Academy Awards Wrap-Up

Last night was the Oscars and as far as awards shows go, it was fairly predictable. This year the night was co-hosted by Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin (making their own fashion statement in a Snuggie, right).

Martin and Baldwin did an okay job at co-hosting, their camaraderie seemed forced at times. Tina Fey and Robert Downey, Jr. stole the show when they co-presented an award for writing: Fey represented the writers ("What does a writer look for an actor? Memorizing, not fear of improving") and Downey the actors ("It's a collaboration between handsome gifted people and sickly little mole people").

The only real surprise as awards go--and it was a minor one--was the Hurt Locker getting Oscars for Best Picture and Best Direction over front runner Avatar. Most of the speeches were fairly vanilla, except for Sandra Bullock, who has gained a reputation over this awards season for memorable speeches. In her speech, after recognizing her co-nominees and thanking the family upon which the Blind Side was based, she thanked "[the] moms who take care of the babies, no matter where they came from" and tearfully dedicated it to her mother, who died a few years ago of cancer.

I don't know about you, but despite warning winners to keep the speeches short, the producers need to take their own advice and trim the show. This year I would have omitted the opening number with Neal Patrick "Doogie" Harris, cut or trimmed the tribute to John Hughes (the way they went on, you would have thought Martin Scorsese died), and the singing and dance number for the nominated songs. The show ran over by quite a bit, bringing the total show to a bloated three hours and thirty minutes.

But the fashions--what an improvement from the Golden Globes! Nearly everyone did a fantastic job, especially the men (Ryan Reynolds and Tom Ford especially).

First the leading actress nominees:Sandra Bullock shone in a gold lame sheath dress with a lace bodice. Normally for a formal event such as this, I'm a big fan of the updo, but she wore her hair long and sleek, with a slight wave and it looked fantastic.

It is hard to believe Helen Mirren is in her sixties and she looked beautiful in a pale sequined sheath with sheer sleeves.

Like Bullock, Gabby Sidibe also wore her hair down and slightly curled and looked beautiful in a flowing Marchesa gown of blue chiffon crepe.

Carey Mulligan's gamine hair reminded me of Mia Farrow in the 60's and I give her points for wearing a fashion-forward black Prada, but the gown didn't work for me. The bodice and waistline was festooned with lots and lots of crystal and embellished doo-dahs, including miniature scissors (yeah, I didn't get it either) and the shortened hemline in the front wasn't working.

Finally, Meryl Streep glowed in a low-cut soft white jersey gown, complemented with flawless make-up and a sophisticated upsweep. White jersey is very difficult to wear and the 59 year old (!) rocked it.




Supporting actress nominees: Anna Kendrick wore a dusky pale pink Ellie Saab gown that worked with her pale skin and her soft updo with tendrils gave it a very Edwardian, romantic look.

Mo'Nique wore a draped and rouched strapless gown in a bright blue. And while I appreciated the gardenia as a tribute to Hattie McDaniel, I thought it didn't quite go with the gown.

Vera Farmiga wore a bold red dress that seemed to swallow her up. It was a beautifully constructed dress, but I would have liked much better if there were fewer pleated ruffles.

Another actress that chose red was Penelope Cruz, in a strapless burgundy draped dress with a slightly asymetrical bodice that gave a modern spin on a classic style.

Maggie Gyllenhall's hair and make-up was stunning, and while her gown fit beautifully on her, but I thought the abstract blue print was too informal.


Presenters and attendees: Queen Latifah gets an A+ in a perfectly fitted pink duchess satin gown with a row of crystal embellishments that complemented the gown, and Zoe Kravitz (daughter of Lisa Bonet and Lenny Kravitz) looked like a dewy ingenue in a strapless gown in crimson and pale pink.

Finally, some disappointments: Zoe Saldana, a gorgeous girl wearing an unfortunate gown choice, Charlize Theron, usually a spot-on fashionista in a misstep here, and Sarah Jessica Parker in a strange Chanel gown with way, way too big hair.

Until next awards season, that's a wrap!

Where the Wild Things Are

When you get right down to it, there are really only two kinds of animals: wild animals and domesticated animals. Wild animals live on their own in their natural habitat while domesticated animals allow humans to live with them (at least that's what my cat tells me).

What I don't understand is why everyone is so dumbstruck over the death of Dawn Brancheau, a trainer at a Florida Sea World that was recently killed by a killer whale. I'm not minimizing this incident because the death of Brancheau is tragic, but it raises the question of whether it could have been preventable and the whole idea of trying to train and domesticate wild animals.

