Slumdog Millionaire stole the show at the Oscars. People are calling this movie a Cinderella-like story. It was an underdog movie that almost went straight to DVD in the United States and now it has won eight Oscars. Not only was it a success as a movie but the people in the cast had their own Cinderella story. One of the boys in the film is from the poor neighborhood in Mumbai and because of the movie's success the government is planning to give him a real home. This story of hope that demonstrates everyone that even in a time of an economic crisis there is hope

Fashion at the Oscars

It was Oscar season last week and Hollywood was buzzing with stars strutting down the red carpet in hopes of taking home the coveted trophy. Now I know that the Oscars focus around cinema and film but to be honest, I’m not a movie buff. Occasionally, I’ll go out 2 or 3 times to see the latest movies but for the most part I haven’t heard of half of the films nominated except for Slumdog Millionaire, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Milk, and the Dark Knight, etc. But really, that’s the extent of my movie knowledge for this year. I don’t know why, but going to the movies is just not as exciting to me as doing something else with my time. Don’t get me wrong, I love watching them but I really don’t like spending $10 a ticket. Sometimes there are just other things that I’d rather do.
However my lack of movie attendance didn’t keep me from looking forward to watching the Oscars. Of course I’m interested in seeing who snags the best Actress and Actor award and the performances are always my favorite part of the award ceremony. But, I must say that every year the one thing about the Oscars I ALWAYS anticipate the fashion. Every year the red carpet is littered with glamorous people strutting the latest (and priciest) fashions of long gowns from trendy designers. Although I missed watching the pre-show when everyone displays who and what they are wearing, I was sure to observe during the awards ceremony. I also caught up on a bunch of blogs commenting and showing pictures of the women in their beautiful dresses. And I must agree with the consensus of blog comments: celebs were either wearing white, sparkly, ruffled fairy-princess dresses (Sarah Jessica Parker, Anne Hathaway) or dark-colored slightly drab frocks (Meryl Streep, Kate Winslet). A guidespot.com blog described the top of Nicole Kidman’s dress as “one of those spiny fish that you don’t want to step on.” I would probably have to agree but the dress looked great on her in my opinion. And I’m still on the fence on the gown Beyonce wore. She was on the worst dressed list for the night, her gown being described as “grandmother’s curtains or a china vase”. However, I also found her black and gold floral gown to be unique. I would have to say that I adored the fushia color of Natalie Portman and Alicia Keys’s dress, as they wore two of the few brightly colored gowns that evening. However, my favorite pick of the night would have to be Angelina Jolie. Her black floor-length gown complimented with glimmering emerald earrings and ring got mixed fashion reviews but she looked elegant and I loved the hint of color and flash of her jewelry.
Hopefully next year, the fashion selections will be a bit more varied and we’ll see more color on the red carpet.

Layal Brown

The Best Part about the Oscars is…

By Michelle Koyanagi


So, like some of the others in our class, I didn’t watch the Oscars this year—no surprise there. My excuse was, “I had no TV to watch it on.”

Anyway, the good thing about having this week’s blog topic be about the Oscars is, I won’t be out of the loop the next time someone brings up Slumdog Millionaire or Heath Ledger in the Dark Knight. Unfortunately, I have yet to watch either movie.

This week, I was busy sifting through Oscar blogs trying to find some commentary other than talk about the winners, the losers, the best dressed, the worst dressed…

It’s not that I find all that talk boring—I don’t. I like looking at the pictures and reading the bios about the nominees and winners.

I just wanted to find some commentary that would inform me about what the Oscars was really about—what was beneath all the superficial stuff—the stuff that really matters (the stuff people would be talking about in class next time).

Yeah, perhaps the musical numbers and all the glitz and glamour seemed out of touch with the rest of the country. Even though I really enjoyed the opening musical number and the musical medley (both of which I watched on Youtube), they did seem out of place—I didn’t see any big, musical movie up for an award this year.

One could argue that the gowns, the glittering chandelier, and the whole Broadway-feel of the show are what the Oscars are all about. It’s a fairytale-like, princess-like world—but I want to go further than that.

Because even in that world, one can still find heart and that is what gets some Oscar cynics interested in this glitzy production. I do think one of the reasons why those winners are required to give speeches after accepting their coveted award is so viewers who normally see them in film and TV roles can see them for who they truly are.

Sure, one could argue that those speeches are prepared, that the person about to win knows exactly what he or she is going to say and how to say it, but I for one am amazed when the camera zooms in and there is nothing but pure joy and speechlessness on their faces.

Everyone likes to be appreciated for their hard work.

I won’t go into detail. Most of us already know about the speech Heath Ledger’s family gave on behalf of his posthumous Oscar or the sincere words the actors gave each other.

Beneath everything that is "The Oscars," lies a carefully crafted production designed to bring out the “little moments.” And on top of all the talk about who wore and who won what, there still are those moments.

And in the end, that is what viewers will remember fondly about the Oscars.

Oscars Blog

I didn't get a chance to actually watch the Oscars this year, and have yet to find time to watch them online so I was a little bummed because I had seen a few of the movies this year, like slumdog millionaire, who like many predicted took home awards. One blogger on The Carpet Bragger blog mentioned that is was "The darling of the Oscars, winning eight Oscars, including the award for Best picture." Other blogs concentrated on what many people watch any of these award shows for--Who is wearing what, and did they make the right choice? Access Hollywood's live blog captured the stars arriving on the red carpet starting at 4pm, and had some strong opinions of the fashion attire. "Melissa George from "In Treatment" and Grey's Anatomy arrives in a white dress that looks like its missing the top layer" , and also we couldn't forget to mention "how fabulous Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie look." There were also live blogs that gave their opinions throughout the whole event, from the fashion, to the winners, to the losers. Everyone seems to have an opinion about the Oscars.
by Amanda Yerby

Working hard

Unfortunately or fortunately for me, depending on which of my other fellow bloggers you ask, I was unable to watch the Oscars. I was at work. While millions of people were watching the Oscars, I was working for a solid 10 dollars an hour. I was studying at work while most of the people in this country and around the world, or as I like to think of them as Pavlov's Dogs, were watching famous celebrities get together, once again to celebrate and congratulate who else- themselves! I love movies as much as the next person. I still get chills every time Tom Cruise yells, "Did you order the code red on Santiago?!" every time. But, do I need to know where Keanu Reeve's date got her socks? When I watch the Oscars, I watch them for the same reason as everyone else does. To see who died this past year. My earliest memories of this award show is sitting on the couch with my parents as they say, "Oh no, I didn't know he/she died" for about 10 minutes. Yes mom, Walter Matheau has been dead for more than a decade now. The next best part of the Oscars is when they get the hottest comedien to host the show, which explains Hugh Jackman. Apparently they think the Wolverine with a porn name is just as funny as Billy Crystal or Jon Stewart. I wish I was alive during the days when Johnny Carson or Bob Hope hosted. Who's going to host next year? Flavor Flav. Welcome to the mother effin Oscars Boyyeeeee!!!

http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/football/bob_blog/flavorflav.jpg

Maybe I can watch it next year, when I'm making 11 dollars an hour and can watch Sandra Bullock wear earings that can pay my full tuition at American.

The Oscars: Best Dressed, Best Film, Best Actor

Most of the blogs I have read have been about Oscar fashion and who was the best dressed. I cannot personally say which outfit I liked the best. Angelina Jolie looked nice in a plain dress, I liked Kate Winslet's mostly because I like her, and I didn't think Jessica Biel looked as bad as everyone said she did. The new york mag blog said Amy Adams, Freida Pinto, and Natalie Portman were the best dressed. I DEFINITELY disagree. (I know it would help to have some pictures here, but my internet is really slow making that impossible).

Slumdog Millionaire won best film and a whole slew of other awards. I think that that is great. It was a great film about people generally ignored in Hollywood. Of course this win, in my opinion does not warrant a blog. They were expected to win and that subject is so over.

Though many people might want to talk about the late Heath Ledger's Supporting Actor win, I would say that that was also expected, thus I don't want to write about it in excess. Though I will say, I think he was great in the Dark Knight, but it seems a curious win for the Academy. I will even dare to say he won because there was so much question about it. But, hey, good for him.

