Depois da discussão desta tarde sobre futebol e política, chegámos à conclusão que a rapariga é muito bem-parecida. Ashley Judd de seu nome.

I don’t think anything will top the Most Beautiful TV News Women of 2008 blog, but this’ll have to do for now.

So this is my list of the 20 most attractive actresses in movies.   I list them as the most “attractive” instead of “beautiful,” because though most of them are beautiful, “attractive” implies personality traits and other intangibles.  The roles are also important, though this isn’t a list of great actresses – it’s a list of the most attractive women in my opinion based on their roles in these movies.  So it’s sort of more the character than the person, since obviously I don’t know them.

Without going through the whole list, this competition was over before it began.  Linda Hamilton has the nice girl, innocent look in “Terminator” and she shows she has a lot of heart.  Then in “Terminator II” she becomes a bad ass.  Franka Potente in “Bourne Identity” has moxie and style.  If I had just seen her without her being in the role, she might not make the top 100, but she is pretty phenomenal in the role of Marie.

Sometimes it’s a particular scene that leaves the impression, like when Sigourney Weaver is possessed by a ghost in “Ghostbusters,” or when Phoebe Cates walks by the pool in “Fast Times at Ridgemont High” with an assist by the song “Moving in Stereo” by the Cars (one of the most underappreciated rock bands of all time).  Then there’s the woman as authority figure, like P.J. Soles who played an MP in “Stripes,” a variation on the teacher theme.  In “Silver Streak,” Jill Clayburgh looked wholesome; in “Basic Instinct” Sharon Stone did not.

Back before older women were called cougars, you had Jacqueline Bisset (“Class”), Anne Archer (“Patriot Games”) and of course, Anne Bancroft in “The Graduate,” who just edges out Katherine Ross from the same movie.  Believe it or not, Linda Fiorentino of “Vision Quest” was also an older woman although she played someone who was only 21 in the movie.  Her suitor in Vision Quest was 17.  I always thought her character was more like 25 until I saw the movie again.  Cheesy movie but great.

The mention of Sandra Bullock reminds me that I saw her twice in bars in Washington, D.C. about 10 years ago.  Each time she had her hair colored blond (or was wearing a wig) like she has it in her new movie “The Blind Side.”  It was definitely her.  Once was in Atomic Billiards in Cleveland Park.  I honestly can’t remember where the other time was.  Anyway, I went up to her to talk.   I didn’t mention anything about her looking like (or being) Sandra Bullock – just tried to talk with her but I have to say she was pretty underwhelmed.  She blew me off both times.  Then after that I told her I knew who she was.  Again, she was a little bit unimpressed.  Oh well.

So here you have it.  I’m going to add pictures later.

1. Linda Hamilton, Terminator
2. Linda Hamilton, Terminator II
3. Franka Potente, Bourne Identity and Bourne Supremacy
4. P.J. Soles, Stripes
5. Jacqueline Bisset, Class
6. Sigourney Weaver, Ghostbusters
7. Jill Clayburgh, Silver Streak
8. Linda Fiorentino, Vision Quest
9. Sharon Stone, Basic Instinct
10. Anne Bancroft, The Graduate
11. Katherine Ross, The Graduate
12. Anne Archer, Patriot Games
13. Julia Roberts, Ocean’s Eleven
14. Sandra Bullock, Speed
15. Lucy Liu, Charlie’s Angels
16. Jessica Lange, King Kong
17. Debra Winger, Officer and a Gentleman
18. Halle Berry, Swordfish
19. Robin Wright Penn, Forrest Gump
20. Ashley Judd, Double Jeopardy
21. Phoebe Cates, Fast Times at Ridgemont High

Honorable Mention:  Lynda Carter.  I know she was a TV actress and hardly did any movies, but I had to include her on the list. She can occasionally be spotted in Bethesda, MD and looks as great as ever.

Anyway, I’m sure I’ve missed a ton of attractive actresses but this is the list.  It was almost a year ago that I did the list of the most beautiful newswomen of 2008, and that blog entry has gotten more traffic than all my other blog posts combined.

So as I put this one up, and the previous one just below this, part of the hope is that more people will read the other parts of my blog that deal with www.mikeneedsakidney.com, which by the way, isn’t just for me but is designed to raise awareness for all people who need kidneys.  While I’m on the topic, check out the song that the Dirtbags, the Redskins Appreciation Club band did for me.