As the story of Brancheau's death and the killer whale (named Tilikum) in question unfolds, some disturbing details are emerging. According to published reports, this may very well have been an accident waiting to happen. Reports tie a total of three deaths to Tilikum over the last two decades, and yet this animal was permitted to participate in shows like the one at Sea World. Individuals in attendance for the morning performance featuring the killer whale reported that the whale seemed irritated and agitated, balking at performing tricks.

While Sea World reports that they will not allow trainers in the water with whales, the former head of animal training at Sea World has already rendered his own verdict on what happened: blame the trainer.

Yep, the fact that this animal has been a) plucked from its natural habitat, b) kept in a confined space, c) been forced to perform and do tricks had nothing to do with the trainer's death. In no way does the fact that this animal's hard-wired physiology makes it a killer. No, that has nothing to do with it. Right.

It is amazing that, with lots of training and conditioning, a person can train an animal to perform tricks with a flourish of a hand. But regardless of the relationship these trainers have--and how seemingly conditioned they are, or as real a bond as they've formed with their human caretakers--they are still a wild animal. You just can't erase thousands of years of evolution and change an animal into something it's not.

If you need further proof of this, Sigfried and Roy are a perfect example. These two men dedicated decades to the breeding and raising of Siberian tigers. By all accounts, men and beast co-habitated together amenably. But for a split second during a performance, a female tiger performing was triggered--by a sound, by a gesture, by something--and attacked and nearly killed Roy.

Even so-called domesticated animals can attack and kill. There seem to be regular reports about a dog attacking and mauling someone, in some cases without provocation. If we can't prevent what we consider domesticated animals from attacking, how can we expect wild animals?

Unfortunately, Las Vegas shows, attractions like Sea World, and even the circus are huge, money-making machines. I predict that Sea World will have its investigation, pronounce their training methods and animals as "safe" and the show--and all the revenue it generates--will go on.

But I can guarantee you that deaths like Brancheau will continue, because you just can't take the wild out of a wild animal--no matter how many fish treats you give it.

I Heart Ricky

Ricky Gervais, that is. Ricky presided over the Golden Globes this year and did a very good job. There were no dancing numbers, no superfluous tributes, no fluff, none (the Oscars could take a cue from how these awards are run). I love Ricky Gervais and his cheeky humor and was bowled over by the ad preceding awards night.

And Ricky was funny--schilling his DVD's (The Office, The Invention of Lying), all while guzzling from a glass of beer (hidden on a shelf in the podium, right). "Hey, everyone else is out there [in the audience] getting drunk, why shouldn't I?", he retorted at one point, as he took an especially big gulp.

But I don't know if the HFPA or the censors or the producers had a tight rein on him, because it didn't seem like he completely let loose. Frankly, the pre-award ads were hysterical, so I guess my expectations were similarly raised. His banter was funny, but not bust-gustingly funny. Ricky's humor has an edge (kind of like a smarmy British cousin of Conan O'Brien), unlike, say, Craig Ferguson, who pokes more gentle fun at people. So I could see why the PTB would tell him to tone it down. And speaking of Ferguson, I think would be a terrific host for next year's GG. But, I digress, and would give Ricky a B for his hosting.

Among the highlights of the night:

Mo'Nique received the first award for Supporting Actress in Precious, thanking Director Lee Daniels and her husband, with whom they pledged to each other that they would become famous actors one day. She concluded with a nod to the movie and its dealing with emotional and physical abuse and said "This is for everyone who has been touched...now is the time to stand up and say something."

Meryl Streep, who won for Julie and Julia, thanked her mother (who died last year), who she noted was a "marvelous cook" and served, along with Child, as her inspiration for the role. She expressed her mixed emotions at going to an event that could be seen by many as frivolous. But Meryl said she felt sure her mother would have told her to "give [to Haiti] as much as you can, do whatever you can, and go to the show grateful for the opportunity."

Robert Downey, Jr. gave the best speech, starting with, "Well, I'll tell who I'm not going to thank for this award, and that's my wife Susan [who was also a producer on Sherlock Holmes]. She told me at 10 o'clock this morning that I had no chance of winning so I didn't have to worry about writing any speech." His "not thanking" turned serious and very heartfelt, particularly when talking, indirectly, with the people that stood by him during tough times.