My favorite win of the night was Sean Penn for "Milk". First of all I was excited that he won and not Mickey Rourke. I didn't see "The Wrestler", but it would make me sick if an actor won for playing a "wrestler". I also think it was important for Sean Penn to win because of the role he played, a gay man in political office. Seeing as how now we are dealing with discrimination put into law by Prop 8, a man playing a gay character might change a few minds. Sure the film industry has always been extremely liberal, but if the regular day people see that an actor playing a gay politician won, maybe they will first see the movie if they haven't already. Then, after seeing the movie, they will change their minds about Prop 8 and hopefully gay marriage will be made legal throughout the country. (Don't you just love how I did throw in Politics in a blog about the Oscars?)

-Dara Duratinsky 

Sorry mom...

By: Kate Pinkerton

It was 8 o'clock Sunday night and I called my mom to talk about various things in life. I don't call that often, so you would think this would be a great moment in her life. All of sudden, I hear whimpering from the other side of the phone, and I immediately said, "Mom, mom...are you okay? What's wrong?" The most unexpected response came out:

"I've been waiting for the Red Carpet all week and you are talking through it! I just wanted to see all the pretty dresses and you just keep talking!"

I didn't know whether to cry or laugh.

My mom normally isn't like this. It was very odd and she normally loves talking to me since it doesn't happen very much. I guess the Oscars was just that important. For most people, if they miss the red carpet, they can TiVo or Google it later, but for my mom, who has 7 TV Channels, a phone that is still attached to a cord (in a different room from the television) and Dial-Up internet, it was her moment, and I was ruining it. I didn't know it was so important, and if I had, I certainly wouldn't have talked to her to the point of tears....oops.

As for the red carpet, there were definitely some yays and nays. I think Anne Hatheway looked like an Oscar in her simple, yet glamorous gold dress. Anjelina Jolie went simple, and then had stunning earrings, which is something I've always admired. I also didn't realize how many tattoos she has (Brad Pitt's fetish maybe?) Then there were some pretty horrendous dresses. See below. Heidi Klum and Jessica Biel, while beautiful people, did not make such great choices this year. Who wears a dress with a large flap on the front? Really? It's like a napkin tucked in for barbeque.

Popwatch said that Reese Witherspoon might have had the worst dress, but I definitely think that award goes to the scary Snow Queen of the Lion Witch and Wardrobe. Personally I liked Witherspoons dress, and thought it was really elegant. Tilda Swinton's dress, however, could maybe be separated into a shirt and skirt sold at H&M for five bucks.







All in all it was a great night. There were numerous hilarious performances, included the opening act by Hugh Jackman, the amazing musical numbers towards the end, and the ridiculous, but hilarious Pineapple Express skit. See below for video.

Ps. I still haven't seen Slumdog Millionaire, and probably should. Oops =/

In Defense of the Academy...

By Chris Collins

It’s elitist. It’s irrelevant. It’s dull.

Such was said a lot this year about the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences. Most of the hate I read on message boards, the posters primarily die-hard Dark Knight fans angry over its Best Picture snub. But some of the hate came from respected journalists, who The Academy Awards are rapidly heading into obscurity.

The 2008 nominations seemed to prove them right. Despite Slumdog Millionaire’s populist appeal, the institution was still blasted for lacking insight and being “out of touch.” How could WALL-E and The Dark Knight, both of which transcended their respective genres, received numerous accolades from critics, and won the adoration of audiences, be shut out from the best picture category? Why so many “films,” yet so little movies?

“Frozen River? The Reader? Whose heard of these movies other than a few effete intellectuals,” said a broadcast journalist. It’s true. More often than not, the academy fails in adhering to public sentiment. But should that detract from the institution’s merit?

No. The Academy deserves tremendous praise. Why?

Year after year, they call attention to small, low budget films that overcome tremendous obstacles in order to get produced. Sure, small productions like “The Assasination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford,” “Frozen River,” “Once,” “A History of Violence,” and “The Wrestler” failed to garner a best picture nomination, but at least the Academy shined a light on their achievements via other nominations, allowing for free publicity and hopefully more cash flow. Thank god they reward Slumdog Millionaire with 8 Oscars despite its lack of big name actors, showing that originality and execution will always be valued over star-power. The fact they could nominate and reward Milk deserves tremendous respect. Same goes for The Reader.

It’s comforting to know there’s an institution that values intellectual stimulation and risqué subject matter, and encourages filmmakers and actors to deliver well crafted projects and performances.

It’s sad to know the general public views such efforts as irrelevant and, in this year’s case, insulting.

A Standing No

This Oscar ceremony was like many others for me: I didn't watch even though I insincerely said I would to many people (including my film professor) and would give them a "film major's" opinion. Well, I guess I came up short once again and was doing something else after watching the surprisingly humorous and attention-grabbing opener and a few acceptance speeches. Other than that, I had a fraternity meeting and had to attend.

I definitely wasn't too upset either; as from what I heard, despite the revamped Kodak theater, the special guests, the few standout acceptance speeches, it was the same routine, just with a different haircut and a few highlights. Usually the Oscars is a rather trivial affair to me, citing its highly political voting process as a major deterrent. And although the dresses are something to be beheld and the great artists in film are speaking, I have never been witness to an Oscar ceremony that could keep my attention for its entirety. Originality is besmeared by routine and artificiality in the acts and most of the evening boils down to eye-candy offset by gleaming lights and velvet.

Although I was highly skeptical of Hugh Jackman as the pick for host, the opening ceremony revealed a sense of comedic energy within him that had flares of very funny and interesting performances (see: "I didn't see 'The Reader' segment). However the designers and producers of the Oscars try to inject originality and innovation into each ceremony, they fail almost every time, especially with the past actors and actresses passing off awards. I thought rather useless and unneeded. The comic relief of what is a big performance that could easily be reduced to 30 minutes becomes pretty much essential. In this, I heard it was at its usual medium, though also stunted by its artificialilty. When you see an acceptance speech like that of Dustin Lance Black being contrasted with a simple "Domo Origoto Mr. Roboto" or Jennifer Aniston and Jack Black's horribly stilted interaction, you just kind of cringe and take it for what it is.

But I suppose that is where I stop: I refuse to watch this thing if its just a night of highs and lower lows and doesn't really do anything to change it over time. After all, I am always just a click away from finding all the winners and acceptance speeches on Youtube. So what the hell, why do people, like me, who love film as much as I, still watch garbage like this and stick it through? Probably because of the sheer fact the ceremony is a five-hour recap of their world (or a part of it) from last year. Whatever the reason, the use of the Oscars still eludes me. Perhaps I'll get it sooner or later... Perhaps.

by Alex Haines

Emtional. . .touching. . .uplifting

Kerry R. Toole

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P552i5xx8ww&feature=related

First off this year I didn’t do to see many movies. I didn’t have the time and or the money being in college. I guess I now have a one movie I must go see since to stole the show. But that’s not what I was the most impressed with. I was the most touched by how the handed out the Oscars to the best actress and actors.
As they showed the history of all the one whom had one it before I found it very enlightening that they it a very diverse group of winners. I was so touched by how they spoke to one another and really appreciated one another for their different talents. In the video you see that Anne Hathaway was full of joy that Kate Winslet had won. I know they are taught and trained not to show that they are upset by not winning but your could see the joy in most of the other nominees eyes.
Kate Winslet really touched my heart. I’m not to big on the speeches they give after winning I find them long and sometimes boring. But at one point she tells everyone that her parents are out in the audience. After she says that she goes on to ask for her father to whistle and he did. After she found him in the audience it really made me so happy to see the connection her family and her were able to make in such an emotional moment. The Oacars really opened my eyes to how talented these people truly are.
As I read the blogs people were making all different comments. Also of people were touched by Heath Ledger’s family but I was only able to watch it off you.tube. It was so great to see what his hard work did get recognized. I’m happy that his daughter Mildina will be able to hold something so special and a huge honor in memory of her father. Yet, my own personal moment was when five prior winners came to the stage and talked about the accomplishments that the nominees had done.

