>One thing that's always puzzled me is the seemingly huge number of women who look at themselves naked in the mirror and see nothing but flaws and shortcomings, whereas a man will overlook his big belly, skinny legs and sloping shoulders and see a smoking hot guy starting back.<

For one thing, women's magazines/media are all about constantly telling women they are defective--then suggesting "solutions" to their "problems." (Of course, said problems are never really solved--and said media just comes up with more and more problems that women "have" to address if they are ever to be loved/attractive/happy.) Men's magazines/media tell men that they are fine as is--and the products the former are pushing are just things that will enhance men's practically perfect state. Another thing is that women are taught from the crib that they are never "good" enough--by the time they deal with men assessing their flaws, they've dealt with years of female relatives, friends, and peers doing this crap. The lifelong self-consciousness and feelings of never being quite "right" this causes is the result.

...which proves that beauty is in good part about perception--and that women often judge themselves harder on things most people don't even notice.

... through raises and all, it's time to bring it to the boss' attention...or leave.

>"You're a spoiled little brat who goes clubbing"? How can we respect a character who'd deign to make such an obvious observation?<

It's not obvious to the people who bought into Milan's nothingness, or the ones who think Paris Hilton walks on water. (Or the morons who voted for Bush for very much the same reasons.) And, most importantly, it's not obvious to Milan/Paris and her egocentric, ignorant ilk, who swear up and down they are doing something and producing things of value. Lucy was just cluing Milan (and other clueless folks like her) in as to how worthless what she does really is--a reminder that folks like her and Paris should get every day of their lives.

Some of us can read a lot faster than we can wade through a video. And we get to re-read and mull over the points made. Thanks!

1) Agreed, Cintra--that was one dispiriting clip-show. (Shoot, I kept flicking back over to LAW AND ORDER: CRIMINAL INTENT marathon--and I'd seen a couple of those already.) I've been watching the Oscars ever since I was a kid, but I swear I've never seen one where most of the leading lights 1) needed several shots of adrenaline; 2) looked throughout like they wished they were somewhere else. It's getting so the only folks enthusiastic about the Oscars are new nominees/folks outside the system.

2) Why does Jon Stewart do the Oscars at all? He looks horribly uncomfortable (which makes anyone watching him uneasy)--and what's worse is that he has to hold back humor-wise. At least Chris Rock got off some hilarious jokes.

2) Slammin' gown on Helen Mirren. Diaz's was nice, too.

3) ENCHANTED was a good movie, but did three songs from it deserve nominating? (Heh--guess the Oscar crew figured that giving the gold to 3 6 Mafia covered them for at least three years or so...:)

So, are we heading back to fourth-rate Bond cliches next week. Damm--I was hoping Kansas would do the Douglas Sirk-scenario thing. Or, better yet, get stuck in a Coen brothers' flick...

...that means you are 1) not a fraud; 2) are good at what you do, correct? All you have to do is shake off that "being married equals having all the wisdom and maturity of the world" crap the matromonia crowd wants everyone to believe, and you'll be fine.

Gee, does that mean a white person should stop seeing a black therapist because that therapist has never "climbed the mountain that is being white?" Should a rape counselor stop taking patients because she/he may never have been raped? Ah, I forget--being married is an uber-state of enlightenment that only special types can understand...:P

>Have Colbert do the show next year. Do not allow ANYONE to read or review his routines beforehand; keep it as hidden as the Price Waterhouse ballots. Heck, the resulting lava flow of contempt may make the Oscars worth watching.<

I'll second _that._ It's become depressing as hell to watch terrific comic after terrific comic go down in flames hosting the Oscars because they can't be as pointed and observant as they truly are. Watching the likes of Stewart struggle with this show's strictures and the underlying "satirize Hollywood, but not too much" threat is like watching someone try to turn Rupert Murdoch's life into a contemporary CITIZEN KANE--there's no way they can bring all their guns to bear.

Sullivan has been parroting this "Democrats _need_ evangelicals...or else" nonsense for the past eight years. When the religious right and Bush were on the ascendant, she practically predicted that Dems and secular folks would become extinct if they didn't fall in line with "true believers" and become like Christian Republicans. Now that the tide is turning, she's pulling the concern-troll-with-compassion angle and bleating how liberals should gently "tolerate and convert" CRs. She's never really explained how liberals can tolerate those who utterly refuse to extend them the same courtesy--or why liberals should.

>And just WHAT is this Marie character doing floating around inside the prison, in a theatre cape no less?<

Oh, my God--she's there to introduce _more_ cliches--specifically your basic PHANTOM OF THE OPERA/SCARLET PIMPERNEL/French-Revolution-drama ones. With a bit of PRISON BREAK stuff thrown in. Peachy. :P