In her speech, Sandra Bullock told her relatives to "put down the Maker's Mark and get to bed." Like Downey, Bullock's speech started funny, then turned serious when thanking her husband, Jesse James: "It's no surprise to me that my work has gotten better in the past few years, and that's because of you, and I have you to thank."

Most of the award recipients were predictable, but one that drew gasps was when The Hangover won for best Comedy or Musical, beating out Nine, Julie & Julia, It's Complicated, and (500) Days of Summer. I know those HFPA correspondents are a little offbeat and kooky, but this was a shocker to me.

The pre-show was marred by rain, which did not allow much star lingering on the red carpet. The venue, the Beverly Hills Hilton, made in my mind a major blunder by not covering the red carpet. People: you know that it's going to rain and using clumsy BHH umbrellas to try to protect people from the rain didn't cut it.

As for the fashion, I was underwhelmed. Underwhelmed! Watching the awards shows last year, I was bowled over by so many beautiful dresses, but at the GG there were more strike outs than home runs. But I'll start with the good:

Kate Hudson got a lot of flak for her choice, a long white gown with a sculptural quality, but I liked it. The ruffle at the bodice softened the look, and the gown fit her perfectly. Her choice of jewelry--a dangling pair of pearl and diamond earrings--was just enough. I don't know how she walked in her shoes--platformed stilletos--but Kate is a petite thing, and the shoes definitely gave her a longer line.


Reese Witherspoon was a no-show on the red carpet due to the inclement weather, but viewers got a peek at her dress when she presented. A bright jeweled blue with the asymmetrical/one shoulder design that was very popular that night, I thought she looked young and fresh, but she looked a little too thin.

Speaking of young and fresh, Heather Graham was both in a long, black sequined halter dress with a plunging neckline. With her hair sleekly pulled back and with subtle makeup, she looked like a dewy ingenue.

Another "new generation" that I thought got it right was Ginnifer Goodwin. She, like many women, chose a cocktail-length dress, hers in a vibrant purple. But unlike many other people, who looked too casual, Ginnifer's look was an excellent spin on updated formal. She also had the asymmetrical/one shoulder look, but because how the fabric was fashioned, it literally gave the dress a new twist.

Jennifer Gardner strengthened her reputation as a fashion maven by choosing this sparkly one shoulder gown with an interesting sequined pattern. It fit her very well and she was one of the few women who wore her hair down without the hair looking limp.

Mo'Nique was glowing throughout the night but I didn't get the long, draped gown in a satin gold. It looked too much like a pair of drapes (remember that old Carol Burnett sketch "I saw it in the window and I just had to have it"?).

Mariah Carey exercised poor choice and complete lack of decorum in her waaaaay-too-revealing (and waay too tight) dress. Lots of women did plunging necklines, but Mariah's dress showed too much and the fit was not flattering.

It was great to see Tea Leone and David Dukovny out and together as a couple, but Tea's outfit was a bit of a head scratcher. She looked more like a soccer mom with a blue oxford cloth shirt (David's, maybe?) and a necklace that looked like pop beads (her daughter's maybe?).

Also, sadly, not looking her best was Julia Roberts, in a very casual, short black dress wearing a strange, Mr. T-style necklace. Her hair had that tousled, just got out of bed look, that went with the dress--if she had been going out to dinner rather than an awards show.

And finally, Drew Barrymore, one of my favorites glowed throughout the evening. Her dress, made especially for her by Donatella Versace, was a beautiful nude-pink tone that perfectly complemented her skin tone. But sadly, the Versace gown had these objects attached to the shoulder and waist that kind of looked like glittery porcupines. I like the idea of something sparkly on this dress, but a vintage brooch pinned to the shoulder or waist would be a less prickly alternative.

Speaking of prickly, that's all the barbs from me. I'll revert back to more non-fashion current events until the Oscars next month.

Re: Your LinkedIn Request...

Don: What a surprise it was, hearing from you after 15 years -- and asking me if I want to be your LinkedIn "friend". I didn't realize Hell had frozen over...backspace, backspace, delete, delete.

Don: Want to be my LinkedIn friend? I'll tell you where to get LinkedIn my friend, right in the gutter where you slithered in from...erase, erase, erase.

Don: Wow - so you want to catch up and see how I'm doing? Wow, that's actually acting like a human. So unlike our last exchange, when you broke up with me on the phone - remember that ? Oh, and my personal favorite, that the only reason you dated me was because there was so much "cool stuff" going on in my neighborhood? Ring a bell? Well, my "friend", you can go fuc...backspace, erase, backspace, erase.

