 10 times yesterday? He's a boy. And I'm crazy about him. Maybe even in love with him. And while my version of love seems very immature and even silly to you, to me it is very real. Don't you dare belittle or tease me about it. The same goes for when this same boy breaks my heart. One day I will see it as a learning experience; right now it just hurts. Validate me.

If I have a regular boyfriend, there is no doubt that we are kissing more than would make you comfortable. If I don't have a boyfriend, there is still somebody I have my eye on. Maybe more than one somebodies. My hormones are powerful. If you haven't talked with me candidly about sex then it isn't too late. Even if I roll my eyes a lot and try to tell you that I know all that stuff, I'm just blowing smoke. I need to know what you think about sex, and how intimacy between men and women fits into our belief system.

When I say candidly, I need to know more than just the biology and the mechanics. We watched THAT movie in 7th grade health. I need you to tell me what effect my specific actions will have on the young men I know--whether I'm trying to get away with a two-piece swimming suit at the water slide, or sitting on a boyfriend's lap, or French kissing . . . . if I haven't exhibited some of these behaviors yet, well, my friends probably have. And if not my friends then kids at school. Please help me to know how boys tick so that I can be careful.

At the same time, don't reinforce my negative stereotypes about boys. Don't teach me to manipulate and tease. Don't use dad as an ATM to support a shopping habit. Don't give my dad the silent treatment when you are angry. When you act that way, you are teaching me things about relationships that will not help me to create a pleasant home-life, and they will undermine my respect for men. It might even effect my desire to get married.

I know that I'm busy, but it is really good for me to have a set of expectations at home regarding my help. What I don't realize now is that when I am one day married with a husband and children of my own, much of my time each day will be consumed with the business of running a household. Before I leave home, I should know how to budget my money, change a diaper, clean a bathroom, wash and iron clothes, and how to cook some basic meals. To say the least.

As you teach me these things, your attitude towards these tasks will largely determine how happy I am doing similar things. If you treat your work of the home as drudgery, I will either feel the same, or reject my potential as a homemaker all together.

Even as you go about your many and varied household tasks, it is really good for me to see you doing other things as well. It is even good for me to be told that my own agenda needs to be put off because you are doing something else--even if that something else in non-essential. I need to be reminded pretty often that I am part of something greater than myself: a family, and that the needs of the family overshadow the needs of any one person in that family.

Manners are important. Teach me to be gracious, polite and grateful. I know it is a fine line to help me act with dignity while also teaching me to be strong and assertive. But I know you can do it! This is the same balance I see in you and the other women I look up to and respect. To me, the very essence of womanhood is that perfect mix of tough and tender that you seem to have figured out. Help me figure it out too.

I have a lot of friends; perhaps there are times when even you and I are great friends. I hope so. But there are times when I mostly need a mother--even if it means coming down on me in the way my friends never would. I will only have one mother, and you have a short amount of time to get it right. Please love me enough to put limits on my behavior.

Chances are that my friends and I are more ambitious regarding education and careers than the women in your generation were. Bear in mind that very few women have the inclination, let alone the luxury, of staying home with their children full time anymore. If I am ambitious then it greatly increases the chances of me finding a career that is fulfilling and joyful to me.

Having to chose between the many activities that I love will be really good for me. And it won't hurt me to have to earn my own money for some of these things either. When I have to start helping pay my way, chances are that I will get a lot more selective about what I participate in. You would be naive to believe me if I tell you that I will "pay you back" after you shell out money for band camp or EFY or another cheerleading uniform.

It doesn't matter how compelling my arguments are, there is no reason for me to have exclusive and unlimited use of a cell phone all the time, particularly if that phone has Internet on it. If I have one on my person, then I can almost guarantee I am abusing it. I'm texting at church and in class, I'm talking on it when I'm supposed to be studying; I've gotten inappropriate pictures, jokes and websites sent to me, even when I haven't asked for them. My generation's use of technology is teaching me that every random thought that pops into my head is worth sharing. My emotional status updates are seldom appropriate; it is up to you to follow me on Facebook or Twitter or Myspace to help me keep my public behavior in check.

I will resist you at nearly every turn, but please don't give up on me. My potential is beyond what either of us see.

Love,

Your Daughter


Feel free to add your own PS in the comment section.

May the Fourth Be With You

Today is International Star Wars Day. I hope I don't feel compelled to talk with a lithp, I mean lisp, all day.

I'd like to take a moment from our regularly scheduled program to geek out on you. (If you think that IS the regularly scheduled program, then you can just keep your comments to yourself.)