Another Heath Ledger Blog

By Spencer Siegel

They say that an Oscar is to die for. Some folks just take that too literally (see Heath Ledger).

Ok, even I must acknowledge that was a bit trite and disrespectful. But that is how I roll.

Some say that Heath Ledger won an Oscar because of his performance in "The Dark Knight." Others contend that while his role int he film was respectable, it only secured him the Oscar because of his untimely death. Ledger's family accepted the award on his behalf. It was a somber moment of the ceremony that you can view it here if you're the type that enjoys eulogies (or see the embedded video at the bottom).

But wait... there is still that possibility he can star in another film! No, he did not fake his death. No, some super-natural force is not going to resurrect him. No, it is not going to be a collage of various clips he's done in the past. In fact, it is much simpler: he was filming another movie at the time of his death: “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus.”

Apparently Ledger died in the midst of filming whereas for "The Dark Knight" filming was already completed. This means that they producers did not have all the footage to actually make the movie. Tragic.

So who do you call when you've got a problem? Not the Ghostbusters, but our favorite pirate friend Johnny Depp and two other people you might have heard of: Colin Farrell and Jude Law. They stepped in to rewrite the script and turn Ledger's character into something that requires four actors to play the same character (no clue how this works, but you can read more on it by clicking here).

So what is the lesson of this story? Not really sure if there is a lesson to learn here. But you can walk away knowing that there is a possibility Ledger can win another Oscar; which would just be incredibly weird.

Working Links....

It appears two videos from my earlier links were yanked off YouTube.

Here's the clips. For those who missed the ceremony, they're worth watching. I also added Sean Penn's win and Judd Apatow's short film.

Hugh Jackman's intro: You'll enjoy it, even if not a Jackman fan.



Tina Fey and Steve Martin presenting. Only a partial clip of what I had, and without Dustin Lance Black's "MILK" win. Still funny though...



Judd Apatow's hilarious short film, featuring James Franco and Seth Rogan.



Sean Penn's "Milk" acceptance speech.

All Work and No Play (minus Nicholson) Makes Oscar a Really Really Dull Boy

It's unbelievable. I never thought I'd be saying this. This was the first Academy Awards ceremony that I didn't watch- not one minute! This is coming from a guy who knew movies inside and out as a child. At one point, I even wanted to work in Hollywood, either writing scripts or directing pictures. I could tell you for any year who won what and for what movie. Those were my glory days in film. Now I'm caught up in professional football and couldn't be happier.

Unrelated to the projected output or any disinterest, my absence to the television coverage was due the fact that I was busy writing a paper in the library on conflicting think tanks for my public policy course. But even though my only live access to this years' Oscars came from my browser's refresh button as I typed away on the Center for American Progress and the Heritage Foundation, it seemed like I didn't miss much at all.

This is not to say the ceremony wasn't historical. It was only the second ceremony in its 81-year history to award the work and efforts of the presently deceased. Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker in "The Dark Knight" was nothing short of outstanding. His creepiness and apathetic personality flawlessly embodied a character that we've seen played time and time again. My respects to Romero and Nicholson.

"Slumdog Millionaire" became the first film to win the coveted Best Picture Award using an entirely foreign cast. Though I didn't get the chance to see the film yet (kicking myself), I've only heard fantastic things about it and will be sure to see it at the earliest convenience.

But back to the negatives. I am bashing it, remember. I found a blog written by Mike Ward of Richmond.com, and I felt like the man was reading my mind. The single most prevalent point- no suspense whatsoever. The entire cache of award winners, however deserving as some were, was so predictable. No curiosity needed. When the nominations were announced last month, it was practically revealing the list of winners. Keeping it political (and P.C.) as Hollywood does, there was no doubt on the mind of any viewer that Sean Penn would walk away with Best Actor. While only Mickey Rourke could have contended (no pun intended) in "The Wrestler", this felt as if it were to spit in the faces of all those who supported Prop 8.

"Slumdog", Kate Winslet, the Clown Prince of Crime... they were all expected. Perhaps the only wild card, or at least potentially interesting decision, went to Penelope Cruz for "Vicky Cristina Barcelona".

And to sound off, maybe the Academy won't pick a nymphomaniac Australian as the host next year. Wonder who that could be?...

By Justin Ellis

Slumdog Millionaire??

By Alissa Scheller

I didn’t even watch the Oscars this year.

I didn’t see most of the films up for awards, and more importantly, I just didn’t care – I would rather get in a couple more hours of sleep than watch celebrities cry on stage. I’m kind of cynical like that.

But, for all my bitchiness and cynicism, I’ve heard the Slumdog Millionaire hype. And to be quite honest, even though I didn’t see the film, I don’t get it. I considered paying an exorbitant amount of money at a movie theater to see it, but I was put off when I read reviews.

I know I shouldn’t believe everything I read, but I’m kind of cheap and shallow and don’t want to spend money on a movie I won’t like, but I heard the characters had no depth and the analysis of the South Asia condition was lacking.

I don’t know about the Academy, but to me, that just doesn’t sound like an Oscar-worthy movie. I realize I should see movies before I criticize them, but I really just don’t have that kind of money.

I realize that it’s good that South Asia was in the spotlight of this year’s Oscars, but I agree with this blog post – I’m not so sure that a movie that oversimplifies and stereotypes the experiences of South Asian people is the best way for that to happen.

(Also, part of me really, really wanted Milk to win…)

Free Advertising?

When you look at a magazine and see a advertisement you like, you look to buy the product. You may like a cardigan from the Gap or a handbag from Chanel. These advertisements entice you as a consumer to say; I can afford that and look into purchasing. When you see a dress at the Oscars, you think, wow, I wish I could afford that. Designers live for the Oscars because it is all about the FREE advertising. But nothing in life really is free.
After hours upon hours of designing and creating the perfect dress, the product will be a walking advertisement. There is a great effort put into these dresses because photo after photo will be taken. And if the dress is bad, it will be all over the Internet. No one wants to design a horrible dress, because intense scrutiny will ensue.
Designers rely on the celebrity to sell their product. “Household” names like Prada or Dolce & Gabbana are the premier designers to wear to Galas, awards shows and upscale parties. The Oscars and other highly covered award shows are like a gold mine for these designers. An icon like Sarah Jessica Parker will wear a dress from Dior and people will want to buy it. Or Tom Ford will design a tuxedo for the uber wealthy man to wear. Photos are taken and magazines, TV shows, blogs, newspapers, etc. all pick which was the “best” and “worst.”
The “best” list is where all designers want to be.

Outside the Bubble

This year I turned my back on my country and forgot that the Oscars broadcast exists, and I didn't rembember until 11:50 PM on Sunday. I wandered out of my room, irritated, and found my floormates doing an odd appropriation of Bollywood dance in celebration of Slumdog Millionaire's Best Picture win. It was an odd sight, and certainly not worth leaving bed for.

I love sparkly dresses and attractive actors. I love video montages and bad jokes and strange celebrity pairings. It follows that I should love the Oscars - and I do. So why didn't I watch this year's broadcast? Let's see some options:

A. I had a lot of reading
B. I don't have a TV in my room and our floor TV is horrible
C. The collapse of the entertainment industry left me, like so many other habitual Oscar viewers, disinterested in the ceremony and its offerings
D. Hugh Jackman scares me

While the answer is probably a combination of A, B and D, many observers and insiders talked a lot about C. Despite the slumping economy and resulting drastic reductions in ticket sales, the movie industry seemed to effect little change. Ticket prices went up, reducing viewership of many of this year's nominees. Films had shorter runs and more limited distribution. Although box office success technically has nothing to do with Oscar consideration, you'd be hard-pressed to find a film that no one bothered to see in contention for a major award. The Academy had a tough task: picking nominees that the public cared about while at least attempting to recognize films of high cultural and/or artistic merit. Many viewers thought the Academy failed, especially in snubbing Wall-E and The Dark Knight for best picture simply because they were respectively an animated and an action movie.

