What "Wii" Really Care About

I've come to the conclusion that we Americans, for the most part, are stupid, selfish, and self-centered. Sure, we respond to a natural disaster halfway around the world with aching hearts and open checkbooks. However, the real elephant in the room is that Japan is on the brink of a meltdown, not just with six dying nuclear reactors, but in every sense of the word.

I'm not suggesting that everyone run the streets in panic, but people, this is the worst nuclear disaster in history, with its effect long-term and far reaching. Am I the only one that's a little panicky about this?

I'm not demeaning the suffering the Japanese people are experiencing now, because of the earthquake and tsunami. But--how about a lifetime of radiation sickness and a generation or two radiation-inducing cancer? How about a country that could be on the brink of economic collapse? Citizens whose reality could be where electricity is a luxury, fleeting in a world of rolling blackouts and power cuts.

The only person I've seen on TV that said out loud all of the things I've been thinking about the power reactor disaster is CNN guest commentator Jim Walsh. The veins nearly popped out of his head when he heard the news that the "Fukushima 50" (my phrase, catchy, huh?) had abandoned the six reactors and the first person I heard talk about the IAEA and its involvement--or non-involvement--in this situation.

Who's the IAEA? The International Atomic Energy Agency is a non-partisan, international organization that promotes, monitors, and oversees all things nuclear. They're the ones that look into whispered rumors about nuclear weaponry and are tasked to look into "mishaps" at nuclear power plants.

If you want to read something truly disturbing, read the news updates provided by the IAEA's web site. Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the private company that runs the Fukushima power plants, has a long and rich history of distorting the truth, covering up the truth, and omitting the truth. Between 2002 and 2005, these reactors were shut down as a result of TEPCO falsifying safety records.

Yet despite TEPCO's extremely spotty safety record and their history of lying about safety, it has been permitted to handle this situation without the direct, on-site involvement of the IAEA. TEPCO/Fukushima reported to the IAEA on March 13th that Reactor #3 was "in a safe, cold shutdown" and that other reactors were "under control". Yet 48 hours later, they were reporting fires, exposed fuel rods, and asked IAEA to send an envoy, which IAEA reported that they have done. Yet at this point, it's a bit like closing the barn door after the animals have escaped: what, realistically, can the IAEA do at this point to help the situation?

With the Fukushima 50 fleeing at approximately 9:00 p.m. EST yesterday, one has to question Fukushima's statements not 48 hours prior. Can a reactor truly be "safe and cold" and less than 48 hours later, be on the brink of a meltdown?

It should be noted that power plants are recognized to have a life capacity of approximately 40 years, when the integrity of certain materials in the plants comes into question. Yet just last month, Japanese regulators granted an extension of ten years for the continued operation of these reactors, which range in age from 36 to 40 years old.

Some reactors cores and spent fuel rod compartments are being cooled using sea water, which CNN expert Walsh reported was a "last ditch effort" to extinguish fires and keep key areas cool. Certainly salty water in a concrete structure is not going to help maintain the integrity of the structure.

But how else can Japan provide electricity for its residents? The country does not have its own supply of natural resources, such as coal, natural gas, or oil. It does not have vast amounts of land that could be used to create a hydroelectric dam. Wind power and solar power are viable sources of electricity, but could not create sufficient power (at least not at the present time) to electrify a country of millions.

The likelihood is that all six of the Fukushima power plants will remain off-line and will have to be de-commissioned. Will the build new reactors (and will the IAEA allow them to do so)? And in the meantime, how will the country survive with limited electrical power? How will this affect manufacturing production?

A new Japan is going to have to emerge from this crisis: one less reliant on electricity, at least until new power plants are built. Energy will have to be diverted to manufacturing facilities and key infrastructure, to help keep commerce going, maintain order in the country, and to avoid going into the next disaster: an economy in a quick and deadly downward spiral. And while Americans feel this sympathy towards the Japanese people now, I predict that this sympathy will quickly turn to anger and frustration when little Billy can't get his new electronic toy or Tommy can't get a new flashy computer. Because it's really all about us, isn't, it?

Secret Paean to DePalma Movie?

Does anyone remember the movie from 1984 called "Body Double"? Written and directed by horror/suspense genre genius Brian DePalma, it's the story of Jake. Jake is an actor and has been toiling in supporting roles for years. Now comes his big break: the lead in a horror movie.

