Now, THAT was a Presidential Address to Congress!

What a difference a day makes.

Every time I see President Obama I feel like a desert wanderer who has just been led to water.

We all know by now what an assured speaker he is. But something other than his oratory skills was present last night. He looked, sounded, spoke, behaved like a LEADER. By that I do not mean one who wears his power in an arrogant manner -- goodness knows we've seen far too many examples of that. Obama is a natural leader. He wears it with pride and humility. Strength, conviction and good humor. And that elegance! How utterly refreshing to have a sophisticated thinker and speaker at the helm. Someone who projects power without bombast. An ability to speak frankly about hard work and challenges while simultaneously lifting spirits. I have said it before and I'll say it again, I've never seen a politician like him. He is one of a kind.

Which does not make him infallible. He will make mistakes, in fact, has already done so. Most importantly, he has admitted mistakes. No false swagger for him.

Despite all the pettiness we've seen, and will see, he consistently rises above it. In my opinion, one of the most moving parts of his speech came when he said, with absolute conviction, that he knew every person in that chamber, be they Democrat, Republican or Independent, loves this country and wants it to succeed. And you know what? He's right. Even in light of the Republican political posturing with regards to the stimulus bill, and posturing it most certainly is, they do love this country. And he made it more than clear that Democrats, who for so long have been labeled as the "blame America" party, love this country just as completely.

Mention must also be made of that sweet, obviously overwhelmed girl from South Carolina who wrote to Congress asking for improvements to her school. That little girl brought tears to my eyes. As did the banker who took his $60 million dollar bonus and gave it to current and former employees! Oh, God. There is so much kindness and generosity and grace hiding underneath our bickering and failures.

Thank goodness.

Writer's Block (and puppies)

Oh, writer's block, you cruel savage! I have several essay ideas rolling around in my brain and each time I try to pin one of them down for more than two minutes, they up and run away again. Sneaky bastards! Arts funding, socialism, infrastructure spending, why LOST is one of the best TV shows of all time -- all of these are subjects I would like to write about in greater detail and yet, today, my brain is saying "Sorry, lass."

So guess what? Pictures of puppies! Everybody loves puppies, right? I mean, come on:

Who could ever resist that face?

Or this one:

I want a dog.

And a pony.

And inspiration to come floating down on her gossamer wings. Until then:

PUPPIES!

Calgon!

There is so much to discuss a girl hardly knows where to begin! The Oscars, the do-we-nationalize-the-banks debate, Rihanna/Chris Brown AND the leaked Rihanna photo, the continuing mystery of why someone hasn't given Miley Cyrus the spanking she deserves, Obama telling the GOP governors to behave themselves... Oh, it's all so exciting! Put it all in one post or divide and conquer? Start with the celeb stuff and then go politics or vise versa? Possums, what do I do??????

Deep breath.

Let's start with the fun stuff, shall we?

THE OSCARS! Random thoughts to follow:

Hugh Jackman = amazing. Charming, funny, so at ease in his own skin, singing, dancing! I thought he was great.

Kate Winslet = Yay!! Finally! The woman was o for 5 going in to last night. Thank goodness she won. And as an added bonus, she looked positively stunning. Stunning. Step back a moment and reflect on the fact that she is only 33 years old and already has SIX Oscar nominations to her name. That's impressive, folks.

Dresses. Oh, dresses! Though I am a woman devoted to her blue jeans, I must admit to longing for the days when women wore dresses more often. Don't you sometimes think it would be fun to get dolled up simply to go to the movies? A night out to a film or a play or a museum used to be an event. Aaaaanyway, pretty dresses! (And not so pretty dresses. I'm talking to you Beyonce. What was that black and gold monstrosity you were wearing?). Most everyone looked great; hell, I even thought Angelina Jolie looked terrific and recently she's been wearing glorified trash bags on the red carpet. But she looked splendid last night. Taraji P. Henson -- could be my pic for favorite dress. Oh, but then there's Kate's ensemble, Anne Hathaway's gorgeous creation, Evan Rachel Wood's dress was so lovely...