This certainly had an effect on my interest in the whole spectacle. I can count on one hand the number of nomiated films I saw this year (Milk, Iron Man and In Bruge). I couldn't really afford spending $8 to see a movie I didn't think warranted a big screen, and the few I did see were independent films that the Oscars wouldn't touch with a ten-foot stick. I am also incredibly lazy when it comes to this sort of thing, so I never even got around to seeing the aforementioned snubs. Maybe I'm just getting older, but the glamour can't justify wasting four hours when I could be studying.



The only thing I bothered watching on YouTube the next was Dustin Black's acceptance speech. At this point, the only thing the Oscars are useful for (other than wasting money) is giving winners a minute and a half to say whatever they want on any subject. Black's speech was touching without being overbearing, and as someone for whom Milk was a profoundly affecting film, he hit all the right notes in continuing the film's important message. Just goes to show that with the Internet, we can distill any video broadcast into only the parts we want to watch. I don't think I'll be tuning in next year, and there's no one to blame for that but the Academy.

By Zoe Leverant

A New Approach

By Chris Collins

I braced myself for a DARK NIGHT. I DOUBTed Hugh Jackman could carry the show, and expected him to MILK the same lame gags throughout the evening. Boy was I wrong. Sunday's production was A CURIOUS CASE though; designer David Rockwell re-worked the Kodak, allowing for an unprecedented level of intimacy, a far cry from the austere velveteen backdrop one's used to seeing come Oscar time. I'm no mind READER, but I had a feeling the nominees enjoyed the REVOLUTIONARY new ROAD the Oscars have decided to travel down.

Producers Laurence Mark and Bill Condon gave the ceremony a total overhaul. They made it quicker, classier, and twice as swanky. The traditionally dull honorary award was trimmed down to half its air time. The usual comedic host was replaced by an actor; goodbye Billy Crystal, goodbye Jon Stewart, hello hunkish Australian dude. The curtains were made out of frickin' crystals (which is ironic, considering the Best Picture winner revolved around destitute Mumbai street dwellers.)

But why? Condon and Mark hoped to avoid a repeat of last year's telecast, the lowest rated in Oscar history (which is unfortunate, considering it honored two of the best film's of the decade: best picture winner No Country For Old Men and best picture nominee There Will Be Blood).

Their philosophy: bring back the social club atmosphere that defined the ceremony in the late forties and early fifties, and the spontaneity that came with it. If you can capture that, you've got a show people will want to tune into, not just for the night, but for years to come.

Early numbers show their approach has paid off; ratings are up 13% from last year.


Here's the best parts of the show:

Hugh Jackman: Surprisingly funny and in tune with Condon and Mark's old school mantra, as seen in his opening number:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUJ-7tCIHTU


The presentation order:

Condon and Mark aimed to familiarize the audience with the often ignored writing and technical awards. So, they presented them in the order you'd approach each when making a movie (i.e., you write a script first, so the writing awards were given out first, then you must build a set and costumes, thus art direction and costume design were given out second).

Here's Tina Fey and Steve Martin presenting Original Screenplay: very funny
And Dustin Lance Black accepting the award for Original Screenplay: touching

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_Dcvemkuzs


Talk about intimacy. Condon and Mark changed the method in which the acting awards were distributed. Five individuals came on stage, each delivering a message of praise for their respective nominee. It's hard to describe. Just watch.

This is best actress, being presented by Marion Cotillard, Shirley MacLain, Halle Berry, Nicole Kidman, and a Triceratops.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P552i5xx8ww&feature=related


Heath Ledger winning

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1VPRjd-x1g


The Crazy French dude from Man On Wire

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD9jsx9mKtQ


Slumdog Millionaire winning Best Picture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt3FOv-Uils


Slumdog won 8 awards, including Best Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay, and Cinematography. Other big winners: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (3),
The Dark Knight (2), and Milk (2).

And sorry about the introduction paragraph. Just had to do it.

Jordan Liveblogs the Oscars 2009!

Valentine’s Day is here to stay

By Michelle Koyanagi

In a month filled with cold weather, office colds, and midterms creeping up, there is at least one thing to look forward to.

Valentine’s Day.

You gotta admit—it was a pretty clever idea to put Valentine’s Day in February.

And so even with all the talk on the web about the commercialization of February 14th and the excess spending it spurs, Valentine’s Day is simply one holiday that will not die out.

Sure…it is not as big of a deal as those December and January holidays, but even in these economic hardships, people will still take the time to buy those pink, heart-shaped candies and make their deep declarations of love to friends and family.

I am not saying that those cynics of Valentine’s Day do not have a point though. In fact, of all the blogs I read about Valentine’s Day, my favorite piece was the one (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-blanchard/attention-k-mart-shoppers_b_168273.html) that just ripped at the absurdity of buying greeting cards and wrapping presents.

Yes…the dive in our economy brought some changes as to how we spend our money. Spending, especially during holiday seasons will (and has seen a) drop.

But I do not think all this focus on finding more ways to blame ourselves for these economic times is doing us any good. It is always best to look on the bright side.

I enjoyed those blogs which commented on how to be creative in expressing your love without spending a fortune on Valentine’s Day. They focused on the little things which people did to show their love and that is how it should be.

I think there is a lot of good to be had with a day like Valentine’s Day.

This recession may be showing us that we do not need to spend a lot to show our appreciation for one another, but even with all the complaints and critics, I think Valentine’s Day is here to stay.

My No Spin Zone

By Alex Haines


Valentine's day 2009.

This is how mine happened to begin:

Notification of Package Delivery: You have a package (Good condition)
I swipe my card, I sign my name, I open the package. I read a card saying:

"No matter how far away or lonely you are this vday, always know that we love you very much." -Ma & Pa

Mmmm. As you can see so far, I really love this day.

Because last valentine's day ended with me throwing a massive card back into the face of my ex-girlfriend and proceeding to eat inordinate amounts of rocky road ice cream while watching the Charlie Brown Valentine's Day special and the second season of Sex and the City, I came to develop a sarcastic and biting attitude toward the "Hallmark holiday".

Let us fast-forward to this vday (2009) and I trance about the halls, seeing friends and acquaintances doing homework on a Saturday night, dressed in pajamas, ready to hit the hay just before midnight rolls around, hoping to forget a day that leaves most of us frigid. In the plethora of Looney Toons, Charlie Brown, Rocket Power and Disney paper valentines, why is that our childhood even seems to laugh at us in the face of such a bloated and shameless day? Sure, the restaurant, greeting card, carnation and candy economies will receive a nice lift in such desperate times. And yes, it is a time to remember our love for our friends and family and all they give us. The fact millions of us are excluded on such a hetero-normative holiday is an obvious injustice. Check. If all of this is true, then why does this day still just make me want to go towards the Baracrdi and the Martinis and settle for a nice evening with Snoopy and Ms. Bradshaw?

It seems like even my coupled friends couldn't figure things out: after breaking up for two hours early in the morning, my friends get back together, yell at each other more, go out to dinner, have their reservation lost, see others are closed/full, get ice cream for dinner, and just come back sad. It seems like everyone became a victim this time...

So what is the use? Why do we keep hurting ourselves as a society? Is it out of masochism or ignorance... or narcissism? Well, I guess I couldn't figure it out then and I still can't really. Despite the people in pjs doing homework, those passed-out in the lounge, the depressing cartoon-oriented valentines, the drinks, the unsatisfied couples out there, I had a pretty decent vday this time. After worrying about it for most of the day since waking up (4 pm. thank you, thank you), I made a date... and even to my surprise, it went well too.

So... there were not any cards thrown or ice cream consumed or dates with the Peanuts gang or Carrie and gang. Not even a remembrance of past lonely vdays. No cards or flowers or box or chocolates. No Marvin Gaye or Al Green or Barry. Nope. None of it. This time, it was just me and her. Just like it should have been, just like it should be. I'm becoming more of a fan, I suppose...