On Sale Not Here!

I haven’t covered the Sarah Palin book (diary?) release. I haven’t really covered much of anything regarding Sarah Palin subsequent to her case of the quit. Friends and colleagues of mine, who are much closer to the story, are doing a far better job covering the escapades of our once-governor turned whatever the hell she wishes to call herself now. This includes what was possibly the best panel discussion, with Mrs. Palin’s peers, on Shannyn Moore’s show, “Moore Up North,” which will air tomorrow at 4pm on KYES channel 5. To those out of state, it will be up shortly on youtube, and I will link it as soon as it becomes available. It was absolutely a one-eighty from suffering through talk show pundits who have little to no actual insight into the drama of the reality, or reality of the drama (not sure which is more applicable), and instead sit in front of a camera for an hour and make whimsical guesses and baseless conclusions.

Although I wished to remain steadfast in my non-coverage of the former Governor, today, a story caught my eye – and thank you to Pamela for linking it. This is from the Los Angeles Times blog “L.A. Unleashed“, covering a story from the Sitka Daily Sentinel:

“Now, this is mavericky.

An independent bookseller in Sarah Palin’s home state is donating the proceeds he makes off her book to a group that is among the biggest critics of the former Republican vice presidential candidate.

Don Muller owns Old Harbor Books in Sitka. He’s selling Palin’s memoir, ‘Going Rogue,’ for $28.99, and says he will donate profits to Defenders of Wildlife.“

The wildlife conservation group often butted heads with Palin over her support of the state’s predator control program, in which bears and wolves are shot from aircraft.

Muller says he’s not a fan of Palin. He tells the Daily Sitka Sentinel that donating proceeds to Defenders of Wildlife is a way to ‘carry the book and do something positive.’”

Folks, meet Old Harbor Books, as described on their LiteSite Alaska website:

“Old Harbor Books was opened in 1976 by a group of devoted book lovers, most of whom are still serving on the board.  Old Harbor is a general book store specializing in Alaskana, Native American and Alaska Native, children’s books, ecology, travel, natural history, philosophy, and, of course, nautical books. We carry regional topographic maps and nautical charts.  We have a unique selection of greeting cards.  We gladly fill special orders and out-of-print orders.  We can also order e-books for many e-book readers.  We sell tickets to most community activities.

Old Harbor Books is an independent bookstore that takes the term “independent” seriously.  We make it a point to get involved in community issues, even controversial environmental, anti-war and peace issues.” [Bold lettering totally mine]

Oh my God, I love you! I’m seriously sending you a Christmas card. How do you feel about chocolates and where have you been all my life?

As most of you probably know, Palin went a few rounds with Defender’sspokeswoman, Ashley Judd, over her criticism of the Palin administration’s barbaric practice of the aerial hunting of wolves. She even took a swipe at her during her “Quit-Day Speech,” when she lashed out at Hollywood:

“[Y]ou’re gonna see anti-hunting, anti-2nd Amendment circuses from Hollywood. And here’s how they do it: They use these delicate, tiny, very talented celebrity starlets, they use Alaska as a fundraising tool for their anti-2nd Amendment causes. Stand strong and remind them, patriots will protect our individual, guaranteed right to bare arms, and, by the way, by the way, Hollywood needs to know, we eat, therefor we hunt.”

Anyone, I would argue, who has actually seen an Ashley Judd movie would probably make you privy to the fact that the starlett – much to my satisfaction – isn’t against baring arms or anything else. She’s quite forward that way.

Admittedly, I failed to reach Ashley Judd for a comment today. But, I’d guess her reaction would go somethings like this: “Chuckle.”