Don: Good thing you didn't show up at my door asking to be my friend and good thing I don't keep a gun in my house because...okay crossed a line, delete, start over...

Don: Wow, a LinkedIn friend request. Is this your way, 15 years after the fact, to admitting that you might have actually been an absolute assho...let go of anger, backspace, erase, try again...

Don: Are you retarded, I mean really, and I mean that with no disrespect to people who are actually retarded, but did living south of the Mason-Dixon line scramble your brain in such a way that you thought, just for a moment, that I might actually want to exchange pleasantries with you?....not politically correct, erase, backspace, erase...

Don: Thanks for the LinkedIn request, but I think I'm going to pass. Thanks for thinking of me, though, and best of luck in your job search. Regards, Julie Okay, check for misspellings, residual anger, and...send!

Local Libraries Rolling the Dice and Betting on Casino's Success

As many local Pittsburghers know, earlier this year the Carnegie Library announced the closing of several local branches, including one in Lawrenceville (see photo, left, isn't it lovely?). The library system, like many other nonprofits, has been hit hard by the recession: decreased funding and ever-escalating costs.

Thanks to a number of public rallies, town meetings, and coverage by the local print media in the ensuing months, these libraries--and their patrons--were not going to go down without a fight. While the Commonwealth is not exactly rolling in money, the State House just passed a bill to bring needed funds to City libraries.

The Post-Gazette recently reported that libraries now have an angel investor in an unlikely place: the local casino. Okay, not exactly an angel investor, since the Rivers Casino will be required to give the money through a one percent tax on gross revenues. An additional one percent from the Casino will be earmarked to help fund County libraries and the new Monroeville Convention Center.

Of course, the amounts that are being bandied about are estimated figures, based on what they expect/anticipate (or hope, if you're a pessimist) the casino's revenue to be. To sweeten the pot and to help ensure that the Casino will actually have a better chance of reaching these projected revenues, it would be permitted to expand gaming to include table games.

This legislation is not a done deal, though: it must also pass the State Senate, and not everyone is happy about revenue coming from a required Casino tax. And Pittsburgh City Council has "pledged" $600,000 to support the Hazelwood, West End, Beechview, and Lawrenceville Branches. But as we all know, pledging support and actually cutting a check may be two completely different things.

Pennsylvania State Representative Chelsea Wagner has been vigorously fighting against closing any branches. Ms. Wagner contends that any money provided to the Library be tempered with oversight of where exactly this money will be going. Wagner feels that so far the Library has provided inadequate information about any plan to help raise money for its operational support. "They have not shown any indication that they're going to rev up their efforts to cover their operating costs."

One way the Lawrenceville branch in particular could raise money is through rental income. They have an old auditorium in the basement that for years has been unused. It's fallen into disrepair, but get a bunch of volunteers to spruce it up and rent it out.

Speaking from personal experience, I know how difficult it is to find an auditorium in Pittsburgh at an affordable price. There's lots of great venues--the Hazlett, City Theatre, the Frick, Filmmakers, and Charity Randall. But you've got to pay upwards of $1,000 a night, which is completely out of reach for many nonprofits and other community groups.

The Lawrenceville Library Auditorium may not be as posh as the theatres mentioned above, but it doesn't have to be. Charge a fraction of what those venues charge, invite everyone from political debates to dance recitals to rent out the place. It would go a long way to build goodwill amongst the neighborhood, and the Library would have a nice, regular revenue stream: non-restricted revenue that can go straight towards operational costs. And that's what I call a winning hand.

Area Casino Not Such a Sure Bet

Those of you living in Pittsburgh may remember all of the hoopla associated with the preparation and launching of the Rivers Casino, which recently opened.

First was the debate over where to put this casino. After the powers that be rejected an offer by one developer (who promised to not only build the casino uptown but also to build--completely free of charge--a new arena), the winner ended up being developer Don Bardo. Bardo, whose winning bid placed the casino on the north side, promised, with local politicos joined at his hip, lots of things. Oodles of revenue to reduce everyone's real estate taxes! A boon to the local tourist industry! And who can forget Smokey Robinson, Bardo's bud and business partner, who was going to be a frequent headliner in the casino's lounge.