Thoughts on Valentine's Day

As Valentine’s Day rolled around, there were plenty of mixed emotions. Those who had significant others of course looked forward to the holiday and were busy planning romantic outings for that special time spent with their lover. As I read various blogs pertaining to the holiday, the majority of them were positive and offered ideas of dinner recipes or suggested places to go out for the holiday. However I came across one particular blog that said “I’d rather think of Valentine’s Day itself as a massacre of another sort: hearts, relationships, and unrequited love slayed as easily as gangsters with guns hanging in a garage on a February afternoon.” I understand that this quote may be radically biased as its source is Lauren of Feministe who titled the blog Don’t Send Me No Flowers, I Ain’t Dead Yet. But why the extreme contemptuousness?
Personally, I don’t understand why people detest the Valentine’s Day so much. I have never had a significant other to celebrate the holiday with but to me it is so much more than only acknowledging your relationship with a lover. It is about appreciating all of your loved ones, including family, friends, and significant others. Some people become so bitter and angry when they don’t have a significant other to share the holiday with that they will go to such extreme measures. For example, a friend of mine said she was going to wear black on Valentine’s Day. The holiday should be a celebration of the people whom you love and who love you, not the “Singles Awareness Day” that some make it out to be.

Layal Brown

Valentine's Day

By: Kerry ROse
Valentine's Day . . .one year ago was like any other day. My boyfriend at the time went to Northern Illinois University. My Valentine’s day went from a typical day to a day of terror. I know most of you may think that we broke up; I’m not going to be an emotional girl. This day was not filled with flowers of happiness but flowers of sorrow.
“At approximately 3 p.m. Thursday, February 14, 2008, a gunman, carrying one shotgun and two handguns, opened fire in Cole Hall on the campus of Northern Illinois University in DeKalb. NIU Police officers were on the scene in less than two minutes and the gunman was found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound a short time later.” In the shooting 25 people were shoot and 5 died. Daniel Parmenter 20, Catalina Garcia 20, Ryanne Mace 19, Julianna Gehant 32, and Gayle Dubowski 20 all lost their lives on a day of “love”.

This year I sat with my girls and watched a movie and drank some “soft drinks”. Many other friends of mine went out with their girlfriends and boyfriends for dinner simple things. But I could help but think about what happen last year. This day that you are supposed to show love toward family and friends could be taken away within 5-10mins. It makes me really sad that the world we live in that a gun man would come on Valentine’s Day into a classroom and unloading.
Valentine’s Day is a day to show love toward friends and family. Also it could be known as singles awareness day. Some people feel left out because they don’t have a boy or girls to celebrate it with. But then again I look at as a day where u can tell people you care about them and make them feel better about themselves. At 12 o’clock I slide high school musical Valentines under people’s doors with little notes. I hope people continue to take the day as a day of being able to tell people that you care about them.

Valentine's Day

I actually tried really hard to find something I found somewhat interested in what someone had to say about valentine’s day in their blogs, but what I keep finding is people complaining about the holiday. The number one complaint on why people don’t like Valentine’s day is because they say it is too commercialized...but there are other holidays that are just as commercialized---such as CHRISTMAS..and the complaints about disliking that holiday normally fall around the lines of “people forget the true meaning of Christmas.” In a way, can’t the same be said about Valentine’s day? So what if it is commercialized? At least it’s a great opportunity for you to spend time with those you care about. I’ve always liked the holiday..and everything associated with it—whether I am in a relationship or not. This is mainly because I’ve always viewed it in the way that is a great day to show the people in your life that you love them—whether that be your family,friends, or girlfriend/boyfriend..whomever. Perhaps I have this view because it has always been a tradition for me to send these people cards,gifts on this day, and vice versa. Obviously a majority of people disagree with me, but to each their own right One of my teachers was explaining to the class how Valentine’s day was in Korea ..and they seem to have the commercialization last long past the initial day. He said that in Korea the girls are the ones that present the chocolates and gifts to the boys basically telling them that they want to be in a relationship with them. The boys get a month to decide, and then one month after February 14th if they decided they liked the girls they let them know this day, and then they start their relationship. For the girls who get denied, and the ones who don’t express their feelings through chocolate to the boys, they wait one month after the month that the relationships start, to go out and celebrate a day of singleness. At least in American we only have one day to deal with!
by Amanda Yerby

Valentines Day - Dara Duratinsky

There's not much I really have to say about Valentines day. If someone wants to celebrate the holiday, the should go for it, and if they don't then that doesn't bother me either. Of course, I personally don't like the idea that if someone is in a committed relationship then they are expected to go buy a card for a few bucks and maybe flowers and candy. People should be able to show their love in other ways and not just one day out of the year.
Personally, Valentine's day just seems like a day for couples to openly express their love for each other and for single people to remember that they are still single. The day also seems to drive single people to find a "Valentine" even if they truly don't care for the person.
Of course the day is always great for getting free candy from friends and family. I am still working on a box of delicious chocolates.
By the way, the topic of whether we should or should not celebrate Valentine's day is exhausted. Who cares? It is already a day implemented into our society, not to mention, the amount people spend on gifts and candy helps out the economy if only for a few days.

Valentines Day: Woot!

By Chris Collins

Can't find anything bad to say about a holiday that makes February bearable. Thanks to Valentines Day, we had classroom parties during that hellish stretch between Christmas and sun, when the Minnesota landscape turned into an unforgivable moonscape filled with despair.

The Red Holiday also spurs consumer spending, helping restaurants and retail outlets survive.

That's really all I got to say on the subject; I'm not gung-ho about it. In fact, I haven't celebrated Valentine’s Day in about seven years.

This is a result of seven years spent in single status. I don't fret, though. I find new and exciting ways to escape the February cold and stimulate the economy (that's really what St. V day is all about anyway.)

Here's what I did THIS Valentine’s Day:

Went to the Udvar-Hazy airplane museum



Saw a space shuttle


EPIC!!


Took staged photographs of my aunt's cat (I was at their house, you see).


DRAMATIC!!


Dined on Indian food. With my aunt and uncle, ofcourse!


Spicy YET delicious

So remember single people, if you plan your day correctly, your Valentine's Day experiance can be equally exciting!

By Maite R

When I was young, I thought Valentines was a day where everyone ate chocolate and candy. Up until sixth grade, Feburary 14th, consisted of decorating a shoebox with hearts and buying Valentines candy for my classmates. In middle school and high school, it was all about getting a rose with a little note for my friends that the Student Government would sell and hand deliver it while one was in class. Last year I went out for dinner with my boyfriend at the time and this year I went shopping and saw a movie. So Valentines for me is not a holiday that lasts the whole day but just a couple of hours and then it's like any other day.
I do not have anything against it and I actually like the holiday of Valentines even though I do not make a big deal about it. I feel like it is an excuse to eat candy and be all lovey-dovey. Those who don’t like valentines day are just upset that they do not have someone to be with or don't want to put in the effort to do something nice for someone else.

A Modern-Day St. Valentine?

By Zoe Leverant

Valentine's Day was downright awful for me. I spent seven hours at work watching attractive men dote upon their impossibly beautiful girlfriends, leaving me sullen and with no recourse but to listen to Edith Piaf and wish I was incredibly drunk. In the interest of preserving my decency, this blog post is not about me; it's about the origin of Valentine's Day and what I think we need to learn from it, something much more substantial than the bag of chocolate I ate alone in my dorm room last Saturday night.


Although there are three Saint Valentines, the one with which I'm concerned is St. Valentine of Rome, a priest living under the reign of Claudius II. When Roman authorities caught him illegally marrying Christian couples, he was stoned and beaten to death ca. 270. He was martyred for sanctifying love between two members of an ostracized and persecuted minority, making the ultimate sacrifice in the name of romantic commitment. Pretty daring and awesome, if you ask me.

Back to the present: can you think of a group of people for whom Valentine's Day is always bittersweet, whether or not they're in a long-term relationship? I think we need to remember on this day of romance that gay couples are still almost uniformly denied the right for state recognition of their commitment to each other. I find it ironic, too - it's the very people for whom St. Valentine died that are now denying others the right that Valentine granted them when it was illegal (by "people" and "them" I mean conservative Christians). Doesn't anyone think about history anymore?



