Not so magical...

It seems that the court trial involving Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling and Steven Jan Vander Ark, author of an encyclopedia fan site he hopes to turn into a book, is turning into quite the sob fest. The NY Times writes more on it here, but I'm just going to go straight into my own opinions on this one.

I am a big Harry Potter fan--I think the books are fantastic and as a writer, I've always had a lot of respect for J.K. Rowling, not only due to her immense imagination, but her philanthropic efforts as well. I'm having a tough time rendering a decision on this one, though, because Rowling's protection of her series strikes me as a little selfish. Her explanation for not wanting Vander Ark to go to print with his book is that she intended on publishing a similar encyclopedia and donating her proceeds to charity. I can't help but toss aside that excuse, though. It doesn't really hold water. I've seen intense Harry Potter fanatics in action (I went to get the last novel at Barnes and Noble on the night before..I know, I know) and they are a doting and loyal group. I'm sure that anything Rowling publishes will be eaten up in a second by that crew. Keeping that in mind, there is certainly room for someone like Vander Ark, another devoted fan, to put some more Potter paraphernalia out there. I mean, seriously, J.K.--do you think he's going to make that much of a fortune from it? Don't you think most people are going to prefer simply visiting his website rather than buying the book? That is, unless he plans to take it down, which I don't think is true. Regardless, my point is that this guy is just a fan who wants to reach out to other fans with a venture he's worked hard on for years. Just a few years ago, she even went as far as to publicly endorse his site. 

Bottom line:  I know Harry Potter is your brain child, J.K., but this guy and his book are harmless. Don't bring out the big guns on this one. I have a feeling it will only paint you in an unflattering light.

Who Wants to Be a Journalist

Nope, not the name of a new game show, but close. It seems like television these days is making journalism seem like the ideal field to be in and this blog by James Poniewozik at Time recognizes this new phenomenon.

I love the post that Poniewozik wrote because I, too, have been noticing recently that MTV especially seems to be hyping up journalism like no other. Not only does the network have its favorite "reality" star, Lauren Conrad, interning at Teen Vogue (though the actual work that she does is up for debate), but it also has a brand new reality series called The Paper that chronicles the race for editor-in-chief at a Florida high school.

Here's one line in particular from the piece that popped out at me:

"The lesson, I suppose, is that everyone wants to work in magazines, or newspapers, or TV news. It's just that no one wants to buy, read or watch them—except on a soap opera or a cable reality show. Journalism students, plan your careers accordingly."

For someone who is trying to plan their career accordingly, that sentence is a little daunting, but I also have to admit, incredibly insightful. The field of journalism seems like the perfect place on television, yet it is an area where the future of traditional formats is ambiguous and veterans and rookies alike are finding it hard to keep their heads above water. So, it makes me wonder--are we all writers at heart or is television hypnotizing youth into believing journalism is the "it job"?

Everybody wants to be a journalist, but how many of us actually will be?

Taking Shots at Hillary

I just came across this item on Perez Hilton that provides a video clip from this past weekend of Hillary Clinton taking a shot of Crown Royal whiskey and then chasing it with a beer. ABC News's Political Radar blog also described the incident. I don't know how I missed this one over the last couple days, so I definitely had to bring it up today.

The clip, which is about on the same entertainment level of watching Barack Obama bowl (as in amusing, but is this actually relevant?), features Clinton taking two small sips of the whiskey and then throwing back her head to finish it off. She is later seen drinking beer and apparently she followed up the beer with some pepperoni pizza. Now, why is it that people feel the need to not only record such events, but also do an actual analysis of the video itself? The clip that Perez features shows its hosts doing play by play commentary of it.

I don't feel like I really got anything out of watching it, other than the knowledge that Clinton must like whiskey enough to be able to sip on it for a few minutes. But am I consequentially thinking "more power to her"? No. I mean, if I'm going to base my feelings on a presidential hopeful on their shot-taking technique, I think I know a few people here at school who would get my vote.

This is the first presidential election that I'm allowed to vote in, which makes this essentially my first taste of what goes down on the campaign trail. So far, I have to say that the screen time that is given to the every day actions of the candidates is a little ridiculous. But, then again, I'm focusing mainly on the Democrats. Has anyone uncovered McCain's "just like us" talent or lack thereof yet? I think he needs to step up to the plate. If Barack can make foreign diplomats happy by making their bowling skills look a lot better and Hillary can keep up at the bar, McCain's going to have to throw something onto the table, too.

Below is a CNN video of Clinton's bar-side manner:

There's no crying...scratch that, cursing, in baseball

Obviously couldn't help but read this story on Yahoo! News about a construction worker who attempted to plant a David Ortiz jersey in the new Yankee stadium in an attempt to give the team a taste of what it's like to have a curse riding against you.

Okay. Now maybe it's because I'm currently residing in Boston (I don't really think so because I do hail from NJ anyway), but I find it very funny how serious everyone interviewed in the article seemed to be taking the incident. I'm pretty sure that unless I missed that scientific breakthrough that proved it possible to "curse" something that this was just a practical joke. I know curses are taken quite seriously in baseball, but seriously, the guy planted a jersey in a construction site--not exactly punishable by law.

Or is it? I found the part of the article that spoke of possible criminal charges coming up against this man to be ridiculous. If they find a way to sue him or something because of this, I'm going to lose a little faith in our legal system.

The absolute best part though is the following selection including a quote from Yankees president, Randy Levine:

"Levine said the shirt would be cleaned up and sent to the Jimmy Fund, a charity affiliated with Boston’s Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. 'Hopefully the Jimmy Fund will auction it off and we’ll take the act that was a very, very bad act and turn it into something beautiful,' he said."

Maybe, in kindergarten along with learning how to share and cut with scissors, we should also be taught that cursing (and by cursing, of course, I mean that of the magical variety) is very, very bad. Just to prevent such catastrophes.