But Jake has a problem, an acute case of claustrophobia. While under ordinary circumstances, he can keep his phobia under control (and under wraps), a major scene in the movie forces him to face his phobia head on: where his vampire character has to climb into (and out of) a coffin.

At the crucial moment, he freezes, paralyzed by his claustrophobia. The director doesn't understand Jake's dilemma and goes into a fury, talking about the time and money that this is costing. The director intimates that he had "better get his act together" or risk getting re-cast, a/k/a his big break.

Jake is having issues at home, too: having caught his girlfriend in bed with someone else, he needs to find another place to live. He quickly finds a new, swanky place to live in the Hollywood Hills by way of a fellow actor, Sam, who befriends him in an acting workshop.

What follows is a hallucinatory journey led by Sam into a world of voyeurism, the pornography industry, and lots of interesting characters and such outrageous gore (a woman getting stabbed to death by a giant drill) that it's difficult to say what's real and what's imagined.

Or - what's staged. Toward the end of the movie, Jake is involved in a footchase with a bunch of gun-toting bad guys when he trips and falls into a large hole. Sam is soon there, offering Jake the handle of a shovel. "Just grab the handle," Sam yells, "I'll pull you up." But Jake has claustrophobia, remember? But if he can't get himself out of this hole, the bad guys will soon find him and kill him.

In this literal do-or-die moment, Jake overcomes his claustrophobia, grabs the handle, and is lifted out of the hole, which morphs into a coffin (Jake's back on the set of his movie), where he lifts the lid of the coffin, says his line, and the pleased director yells "Cut!"

You think that's the end of the movie, but then the camera pans around to show some people on the set, people who really shouldn't be there: his "friend" Sam, porn star Holly Body. You realize that only the beginning and the ending of this movie is "real": the sudden appearance of Sam and his luxury home, his neighbor who stripteases in front of the window, the "murder" of this neighbor, it was all fake. Fake! Merely a set up, a long con if you will, to put Jake in a situation where he had to experience a life-or-death situation that would put him face to face with his claustrophobia.

Why am I mentioning this movie? Yes, why, Julie, other than a trip down memory lane? Because after watching "Black Swan", it seems like the same long con could be taking place to dancer Nina.

This storyline should start to sound familiar: Nina is a dancer, who has toiled away as a member of dance troupe but never given the lead. However, her luck changes when the Company Director awards the lead of Swan Lake to Nina. However, Nina has a problem: while she dances perfectly, she dances mechanically, without passion, without losing control. In order to succeed at Swan Lake, Nina must explore--and embrace--her dark side.

On the day that the announcement is made, a new dancer arrives to the Company, Lily. Lily is everything Nina is not: one might say a yin to Nina's yang. Where Nina is technically perfect, Lily is a free spirit personified, dancing from her heart instead of her head.

What follows is a hallucinatory journey led by Lily into a world of designer drugs, sex, and such outrageous gore (a woman getting stabbed to death by shards of a mirror) that it's difficult to say what's real and what's imagined.

Finally, it is the night of the premiere, but all of these obstacles get placed at her feet. Nina's mother locks Nina in her room, telling her daughter that she's gone ahead and told the Company that Nina cannot perform due to illness. When Nina escapes her room and arrives at the theater, the Company Director tells her she cannot perform, it's too late. But nothing is going to stop Nina, nothing!

In the first act (White Swan), Nina catches Lily in the wings, making out with Nina's co-lead, the Swan Prince. Then, after this co-lead drops her in an uncharacteristic fumble, Lily (conveniently, her understudy) appears in her dressing room and the following exchange occurs:

Lily: A rough start, huh? Must have been pretty humiliating.
Nina: Get out of my room!
Lily: Gee, I'm just worried about the next act. I'm not sure you're feeling up to it.
Nina: Stop. Please stop!
Lily: How about I dance the black swan for you?

How's that for spurring someone on? When Nina appears on stage for Act Two--the Black Swan--the question is whether or not she can free herself of her phobia, her need to be perfect, lose control, and embrace her shadow side?

Well, the answer is yes and no. Nina does dance an incredible, amazing, Black Swan. However, unlike Jake, who was able to face his phobia and triumph, Nina takes the metamorphosis too far, losing control not only of her quest for perfection but her very sanity. She appears to have a total, psychotic break from reality, ending up literally becoming the Black Swan, complete with a suicide at the end.