Apparently not, which is why we should take a minute to appreciate someone modern who defied authority to grant dignity to couples in the same way Valentine did to Roman Christians - San Francisco's mayor, Gavin Newsom, who provided same-sex marriage licenses five years ago on Valentine's Day after deciding that denying them to gay citizens violated the city's equal protection clause. I know that things are different now than in Rome: laws have been passed, voters have spoken, and people that I'd like to punch out condemned some of my dearest friends for simply being who they are (not to mention that Gavin Newsom's no saint himself). But I drove by San Francisco City Hall that day in 2004, and seeing couples lined up around the block for marriages was one of the most beautiful things I have ever witnessed. After the heartbreaking passage of Prop. 8 last November, many have forgotten where this nationwide uproar started. I personally thank Gavin Newsom for doing what he thought was right despite the bigotry surrounding him. Whether you already knew who he was or have just learned, I hope you take a minute to appreciate his bold move towards equality. Let's use Valentine's Day as an opportunity to encourage love everywhere, especially in the places we need to fight for it most.

A Washington Valentine

Valentines Day in Washington, I was as much looking forward to laying a smooch on the city I've grown to love over the past six months as I was on my own (human) sweetheart. Spending the most romantic day of the year in the place, which Mark Twain called a, " grand old benevolent National Asylum for the helpless," in the looming presence of greater men and their marble tombs, may not appear the most passionate of notions to many, but in reading the suggestions of DC based blogs in the days leading up to V-Day showed a side of the city that may not be overly apparent to those who come and go through the seasons, and see the city as nothing more than a place of policy and law.

The Washingtonian had arguably the most inspired article, as writer Catherine Andrews wrote of the best places to "pucker up" in Capitol City. My personal favorite had to be the Alexandria waterfront , which is both a relaxing and beautiful place to leave behind the pulse of center city for a while, but also a historical locale. In the grand scheme of it all, it wasn't too long ago that Washington himself piloted down the Potomac to his home of Mount Vernon. This historical entwining is something Washington played upon greatly this past weekend, as the city found itself in the midst of three significant celebrations: V-Day, President's Day and the Lincoln bicentennial. 

Bloggers found themselves in the at the same crossroads of revelation, and alternated between their coverage of passionate adventures, as well as special events unfolding within DC's museum community. The Smithsonian seized upon the opportunity to mark all three holidays, and to the delight of onlookers, created the much buzzed about presidential cupcake portrait. Made of around 5,600 of the treats, the exhibit was then de-installed by the sweet-toothed masses.

Before the cliched, yet always thrilling dinner and movie later on at night, on Valentines Day, I first made my own pilgramage to the Newseum's weekend festivities. My foreplay for the romantic events later on in the evening was the sensual presentation of James L. Swanson, author of New York Times bestseller "Manhunt," which details the 12 day search for John Wilkes Booth after his assassination of Lincoln. At the end of his speech, Swanson sat down in the TV/Radio gallery of the Newseum to do a book signing. By the time I got to the front of the line, I couldn't envision anything sexier than talking dirty about presidential assassinations all night long with the 50 year old author. 
Do I turn you on, baby?

What can I say? I guess I have a American history fetish. Luckily, there's no better place to deal with my addiction than the city in which I'm currently living. I dare you to find a place in the District that didn't once see the footsteps of an American hero. My favorite event of the weekend however, would have to be the annual Presidents' Race at RFK Stadium, where enthusiastic mascots don the giant heads of Washington, Lincoln and Jefferson, and make a mad dash for the finish line. While this year's went without incident (relatively speaking- the whole thing could be called one), last year's tryouts saw a rather humorous wipeout on the part of ol' TJ:

                               

Did I mention how much I love this city? 

Vday: Sounds Like the Invasion of Normandy, Doesn't It?

By Spencer Siegel

Oh, it's that time of year again. The scent of fresh flowers as you walk into the grocery store. Fancy chocolates in every store window that you pass on your way to work. Television ads about the cutest couples that reaffirm their love for one another.

And it all sickens me.

Yes, it is Valentine's Day. Vday is horrible regardless of your Facebook relationship status. This Valentine's Day I'm single. Last year I was in a relationship. It was pretty bad both time. This year I felt like Saint Valentine was slapping me in the face and last year I felt like I had to stage a major performance.

So what is Valentine's Day all about then? Some argue that its a festival of love. Other, more cynical, commentators (such as myself) would argue that it is a holiday created by big business to increase sales between Christmas and Easter. But it gets worse, much worse. For perhaps the first time Valentine's Day has been politicized. Yes, the GOP has claimed Vday as theirs (for fundraising purposes of course). For a measly $4,281 a person you can now take your lover on a 10 day cruise with John Ashcroft and Tom Tancredo (I'm not joking, see the picture to the right. Click on it to enlarge). I can see it now: John Ashcroft, the same person who opposed the Equal Rights Amendment and filed a lawsuit against the National Organization of Women, is somehow going to just "wow" your significant other. Maybe he'll even treat you to some gitmo torture. Who knows. But I digress.

Let's discuss some of the impacts Valentine's Day has and why I believe that any rational couple ought to ignore it even exists. Vday trivializes our notions of love and breeds unhealthy relationships. How so? Vday tells us that out of the 365 days of the year your love ought to be measured by your actions on this one particular day. I'm no expert when it comes to relationships (see my ex's on that one) but I'd venture to say that your love ought to be measured by your actions on all of those 365 days. If you're just unable to be spontaneous and go out for dinner on a whim then at least do something special on a day that actual has meaning for you. Like your anniversary, or your birthday (or the day your child was born out of wedlock). Those days actually have meaning in your relationship because they signify something personal and unique. And I might add, if your anniversary is Valentine's Day it just means you are the biggest Vday sucker I've ever met. You could have waited a day to ask her out. And if its your birthday... well then I just feel incredibly bad for you.

That previous paragraph is one reason why I love this blog post and this web site.

But I think there is another problem with Valentine's Day. Nobody really knows what this holiday is about. People know that Christmas has to do with Jesus (I'm Jewish and I know that) and they know that Passover has to do with Moses freeing the slaves from the Egyptians (and if you didn't know that then you learned something new today courtesy of your Jewish friend). So I did some research on Vday to find out:

Circa 270 AD: Emperor Claudius II bans marriages because he needs soldiers and figures that single men can fight better (as it turns out, married men were the ones who wanted to get away).

A third century priest named Valentine didn't really like what was going on. So he started performing illegal marriages (this was wayyy before illegal marriages became all the rage: see San Francisco).

Needless to say, Valentine got thrown in jail. But, as often is the case when incarcerated, our priest met a blind woman and miraculously healed her blindness. Before Valentine was executed he wrote a farewell message to the formerly-blind woman and signed it "from your valentine."

This miracle (that we all know the Vatican 'proved') paved the way to Sainthood. Saint Valentine became the inspiration for horny Roman boys to create a festival where they wrote affectionate greetings to girls they wished to marry (read: enslave). This went on for 1700+ years until St. Hallmark decided they could make a few bucks by folding some paper and writing witty comments that normal guys were too dumb to come up with.

My point is: I don't know if that actually all happened or not. But it's all I could find online. If the Internet doesn't know where Vday came from how am I expected to figure that out? Yeah, I'm not. We celebrate holidays because they have meaning. Vday has no meaning. One website said it was a fertility festival (read: men impregnating women).

Let's just do everyone a favor and stop celebrating a holiday that only stuffs the coffers of Corporate America.

I have never been a fan of Valentine’s Day and I don’t ever expect that to change. Even now, currently engaged in a healthy relationship that has spanned over the past two years, my disdain for the Hallmark holiday is equally as strong as it was in the fifth grade- a moment of time in which it seemed that the affection and care by a member of the opposite sex was limited to the sphere of my immediate family. And so while my circumstances have changed, my feelings remain the same. I’m not familiar with the origins and rise of this popular occasion, nor do I have the inclination or care to alter my ignorance. I have more pressing topics of interest to surf on wikipedia.

I’m not comfortable with the idea of forming a day in which society conforms and recognizes something so artificial- not love, but forcing people to feel as if they need to have intimate love in order to maintain normalcy. The whole damn thing is just polarizing, emotionally and commercially pressing individuals to break off in to haves and have-nots, encouraging behavior outside of their own status quo. We have plenty of that already.