The Long Road to the Olympics

(above: banners hung from the Golden Gate Bridge preceding the torch's arrival in CA.)

According to this story from Yahoo! News, demonstrators have already begun to group together along the relay route in San Francisco that is the Olympic torch's only stop in North America. This latest protest comes soon after Hillary Clinton called on President Bush to not attend the opening ceremonies in Beijing and also as Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Michael Capuano urges for a resolution stating that Bush must boycott unless China makes efforts to end violence in Darfur.


Concerning this matter, I happen to think that Barack Obama gave a very appropriate response in a recent CBS interview. The following selection is taken from this article at CNN:



"On the one hand, I think that what's happened in Tibet; [and] China's support of the Sudanese government in Darfur, is a real problem." But, he added: "I'm hesitant to make the Olympics a site of political protest because I think it's partly about bringing the world together."



I think that Obama's statement was incredibly tactful. The next president is definitely going to have to deal with China and for a candidate to alienate them this early on as Clinton did might not be the best precedent for peaceful relations in the future.



As a side note: I realize that I keep flip-flopping with my political opinions concerning the two Democratic candidates, but I honestly can't help it. I like Obama, but then he makes cocky comments about not being at all interested in the vice presidency. So, then I start to favor Clinton and the whole Bosnia debacle occurs. I think it's fair to say that they are making it a pretty tough choice.



But, back to the issue at hand. The Olympics. I completely agree with Obama that the games are supposed to be "about bringing the world together." That's why, for once, I can relate to the decisions being made by President Bush and his hesitancy against any kind of boycotting. The problem in Darfur is a very serious issue, but I don't think boycotting the Olympics is going to truly get through to China. What it will do is break a long standing tradition that promotes a time of peace and agreement between the countries of the world.



If we want to get through to China, we must do something more substantial than not showing up for a series of sporting events. If we really mean business, I feel that there's so much more that could be done than having Bush stay at home for the opening ceremonies.

The below video captures some of the protesting in San Francisco:

Miley Cyrus continues to take over the world...

I was watching E!News with my roommates yesterday, which, you know, is informative if you you need to know who Britney Spears is eating dinner with or whether or not George Clooney knows what his "Leatherheads" costar John Krasinski's middle name is. Regardless, one of their segments ended up catching my eye for this blog post. It seems that teen (not going to use that popular "tween" word because I think it's ridiculous) phenom Miley Cyrus has her own podcast show on YouTube that she hosts with best friend (BFF in E! language), back-up dancer Mandy Jiroux.

I decided to check out the podcast today, and for someone who missed the whole "Hannah Montana" thing by about seven years, I was actually pleasantly surprised. Neither Cyrus or Jiroux is attempting to be Barbara Walters, but they chat about their lives and friendship in a cutesy, comical way that I can definitely see appealing to young girls. I can also see why Cyrus appeals to parents, as well, with her "we love Jesus!" professions and wholesome use of the word "darn". Also, while she does make silly faces and clown around, she doesn't play young and dumb, but in fact appears older than her 15 years with her deep voice and mature handling of fame.

Is Cyrus, with the help of her best friend, going to take over the world? Well, given that with a little research you can find out that Jiroux is member of a new music group called The Beach Girls (sounds...original?) I'm going to say no, but the twosome do have some serious potential to be the new idols for a generation of young girls. And with their peppy spirits and overall sunny dispositions, I'd say let 'em go for it. At least as long as their idea of fun remains "sleepovers" and they flash peace signs, not body parts, to the paparazzi.

Here's their YouTube site and below is the episode that briefly appeared on E!News in which Cyrus and Jiroux turn the tables on radio show host Ryan Seacrest:

News Trust

Our in-class project this week with News Trust's Rory O'Connor was a group evaluation of this poorly sourced, disorganized article about the rice and wheat crisis being suffered in Asia and the Middle East. Browsing the site, though, I found a featured video today that represents the information much better and was rated 4 out of 5 stars on the site. This video, I believe, is much better than the article we analyzed in class because it presents the issue from the angle of different countries and different news networks. I also found it much easier to follow along with because the facts are presented in a much more clear format with a nicer style, rather than an article that read like a spread sheet.

As for the story itself, it's kind of embarrassing for me to realize how isolated I am in the life I live here in the United States. I didn't even know of this situation until it was presented to us during the seminar and while I hope that I would've soon learned of it through another venue anyway, I can't be entirely positive. I feel like it's so easy in America to ignore the plights of other nations that are so apart from our lives that we can't even imagine what it would be like to suffer them..far too easy.

Under Pressure

This is the first I'm hearing of Chelsea Clinton's questioning by a Butler University student about whether her mother's credilibility was affected by her handling of the president's affair with Monica Lewinsky. Perez has the story, as well as Mark Memmott and Jill Lawrence's USA Today blog.

Memmott and Lawrence's blog poses its readers a question, asking, "Did Chelsea Clinton handle the 'Lewinsky' question well?" Since, I happened to come across it, I figure I might as well post a response.

In my opinion, Clinton, who responded "I do not think that is any of your business," to the student, Evan Strange, was entirely within rights to do so. She was only about 18 when the investigation and controversy surrounding Lewinksy were at their greatest heights, so I don't know why people wouldn't take this into account and offer up some sensitivity in this situation. I believe her reaction to an extremely difficult matter such as her father's public infidelity when she was merely a teenager was similar to that of what most daughter's would say under such quick pressure to respond. One has to put themselves in her shoes and imagine what she felt when the question was brought up. I mean, I know she has been dealing with this all for a very long time and is used to people prying into the private life of her family, but that doesn't mean she's ever become okay with it. I know that Strange claims to be a Clinton supporter who was only trying to question Chelsea about difficulties her mother might face in light of her handling of that situation, but it was still certainly a ballsy question to pose. I don't believe he was out of line, but I think that he, along with everyone else, should accept the response it drew without critique.