Not long after the new casino broke ground last year did Bardo get into financial trouble and lost (or couldn't come up with the promised) financing. Another consortium picked up where Bardo left off, and the casino opened to very little fanfare.

A terrific story in the Post-Gazette reported that the Rivers Casino is doing significantly less business than anticipated, and the S&P has reduced its creditworthiness by a notch.

The whole casino debacle has had me scratching my head for so long it's any wonder I have any hair left. To this day, I cannot understand how a plan that included not only a casino but a free arena was passed over by Bardo's north side casino.

It's not a huge surprise to me that the casino is not doing well. For one thing, how the hell do you get over there? The location of the casino is in no man's land, sandwiched between the Carnegie Science Center and Heinz Field in a section of the north side that is completely inaccessible to pedestrians and difficult to reach by car, thanks to a mystifying labyrinth of roads.

The new casino is offering no free shuttle service, which to me is a major misstep. The only shuttle in operation is privately owned and costs $10 each way. While the casino advertises having a complimentary garage, there have been reports that on Steelers game days patrons had to pay up to $50.

Unlike many casinos, the Rivers is becoming famously stingy on its amenities: no free alcohol, soft drinks sparingly doled out, and the casino's "Players Card" giving away very few freebies and players reporting better luck on the machines playing with cash rather than with the Card.

I hate to say I told you so, but I never bought into Ravenstahl's and Onorato's rhetoric that all this money would pour in, which would translate into property taxes being slashed. We're in the middle of a recession, people! No one has money to spend.

The other big problem with the Rivers Casino is the competition. The Meadows racetrack added a casino at about the same time the Rivers opened. Unlike the Rivers, it's right off a major interstate, has ample free parking, and also offers harness racing. While it is south of the city, the Meadows has the advantage of an easy drive and a well-marked route to get them there.

Of course, one only has to drive a bit further on Route 79 past the Meadows to get to Wheeling Downs. There, guests can enjoy the slot machines, and harness racing, and table games. It would be interesting to me to see what kind of decrease Wheeling Downs has experienced from fewer Pennsylvania gamblers. My instincts tell me it's not been much of a dip.

I can't stand the fact that we have gambling in Pittsburgh in the first place, but with that said, if we're going to have gambling here, we might as well take steps to make the casino as attractive as possible. The Rivers can step up to the plate and start offering free shuttle service from downtown, pony up more freebies (especially for Reward Card holders), and offer visitors superlative service. The county (or appropriate powers that be) should take the necessary steps so the Rivers can add table games, making it market competitive and to ensure its long-term success.

Pittsburgh: Finally Back to Normal

The G-20 is now history, and participants, political pundits, and members of the media are lauding Pittsburgh and everyone involved in organizing and coordinating the Summit itself. Luke Ravenstahl is going to throw out his back for all of the patting on the back he's given himself. But--the buzz around town is that we did such a good job that Pittsburgh is being considered for the 2012 G-20 as well as the 2012 Republican National Convention.

The latter, I am sorry to report (not), will likely not come to fruition, due to an insufficient number of hotel rooms in the downtown core, but we'll all have to wait and see if the G-20 returns in three years.

The e-magazine Pop City has a photo slideshow that contains--not to sound cheezy--really striking and dramatic images. Speaking of dramatic images, this blog's own Nut Bar got his 15 minutes of fame when a Post-Gazette photog snapped him marching in the Peoples Protest last Friday (see photo, right). All I can say is, I'm glad I'm on his good side, most of the time anyway, because he's looking pretty intense in this pic, staring down Officer Friendly in his patrol car.

All in all, I would agree with the experts and call the G-20, overall, a success. But where it failed was giving the G-20 attendees an abysmal view of the downtown core. By banning virtually everyone from that area and with vendors boarding up their storefronts, all you needed were a few tumbleweeds and it would look like a ghost town. I understand the need for security, but it's really unfortunate that G-20 delegation had to see the downtown in this manner.

I also realize that previous G-20 summits attracted tens of thousands of protesters, so initially it made sense for Pittsburgh to ramp up the police presence. But as far as protests go, it was pretty much a flat tire from a security perspective. The protest on Thursday was unpermitted (you need a permit from the city to have a march) but a group of self-proclaimed anarchists convened anyway at 40th Street (yep, that's four blocks from my house) and were stopped by the time they got to 32nd or so. Of this group of a few hundred, only 10 people or so were arrested.