While my feelings on this matter are quite clear, I don’t tend to think about this subject all too often. Granted, this “holiday” is once-a-year, but there have been times in which the only reason I knew it was going on was due to receiving a nice, little “I love you” card from my grandparents. And while I appreciate their love and thoughts, such a gesture would be perfectly appropriate and appreciated on any other of the 364 days of the year.

And because of that, I’m not going to encourage these thoughts anymore, these lines of obnoxious dialog that deal with something that truthfully remains ultimately insignificant. I’m just going to do what I normally do when something minor is bothersome- ignore it.

- Justin Ellis

This Valentines Day, remember Obama is for lovers...

By: Kate Pinkerton

I could write about the normal Valentines Day woes- some people who have significant others love the holiday and the extra special moments they can have together because of it, or the other couples who hate the pressure the holiday puts on people to show their feelings, and then there's all the singles out there that may or may not like the holiday, but it definitely reminds them of their status. However, I saw an article in the Food section of the Washington Post that sparked my interest- there was a whole article about where the Obama's might spend their Valentines Day dinner in DC, and recommendations from the staff. Well, whether or not the Obama's plan to go any of those, I'm really excited about the recommendations they made! Hey, if Obama can eat there, I should be able to- on a very very special occasion at their prices.

For example, Firefly, a restaurant in NW DC, was mentioned on the list of possiblities. Soon after, the Eagle released an article about a website giving you coupons and specials for restaurants and stores- like Firefly! It seems like fate to me. I definitely plan on trying this restaurant some day (apparently there are candlelit lanterns!) Honestly, that's where I would have chosen to go for Valentines Day.

...however, The Washington Post got a little uppity with its predictions. The Obama's didn't even stay in DC for Valentines Day! They went home to Chicago and this fact was advertised everywhere (including the Post). Apparently they went to Table 52 in Chicago (owned by Oprah's former chef! cool!) The menu doesn't seem too ridiculous...entrees are $20-$40. For the President of the United States, that seems very rational compared to what outlandish things he could be doing. I guess since a lot of America is struggling right now, he wants to make the effort and show that he's not like the big time CEOs who spend spend spend even when they're companies were going downhill.

Well on top of all this big time paper word about the OBama Valentine Dinner, there are blogs out there tracking where they eat! Obama Foodarama was one of the first hits on my search to find the Post article I had seen. It tracked their Valentines Day dinner along with many other meals they eat. I could eat like Obama if I wanted to (and had the money!)

~My thoughts on Vday~

Honestly, my opinion on Valentine's Day changes all the time. At one point, I get mad thinking that this holiday was created for consumerism, but personally, I would want someone to have roses and chocolates sent to me too. I feel like that if someone loves you, they should show it 24/7, but it is nice to have a special day. So basically, back and forth, back and forth lol.

The most ridiculous time for Valentines Day was high school. I don't know about your schools, but at mine, it was the "thing" to do to have roses sent to school Valentines Day, and if you didn't get one, OBVIOUSLY no one loves you. It was horrible because whether or not you got one still sucked. If you didn't get one, you felt like no one loved you, but if you did, there was so much attention that it was embarassing. Also, taking a bouquet/vase of roses onto a school bus? Not fun.

All in all, I think the Obama's did it right. Personally, I'm a fan of food... and you have to eat, right? I think the ideal Valentines Day would be spent either cooking a great meal together, or going out to a nice restaurant (*cough cough* FIREFLY anyone? *cough cough*). It's something that you can both enjoy, and share, and love...

14.7 Billion

Brian Galm

Valentine’s Day, a day of love? Consumerism? Or bullshit? Who ever said that there should be a day generated for someone to say ‘I love you,’ must have been an executive at Hallmark. To be honest though, why? It is a day that makes people feel bad for themselves when they are alone, while some feel the pressure, and hype up the holiday from hell. If you had a significant other and you bought them the cliché gifts, such as chocolates, a necklace, flowers, a card, that stuff adds up quickly.

Also, with the economy in the crapper right now, people would think to spend less but.....

Even as the economy crumbles, today's relatively tame Valentine's Day celebration is expected to generate some $14.7 billion in retail sales in the United States.

Recession? nahh....

Here is where most people would find their gifts for their significant others.

How much would you spend on flowers?
1-800-FLOWERS

Wouldn't a Hershey bar do the trick?
Godiva

I can always win a necklace from a vending machine, right?
Jared

After looking at multiple blogs like the Huffington Post, I feel like the holiday is a bunch of bull. People feel pressured into doing/buying/spending too much for their significant other. People want to out do each other and quite frankly one’s love is more important than any other thing. Another thing I noticed, is most blogs post lists. Lists about, “9 ways to improve your love life” or “5 things a man should know about a woman.” These lists are just pointless and cannot help define a relationship. Every relationship is different and goes in a different direction.

Bottom line: Valentine’s Day means nothing. If you love a person, it does not have to be told in gifts or the amount you spend. Love is about loving the person for who they are.

The next holiday to look forward is St. Patty’s Day! Let the chugging begin.

Valentine's Day=Love

By Alissa Scheller

A couple of weeks ago, I watched this video about California’s recently passed Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage. The deadline for signing the attached letter to the Supreme Court, asking them to invalidate Proposition 8 was February 14, Valentine’s Day (the deadline has been extended to March 2). The video was all over feminist blogs such as Bitch Magazine, feministing.com and Feministe. Since Valentine’s Day is your typical heteronormative, heterosexist holiday (seriously, just look at this J.C. Penny ad), it’s nice to see people using media to try to do something that is beneficial for many people, instead of using it to advocate rampant consumerism on this horrendously consumerist holiday. Hallmark also got in on the love, which is cool.

Talking about the Stimulus bill

No matter how much it sucks to hear about the fighting and arguing in Congress and from regular folks about this stimulus package, I think it is not wrong at all that this bickering is occurring.
It is unfortunate these arguments are occurring at a time when the economy is really bad, but it is not wrong.
Many of the blogs on the stimulus package I’ve read talk about the politics going on with the bill. They discuss the partisanship angle of the disagreements between the Democrats and the Republicans. They talk about the differences in what the House and Senate voted to include in the bill. They even talk about the “winners and losers” who will come out as a result of this stimulus bill.
For example, bloggers on http://powerlineblog.com, say this is a bad bill and even with the recent rebound in the public’s support, support will drop if the public does not see results.
When the Senate’s version of the stimulus package came out without the billions of dollars for education funding that the House’s version had, bloggers wrote about that. Even funding towards scientific research at the National Institute of Health (NIH) was being questioned.
Overall, this stimulus package is simply too big to not argue about it. There is too much at stake to not question every detail that is going into this bill (no matter how much I dread hearing about another constituent calling in to voice his or her opinion at at my congresswoman’s office).
It would be wishful thinking to think that these things would not occur.

-Michelle Koyanagi
(I'm sorry this is late. I kept getting an error post when I tried posting it at home.)

An Economic Stimulus Bill--for the good of the nation or just its decision makers?

Obama recently signed his first piece of legislature, a $789 billion economic stimulus bill that will hopefully spur economic recovery and instigate tax relief. The debate remains if it is enough to make a significant impact in the economy and whether it is worth it, as many Democrats claim that funding for education and health was cut out to gain three crucial votes from Republicans. However, many Republican legislatures are also not satisfied and are claiming that Democrats are simply making up for lost time in the White House in trying to give out too much money.

Skepticism is my initial reaction as to whether this bill will actually pull through for America. Neither party is satisfied with the bill. Both seem to be in a power struggle to get funding for only the sectors in which they see as an issue of interest. Are Democrats and Republican legislatures really looking out for the wellbeing of the country as a whole or are they just vying for the most influence in the bill’s policies? A New York Times article stated that to win Republican votes, Democrats were forced to trim down the amount considerably less than what is needed to boost the economy. I understand that bills require a certain number of Democrat and Republican votes to pass. However in this crisis we face, both parties need to put differences aside, come together, and act together for what is best for the nation.