Some of the ladies didn't fare as well. There is the aforementioned Beyonce, a woman with a glorious set of pipes but often questionable fashion sense, in my opinion. Jessica Beal is super, super pretty but even she could not make that half bow thing look good. Sarah Jessica Parker is one of the actresses I'd most like to hang out with over a beer 'cause she seems like such a geniunely lovely person but I'm tired of the ballerina dresses (and this, coming from a former ballerina). Also, is it me or did Matthew Broderick look puffy about the face?

There should have been more Daniel Craig. There can never be enough Daniel Craig. Here's hoping that next year all the awards will be presented by Daniel Craig.

Queen Latifah singing over the dearly departed montage? Lovely. Just lovely.

On the blogosphere today reactions are mixed re: former winners in the acting categories extolling the virtues of the nominees. I really liked it. I thought it was different, moving and how great for the winner to be greeted by their respective club members upon hitting the stage? Speaking as one with fantasies of winning an Oscar, I would freakin' love it. Oscar producers, please keep this in mind when I'm nominated. Thank you.

Dustin Lance Black, winner for his screenplay for Milk gave such a touching, heartfelt speech. He made me cry.

Perhaps the funniest moment of the night? No... not Ben Stiller's mockery of Joaquin Phoenix, although that was indeed inspired. My pic for most amusing was the winner of the Best Foreign Film who actually said Domorigato Mr. Roboto. Brilliant. (Please don't chastise me for misspelling that). Or was Sean Penn's "... you commie, homo-loving sons-of-a-gun..." the funniest moment? That was pretty damn great as well. (I do wish he'd thanked Robin though).

Okay. Next.

Rihanna/Chris Brown. Not much to say here except -- that poor, poor girl. I hope she's okay and has good people looking out for her. And then to have her photo leaked like that. Kudos to those entertainment shows such as Access Hollywood that refused to air the photograph. Shame on all the "newspapers" and other programs that did publish/air the pic.

What's next? The banks? Oh, crap. I'm actually a bit pooped at the moment. Can I get back to that one? Or, can I simply direct you to Paul Krugman?

Where does that leave us? Ahhhh, Miley Cyrus. She's obnoxious. End of discussion.

And Obama and the governors. He basically told a few GOPers to quit whining about the 2 or 3 percent of the stimulus package they object to and save their campaigning for 2012. Awesome.

Well. I'm working through an essay on socialism and the debate this country seems to be having about said subject. But I'm reluctant to publish that post until I've got my thoughts in order and my ducks in a row. Stay tuned.

Oh, and do me a favor, would you, bunny rabbits? Please check out my other blog which has now moved to its very own server: http://www.calliopesdiary.com/. Thanks!

The Perfect Day

What does your perfect day look like? For the sake of this exercise let's assume that money is no object. If you want to have millions of dollars, great. If you'd like to simply be comfortable, great! But if you want to do a particular something on your perfect day, like hop on a flight to Vienna, assume that you have the means to make it happen.

My day looks like this:

I get out of bed at 10am for a session with my personal trainer.
Breakfast with my dashing screenwriter (or director, producer, DP, lighting, sound, set) husband.
Then a stop by the volunteer tutoring center for an hour's work with one of my tutees. (Is that a word?)
On the way home, I get a call from my agent telling me that I've booked the 4 episode arc on Friday Night Lights.
A quick stop at the drugstore for some strawberry cream Starbursts as a celebration.
Lunch.
Then I curl up in my favorite chair for reading time, probably something historical or political.
A quick, light snack and I'm off to the Mark Taper Forum for a performance of Much Ado About Nothing, in which I'm playing Beatrice.
Home to an after-performance meal with hubby.
Crazy hot sex with hubby.
Pleasant slumber.

Now THAT'S a good day.

What about you? Feel free to share in the comments section!

Another shout out!

If you're a regular reader of this blog, you know that one of my earliest posts was in praise of NY Times Op-Ed columnist Nicholas Kristof. Well, I'm at it again, this time giving props to Gail Collins and David Brooks. In a recent post I mentioned that Brooks is one of the few Republican commentators that I can stand reading and/or listening to because he is not a crazy, raving lunatic out to whip up the extremists into a frenzy. If only Brooks were the voice of the Republican party rather than Rush Limbaugh.

I digress.

Every so often, David and Gail debate a topic. These exchanges are witty and thoughtful and, gasp!, respectful. Go to the Times website, click on the Opinion link and then click on The Conversation. Or, you know, just click right here.