My bottom line here: Chelsea Clinton is not running for president, her mother is. I don't think she is obligated to speak out about personal matters relating to the actions of her parents if she doesn't wish to delve into them willingly.

I appreciated The Washington Post's questioning of "Is it Fair to Ask Chelsea Clinton About Lewinsky?" Check out the comments left under the brief article, they are varied and many quite interesting.

Also, here's the video of the incident, in case you haven't seen it:

And the Pinocchio goes to...

Today in class we watched the latest popular YouTube hit centered on presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The Huffington Post's RJ Eskow did an excellent blog post about this situation, the most interesting quote of his being the following:

"If they wanted to, the networks could juxtapose video of Sen. Clinton's dramatic recitation of the battle with this clip of that sweet eight-year-old on the tarmac with a bouquet. The question is: Will they want to?"

We've now seen, via the above video link, that that is exactly what has been done. I have to reiterate some of the thoughts from our class discussion. In this technological age of information, why do political candidates keep lying about things that can easily be proven as falsehoods? First, Mitt Romney made outrageous false claims about watching his father march with Martin Luther King, and now this? C'mon, candidates, where are your speech writers? Well, apparently (at least according to The Huffington Post's update above) Hillary's are busy making up proper statements to tidy up this bad situation. Wouldn't it be easier to just prepare moving, honest speeches in the first place, though? Maybe years ago politicians could get away with lying, at least for a fairly extended period of time, but these days the minute one spouts out a lie, people are ready and raring to go to do their research. All I can say is, I hope Obama and McCain can manage to avoid embarassment for the duration of their campaigns, just to leave us voters with some benefit of the doubt.

Anyway, I was on CNN and discovered that Hillary has more than one video circulating around. Below, a Chilean man portrays her in a YouTube parody dubbed "Little Hillary":

South Park Saves Spears?

I used to not be too big of a fan of South Park, but it's grown on me recently now that I've seen the smart social commentary that lurks behind those annoying voices. I also don't want anyone to think I'm a huge Britney Spears fan because I've blogged about her more than once, but this particular subject begs for some spotlight and attention.

In an episode entitled "Britney's New Look," that aired last week, South Park ripped on the swarms of paparazzi that regularly flank Spears by having its main characters decide to join in on the madness of stalking her and then come to regret their decision when she shoots herself. I know South Park usually doesn't bother to censor itself, but Spears's apparent "suicide" was quite a shocker to me--except that a minute later in the episode you find out that Britney has only shot her head off, an action that results in a hilarious sequence in which her managers spin it as another example of her reinventing herself. The press and industry insiders then jumps all over this new story, a man in the recording studio remarking how stupid she is, to which one of the boys comically marvels that is a given because she no longer has a brain. Although, the kids try to protect her, Spears is ultimately photographed to death by the paparazzi who explain they are doing it as a human sacrifice. It is revealed at the very end of the episode that Miley Cyrus is their next victim. Only on South Park.

I was fully expecting for South Park to make jabs at Spears throughout the entire episode, but it was a pleasant surprise to see the show defending her and making a statement about how harmful the paparazzi's constant presence in her life could prove to be. This episode is being talked about all over the web, from The Huffington Post to E!Online. Everyone seems to be highly amused and impressed by the episode, but what I would like to see is a response from Spears or Cyrus about the show. I don't know if it's too easy to be appreciative when you are also partly the butt of the joke.

Below is the episode if you're interested, it is available both here and here, but it's tough to find on YouTube because many of the clips have been taken down.

Bad Boys

Any blog entry entitled "New Jersey Vs. New York: The Great Governor Skank Off" is surely something I'm going to read. Mo Rocca at AOL News posted this item yesterday, but I just came across it. I highly suggest everyone go read it, especially if you're tired of all these headlines lately being generated by promiscuous politicians. I found it to be a really funny satirical item. My favorite of Rocca's lines is the following:

"Then over the skies of Albany appeared a crusader, someone willing to get right in there: sexual dive bomber Eliot Spitzer. Even though he had an Anne Archer-smoking hot wife, he was eager to risk it all (career and clap) to save the reputation of NY's governorship."

I find Rocca's witty coverage refreshing compared to articles such as this in The Independent that takes more pleasure in mocking the doings of these men than the media circus of tales of sexual misconduct that has resulted. I also found it slightly more relevant than this blog entry by John Woestendiek at the Baltimore Sun who speaks of the likenesses between Eliot Spitzer and the Spitz breed of dog (split screen picture comparison and all!).

In light of all this rehashing of such tabloid-esque material, I'd also like to share this YouTube video I found:

T Trouble on St. Patty's Day..I can relate

I'm going to link over to 9 Neighbors and the Ms Maggie Moo Talks 2 U blog for this little piece inspired by "Maggie's" complaints about attempting to travel on the T on St. Patrick's Day. For all those not quite familiar with the Boston lingo, the T is what others just refer to as the subway, short for MBTA. It is relatively simple to navigate(at least compared to my trips to NYC) and definitely an inexpensive travel option for getting around the city.

HOWEVER, riding the T on St. Patrick's Day is quite an experience. I'd like to quote "Maggie" with the following brief anecdote:

"After dinner and the yummiest margaritas, I made my way back. My travels on the red line was OK and normal-but when I got to my green line, craziness ensued.Why? Because all of the students from the 2 colleges I live between were coming back from the airport. They were sports teams and had TONS of bags. In addition,people were still coming back from the pubs and they were extremely smelly and extremely drunk. Normally, this would be funny, but when you are wedged between a large man in a mustard colored leather jacket and a small old Asian woman who's breath smells like dog poop, it just makes you angry."