The "main" protest occurred on Friday, which was permitted and organized by many groups, including the Thomas Merton Center. This event was organized, well run, and as the police put it "were policed by the protesters." None of the 8,000+ protesters were arrested, which I think is a great testament to the ones doing the protesting as well as the police for exercising good judgment.

What I don't understand is why, why, why, when the main protest concluded, they didn't ratchet down the number of police. At this point, having thousands of officers didn't make much sense: many came in to manage rowdy protesters, and there wasn't really anything for them to do. Why not send the out-of-town officers on their way?

A lot of people are speculating if hosting G-20 was worth the trouble and expense. I think it will certainly help the city in the long-term. Showcasing Pittsburgh on the national news in a positive light can only be a benefit and will help in what I would call the "branding" of the city. But like most branding, it's often hard to quantify the results.

However, in the meantime, the city has to deal with the short-term consequences. I have not heard the latest figures, but even with federal assistance, the city is going to be stuck with a multi-million dollar bill for security. What I want to know is where this money is going to come from. If it ends up coming from my wallet, I won't be too happy about it.

Also, in what I consider a major drop of the ball, downtown eateries and retailers suffered needlessly. The P-G reported that many restaurants, having been told by VisitPittsburgh to expect hordes of people in the week before and week of G-20, stocked up on food and liquor. Then these same restaurants saw the fencing go up, essentially shutting off their venue from anyone from the G-20. Since VisitPittsburgh was one of the major players in the planning of this event, I'd say they have a lot of 'splaining to do.

So one thing I'm going to do is make it a point to visit at as many downtown restaurants as I can. If they're hurting from the G-20, it will give me an excuse to call up a friend to meet for a cocktail. Dirty martini, anyone?

Welcome to the War Zone!

Many friends of mine know I'm a huge fan of end-of-the-world movies. If it's about the world's impending doom or after a handful of nuclear bombs have detonated, I'll be first in line at the theatre. My obsession is so bad that several months ago I had a vivid dream whose story mimicked the new show "Flashforward." But I'll save discussion of that dream--and end-of-the-world movies--for another post.

Because right now, if I didn't know any better, I'd think that Pittsburgh is preparing for the end of the world. My seven block walk from the bus stop to the Law & Finance Building this morning was spooky: lots of boarded up storefronts, street traffic reduced to next to nothing, and the handful of people on the sidewalks were all walking purposefully, eyes downcast. I also saw a lot of police officers: in squad cars, on motorcycles, and on foot with dogs.

This afternoon I'm perched in a downtown office building overlooking the courthouse. Car traffic has not increased, but the silence is pierced by the regular sound of sirens. I just saw a convoy of ten police vehicles gunning down Grant Street--two I noticed from Montgomery County (that's the Philadelphia area, for those unfamiliar with Pennsylvania) and for the last two hours, it's been nonstop beeping and sirens.

But this is the last "normal" day downtown: tonight the barricades go up to cordon off the G-20 zone from the rest of us (code for civilians and those mean, despicable protesters). From what I understand, unless you are involved with the G-20 (delegates, media, police, G-20 volunteers, etc.) or live downtown, no one gets in or out.

During the Summit, buses will be diverted, dropping off passengers on the other side of downtown, for those poor souls who have the misfortune of having to work downtown, outside of the G-20 zone.

For all of Obama's good intentions of letting Pittsburgh showcase all the wonderful things to do and see here, I'm not sure what the G-20 delegates are going to make of all of this. Opinions expressed in recent news articles feel that Pittsburgh will end up losing money rather than making money, based on the added costs for security.

As if this makes it all better, the Summit planning committee will be outfitting volunteers and other helpful individuals with this special pin (shown above). So welcome to Pittsburgh, G-20-ers! Don't mind all of the barbed wire and boarded up buildings--we're the most livable city in the country!

EarthEcycle update

Just a quick update regarding an earlier post regarding EarthEcycle. Since my original post, the EPA has turned back now two (it was originally one) cargo shipments allegedly originating from EarthEcycle headed to South Africa.

As recently reported in the Trib EarthEcycle has asked for an administrative hearing with the EPA, to say, as Jeff Nixon himself (I'm assuming it was him, since he posted the comment anonymously) said, get all of the facts out.

However, EPA spokeperson Deb Berlin said that the request from EarthEcycle came after the deadline given to the company, so it remains to be seen if EarthEcycle's request will be approved.