The movie BUG.  Not many people really know about this movie and for obvious reasons.  It blew.  Seriously, blew.  It was like accidentally stopping on softcore on your house TV thinking your parents are asleep, but they’re awake.  True story.  Awkward.  This movie, BUG, was supposedly some awesome play and then got made into a movie, great idea, and I just wasted 90 minutes watching this junk.  90 minutes I will never get back.  You know what you can do in 90 minutes?  Watch 3 episodes of Always Sunny In Philadelphia, bang-have a sandwich-bang- and get yogurtland.  You can also play and entire world cup soccer game! Yet I watched this movie BUG.  This is the last time I watch a movie recommended to me by some hot artsy chick I met in a coffee shop before an audition.  I just wanted to talk to her and sound intellectual, but obviously I lost in this situation.  I mean I didn’t even get her flipping number, she had some “BOYFRIEND”.  That just proves a few points that a hipster friend of mine usually points out.  One, I think inside the box about a lot of things especially lame a** cultural BS.  And two, hipster girls see me as some version of “The Man” who won’t buy their homemade painting using recycled heroine needles.  My bad, sorry for not appreciating such art.  Now can we bang?  No?  Okay, I’m out!

But onto BUG.  First let me say the only reason I give this movie even a thought of decency is because you see Ashley Judd fully nude 2 times, albeit the 2nd time she is pouring gasoline on herself about to commit suicide, it’s still hot.  However, in said suicide scene, you do see some side bush, which is a way more rare than side boob, as Steve Lutsk can attest to.  This movie poster describes it as the scariest horror movie you’ve ever seen?!  Really, I wasn’t scared, I was really confused, and then I just felt awkward cause the acting was just so weird.  It wasn’t bad per say, but just weird.  And poor Harry Connick Jr.!  I mean that dude is my idol.  He can walk into a room and just point at a girl and in under 5 seconds she’s naked and with child.  I mean he is just that good.  And he played some ex-con domestic violence loving jerk!?  Come on casting, what are you doing?!  Don’t we have other dudes for this role, like Chris Brown?  Too soon?  I really don’t know what else to say, but to really just tell all the people out there, not to watch this movie.  And all you hipster girls out there, who are hot, don’t think I live inside a box, if this is outside the box I’ll gladly stay inside and watch me some Step Brothers.

I haven’t seen Ashley Judd in a number of years now, but I’ll readily admit I’ve had a secret crush on her for a long time. In 1999, she starred in a movie titled, Double Jeopardy. According to the IMDB Web site the plot line says “a woman framed for her husband’s murder suspects he is still alive; as she has already been tried for the crime, she can’t be re-prosecuted if she finds and kills him.”

I think that’s what we all think about double jeopardy; that no one can be tried for the same crime twice. So what’s with the Motion to Dismiss Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 for Violation of Double Jeopardy Clause filed by Casey Anthony?

First, we’ll have to take a look at the motions filed by the state. There’s no doubt that law enforcement and prosecutors like to throw the book at people to make some of it stick., and Casey Anthony made herself a perfect target for not only the check fraud charges, but the first-degree murder charge in the death of her daughter. It would seem like fraud convictions would be a walk in the park compared to facing execution, but there are reasons why this particular motion was filed by the defense.

Here are the three charges filed for each forged check written:

1. Fraudulent Use Of Personal Identification Information

2. Forgery Of A Check

3. Uttering A Forged Check

x4=12

Another charge was thrown in for good measure:

13. Grand Theft Third Degree

The motion to dismiss states that Casey is guaranteed double jeopardy protection under the United States Constitution as well as the Florida Constitution on the grounds of duplicative charges. Her defense claims that the additional grand theft third degree charge would be tantamount to punishing her for the same crime covered in the other 12 counts. In essence, Casey’s defense team points out that under law, she should be charged for one crime by one count. The defense also claims that charging her with multiple counts for the same act prejudices her, therefore the counts should be dismissed. In other words, she should be charged once each for all three charges and it shouldn’t matter how many bad checks she wrote. That means she should have only been charged with one count of fraudulent use of personal identification information, one count of forgery of a check and one count of uttering a forged check. No matter how many checks she wrote, they should all fall under the same umbrella of charges.

According to the motion, “Miss Anthony is guaranteed double jeopardy protection by the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Sections 9 and 17 of the Florida Constitution for duplicative charges.” Let’s take a look at what the law says:

Amendment 5 – Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 8

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Florida Constitution – Article 1, Sections 9 and 17

SECTION 9.  Due process.

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, or be compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness against oneself.

SECTION 17.  Excessive punishments.