She then goes on to basically apologize for the pointless rant, but I would like to take this opportunity to wholly agree with her thoughts and offer up my own St. Patrick's Day story. Last year, while also travelling on the green line on the night before the infamous Irish holiday, the T was so jam packed with people that you were literally touching about 20 random strangers at once and bumping into all of them every time the train lurched. Oh, and everybody was also drunk and attempting to lead sing-alongs at the top of their lungs. Oh, and one of my friends was offered a shot by the people next to her. Another got her butt grabbed by the man behind her who kept inconspicuously NOT avoiding the bumping. So, don't feel too bad, "Maggie." We've all been there, it's just part of the charm.

Take a look at 9 Neighbors if you are living in the Boston area. I really enjoyed checking it out because the postings were both entertaining and very easy to relate to. Everyone enjoys when you know exactly what someone's talking about. I found it to be accessible to a wide variety of people and their personal interests, showcasing blogs about all types of items and news. If you are getting weary of Boston.com, it's a fun substitute.

Couple's Engagement is "Up in the Air"

I can't help but post a link to this story that I just found on Yahoo!News. Apparently, a man in London thought up what he deemed to be the most perfect proposal--to place a $12,000 engagement ring for his girlfriend inside of a helium balloon and then literally "pop the question" by giving her a pin to pop open the balloon. Maybe the man, Lefkos Hajji, should've considered Murphy's Law when he thought up this clever idea, though, for a burst of wind carried his pricey proposal up into the sky as he was walking out of the shop. Now, he is claiming that his angry girlfriend is refusing to talk to him until he buys her a new ring. Wow.

This was all originally reported by The Sun, which I know is not the most credible source, but I think it's a great story to pass along. If indeed this actually happened to Hajji, instead of being a mere publicity stunt, I can't help but feel for the guy. In theory, the idea is sweet and romantic and I certainly have never heard of it before. I also feel, however, that that's $12,000 he'll never see again. The confrontation with his girlfriend must have really been something to hear, too. Can you imagine? "Honey, I was planning to propose, but I put the ring in a balloon and it flew away. It did cost me $12,000, though." It sounds too ridiculous to be true, which when it comes to The Sun I think could be entirely possible.

I repeat, however, if all of this really did go down--that's some tough luck. Better to get that stuff out of the way now, rather than after you're married, though.

I tried my luck with Paint for the above. ^ Sorry about the amateur art work. :D

Oops! They Did It Again

Yesterday, it was reported that some employees at the UCLA Medical Center are soon to be fired due to a confidentiality breach. The employees apparently snooped through the medical files concerning Britney Spears's most recent stay at the hospital. Apparently, there is no evidence that any of the employees sold information to tabloids, but they are still in violation of state and federal laws that ensure medical privacy.

While, I realize that Spears certainly puts a lot of herself out there, I still don't think she deserves for her rights to be put into question and I support these actions by the hospital. If you go to the popular tabloid site, X17, you can watch videos of the paparazzi hounding Spears and the mass of people coming at her and yelling things at her is absolutely ridiculous. It is no wonder that it has taken her so long to get back on the right track. These people pretend to care about her by often doing little favors for her, such as bringing her gas, but they also make a living by taping and photographing her in various sad/embarrassing states. While, it has not been reported that the employees of the hospital were attempting to sell their findings to the paparazzi, I can't help but assume that they, too, were invading Spears's life to make some extra cash.

I think it's kind of pathetic that the law can so rarely protect Spears, but I'm happy that in this instance her rights are being kept safe.

Rejected

I was looking around Boston.com and found an interesting featured article entitled "The college rejection letter," which appeared in a column by the Globe's late David Nyhan in 1987. The Globe claims in the article that they have often re-printed this when this time of year swings around again. Give it a read--I think it's especially intriguing to anyone who has ever gone through the college application process.

While reading, a very specific memory was jogged in my mind. My senior year of high school, around this time of year, a student at the very top of my class was phoned in the middle of the school day by his father to tell him he had gotten a "small envelope." I remember being able to read his emotions straight off his face--like it was the end of the world. Fortunately, it turns out the letter was only a deferral. A few months later he'd learn that he was accepted.

Like the article says, though, there are many teenagers who don't get a happy ending to this experience. When it comes down to it, it's extremely hard to face blatant rejection. Even if someone is reminded that it was only their application that was rejected, one can't help but think that that application represented who they are, ultimately making it a rejection of them.

One flaw that I actually found within the column is that it attempts to speak to a limited population. It is speaking to those rejected, but not all of them. It specifically narrows down the field to those who had average grades, didn't participate enough, and didn't have the best SAT scores. But, that is not always the case. I knew plenty of people in high school who had a lot going on for them, but still didn't get into their dream school. It's a little negligent to say it's only those who slacked who are getting those small envelopes. Often, it is those who tried really hard, but still didn't make the cut who need an article like this to reach out to them. Then again, it was written in 1987--a time when the competition wasn't nearly as intense as it has grown to be in 2008.

The most unfortunate thing about this column, however, is the probable small percentage of high school students that actually pick up a paper to read it.

All or Nothing for Obama?

Under an hour ago, MSNBC posted this news item about Barack Obama declaring during a speech in Mississippi that it should not be assumed that he will accept the vice presidential slot on Hillary Clinton's ticket. CBS offers a meatier version, as well.

In an apparent jab at Clinton's recent hinting that she would welcome the partnership, Obama went as far as quipping, "I don't know how somebody in second place is offering the vice presidency to the person who is in first place." He aimed to make it clear that people had to choose between the two of them because they weren't going to be handed both. He also made another pointed remark about how he finds it interesting that Hillary doesn't believe him to be ready for the presidency, but would gladly make him her second-in-command.

Now, this is something that has always bothered me about politics. Must the candidates sneer and jeer like this? Can't they find it in themselves to be above all of the name calling and finger pointing for once? And would a partnership between two candidates whose nomination would be making leaps and bounds for their respective race and gender really be so awful?

I realize that Obama feels his opponent is attempting to manipulate the undecided, but I don't think his approach is altogether smart. I, for one, find myself split between the two of them and I think that his reaction actually plays more into her hand than anything.