The Trib further reported that the Monroeville warehouse still contains discarded computer and electronic parts, and that the company stands to potentially be fined up to $37,000 a day if found out of compliance by the EPA. Stay tuned!

Julie & Julia; Julie and that Bobby Guy

Today I went to the movies to celebrate a financially profitable month (thank you, air bed and breakfast) and to escape the hottest day of the summer. Taking the suggestion of a couple friends of mine, I went to see Julie & Julia.

I can't recommend this movie enough: Nora Ephron did a marvelous job interweaving the stories of the two principal characters: Julia Child and her diplomat husband, Paul; and Julie Powell and her editor husband, Eric. I suspect that Meryl Streep will get the lion's share of attention in her portrayal of Julia, but to my mind, Stanley Tucci did just as brilliant a job. The two of them had genuine chemistry and became Julia and Paul quite convincingly onscreen.

Kudos also to Amy Adams and Chris Messina, who also did a great job as Julie and Eric. They gave what I thought were not-over-the-top performances (I mean this as a compliment) and also had a nice on-screen rapport. And of course the fifth star of the movie was the food, and my God, if you don't leave the theatre ravenous, then there's something wrong with you.

Going into the movie I knew more about Julia than I did Julie and of course knew that Julie had written a blog (before everyone and their brother wrote one, myself included). But I knew nothing about what prompted her to start writing. Turns out she had a job in lower Manhattan post-9/11 in a part customer service rep, part ombudsman, part whipping boy as she helped families of the victims. It also turns out that she was also a writer with a half-finished novel and a circle of friends who were uber successful.

On the eve of her 30th birthday, her husband suggests writing a blog, and once she got the idea of working her way through the entire Child cookbook, she took to it like a house afire. As a blogger myself, I shared in her blogger-related joy in parts of the movie ("I got my first comment!" she excitedly shared with a co-worker, then quickly deflates when the identify of the commenter is revealed; then, later "I got 53 comments and they're all from no one I know!").

The movie got me to thinking about this blog, and I thought I'd tell you all why I started mine. Because I guess it never occurred to me to tell you. Duh.

When I was a little girl I loved two things: reading and writing. Growing up in a small town in a fairly remote area, reading gave me an opportunity to be, as Isak Dinesen said, "a mental traveler." And writing gave me the chance to create worlds of my own.

I never thought I was smart enough or good enough to write for a living, so I went to school and took business classes and got a job at a bank. Then fate intervened and I found myself out of a job a few years later. After some "what do I want to do with my life" moments, I decided to go back to school. I got a job at CMU, and took two writing classes there, which I loved. It didn't hurt that I had the good fortune of having some of the smartest English majors in the classes and very supportive professors.

So I graduated and I did a bunch of stuff: consulting, marketing at an engineering firm, working for a bunch of trade associations, and finally starting a charity. When the time came to look for a job last year, I knew I wanted to get back to doing more writing as part of my job.

There's a company in Pittsburgh that is the go-to place for writing, strategic planning, branding, etc. I'd been applying for every available job, when finally I got an interview. As interviews go, it was a weird one, with a guy I'll call Bobby and a girl I'll call Betty (which may or may not be their real names). They made a bunch of snarky, inside-y type of jokes, and I got the sense that sitting at the table interviewing me on the pleasure scale was somewhere between a root canal and having your motherboard crash.

Post-interview, Bobby tells me I have to take a writing test, and emails it to me. It's a draft of a magazine article. It's dreadful. I've been allocated no more than 2 1/2 hours to either re-write or write one from scratch. I research the topic, write the article, checking punctuation, etc., and email it back. Then I get an email back. Apparently it is so bad that Bobby not only doesn't want to hire me, but won't even consider having me work freelance.

Talk about deflated. Then angry--I have a writing degree, dammit. From CMU--known for its writing programs, yes, plural, programs! Then--oopsie--I realize I'm forgetting one trifling detail: I hadn't written anything of any length in over three years! Three years! Of course I sucked!

So just like a marathoner has to stretch muscles and go for a run each day, I decided I had to exercise my brain--or at least the part of the brain that allows me to string words together, anyway. So I had to find a way to write: on a regular basis, doing research, finding topics, coming up with something interesting to say.

So this blog was born. This isn't Tolstoy, but it's my little mental stretching of those writing brain cells. And saying I designed and write a blog looks not bad on my resume. So thanks, Bobby, for giving me a figurative kick in the pants when I was getting too big for my britches. I owe you one. And your weird little friend, too.