Excessive fines, cruel and unusual punishment, attainder, forfeiture of estate, indefinite imprisonment, and unreasonable detention of witnesses are forbidden. The death penalty is an authorized punishment for capital crimes designated by the legislature. The prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment, and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, shall be construed in conformity with decisions of the United States Supreme Court which interpret the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment provided in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any method of execution shall be allowed, unless prohibited by the United States Constitution. Methods of execution may be designated by the legislature, and a change in any method of execution may be applied retroactively. A sentence of death shall not be reduced on the basis that a method of execution is invalid. In any case in which an execution method is declared invalid, the death sentence shall remain in force until the sentence can be lawfully executed by any valid method. This section shall apply retroactively.

The double jeopardy rule of the Fifth Amendment is intended to limit abuse by the government in repeated prosecution for the same offense as a means of harassment or oppression. It is also in agreement with the common law concept ofres judicata which prevents courts from relitigating issues which have already been the subject of a final judgment. There are three essential protections included in the double jeopardy principle, which are:

• being retried for the same crime after an acquittal
• retrial after a conviction
• being punished multiple times for the same offense

Does the defense motion to dismiss those extra charges, something it sees as ancillary in nature, hold any merit? In Solem v. Helm (1983) 463 U.S. 277, a split court found that a life sentence without the possibility of parole for a seventh nonviolent felony was unconstitutional. In Solem, a bare majority of the court held a court’s proportionality analysis under the Eighth Amendment should be guided by objective criteria, including the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.

In Harmelin v. Michigan (1991) 501 U.S. 957, a life sentence without possibility of parole for possessing 672 grams of cocaine was upheld. The case produced five separate opinions. While seven justices supported a proportionality review under the Eighth Amendment, only four favored application of all three factors cited in Solem. As one court has concluded, disproportionality survives; Solem does not. (McGruder v. Puckett (5th Cir.’92) 954 F.2d 313, 316.) In Harmelin, Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, determined Solem was wrongly decided and the Eighth Amendment contained no proportionality guarantee. Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices O’Connor and Souter, found the Eighth Amendment encompassed a narrow proportionality principle. In other words, the Eighth Amendment does not require strict proportionality between crime and sentence. Rather, it forbids only extreme sentences that are ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the crime. Moreover, in Solem v. Helm, the court focused on the nonviolent nature of both the defendant’s current offense of uttering a ‘no account’ check (one of the most passive felonies a person could commit) and his prior offenses. The majority acknowledged a life sentence for fourth-time heroin dealers and other violent criminals would pass constitutional muster.

What all of this legalese means, in my interpretation of law, is that Casey should be tried once for each of the three charges. If she is acquitted of the first 3 charges, the case should not be allowed to proceed. On the other hand, if she is convicted of the first 3 charges, the additional charges should no longer be relevant and she should be sentenced for just those 3. I understand the logic, but is it really constitutional? Suppose she is convicted on all 13 charges. She faces a long time in prison on each separate conviction. In essence, she could be sentenced to spend her remaining years behind bars. Also, as 13 separate convictions, she would be considered an habitual offender. Could she be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole as such? I believe she could. What we have to consider is not just this case, but prior cases and the issue of extreme sentences for others beyond the State of Florida v. Casey Marie Anthony. As much as many may want the book thrown at her, in its wisdom, the court does not see prejudice. It sees a defendant and the charges against her. She has the law on her side as much as it may or may not help her.

The defense motion cited Florida Statute Section 775.021 (4), which states that, “Whoever, in the course of one criminal transaction or episode, commits an act or acts which constitute one or more separate criminal offenses, upon conviction and adjudication of guilt, shall be sentenced separately for each criminal offense; and the sentencing judge may order the sentences to be served concurrently or consecutively. For the purposes of this subsection, offenses are separate if each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not, without regard to the accusatory pleading or the proof adduced at trial.”