This particular conversation, titled The Propeller Heads' Dilemma, concerns how large a role policy intellectuals should take in any Administration. They go on to debate a bit about the stimulus plan. What I appreciate so much about the exchanges these two conduct is the clear respect each has for the other person's intellect. It is so refreshing in this age of cable news shout-fests and screaming matches. Jon Stewart managed to get that horrible show with Tucker Carlson axed a few years ago but Mr. Stewart is only one man and despite his reach and influence, he can only do so much. (By the way, Jon, um... I've got a big crush on you. Big.) Would that it were possible to lock the 24 hour news-cycle genie back in the bottle from which she sprang (although in that case Jon Stewart would have far fewer people to make fun of, so I suppose it's all for the best). Filling air time has bestowed a form of legitimacy on countless pundits, optimistically referred to as experts in most cases.

Oh, if only Bill Moyers ruled the world!

Lest you think, treasured readers, that I only read the NY Times, it's not true. I read the Huffington Post also. Hee. Little joke there. Did you like that? Really though, I check out numerous political/current events websites; it just so happens that the Times employs a few of my favorite writer/thinkers.

So... Gail, David, thank you and keep up the good work.

Does absence make the heart grow fonder?

I sure hope so!

Dear readers, forgive me for being away for a few days. My weekend was spent nursing some tummy troubles, feeling sorry for myself due to said tummy troubles and hiding from the world. In addition, I took a brief "news holiday." This is something I do from time to time. I give myself a few days, usually no more than three, to refrain from reading/watching/commenting on all the goings on in the world. Occasionally the cacophony gets to even yours truly and I need a rest.

At the moment I'm listening to my stomach growl and hoping that what I choose to feed it doesn't make it angry. Fingers crossed.

Rest assured, penguins, that I will have a new opinionated post tomorrow. Or perhaps later tonight.

Various and sundry...

Michael Phelps gets caught smoking pot and is suspended from competition for 3 months. Alex Rodriguez receives no punishment for admitting to using steroids. Phelps' pot use was purely recreational whereas A-Rod used drugs in order to cheat and enhance his performance.

Rush Limbaugh declares on his radio show that he hopes Obama fails. He outright advocates for the failure of the head of the American government and is considered a hero by the right-wing nutjobs. However, anyone having the audacity to criticize George W. Bush when he was president was labeled a traitor.

Drew Peterson, the man whose 3rd wife died under mysterious circumstances and whose 4th wife disappeared, is engaged again. He is 55 and she is 24.

I have three email accounts, am on Facebook and have two blogs but I still don't know what Twitter is. Can someone explain it to me?

Referring to the stimulus package:
" 'It's generational theft', said Senator John McCain, just a few days after voting for tax cuts that would, over the next decade, have cost about four times as much. Paul Krugman in today's NY Times.

This picture makes me laugh.

Like "Drink Me", only different.

Click me.

It's worth a look-see.

Oh, all right. You want more information about it? It's an essay called The Voice of American Pragmatism by Jeffrey Feldman. He must have climbed inside my head, put my assorted pebbles of thought into a bag and arranged them into a Zen garden of sense.

Thank Goodness

Thank goodness President Obama is going on TV tonight to advocate for the stimulus bill. It's about time. He has made the mistake that Democrats continue to make over and over and over; he let the Repubs frame the debate about the stimulus plan.

Obama's call for bipartisanship is necessary and welcome. However, you cannot be bipartisan if only one party shows up. After having his outstretched hand slapped away so completely by the Repubs in Congress, Obama should have taken to the airwaves immediately and said in no uncertain terms that if they are not willing to come to the table, fine. They can starve. However, he did not do that, and let them have the microphone for several days, days in which they spread misinformation about the stimulus package and continued their tired call for tax cuts. Why, why on earth do the Dems continue to allow these extreme conservative voices to control the debate? I am an enormous Obama supporter; however, he needs to start using the same elbows he uses when playing basketball against the Repubs.

It's true that the American people are ready for bipartisanship and an end to the dysfunctional way things have been done in Washington. However, it is profoundly clear that the Republicans in Congress, now with almost zero moderate voices, are not only digging their heels in the partisan dirt, they are PROUD of it. Putting their party's renewal above getting this country out of economic quicksand, they are once again choosing self-interest above the greater good.