When I was about five, I had a set of Underoos with R2D2 on them. No, they were not for boys. The original Star Wars movie (Episode IV: A New Hope) was released the month I turned two. One of my earliest memories is of going to the theater to see Episode V (The Empire Strikes Back). I was five. The film was scary. The movie theater had a ceiling that was old and dome-like, the supports made of wood. I remember leaning back in my seat to avoid the scary and thinking that the ceiling looked like the underside of huge spider. Not exactly the most comforting thought.


By the time Episode VI (Return of the Jedi) came out in 1983, I was in love with Luke Skywalker. That's right, NOT Han Solo. I was never big on "the rebel factor." (Ironic really, as Luke was technically a leader in the rebellion, but with all the force stuff he was mostly a straight arrow.) During the nineties, I wore my hair short and blonde a la Meg Ryan or Jenna Elfman. When it would grow out and need a cut, my older brother would assume Luke's whiny voice and say, "But Uncle Owen! I was going to go into Tashee Station to pick up some power converters!" Ah, Luke! You are my first love.



I was as shocked as the rest of the world in finding out that Luke and Leia were siblings. Particularly after his undisguised admiration in Episode IV, and that highly un-sisterly kiss she plants on him in Episode V. And why aren't Jedi allowed to marry anyway? Are they basically highly violent monks and nuns? The world may never know, though there are plenty of people who've asked the question. Yes, I've watched their YouTube videos.



When I was in college, if I was feeling a bit of insomnia, I put on Episode IV and was asleep in 20 minutes. Not that I don't love this movie, but that I have honestly seen it 100 times if I'd seen it once. But no matter how many times I see it, I always cry at the end of Episode VI when Darth Vadar decides he can't stand idly by while his son is tortured, and throws the Emperor to his death in a cloud of cackling and blue lightning.

I still remember the kid who told me, in about the third grade, that because the Star Wars movies were episodes 4, 5 and 6, that one day they would make episodes1-3. I had hoped beyond hope that he was right.

Now I think my own imagination was almost better. Like so many old-school Star Wars fans, I find myself asking, "Why did they even make these movies?" But then I only have to pause long enough to consider all of the merchandising my Jedi have talked me into (or I've talked them into?) in the last two years and the remainder of the movies, as well as The Clone Wars, starts to make a lot more sense.

These "new" Star Wars movies (which my Jedi never call them), are called

Episode I: Attack of the Horrible Child Actors

Episode II: The Worst Love Story In This Or Any Other Universe

Episode III: Revenge of the Incomprehensible Plot

The original trilogy is hokey. From special effects that look drawn on to props that look like duct-taped and spray-painted broom handles. Lucas must have maxed out his credit card at Radio Shack for some of this stuff. But it is the campiness that makes it a classic. Ridiculously implausible scenery is coupled with stilted dialogue common to the genre. (It must be noted that the mediocre screenplays of the first are Academy Award worthy compared to the second trilogy.) However, the beauty of the first films is the genuine and believable interaction of the tree main characters. Harry, Hermione and Ron owe a lot to Luke, Leia and Han. What smart and tough girl doesn't want to find herself in such a triumvirate? Only with a different hair-do.



In his more recent efforts, Lucas substitutes flashy graphics and technology for genuine human interaction. Of course it was obvious that the banthas were just dressed up elephants! But they were real, and it made the whole thing feel more real. I just don't think you will ever elicit any kind of positive response about Jar Jar Binks from anyone older than, say, seven.




After the fiasco of the first three episodes, start to finish, animation was the only thing left to Lucas. Still, I'm quite a big fan of The Clone Wars. When I'm less distracted by the animation married to reality (because it is ALL animation), and long, meandering plot lines are replaced by 23 minute stories, and the actors only have to be as good as their voices, it works pretty well.

It is embarrassing to say for just how long I could go on this vein.

Just after Episode I premiered, there was a Trivial Pursuit Star Wars game issued. My mom bought it, but my brothers and I found it no fun after just a game or two. (My sister looked at us like we were all nuts; the Star Wars love is but one in a very long list of Ways We Are Not Alike.) Why? It was too easy. There was hardly a question we couldn't answer, and an individual's turn might drag on for 10-15 minutes.

As I survey the many pop culture references that still abound regarding these films, I think that for better or worse they are here to stay. It might be possible that these movies, particularly the originals, are the most influential cultural phenomenon of my generation. And they are, hands down, the best thing to come out of the 70's.

There is a prize in this post today. To enter, you must put a Star Wars quote into your comment. For even more fun, leave the quotes uncredited and we can all guess who said what.

The Force will be with you. Always.