By Layal Brown

Banks & the Stimulus package

A significant portion of President Obama's proposed (and soon-to-be-voted-on) stimulus package concerns the nation's failing banks. Ideas for remedying the issue have included a government-sponsored "bad bank" to buy toxic assets and a demand for severely curtailed executive pay. Seeing as most of the ideas on how to fix this problem involve intensive government involvement, blogs on both sides had different things to harp on when covering the issue.

Politico, usually a more fact-based blog, applauded CitiGroup CEO Vikram Pandit's admission that the recent purchase of a corporate jet was in poor taste considering the country's economic climate. The post, however, deemed this was not nearly enough and that Wall Street "just doesn't get it." Although I agree that CEO salaries and expenditures are preposterously high, it's a bit of a tall order to ask an industry founded on money to suddenly give up distributing it to its top employees.

The Huffington Post surprised me, however. In a post by Columbia economics professor Jeffrey Sachs, the author advocates for the taxpayers, not the government, to liquidate bad assets. I expect such a liberally-minded site to be enthusiastic about big government taking responsibility for national crises, but this article calls for Washington to be the facilitator and not the prime actor in dealing with the problem.

Of course, conservative blog Town Hall found the proposal to use taxpayer money to bail out bands enraging. One post on the issue claimed that bailing out banks is "putting bank investors ahead of the taxpayer." Another worried that government bailout of the bands would "convert the world's greatest engine of free market prosperity into a socialistic leviathan."

The sheer cost of the stimulus plan is in itself terrifying, especially considering our nation's already existing debt. While a position like Town Hall's is too idealistic in its belief that capitalism can right this situation, it's also unlikely that taking Politico's pro-government stance too far could result in excess spending. We'll see how this plays out, but for now I'm skeptical.

-Zoe Leverant

Subsidizing Unemployment Benefits..would that be helpful in the longrun?

Lately the news has been flooded with talk about the Stimulus Package. Is it right, is there a better way, exactly how is it going to help the American People come out of the slump they are in?
Gary Ross wrote about this very subject on his blog at , but he thinks there is a better way to go about the stimulus package. This is because of the current obstacles the stimulus package currently entails.
Ross says why not use unemployment to benefit workers in a new job by letting them subsidize a portion of it by underwriting their a chunk of it for their benefit.
He believes that this will help the employer, the employee, and even the government.
He seems to have a point when he mentions that the government pays for unemployment anyways, which means they wouldn't be paying anymore than they would have originally. However, most people reading his blog disagree with his view. They feel that this will help the unemployed, stay unemployed.
I guess we will just have to wait and see how this new stimulus package works out.
~Amanda Yerby

The Right to Choose

By Alissa Scheller

Nadya Suleman became famous almost overnight.

The night of January 26, to be exact. That was when she gave birth to octuplets, and became the second mother in the United States to do so.

Shortly after the octuplets were born, the public learned that Suleman was single , already has six children, is unemployed, and lives with her mother. These new pieces of information on the Suleman clan sparked debate all over the internet, centering around one main question: is any single mother really capable of raising fourteen children?

This debate comes at an interesting time. With the recent anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case that legalized abortion in the U. S., as well as a new pro-choice president, many Americans are celebrating the freedom to choose.

What do we do, however, when life is chosen?

Well, we tend to give the mother a hard time.

Now, yes, I will admit it. I am a pro-choice feminist. However, I think the recent internet debate over Suleman’s choice is an interesting one. Many people have condemned her decision to have her children, saying there’s no possible way she can support them, that she will not be able to provide them with the emotional care they need, and that having fourteen children is unethical in an overcrowded world.

While these arguments have merit, I think the fact that Suleman did make a choice – she chose to have in-vitro fertilization, and she chose to keep her babies – is something some people forget too easily.

On a slightly different note, who thinks it’s ridiculous to use a pro-choice president’s image in an anti-abortion ad?

First off, let me say, I am a Republican. I know this may sound shocking when considering the levels of dialog I’ve contributed to in class in the past- more notably and enjoyably, our (collective) advocacy of marijuana and requesting Professor Finn to go “E! True Hollywood Story” mode on the late, beloved Jerry Garcia. Nonetheless, I do support the GOP and am proud to do so.

Now that I’ve made my political affiliations and (some) viewpoints clear, I need to talk about the two dumbest donkeys in the room. Someone has to explain to me the recent, utter stupidity of Reid and Pelosi. My motivation is not because they’re Democrats (there are plenty of Republicans I wouldn’t mind seeing walk over the edge of a cliff), but rather due to such irresponsible behavior. This is something I believe everyone can agree on, no matter where you sit on the aisle.

Both the Drudge Report and the Huntington Post (I’d rather be waterboarded than read the latter) indicated their own perplexity of the situation. They highlighted a Politico story by Glenn Thrush in which the Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House dismissed all communication skills, ethics or common sense. Reid publicly announced an approved, completed stimulus package before Pelosi went to a meeting to discuss unresolved allocations of $21 billion. It isn’t clear which genius was responsible for the situation as both their camps deny blame.

It’s just unbelievable how in such grave economic times, caution was thrown out the door, delicacy and care was swept under the rug. The package is earmarked from head to toe with enough pork that even a secular Jew wouldn’t touch it. I just can’t put my finger on it, but (as I scratch my head) it seems like apathy, not change, has come to American politics. To be honest, I’m not sure if that’s really different anyway. Even New York City congressman Charlie Rangel, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, went as far as to laughingly say that “[Senate Democrats] don’t know everything that’s in the bill.” That’s wonderful news Charlie… just wonderful.

As I conclude my electronic venting and wonder if change will ever come to America, I refer back to the musically enlightened. The most appropriate since its use of origin, The Who truly said it best: Meet the new boss… same as the old boss.

- Justin Ellis

Kate Pinkerton

Recently, it was discovered that a peanut plant in Atlanta, Georgia had poor practices that led to an outbreak of salmonella that killed 8 people and made hundreds of people sick. This news was everywhere- in newspapers, on television, and therefore, on the lips of many people. Our food system is so complicated now that if even just one plant is tainted, thousands of products could be affected.

Many of the news sources first stated that there was a salmonella outbreak, but they were unsure of the source. On January 10th, 2009, the Associated Press released a national briefing stating that “Federal officials have not yet identified the cause of a salmonella outbreak striking almost 400 people in 42 states, but state officials in Minnesota said they believed peanut butter might be involved.” Eventually, they linked it to the plant in Georgia. The problem I have is that I did not hear much about the salmonella until it was linked to peanut butter. Does this mean that the press was informed of the outbreak, but did not want to release information and scare the public until an answer was close? Or was it the researchers who were not releasing information? Basically, ever since the closing of the plant in Georgia, the peanut story has been on almost every episode of the evening news and in multiple articles in newspapers. This may be because peanut butter is something that almost everyone eats in America, and would cause an uproar.

According to a US News online article, Barack Obama wants to make sure that federal information is more transparent, like the status of a salmonella outbreak from the FDA. Once the outbreak was linked to peanut butter, the FDA did a great job of listing products that were contaminated on its website, as well as updating people via twitter.

In the average newspaper story or nightly news, they emphasize the politics of the issue. They want to know who is in charge of testing for salmonella, who let the peanuts continue to be shipped, and what the FDA is saying. On Tuesday night, they emphasized that yet another plant run by the same company was being shut down due to similar contamination issues. These national news sources emphasize what is wrong with the overall system of food testing and government regulation.

However, a very local paper, like the American University Eagle, emphasizes very different aspects of the story. It answers of the questions of when peanut butter will return to campus, how the campus was affected, how students feel about the lack of peanut butter in the cafeteria, and how the food officials on campus are handling aspects of the situation. Many students miss their peanut butter, but understand that its absence is a precaution they are willing to take. Even though I live off campus and do not go to TDR anymore, I'm really glad our paper took a local jab at a national problem.

More emphasis should have been put on the universities and care facilities that were the largest recipients of the tainted peanuts. Instead, they focused on what consumers would get off the shelves, even though most of those products were okay.