I read that as meaning the offenses are separate from each other. In other words, each of Amy’s forged checks are really the same crime on different dates. As such, they should be charged as one crime because the Fifth Amendment forbids multiple punishments for the same offense. In Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299 (1932), the Supreme Court held that punishment for two statutory offenses arising out of the same criminal act or transaction does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause if ‘each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.’ Separate punishments in multiple criminal prosecution are constitutionally permissible, however, if the punishments are not based upon the same offenses. Are they the same offenses? According to Florida law (Florida Statute Section 775.021 [4][b]), the intent of the Legislature is to convict and sentence for each criminal offense committed in the course of one criminal episode or transaction and not to allow the principle of lenity as set forth in subsection (1) to determine legislative intent. Exceptions to this rule of construction are:

1.  Offenses which require identical elements of proof.

2.  Offenses which are degrees of the same offense as provided by statute.

3.  Offenses which are lesser offenses the statutory elements of which are subsumed by the greater offense.

I think it’s very clear why the defense filed this motion and it’s a very good one. Let’s move on and take a look at Casey’s grand jury indictment last October.

On October 14, 2008, Casey Marie Anthony was indicted by the State of Florida on these separate charges:

1) FIRST DEGREE MURDER (CAPITAL)

2) AGGRAVATED CHILD ABUSE (F1-L9)

3) AGGRAVATED MANSLAUGHTER OF A CHILD (F1-L10)

4) PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

5) PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

6) PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

7) PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

Yes, she was charged with premeditated first-degree murder under Florida Statute 782.04:

Murder.

(1)(a)  The unlawful killing of a human being:

1.  When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being

While we ponder the legality of the latest double jeopardy motion, take a look at the above indictment charges. How can a person be charged with murder and manslaughter*? Why are there four separate charges pertaining to providing false information to a law enforcement officer? Mark my words, when the murder case heats up more, we are going to see a slew of motions filed to throw out some of the charges. What will happen? It certainly is within the realm of possibility, but on the other hand, allow me to look at the April 19, 1995 Oklahoma City bombing which killed 168 people and was the deadliest act of terrorism within the United States prior to the 9/11 attacks. I don’t need to go into any detail of what transpired. This is purely about the charges, the trial, and the conviction.

On August 10, 1995, Timothy McVeigh was indicted on 11 federal counts, including conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, use of a weapon of mass destruction, destruction by explosives and 8 counts of first-degree murder. On June 2, 1997, McVeigh was found guilty on all 11 counts of the federal indictment. He was executed by lethal injection at 7:14 a.m. on June 11, 2001, at the U.S. Federal Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana.

You may wonder why I chose this particular crime. To be honest, the double jeopardy motion has nothing to do with Caylee’s murder at this time. This is an entirely separate case, but I am looking at legal comparisons and how they could influence each trial, fraud and murder.

My Opinion

Despite killing 168 people, McVeigh was only charged with 8 murders. In my opinion, Casey Anthony will lose her Motion to Dismiss Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 for Violation of Double Jeopardy Clause. Why? If Timothy McVeigh’s attorneys used the same logic and prevailed in a similar motion to dismiss the counts by reducing the eight murder charges to one, that means out of 168 deaths he was responsible for, he would have been tried for one single murder and the entire weight of those deaths would have been reduced from 8 to 1. Would he have been sentenced to death for one murder? With Casey, it’s the same thing in my book, although the charges are not similar. I am merely making an analogy. Each forged check is a separate crime. The only charge I would consider dropping is the Grand Theft Third Degree. I think it’s extra icing on a 12-layer cake. One thing the judge may consider, and only if Casey is convicted on all counts, is to follow maximum sentencing guidelines allowed by the state, but to condense those 12 charges into 3 at sentencing. In other words, allow all of the convictions to stand, but don’t sentence each one individually. Of course, the judge should use his own discretion when deciding the imposition of concurrent or consecutive sentences and I am not concerned with that particular aspect. Regardless of what he decides, Casey will be locked away for a long time if she is convicted of these charges alone. I realize how unpopular my view will be with readers, but we must remember, when Casey stands trial on the fraud charges, she will not be convicted of anything yet and the court will not take Caylee’s death into consideration. Who else, other than Casey, would you want to spend a life in prison over stolen checks that amounted to less than $1,000?

On a final note, I think we’re all Jonesing for the fraud trial to begin. Any trial, actually, and speaking of Jonesing, wasn’t Tommy Lee Jones Ashley Judd’s costar in Double Jeopardy? Yup, he was. Too bad justice doesn’t always work the same way as it does in Hollywood. Casey Anthony’s role would have been written out of the script right after the opening credits. In the real world, that’s not the way it works.