His response rubbed me the wrong way, but I can't really put my finger on exactly why. I think there was just something about the arrogance of his joking that made it unappealing to me. Everyone wants their candidate to be self-assured, but there's a fine line between that and just plain cocky.

Barack, you may be in the lead, as you flaunted in your speech, but remember that you should never count your chickens before they've hatched.

Family Buries Wrong Son

Here's a story I picked up as a video on CNN and followed over to Fox for more coverage:

After a shooting on February 15th in St. Louis, Frederick McWherter stepped up to identify the victim as his missing son. However, after the man was already buried and funeral processions over, it was revealed to the family that their son was not only alive, but in a rehabilitation center in the city.

The victim turned out to be Kenny Stainback, whose upset family has had his body exhumed and plans to have another burial soon.

My sympathies go out to Stainback's family, who I'm sure has been put through much grief during this process, having to pull their son from an improper grave. I can't figure out how something like this can happen. I realize that McWherter had given a positive identification to the body, but I feel like there should be something else than simply one man's word in such an incident. Although, I must admit that everything about the incident plays like a true accident and very regrettable mistake for those involved. Maybe this situation will change some rules as far as the family identification of deceased bodies.

My Top 10 Oscar Moments

Both EW and E! Online today have a list of their best and worst Academy Awards moments, which can be found here and here. Both are great, but I've decided to compile my own list of the top 10 Oscar moments. So, here we go:

My Top 10 Oscar Moments(in the order in which they wowed me):

10. Jon Stewart proclaiming that now that Oscar is turning 80, he is automatically the top contender for the Republican presidential nomination.

9. The tribute sequence to screen greats who have died this year, powerfully concluding with an image of Heath Ledger in Brokeback Mountain.

8. Martin Scorcese, long denied an Oscar himself up until last year despite his brilliant work, presenting the prestigious award for Best Director.

7. Daniel Day Lewis's recitation of poetry-also known as his speech-after winning Best Actor.

6. Jon Stewart claiming that amidst the several gory films being honored, "thank God for teen pregnancy"--referrring to Juno.

5. Diablo Cody winning Best Screenplay for Juno and delivering a sweetly appreciative speech.

4. Best Supporting Actor Javier Bardem's bilingual speech, the Spanish part being directed to his mother in the crowd.

3. Markéta Irglová, winner for Once's song "Falling Slowly", being ushered back onstage by Jon Stewart after the orchestra cut her speech off before it even began.

2. Katherine Heigl's beautiful red Escada gown--okay, it wasn't exactly a moment, but seeing it made a girl wish to walk down that carpet one day with equal class and style.

1.Jon Stewart's joke that due to the presence of Jack Nicholson(cooly clad in black shades), they would have to retally the pregancy count at the end of the night.

There were many more, but this is my "best" list just off the top of my head. Overall, I thought that for once the show did a fair job at living up to the all hype that precedes it. Snaps to you, Screenwriters Guild, for making it possible.

*Update* According to Perez Hilton, ratings were down 21% from last year. Eh, well.

Battle of the SNL Cameos

Mike Huckabee followed in the steps of Barack Obama last night, appearing in a sketch on NBC's Saturday Night Live. CNN has an article on their site detailing the appearance, in which Huckabee commented that he would not overstay his welcome in the election and then humorously stayed on the show far beyond his cue to leave.

Earlier on in the year when Obama appeared on the sketch comedy show, he arrived in costume as himself to a halloween party hosted by "Hillary Clinton". Obama's appearance was very brief, but the sketch was pretty hilarious as well.

I wonder if these appearances are attempts to signal to the American public that Huckabee and Obama are the "feel good" candidates for their respective parties. While I can't decide who made the better appearance just yet, I hope to make this a fair fight by Hillary Clinton and John McCain joining in on the fun. Remember, candidates, a few laughs can go a long way.

Below are video clips of the Obama and Huckabee appearances for those who didn't catch them. Check them out, the guys held their own against such SNL veterans as Amy Poehler and Seth Meyers.



vs.

Spotlight on EW's TV Watch

I've been waiting for the right moment to bring up my love for EW's TV Watch section and alas, this post is it. For those unfamiliar, TV Watch is a part of Entertainment Weekly's site where various staff reviews a selection of the most popular shows, often comically. I'm fond of the feature because I think the reviewers not only wrap up the shows quite succinctly, but offer up laugh out loud views of specific interesting moments that trigger your memory with that "ah!" light bulb effect. The reviews appear promptly the day after the show airs and I'm a devout reader of a couple, reading whether I saw the episode the night before or not.

The specific review that I'd like to spotlight now is one for "America's Next Top Model" by Mandi Bierly. I think Bierly's review is both written cleverly and very funny. A personal favorite line from it would be the following, made in reference to a particular contestant named Stacy Ann's strengths in the game:

"She's been married since she was 17, which means producers will want to have her stick around until they can get her into a compromising position with a male model."

Although, the reviews often seem to make jokes about the shows they recap, one gets the sense that it's all in good fun. And that's exactly what you should expect from Entertainment Weekly.

My Views on The View

I was on the ABC News website when I found a video about a fight on "The View" between Whoopi Goldberg and the notoriously conservative Elisabeth Hasselbeck.

Not trying to be sexist, but I think the lone fact that I'm a female makes "The View" a lot more tolerable and even likeable for me than the opposite gender. For sure, at least, I know that any time it is turned on or even spoken about in front of guys I know there is usually a fair amount of moaning and groaning to be heard. But, for you male fans out there, no intent to offend, more power to you. Regardless, my point is that I tend to enjoy "The View". I'm never usually home during its 11-noon timeslot, but I feel like if I was, I'd be watching.

Even I, however, am a little bit "over" the whole let's-set-up-controversial-topics-and-have-someone-fight-with-Elisabeth thing. I don't agree with the views of Hasselbeck because I'm of a more liberal mindset, but c'mon. We know she loves President Bush. We know she's over on the right wing. We know her and Rosie O'Donnell aren't best friends forever. Is it necessary, though, to constantly put her on the offensive?