And once again, to my deep, profound, unutterable dismay, the Democrats, including Obama, are letting them get away with it.

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) actually compared (favorably!) the Repub minority in Congress to the Taliban, saying that they have learned what it means to be insurgents from the despised gang of thugs in Afghanistan. Can you IMAGINE the outrage we would be hearing if a Democrat had dared say something so outlandish? Rush Limbaugh would spontaneously combust! But a Republican member of Congress is allowed to say these despicable things and nothing happens. Nothing.

We won. The Democrats overwhelmingly won the last two elections, first Congress in 2006 and then the Presidency in 2008. Why are we bending over backwards to accommodate individuals whose policies the citizens of this country decided were bankrupt!? It baffles me.

Obama wants to turn the page and create a different tone in Washington and I admire him for that. But if the Repubs won't join him at the table, then don't feed them at all. Wasn't it Obama himself who said just a few days ago "I won."

There are many out there who capture what it is I'm so livid about in words more powerful than mine. Here are just a couple:

Paul Krugman on MSNBC on February 6th: "How much bipartisan outreach can you have when 36 out of 41 republican senators take their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh?" Later in the same interview: "At this point we have a Republican party that, except for a few members, is committed to just doing more of what we did during the last eight years. Obama has to disregard that."

Drew Westen on Huff Post: "In fact, the 2006 and 2008 Senate and Congressional elections cleared out all but a handful of moderate Republicans from Washington, leaving no one to reach across the aisle to but economic and social extremists who have had no interest in attending the President's bipartisan party. They are more interested in salvaging their own party and figuring out how to return themselves to relevance. They are precisely the politicians the American people made clear in November they do not want shaping further policy." He goes on, offering a suggestion of what Obama should say to those Repub members of Congress who are gleefully shouting the same old "tax and spend-evil Liberal" nonsense: "...Senator, you and your party are the ones whose fiscal irresponsibility and failed ideology have saddled our children and grandchildren with more debt in the last eight years than all the debt amassed in the prior 200 years combined, and your radical economic ideology has led to a financial crisis and soaring unemployment like we haven't seen since the Great Depression. If you have something constructive to offer, I'm all ears. But if all you have to offer is partisan sniping and the same tired ideas that are costing people their homes, their jobs, and their savings, neither I, nor the American people, have any interest in hearing from you further." (emphasis added).

HIGHLY Recommended website

Here is a link to Robert Reich's blog. In fact, it is called Robert Reich's Blog. How clever of him. RR was the Secretary of Labor during the Clinton administration. You may have seen him on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. He has published several books, the latest being Supercapitalism.

I stumbled upon his blog by accident but am quite happy to have found it. There is this post about the Obama administration's stimulus package and what work will need to be done after the bill has passed Congress. It will pass Congress sooner or later, presumably after a lot more hand-wringing on both sides of the aisle (and no doubt with the Dems bark being worse than their bite and caving on key elements of the bill to the same folks who are largely responsible for the mess in the first place. Notice I say largely responsible, not completely. See? I can be bi-partisan.)

I have done a lot of reading about the proposed stimulus, a great deal of which has left me befuddled. (Charts and graphs make me apoplectic. They frighten me. Always have, ever since I was first asked to graph an equation in pre-algebra). Mr. Reich manages to lay out his arguments in a manner which a lay person like me, with an average understanding of economics, can understand. I particularly liked his "after the stimulus" post (please, no "le deluge" jokes), for its illustration of what he calls "structuralists" and "cyclists". (I'm a structuralist). This post is clear, concise and manages to avoid condescension. I urge you to check it out. You'll enjoy it.

Lobby-pop, Lobby-pop, Oh Lobby, Lobby-pop...Lobby-pop!

President Obama is coming under fire for some appointments he has made to his administration. Specifically, there are those on the right and the left criticizing him for appointing lobbyists after he declared time and time again during the campaign that he would do no such thing. Let's examine this a bit deeper.

On his first day in office, Obama declared that anyone in his administration who left, would not be allowed to lobby the administration for its duration. He also stated that he would not employ anyone who had been a registered lobbyist in the past two years. There have already been exceptions to the second rule.