*Amended by Maura on 2009/11/13 at 12:40 pm: According to a lawyer who comments over on Blink’s site, Florida law requires the inclusion of a lesser crime when a person is indicted for a capital offense. That’s why Casey was charged with aggravated manslaughter of a child in addition to first degree murder.

On the surface, it appears that the jurors will be allowed to convict Casey of both first degree murder (homicide with premeditation) and manslaughter (homicide without premeditation), which can’t logically both be true relative to the same homicide.

The resolution to that contradiction will be in the instructions to the jurors.

PLEASE VOTE FOR ME!

(Morgan Freeman, Ashley Judd & Ellen Burstyn/ Photo Credit: Crystal A. Johnson)

USA Today held its Annual Hollywood Hero Award on Tuesday, November 1oth.  The 2009 award recipient was Ashley Judd for her commitment to social causes and charity around the world.  The event was held at Montage Hotel in Beverly Hills.  A-list stars were in abundance including Debra Messing, Magic Johnson, Molly Sims, Morgan Freeman, Ellen Burstyn and many more. 

The Food at the Montage

After working the red carpet it was off to a splendid dinner held prior to the ceremony.   Take a look at what was on the Menu:

First Course

SALAD OF WILD ARUGULA

Strawberries, Marcona Almonds and Organic Parmesan with a Meyer Lemon Vinaigrette

Entrée

SUSTAINABLE CHILEAN SEA BASS

Fennel, Roasted Peppers and Potato Gratin with Smoked Tomato Broth

Dessert

SINGLE ESTATE CHOCOLATE LAYERS

Crispy Praline and Malted Milk Latte

*Molly Sims and Mandy Moore attended the Dinner-GUYS, THEY ARE NOT ON THE MENU!

 article by Crystal A. Johnson

Hero.

Not a hero.

Tooth Fairy film fantasy interpretato da Dwayne Johnson

Leggi altre notizie su: | Commedia | Fantastico | Michael Lembeck | Dwayne Johnson | Ashley Judd | Julie Andrews

Crossing Over is a powerful story. A bit convoluted at times, but there is plenty here to appreciate.

My rating

Am I an American or am I a human being? What is more important, my nationality or my species? It seems to me that I can change my nationality at any time, but I will always be human no matter what I do. This is a real sensitive subject and I am sympathetic to both sides. On the one hand you have people who want to come to this country to better themselves or to provide opportunities for their families or to get away from the oppression of their government. The Declaration of Independence states, “…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” I’d like to point out that this document mentions “all men” meaning everyone. It does not say just Americans.

How quickly we forget that this country was built by immigrants. Our rail road systems were built by the Chinese. Our biggest bank was started by an Italian. In fact there is not one person in this country that does not come from somewhere else. Of course, I understand the need for immigration laws. There must be laws or there will be chaos. I don’t think that anyone disagrees with that. I think the real problem is how we deal with these laws, how we apply them. They don’t seem to be fair and I don’t believe that they are very humane either.

Crossing Over is about the current laws we have in this country when dealing with illegal immigrants. This is a powerful film that tries to show the inhumane side of these laws, the loop holes, the corruption and the complete disregard of humanity. The film is not a fun movie to watch, but it is an important one. I think that everyone should be aware of what is happening, especially when it comes to how we treat aliens whether they are legal or not.

Crossing Over can be compared to Crash where there are a hundred different characters all with their individual stories and eventually it all ties in the end. Crossing Over tries to do that, though not as successfully. While the message in this film was very sound and very important, the film aspect is a little weak. We get to see some strong performances, but there is too much going on and sometimes the film loses the audience. There were so many stories being told, I only followed one or two and I dismissed the others. Perhaps that was the whole brilliance of this movie now that I think about it.

The movie starts out with a factory raid where Harrison Ford’s character has a young Mexican girl deported. There is the story of an Australian actress who is trying to get naturalized but after all her legal efforts she is forced to take other avenues that eventually get her into deep trouble. There is the Jew from the UK with a similar story. There is the Korean and Iranian family who are all just about to get naturalized but life happens and interrupts the process. Then finally the most heart breaking story of them all, a young Middle Eastern girl who attracts the attention of the FBI because of a high school paper she wrote about the 9/11 attacks. Because of this she is targeted as a terrorist and her family is torn apart.

