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.