After searching around, I found this article on Newsbusters(not my kind of site, but that's okay)about another political fight that went down between Goldberg and Hasselbeck back in October concerning abortion. "The View" staff must get so excited on days they know they have these topics up for discussion, assured that they have a great fight and maybe even another split-screen smack-down on the horizon.

Anyway, here's the clip of the latest fight, think of it what you will. If I find a clip to embed, I'll be right on that(a.k.a. calling out to all you YouTubers, get on with the uploading).

"Higher" Expectations

I literally laughed out loud while browsing People's website today when I found this article about Spencer Pratt and Heidi Montag of MTV's The Hills. Pratt is once again hyping up Montag's future "album", this time spewing out:

"Madonna, eat your heart out. Britney Spears, eat your heart out. I would say we have diamond records coming - they're gonna sell 10-million plus."

Oh, Spencer. Do you really think that anyone buys anything that comes out of your mouth these days? Maybe back when Heidi first announced that she was trying on a pop career for size we all were kind of wondering whether or not she could sort of pull it off. Now that we've all heard and seen what Heidi has to offer, though, I'm pretty sure the speculating is over.

You have to give some credit to this sketchy duo, I guess. It must be tiring when you spend all your time living one huge publicity stunt. I'd like to think that Heidi and Spencer aren't as shallow and fame-obsessed as they seem, but it would help if they did a little on their own to convince me...take a single picture that they aren't blatantly mugging for, perhaps?

In case anyone hasn't caught Heidi's video (oh, you lucky few), here's a clip from VH1's "Best Week Ever" that pairs it up with amusing "Pop Up Video"-like snippets:

Feeling Nostalgic

I was browsing around the usual sites I frequent, but couldn't find anything that really struck my interest. Maybe I'm extra picky for some reason tonight or maybe I'm just in a stupor from another one of MTV's day-long marathons of America's Next Top Model. Nevertheless, I kept searching and decided to expand my horizons both a little further and a little closer to home. Never could I have guessed how very close to home I would find myself.

While exploring the website of my local newspaper, The Burlington County Times, I came across a story about Joseph Lemme, a former principal of Holy Cross High School, who was recently sentenced to five years in prison for a $415,848 embezzlement from the school. Lemme, according to the article, is being defended by his lawyer as having stolen from the school as a means of vengeance for alleged sexual crimes committed against him at a seminary he attended as a teenager.

You may be wondering why such a story would hit so close to home. Well, Joseph Lemme was principal for exactly four years at Holy Cross, which happened to be the four years in which I received my education there. My freshman year and his first year at the school was marked by the scandalous revelation of the civil suit he had filed against the Catholic Church for the sexual abuse he claimed had occurred when he was younger. I remember my fellow students being both very mature and very immature about the situation, but little did anyone know that that particular scandal would be a precursor to and determinant of an even larger one.

After reading the story and letting it sink in a little, I find myself feeling nostalgic. Not only could I hear Lemme's voice as I read his quotes, but I recognized the names of parents who had been interviewed for the article. When it speaks of the family who was hurt by this crime, I can visualize the little girl he had brought to an assembly one day who had hid shyly behind him. It is not often that I can identify so closely to an article, to be able to absorb so much out of it because I already know the story. You'd think that because I am much more familiar with the situation than most that I would be able to make a better and more informed judgment, but I find that I cannot. During high school my feelings toward our principal were rather indifferent, yet this article puts a new spin on his life that I hadn't ever considered. I'm still upset that he stole from the school community, but I now see more than greed behind it.

Ultimately, I'm glad that I went back to my roots to look for something of interest because I managed to gain a new point of view that I wouldn't have otherwise.

Instant Cameras Not Quick Enough

Usually I visit Perez Hilton to get all the latest celeb gossip, but while browsing today I found something slightly more groundbreaking than Britney shopping for jeans with her mom. Sadly(at least in my opinion), Polaroid is discontinuing its instant camera! The NY Times also went a little more in-depth with the story in its blog, The Lede.

Sure, instant film has become outdated...that's undeniable, I guess. I can't help but feel, though, that there is room left in the market for such a beloved classic as the Polaroid instant camera. I have to admit, I own a digital camera and use it often so I'm aware of the appeal they have over their predecessors. Still, there's just something about those instant photos, something great about snapping a picture and flapping it in the air for a minute as you wait excitedly for it to development. There's still some magic left in being able to take a picture and not knowing what it's going to look like right away, not automatically having one of your friends veto it and push the delete button because one of their eyes is closed and it looks like they have two chins and "oh my God that cannot go on Facebook".

It's sad to see such familiar objects already becoming obsolete. I know Polaroid cameras weren't exactly the big thing for my generation, they'd already been around for a while, but they still don't seem as if their time has run up already. Oh well. Polaroid instant camera, you will be missed.

You know what time it is.

Yes, tonight is the premiere of Flavor of Love 3. For those who are unfamiliar, the Flavor of Love television series features has-been rapper Flava Flav as he attempts to find love amongst VH1's own selection of "classy" ladies, past contenders having gained infamy by spitting in each other's faces and even making a bowel movement on his floor. It's great tv.

I must ask, though--has reality television captivated all of us so much that we really don't even need to see any element of "reality" in it anymore? C'mon, does anyone believe that Flav is going to find his true love this time? Furthermore, does anyone believe that any of his girls are looking for something more than a spot on the next go around of Charm School or their own "I Love __" series à la New York? They can't actually be serious about a relationship with Flav. Really, the only instantly apparent benefit to dating him is never having to wear a watch.

I won't deny that it's captivating. I know for sure that I'll be tuning in tonight, just as I did for Rock of Love 2 last night, because let's face it--pleasures don't get any guiltier than this.

Here's a sneak peek:

Reebok wants to be Kool...