This was so terrible to watch, because I know things like this happen all the time in this country. They happened after Pearl Harbor and we learned nothing from it. This is America, Land of the Free, where we are free to express our feelings and emotions without fear of retaliation from our government. Bullshit! It makes me so angry that instead of binding together as a nation, instead we become so paranoid and so mistrustful of others that we make laws that limit our own freedom and for what?

In this story this young girl spoke freely about her feelings on the subject of 9/11. They were strong feelings, but she should have the right to express herself. She wasn’t a terrorist and neither was her family. However, they were treated as such and the outcome fell short of being humane. If she wasn’t a terrorist then, I wouldn’t be surprised if she becomes one after. Sometimes I am really disappointed in our country.

The movie isn’t as preachy as my review. It is just showing you the misery that we are causing to these people, legal or not. Is it just, is it fair, and is it right? This movie shows you what’s going on, it leaves it up to you to decide if it is. I agree that we should do something, but maybe we’re just not approaching this from the right angle. I don’t care if it’s for the betterment of the country or not, but it is never right to break a loving family apart.

Joe, Kevin and Nick Jonas

Jaw-dropping hair flips, guitar riffs and stage slides are just some of the things you can expect from this film. Find latest lyrics The audience goes through a day in the life of the Jonases, followed by a live concert. The music will make you move in your seat, but the hordes of screaming girls might make you cover your ears! Beri Aku Waktu lyrics

CROSSING OVER

k Harrison Ford, Ashley Judd

This slow-moving drama offers different scenarios of people striving to become U.S. citizens. Salam Untuk Dia lyrics Whether they cross deserts, lie or buy their way into the system, it’s hard to feel sympathy for the poorly developed characters.**-ЈnVfr

Jane Goodale (Judd) is happy. She’s got a good job as a talk show producer and she’s dating Ray (Kinnear), also from behind the scenes. Their relationship is going just great and they both seem totally invested in it, and Ray really makes Eddie (Jackman) look bad. Eddie is also working behind the scenes and a true womanizer. But then Ray does something Jane doesn’t see coming: he dumps her, right after having made plans for moving in together. Jane is now single, bitter, extremely heart-broken; and to top it all, she is homeless. So now moving in with Eddie seems like her only option.

The disappointmet inspires Jane to write a theory that compares men to male animals and labels dumped women as  old cows. So the theory suggested that the male would move on to a new cow after a while. It also seems more fun to pen this theory under the identity of a very old professor, the secret identity only known by her best friend Liz ( Tomei). Eddie is half- amused and half-pissed about Jane’s weird assumptions. And all though he is “using women as ATM machines” as Jane puts it, maybe Eddie and Jane could make a better match than Jane and Ray ever did…

So what if  you knew she would actually for all Jackman right after the movie starts? No, I’m not giving any spoilers. It is just so obvious. Kinnear’s character turns out to be a jerk, and he was too good to be true in the first place. And of course we are introduced to Eddie’s past, and learn he used to be in a serious relationship which ended with the girl tearing his heart out. And seriously who can consider Eddie just a friend/roommate anyway? It just doesn’t happen. So it is a sweet  and kind of quirky (what other romantic comedy you watched had so much cow talk and images include?) and funny. Of course it has clichés but they are fun so who cares? 2 men. 1 girl. 1 guy treats the girl a lot better. There are bound to be similarites to stuff you have been before. But it does its job. It’s romantic and it is funny. And it is not like either sex will have a hard time figuring out why they are attracted to each other. It’s Ashley Judd and Hugh Jackman we are talking about.But be warned, if you don’t like to see the ending coming, please stay away from Someone Like You. And the 99.99% of romantic comedies. I’m just saying.

PSA: Wesley Crusher’s Butthole is in Constant Jeopardy!

Did You Know?

It gets lonely in deep space, and Starfleet chicks are mainly bleah (we’ll spotlight non-bleahs as time goes by, don’t you fret). Consequently, Wesley Crusher’s butthole is in constant jeopardy.

PICARD
A bit of good news, as well.
We’re to rendezvous with a
shuttlecraft carrying Wesley
Crusher. He’s on vacation from
the Academy.

Riker reacts, pleasantly surprised.

RIKER
Wesley… good. We’ll need an
extra hand around here.