So was the middle of this movie, like Body Double, just one big long con to get someone to face his or her fears and see his or her full potential? I say yes. It just seems to be too many coincidences for this not to be staged.

Let's review the "conspirators". Her overprotective (to the point of smothering) mother, a former dancer, only wants the triumph and success she never had. She'll stop at nothing to get her daughter the lead, vicariously basking in the glow of Nina's success.

The Company Director, having just retired his last prima ballerina, is eager to begin grooming a new protegee, and while having reservations, thinks Nina may just fit the bill.

Lily, the free spirit, is in a no-win situation: she'll conspire to push Nina toward triumph (may see this as a bit of fun, a departure from the otherwise stuffy and rarefied world of ballet). But Lily is in a position to come out ahead if Nina stumbles, because she's been named the understudy.

Black Swan Darren Aronofsky has stated that he is a fan of Brian DePalma. The question is, is Black Swan his paean to his director idol?

This Year's Emmys ROCKED!

The Emmys were last night and if I had to sum up this year's show in one word, it would be surprising. They were chock full of award upsets, unexpected performers, well-placed cameos, and almost completely devoid of bloat (okay, the middle section got a little boring, but I digress).

A tip o' the hat to the writers, producers, and host of this year's Emmys - Jimmy Fallon. The stage was set (so to speak) and the bar set high with an opening number featuring Bruce Springsteen's classic, "Born to Run". The sketch included not only Fallon and the Glee cast, but also Tina Fey, Betty White, Jon Hamm, Joel McHale, and...Jorge Garcia (!), all singing and shaking their money makers.

But don't just take my word for it - check out the sketch yourself.

Cameos ruled the night and were used effectively. The funniest one featured a faux conversation with the cast of Modern Family and the show's producer, who was pitching ideas of how to "spice up" the show. After a few suggestions were nixed, one that received a big thumbs up: When Phil dies, his widow Claire hooks up with Phil's dishy brother, played by none other than George Clooney. Shortly afterward, several "accidents" occur, with Gloria claiming George Clooney as her own (photo, above), and eventually George Clooney ends up in bed with--you guessed it--gay couple Cam and Mitchell.

There was no monologue, but Jimmy Fallon did very short guitar riffs where he introduced each section of the award show: comedy, drama, mini-series or movie, and reality. He got people in the audience to sing with him, including Amy Poehler, Kim Kardashian (not a bad singer!), Julianna Margulies, and Steve Colbert.

He parodied Elton John, among others in a send-off for shows leaving the air. The inside, inside joke that probably only diehard LOST fans know is that Matthew "Foxy" Fox and Billie Joe Armstrong of Green Day are very good friends. Apparently Jimmy Fallon also knows this (or it was a VERY freaky coincidence) because for his send-off to LOST, Jimmy dressed up as Billie Joe and sang his version of Green Day's "Time of My Life" (photo, left).

Onstage, the presenters kept the banter short and for the most part witty. Co-presenters Jon Hamm and Betty White talked about their "sexual chemistry", with Betty hinting that things other than clothes got swapped in the changing area after the opening number.

The best presenter was my boy Ricky Gervais (slimmed down and looking, I have to say, quite hot), who very nearly stole the show with his banter. Amongst his riffs, one on Mel Gibson: "I'm not gonna have a go at him. He's been through a lot. [Pause] Not as much as the Jews, though." After he talked about his inability to get a beer backstage, he offered the entire audience a beer (The Office just went into syndication, drinks are on me, he explained). Waiters carrying longnecks on silver trays appeared out of nowhere and passed out drinks. Among those slugging back a cold one? Christine Baranski!

While shows like LOST and Glee garnered lots of nominations, LOST was shut out (a shande, a shande, I say!) and Glee was only 2 for 19, getting wins for actress Jane Lynch and directing for co-creator Ryan Murphy.

Amongst other surprises/upsets: Top Chef beat out perennial favorite Amazing Race for best reality show and Big Bang Theory Sheldon Parsons won over favored to win Steve Carrell for The Office. Perhaps the biggest surprise was Breaking Bad actor Aaron Paul grabbing an Emmy over the two-way horse race of Michael Emerson and Terry O'Quinn, both favored to win for LOST. I'm thinking that two LOST actors on the ballot split the vote, allowing Paul to win. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

The show kept a brisk pace and the only section that seemed to drag were the awards for Mini-Series or Movie (mainly because I had never seen nor heard of most of them). Winners kept their speeches short and Al Pacino was the only one that seemed to ramble. But that, like using insipid Twitter comments to introduce presenters, were minor missteps and didn't ruin an otherwise entertaining and memorable evening.