While on the T today, I couldn't help but notice a rather obnoxious advertising campaign. Reebok has apparently just come out with a new brand of "Kool Aid" shoes. Not only do they have the Kool Aid logo on the heel and the Kool Aid smiley face on the one side, they are also scented! Is anyone out there excited? I doubt it.

Style Dash did a great first impression piece on this marketing blunder. I have to agree with my fellow blogger on this one: why would anyone want their shoes to smell like Kool Aid? I wasn't even aware that Kool Aid was still that popular. I mean, it was great on a hot day when I was about seven, but so many other juice and sports drinks have materialized since then. I'd love to talk to whoever over at Reebok thought this was a great idea for a new brand. I know there are shoe fanatics who go for kitsch-y items like this, but I really can't see it appealing to a mass audience.

On the other hand, though, who would've known those shoes that would light up when you took a step would be all the rage? Or Crocs? To each his own, I guess.

But I'm with the Talking Wolverine on this one, one of my new favorite characters on YouTube:

Confessions to Bring Closure?

No Sympathy for the Pats

Sure, the Giants undoubtedly outplayed them last night. Manning delivered the type of success-under-high-pressure passes that Brady usually pulls off. Coughlin outshined Belichick in not only smarts, but class. However, I'm not quite sure the Patriots deserve the kind of flack they are receiving today in the aftermath of last night's game. Boston.com already has a survey of who is to blame. Currently, the blame is being pointed at "No one..the Giants just played better", with "The offensive line" coming in at a close second. Another question asks if this was the greatest upset in Boston sports history. I know they disappointed last night, but are these kinds of polls really necessary? Talk about adding insult to injury, and maybe they deserve it, but being blown off and beaten up by your season's greatest supporters is pretty rough. I expected Boston.com to be a little more lenient, more of a shoulder to cry on than a rallying point for bullying.


Some post-Super Bowl coverage that I did enjoy includes Michael Silver's Yahoo!Sports exclusive. His format is clever and funny and he makes some excellent points about the best and worst moments. Another great column was Dan Wetzel's, also of Yahoo!Sports, "Super Winners and Losers" commentary. I especially enjoyed his crowning of the "7 and 3 squares", mostly because that was the subject of much gloating and howling among my friends last night. Another great winner was the '72 Dolphins, mainly because he followed it up with the demoting of "The rest of us" to loser status because we have to continue to listen to them "crow about it".


I think that Boston.com should add a link to either one of these fresh and entertaining perspectives to their "9 ways to get over the Patriots" list.

Kiss and Expel

While browsing CNN.com, I came across a very interesting video news clip entitled "expelled for kissing". The story, it turns out, is not hyped up a bit by that catchy headline. An 11th grader, Dominique Goyner, and his girlfriend were expelled from their Columbia, SC high school after a video tape caught them kissing on the school bus. Goyner, a respectable student and ROTC member, is currently being homeschooled and hopes that this event will not deter his chances of getting into military academy.

Now, when I hear the phrase "expelled for kissing", I'm picturing something scandalous at least--a full on makeout session, inappropriate groping, etc. However, Goyner's mother insists that she has seen the tape and it only contains "two minutes of kissing". If this is indeed true, then I can't help but feel that this is either a ridiculously conservative high school or a blatant misuse of authority or some combination of that duo. I realize that the school bus is an improper place for any type of sexual behavior and that other students must have been subject to witnessing such behavior, but worse stuff can be seen on the CW network at 8:00. I mean, two minutes of kissing hardly makes you some kind of pervert. Goyner seems to be a pretty respectable kid, so I don't understand why he is being treated like a deviant. Follow-up articles that I read, such as this one, confirm that a school board meeting in October was what decided Goyner's fate, expelling him for the rest of the school year.

Let me get nostalgic for a minute and recall a moment out of my private Catholic high school education. During spirit week, one of my fellow seniors took a fake head and placed it on a stick. When the seniors placed first in one of the spirit games, he brandished the stick and led our entire class in a rousing chant of "We Got ****", referring to the object that was stuck on the stick. Granted, our whole class was pulled out of the auditorium by our vice principle and lectured, but we returned to spirit games 10 minutes later unscathed and with a renewed sense of rebellion.

So, I can't help but question, why are two teens being so severely punished for a short act of affection when many others get away with so much more? Adolescents are always going to be breaking the rules and as long as its not doing any damage to themselves or others, why not just say "kids will be kids" and move past? And what if homeschooling wasn't an option for these teenagers--I'm a little confused as to how a school board could deem deprivation of an education as a suitable punishment.

I'll definitely be staying tuned as this one develops..

Fox's Worst "Moment"?

Fox asks us if we're smarter than a fifth grader. Fox asks us who should be the next American Idol. And now the network is clearly asking for it, airing a new "gameshow" in which contestants are hooked up to a lie detector test and asked embarassing questions in front of friends and family. Prize money is attached to each honest answer and "loss" in every sense of the word for a lie.

I know I can't be the only one outraged by the airing of this show. I mean, is this the kind of thing viewers have to expect in the wake of the writers strike? Fox has gotten dirty in the past, luring us in with the seductive Temptation Island, in which couples tested their relationship by being brought to paradise, separated, and then presented with videos of their significant other romping around with one of various attractive suitors who'd been brought in to play homewrecker. I watched it then, and I have to admit it was compelling in a voyeuristic kind of way, as much reality-type television is these days, but I'm not sure I can stomach this show, even for the pure sake of curiosity.

I can't help but wonder, don't the contestants of this show realize that they are entering into a lose-lose situation? Let's put ourselves in their place for a second. You are a contestant on the show and are asked an extremely mortifying question whose answer could have life-altering consequences. You know, like the people in the previews who are asked if they'd give a kidney to a dying loved one. Well, obviously, if your answer to a question is hurtful, you are completely trapped. You could tell the truth and win money at the expense of your relationship with the friends and family in the audience or tuning in, or you could lie and be caught in that lie, losing the game and your winnings, also at the expense of your nearest and dearest. Hmm, sounds fun.