Picard smiles — it’s clear they’re both looking
forward to seeing Wesley again.

– Star Trek: The Next Generation, Season 5, Episode 106, “The Game.”

Almost makes me feel sorry for him, but he’s got that creepy German Shepherd mole on his neck. Forget it!

Remember how I mentioned not long ago that I’d spent an entire morning downloading pictures of Ashley Judd in this and her other featured episode as Ens. Robin Lefler on TNG? Yeah, I’ve finally had enough private time with that, and I’m ready to share. So look for that!

 Last night  I was a little emotional.  For no particular reason in all fairness, but the film “Where the heart is” did help this state along. 

The fact is I can relate, even if my baby wasn’t born in a Wal-Mart store. 

At some point during the film the blue-eye, beaten up Lexie Coop (Ashley Judd) tells Novalee Nation (Natalie Portman) that she found a man she was seeing with her kids.  She asks, how she was going to explain to them what had happened and what could she say that could comfort them in a world filled with so much evil.   The reply was beautiful, inspiring and moving all together and the perfect why to answer this difficult question:

“You tell them that our lives can change with every breath we take… and tell ‘em to hold on like hell to what they’ve got: each other, and a mother who would die for them and almost did… You tell them we’ve all got meanness in us, but we’ve got goodness too. And the only thing worth living for is the good. And that’s why we’ve got to make sure we pass it on.”

This is so true!  It is so inspiring!  The film as a whole.  Definitely worth reading the book.  I am such a sucker for romantic stories, where people triumph! 

Laughter is harder… Friendship is stronger… Trust is deeper… When it comes from the heart

Have you watched the film?   What was your favourite part of the film.  What other films do you enjoy, that leave you feeling motivated? 

Photo Credit

from “Eye of the Beholder”

I fell asleep immediately after work today (fever 100) and when I woke up I saw Jay Leno, which made me think “omg I slept until 11?” But then my brother informed me that he’s now primetime. I’m not a huge fan but here are two line items that caught my interest:

1) Terry Bradshaw -Both my mother and myself are sweet on Terry Bradshaw (mom: “oh Rebecca – don’t say that”). For those who may not know, TB was a QB for the Pittsburgh Steelers (I just had to look that up) and now co-hosts one of those sports shows.

Terry Bradshaw - xoxo

More importantly, he is a very handsome older man who is old enough to be my father. In addition to being hot, he is always laughing and joking…he seems like one of those guys who is so much fun to be with, self-deprecating and very sweet. Hes been married 3 times (which he jokes about) and suffers from depression, so you know he’s been there and would be a good nurturer. AND HEY MOM – I just read he wants to be on Dancing with the Stars. Ooooh – fingers crossed!  Love you Terry.

2) Ashlee Simpson Wentz -

Ashlee Simpson - I am mad at you

I have no opinions about her (except that I like her sister Jessica) until tonight when she TOTALLY PISSED ME OFF. Jay goes, “Who was your biggest idol growing up?” After a huge pause and clearly not being able to think of an answer (giggle, play with hair, look off to the side) she said, “Well, it was Ashley Judd until she went downhill”.

Um…Whaaaaa? Did she really say that out loud? Ashley Judd is not only one of my all-time favorite actresses (who co-starred with my new actor-crush Michael Shannon in BUG), she is also a definite invite for my celebrity dinner party. She’s always uphill.

One of my favorite movies is Ruby in Paradise featuring Judd early in her career. When you see her in BUG (filmed more recently) her acting continues to blow you away because she is one of those actresses who goes there, if you know what I mean. She’s not vain and the transformation of this gorgeous woman into a down-on-her-luck waitress living in a motel is astonishing. I think Ashlee just embarrassed herself on national TV and obviously has no idea WTF she is talking about.  WHEW – don’t worry Ashley Judd. I got your back.

Ashley Judd you are so awesome

POST SCRIPT: I feel a little guilty now because I just read Ashlee Simpson’s blog and she doesn’t seem like a bad gal – into women’s rights etc., but still…you don’t mess with Ashley Judd.

When a pro hockey player, nicknamed the Tooth Fairy for his ability to knock out other players’ teeth, dashes the hopes of a young boy, he is ordered to one week’s hard labor as the real Tooth Fairy.