Tomorrow: the fashions! :)

What...A Brat

In 1992, Saturday Night Live featured a "Wayne's World" sketch comparing the Gore daughters (schwing!) to Chelsea Clinton ("not a fox").

It was reported that the Clinton's, particularly Hillary Clinton, was furious with SNL for what she considered to be "cruel and disrespectful" remarks towards her daughter (interestingly not a peep, though, from the Gore camp about "Wayne" saying their daughters were babes). The comments made in the sketch? Essentially that Chelsea was not an attractive girl. I'll let you be the judge.

Fast forward nearly twenty years, and little Chelsea is all grown up and engaged to be married this year. In what has to be the definition of irony, the now-swan Chelsea had a request of her father: lose weight.

I wouldn't have believed this story unless I had seen multiple articles reporting that Clinton relayed this story at a fiscal summit in DC. Not only did Chelsea basically call her Dad a pork-o, she demanded he lose 15 pounds. Or else what? He not walk her down the aisle? He not have the privilege of paying for the whole bloody wedding?

It's no secret that Bill Clinton has had an issue with poor diet and a struggle with weight. But his 2004 heart surgery appeared, at least to me, to put him on a good path. He lost a tremendous amount of weight and reported following a more healthy diet and exercise plan. Looking at recent pictures of him, it would be hard to categorize him as overweight.

If I were Bill Clinton, I'd tell Chelsea to go eff herself, drive myself to the nearest Burger King, and order a Triple Whopper Sandwich with Cheese and Mayo, named by Men's Health Magazine as the worst fast food burger out there. Bon Appetit!

Good Manners Never Gave Me Eight Million Dollars

Sunday is my favorite day of the week: a luxurious and lazy several hours sipping coffee, reading the paper, and doing the crossword puzzles. But alas, my respite was interrupted by my blood boiling after reading the profile piece on the Development Director over at the Pittsburgh Opera, John Federico. Federico, who, given his work history at many prestigious nonprofit's, clearly knows how fundraising works.

Which makes it all the more infuriating when he glibly distilled successful fundraising into one completely ludicrous soundbyte:

"...he believes his job really comes down to this: Say please and thank you [emphasis added]. At least that's what he tells aspiring young interns.

'If you're going to be a fundraiser and if your parents raised you right, you really should know the most important things to say by the time you're 5. If you can do those things, the rest is all polish.'"

Really, John, really? Successful fundraising comes down simply to having good manners?

If the absolute key to fundraising could be found in something so simple, every nonprofit in town would have pots overflowing with money. Hell, my parents raised me pretty well, and I am the champion thank you note writer, but somehow that prevented the nonprofit I started from swimming in money.

Mr. Federico and I both know that the secret to fundraising is not good manners. While Elsie Hillman might certainly appreciate a heartfelt thank you directed her way, that, my friend, will take you only so far. Successful fundraising relies many different things. If I had to choose one thing that will get you to the front of the proverbial pack, it's connections. No, make that relevant connections.

Connections and relationships are the key to fundraising. You need a board of directors, preferably ones with deep pockets, who know people who are connected and/or have deep pockets, who are articulate and enthusiastic and energetic who will sell, sell, sell your organization at every opportunity to anyone and everyone who could possibly get you money, positive exposure, or both.

You need to be a nonprofit that not only has a good reputation in the market, but one with a demonstrated track record amongst funders. It's like getting your first job: employers want experience, but to get experience you need to get a job. Getting that first grant is tough (from someone who started a nonprofit you'll have to trust me on this one), and it certainly helps to have a connected BOD or Executive Director, or--even better--someone you know at the philanthropic organization that's doling out the money.

Once you get connections, you have to constantly cultivate that relationship. Put them on your mailing list, invite them to events, take them out to lunch to get their thoughts about the organization, and make them feel like (I hate this word, but here it's applicable) a stakeholder. In short, make them feel included, and it's constant and ongoing, and way, way beyond a simple "please" and "thank you".

These days, it's increasingly difficult to get money, as even Federico admits. I give myself only a "C", because it's not my forte and success fundraising is really an art, based on a perfect storm of a lot of different factors. Maybe Federico's comments were meant to be self-effacing, but he knows as well as I do that a simple please and thank you alone aren't going to do it.

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.