William V. Corr lobbied on behalf of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and is now the deputy health and human services secretary. Honestly, I have no problem with that. If someone who lobbied AGAINST tobacco use is now in a prominent position with health and human services, fine by me.

William J. Lynn III has been nominated as deputy defense secretary. He is an ex-Raytheon lobbyist (Raytheon is a prominent military contractor). This is potentially troubling. I am not aware of how recently Mr. Lynn worked for Raytheon. Obama has declared that appointees would not be allowed to work on issues on which they lobbied in the past two years. We'll have to see how this one plays out.

I am also troubled by the appointment of Mark Patterson (lobbyist for Goldman Sachs), who is now chief of staff to Tim Geithner (Treasury Sec'y). Again, I do not have specific details about how long ago Mr. Patterson lobbied for Goldman, yet it does raise eyebrows since financial firms are so implicated in our current economic mess.

So yes, I understand why some folks are bent out of shape about this. Obama promised such sweeping change that people are extra-sensitive to even the slightest indication of "Washington as usual". But there is a problem with this criticism as well. Obama's rhetoric during the campaign did sometimes obscure the fact that he is, essentially, a pragmatist. He has referred to himself as such many, many times. He is a politician and politicians bend the rules in order to get things done. Ah yes, but didn't he promise to change all of that? My feeling is that he has already gone a long way towards changing the tone (and he hasn't even been in office a full month yet). Some stumbles along the way are inevitable.

And in comparison to the outrageous cronyism of the Bush administration, the appointment of individuals who were egregiously unqualified for their jobs, these blips from the Obama administration pale in comparison. There will never be absolute purity in politics, Obama or no Obama. The difference I see in this situation, and it is a significant difference in my opinion, is that the few appointments coming under question right now have one thing in common -- these people are actually qualified to do their jobs. I am willing to allow Obama a little wiggle room. A little, not a lot. But I do not expect him to take advantage of that wiggle room to a large degree. Time could prove me wrong and if so, I will admit it. But for now, I am maintaining hope.

What I do feel needs to change is the way the Democrats in Congress operate. I am disappointed in Nancy Pelosi's leadership, despite being thrilled to have a woman as Speaker. She and Harry Reid strike me as ineffectual leaders. This does not make them bad Congresspeople; it means that perhaps other individuals would be better at leading the party in Congress.

I am extremely curious to know how others feel about all of this. I welcome any and all comments!

With six kids already, do you really need more?

By now most of you have probably heard about the California woman who gave birth to eight babies this past week. What you may not have heard is that this woman is a single mother who already has 6 children. The eight babies just born (none weighing more than 3 pounds at birth), are the result of a fertility treatment, as you may have guessed.

This brings me to a question, one of many that I have about this situation. What doctor in his/her right mind would allow a woman already raising 6 children to go through a fertility treatment, especially when those treatments frequently result in multiple births? She now has FOURTEEN children to care for. 14 children to support not only financially, but emotionally as well. So often in the cases of multiple births that gain national or worldwide attention, people wonder how the parent(s) will afford all the diapers, food, clothing, etc. necessary for child rearing. But a question that rarely gets asked is how will those parents provide adequate emotional support to each child?

Not only that, but there are medical issues that demand debate. The human female body was not designed to carry 8 babies at one time. This is a woman having a baby, not a cat having a litter of kittens. Forgive me for being crass, but honestly! What is going on here? The babies just born are all severely underweight. They will remain in the hospital for many weeks in order to determine if their lungs are functioning properly, if their hearing or sight have been damaged, if their brain function is normal.

Then there is the issue of over-population. I am not advocating a one-child only rule such as exists in China. However we need to seriously examine the ethics involved in keeping all eight embryos if all eight implant in the womb. I realize this is a thorny topic, especially in this country with the culture wars around abortion still raging. At what point does someone simply have too many children? After a certain number, should people be forbidden to have more?

In my opinion, this woman is selfish beyond description. Calling her selfish will undoubtedly ruffle some feathers. But think about her children. How much attention can she give to each child? How will she have the energy to care for all 14 kids? I understand wanting a child. I also understand that some people want a large family. But there is large and then there is irresponsible.