I'm going to attempt to do my part and not let my curiosity get the best out of me in this case because I don't think this show deserves any type of acknowledgement for its viewership and ratings. It is not only insulting to its own contestants, but to all of America in its suggestion that we will flock to the humiliation of others for the sake of entertainment.

Fox, I know you sometimes like to live on the edge of what is morally comprehensible, but I don't think you're this desperate. Save some dignity and pull this show.

Here's the preview clip for anyone who hasn't seen the commercials:

"Today I met the boy I'm gonna marry..."

While at my roommate's home in Connecticut this weekend, her mom told us that classic story of "how I met your father" and it broached what I thought was a very interesting topic. Her mother, it turns out, had met her father at college and married him soon after, inciting a discussion about the probability that we would meet our future husbands within the next couple of years. Sure, this topic was undeniably girlish and possibly influenced by the fact that half of us had recently seen the Katherine Heigl comedy "27 Dresses", but it also got the wheels turning in my head for this post. I began to wonder, how many of my peers truly expect to meet The One any day now? I know that most of us college kids are now at a point where we are more independent than we've ever been in our lives and adulthood is fast approaching if it hasn't already been reached, but are we already at that point where marriage is a consideration for the near future? With prom and my senior trip still fresh in my memory, I am doubtful that within a couple years I could be ready for the ultimate commitment to another person.

I decided to do a little research based on this topic and here is what I found: according to the US Census Bureau, the average age at first marriage for a man and a woman is 27 and 25 years-old. I know this is only an average and not true for everyone, but that doesn't make five years from now seem any further away. Another somewhat scary revelation--all three members of Hanson, the teen crooners of "Mmmbop" that seemed to grow up alongside our generation, have all tied the knot. The youngest, Zac, is 21 and has already been married for a year. The oldest, Isaac, is a mere 26. I know that using the Hanson brothers as a comparison might seem to be a bit of a stretch, but for those of us who grew up with their sweetly innocent pop hits, it is a surprising dose of reality. For those who are nostalgic, here is a link to People's short video documentary of the band all grown up.

I know that many of us will spend half our time at college figuring out what we want to do with the rest of our lives, but will we also be figuring out who it is we want to spend those lives with? I suppose the statistics don't have to mean anything if you don't want them to, but as tomorrow marks the beginning of another week, I think it's worth being aware of the fact that any one of these days could be the start of the story we tell around the dinner table in 20 years. Seize the day, seize youth, because every day we are getting a little older than we realize.

Sex Ed on the Web?

Today on Boston.com, there is a story by AP writer, Emily Fredrix, about a 28-year-old woman whose former promiscuity and teen pregnancy in her younger years has inspired her to create and host a podcast that delivers hip and entertaining sex advice and education for teenagers. Now, I don't want my opinion on this to be misconstrued, so let me start off with something of a disclaimer:

I think this woman, Nikol Hasler, is very benevolent in her intentions to educate teenagers about sensitive topics that for whatever reason they are lacking in knowledge of. Her idea is innovative and thoughtful.

However, and here comes the reason for the above preface, I can't help but question why such a podcast has become as popular with teens and parents as the article declares. I know that there are some issues concerning sex that make teens squirm at the mere thought of mentioning to their parents. Is there such a disconnect, though, and such a love and trust in the internet that teens need to watch a podcast to get their questions answered? I understand that Hasler's videos are probably light and easily accessible, but it is unsettling to me that there are so many young adults out there who have no one else to turn to but a face on their computer screen. Maybe my own communication with my parents is more open than that of most, but I can't help but find this a little unusual. I'm sure that Hasler isn't giving any advice that could be harmful to the teens that are tuning in, but if she has a rapt young audience and the opportunity to say whatever she wants there is always a risk of misinterpretation or manipulation. I know that if I were a parent, I would much rather risk a possibly uncomfortable conversation with my child than leave them to be influenced by whatever they are told on the internet.

Are health and sexual education classes so poor and parent-child communication so strained that podcasts like this are not only necessary, but extremely popular? Kudos to Hasler for recognizing an untapped audience that she can aid, but shame on our technological society for making a good old fashioned talk with mom and dad seem outdated and tired.

Maybe we're not as informed as we think...

Early last semester, I was assigned to write a report on the frontrunners for the 2008 election and how they were campaigning to young voters. I was dismayed when a professor I interviewed at American University informed me that she had learned something disturbing while researching for one of her classes. She had been told by one of the top candidates' campaign representatives that they put little effort and funds into encouraging the youth vote because they simply did not show up at the polls. I was upset to hear this, mainly because I didn't think that my age group was that ignorant. I had this immediate urgency to go into defense mode, thinking to myself, "We do care. We want change. We will show up."

Then it happened. A couple days ago, my friends and I entered into a spontaneous conversation about the candidates and one of my friends piped up with, "I don't think I know any of the Republicans that are running." I found that very hard to believe, considering that we attend college in a state whose last governor is one such contender. Another friend was then directed to a local news website that had a poll which was supposed to tell you, based on a series of questions about your personal views, who it is she should vote for. Well, let's just say she had never even heard of the man that the site regurgitated for her. She had hoped it would spit out Barack Obama.

This whole ordeal led us into a discussion about what the candidates' statistics include--who each is, what is important about their background, what they stand for. Considering the amount of information available on the web, it took the girls longer than it should have to find a site that spelled out all that information in the neat and compact format they were looking for...and the site they chose was Wikipedia. I'm not sure why us college kids hold Wikipedia to the same standards as Britannica, but, nevertheless, we seem to. For this reason, I decided to post a link to a news website that has exactly what my friends and I'm sure many other college students want that is far more reliable than our beloved Wikipedia.

So, if there's anyone out there who recognizes such a plight, go here. It's a local news station for our area, but it's a great collection of information!