The question was very confusingly stated. (Because the media are intent on pushing the notion that the Blunt amendment would "ban" contraception, when that's not the issue at all.)

"Allowing employers to ban contraception" is a lot broader than what the Blunt amendment addresses. Nobody in the race is asking for this -- the right of employers to ban contraception presumably could mean allowing employers to prevent workers from using contraception even if they buy it with their own money.

Seems to me that Romney heard the phrase "ban the provision of female contraception" and answered in opposition to that.

If Romney indeed opposes the Blunt amendment, why would he say later that he does not? Why this insistence that what he said in one interview (among hundreds) trumps his later clarification? It's gotcha journalism, which the right usually deplores.

You can argue that this shows Romney is imperfect, even that he is gaffe-prone. But that's about all this error (possibly) demonstrates. Or are you really trying to argue that Romney is secretly opposed to religious liberty and made a Freudian slip in an interview, and we should ignore his subsequent clarification as an ingenuous attempt to mask the truth?

In the end, the people who hate Romney (like the author of this post) are going to point to this as yet another reason not to support him. The rest of us (including undecideds like myself) will ignore this issue for the tiny molehill it is.

How the studios screw over net-point back-enders is by deducting "costs" before getting to net profit. And how they define "costs" is not how any other human on Earth defines them. At the same time, they usually report a smaller budget than in reality to the trades so that their movies will look more profitable to the public than they really are.

Here's an idea: How about Congress pass a law that requires movie studios to define deductible costs as the budget they report to the trades. In other words, if they want to deduct a humongous amount, they have to publicly announce that as their budget. Hey, Hollywood wants to regulate the heck out of Wall Street and the oil companies; let's give them a taste of their own medicine.

By far the most intelligent response was by Angelina Jolie. Note to publicists: Every celebrity should memorize it (or variants for different situations).

Gratified that Christopher Plummer finally snagged an Oscar. He also delivered the classiest, most memorable acceptance speech of the night.

However -- It's interesting that after a distinguished 60-year career, Plummer had to play a gay man to win. Actors, take note: playing a gay man is the surest ticket to an Oscar these days, a surer thing even than playing an invalid.

Since 2005, gay characters have been awarded two Best Actor Oscars, and been nominated thrice, while Best Supporting has been awarded to gay characters once, with two additional nominations. (On the distaff side, lesbian or bi characters have been nominated for Best Actress five times since 2005, and three times for Best Supporting, with one win.)

Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course ;)

This was undoubtedly a bad year for the movies (funny how frequently one can say that in the past decade or so).

And yet there were two movies aimed straight at social conservatives. They weren't shoot-em-ups nor did they have non-stop action. But they were two of the more conservative movies to be made in years.

1. The Artist - Richly deserving of a Best Picture win (if it gets it -- and all the smart money says so). It's a throw-back to the classic movies of yore that we pine for. It's also hilarious. And nary a sucker punch to be encountered, not even a sucker poke. (To the author of this post -- the only "shallow bore" around here is your article.)

2. The Tree of Life -- Granted, this is nowhere near the crowd pleaser that The Artist is. It's a long, difficult, expressionistic work that takes effort to follow and comprehend. But so is the Bible. That's a hint as to what the movie is really about. Quite simply, Tree of Life is the most Christian movie to come out of Hollywood since The Passion of the Christ. Not for the ADHD-inclined, for sure. But if you are open to a challenge and ache to have your spirit moved, give it a shot. Here is the key to the movie: The father is the God of the Old Testament, while the mother is the God of the New.

Sorry to say, but Ken Burns' "The War" blew. How someone can make a series about the bloodiest, most world-encompassing conflict ever, BORING, is beyond me. But perhaps Burns should get some kind of award for that dubious accomplishment. For 17 hours (or however long it was), he dwells on the home front and, in particular, "racism." No, not the racism of the Nazis, but that of America.

How about by relentlessly promoting class warfare, literally pitting the lower classes against the upper classes?

How about by leveraging identity politics, by treating us not as equal Americans but as separate races, ethnic groups and genders, pushing "affirmative action" and other spoils for some, and tearing down others?

How about pandering to the basest instincts in interest groups like Latinos, calling for them to "punish" their "enemies"?

How about constantly blaming Republicans for all our troubles, and using strawman arguments that totally mischaracterize and demonize his opponents?

How about refusing to compromise or even negotiate with the other political side, unless they are foreign enemies calling for death to America?

How about unilaterally and single-handedly instituting new laws by executive order, totally bypassing Congress in direct contradiction to our Constitution?

How about ramming through a 2700-page trillion-dollar bill that totally transforms 1/6 of our economy, without a single vote from the other side, while abandoning his promise to allow at least 3 days' consideration of bills before being voted on?

How about forcing Catholic hospitals and other religious institutions to pay for services that violate their Constitutionally-protected religious freedom -- the first one listed in the Bill of Rights?

How about relentlessly bashing the other side for using PAC money, while quietly doing the same?

That's just for starters. The day is too short to list them all.

It's funny to me how left-leaning critics always praise movies/TV shows that have "nuanced" characters who aren't all "black or white," that dwell in the "gray" areas between all-good and all-evil. But when they do a story about people on on the right, it's all bad, baby. No nuances to be found there!

So why not drop HBO and just rent or buy GoT and BE on DVD/Blu Ray? It's a lot cheaper than paying $10-15/month for years on end.

The Baltimore Sun review linked to in another Nolte article says that all the best lines were written for Steve Schmidt's character (played by Woody Harrelson in the movie). That's the advantage of being the one who gets the ear of the MSM first -- you get painted as a hero in the best possible light, even if in reality you are a turncoat, backstabbing loser who oversaw a losing campaign.