Who's next for Natalie?

Just read that Natalie Portman and her current (scary) manfriend Devendra Banhart split up...so I thought that I'd do a little celebrity match-making and come up with Natalie's next man.

She's a tough one...smart and well-educated (with a "wise beyond her years" vibe that apparently intimidates everyone from Jon Stewart to Peter Saarsgard), reasonably adept at staying out of the gossip headlines, socially conscientious (as a shoe fetishist I can vouch for the unadulterated sexiness of her vegan footwear line - and I was skeptical...I had visions of organic Crocs and glorified Chacos dancing through my head...I was refreshingly off-base. She knows shoes.) and adorable as all get out.

SO - she needs a man able to keep up with her forays into philanthropy, her vocabulary, her status as a budding style icon, and her dependably respectable career path ("The Other Boleyn Girl" notwithstanding). That means paparazzi hounds and brainless cover boys are out.

She tends to favor interesting, unconventionally good-looking types over the standard heartthrob genre. That rules out the George Clooneys and Jude Laws and, oh...Lance Armstrongs. At 27, she's (thankfully) above the MTV Reality Show-/CW Soap Opera-/Teen Choice-caliber fray. No Brody Jenner for Natalie. BUT, she's not yet - quite - to the place where dating thrice-divorced business lotharios or restauranteurs would necessarily suit her, either.

She's visible enough that it seems unlikely she'd date someone entirely out of the business - the "demands of movie-making schedules" would wreak decent havok on the day-to-day dating expectations of anyone unaccustomed to The Biz. That means musicians and actors and...politicians are on the list. Off the list: pro athletes. Unless they're also of the Harvard-educated persuasion, since, frankly, what suits Jessica Simpson will hopefully never suit Natalie (er...shoe design bit aside). So, Rugby extraordinaires or soccer stars are a possibility. Michael Phelps (heh, heh, heh): NOT a possibility.

What that leaves us with: well-educated, socially-conscious, reasonably famous men with impressive vocabularies. Oh dear.

As it happens, I googled "socially conscious famous people with good vocabularies."

The one result (given that google returned things like a list of miami nightclubs...?): Kanye West.

Hmmmm...while good-looking and creatively progressive he seems a little inflammatory for my Natalie (and I can afford to be picky - she's my favorite. We have the same birthday. Right). I'm worried he'd create unecessary drama. HOWEVER - he passes the "famous enough" test. And the man's got style. I'm giving him a 5 on my NNM (Natalie's Next Man" Meter.

I thought about Javier Bardem - he's mysterious, a bit smoldering, exotic, makes smart career moves, flies under the celebrity radar - but ultimately, I think that's a bit of a cop-out because she's already done the on-again, off-again thing with likewise smoldering and mysterious Gael Garcia Bernal. Too similar. Too obvious a pairing (she apparently spent a few weeks partying with Javier and friends in Madrid a few years back, however - so they're friends, in any event). He gets a 3 on the NNM Meter.

I thought Casey Affleck would have made a good candidate (he's Colombia-educated and suddenly, QUITE hunky...) but alas: married.

There's Daniel Craig. He's a theatre buff. Divorced. A respectable 40 years old. A confessed friend of Kate Moss, but I've yet to see pictures of him doing coke lines off of fancy prostitutes...ah, even a rugby player. Comes with the "I'm smarter and more interesting by virtue of my British accent" schtick that a girl finds difficult to resist. And since so many people seem to like proclaiming Natalie the next generation's Audrey Hepbern, I suppose the iconicism of dating James Bond would add just the right amount of poetic kitsch. Danny gets a 7 on the NNM meter.

I'm thinking her best bet would be Adrien Brody. He's a serious, "actor's actor," (that takes care of the career, they're both well-respected, taken seriously for their craft - both have lived in New York; he's unconventionally (and...um...devastatingly!) handsome. He's a huge hip-hop fan (aspiring producer, actually), so there's her musical connection (if the Devendra Banhard gig is an indication that she's a sucker for...musicians). He's got a sort of...rakish charm that would counterbalance the fact that Natalie can seem, at times, a little too...focused. Adrien gets a 9 on the NNM.

Done. Match made. I'll be expecting to see them both at the Oscars or something this year together. Or at a Kanye show.

To begin with: the name "RODANTHE" is icky.

So, my sister and I get a great kick out of going to a theatre to see a movie we know we'll hate, then heckling our way through it, Mystery Science Theater-style.

We're reasonably quiet about it. We do our best not to annoy the other nice fools that wasted their money on terrible movies.

We'll definitely be going to see "Nights in Rodanthe." I'm snickering right now just thinking about the previews. Alonso Duralde over at MSNBC calls it "the world’s longest General Foods International Coffees commercial." I think Alonso and I would get along pretty well.

I used to drink a lot of GFIC - loved the Orange Cappuccino flavor. Made the mistake of buying the sugar-free version once. Tasted like drinking slightly orange-flavored liquid foundation makeup (you know, as I'd imagine foundation to taste, when heated...).

But back to "Rodanthe" (which I keep finding myself pronouncing in my best Julia Childs voice, because the word is so ugly is merits a certain amount of dramatic hyperbole). It's the casting that really sinks the movie's ship (or, if you're a sucker for Nicholas Sparks adaptations, the icing on the "There's always hope and kissing with tongue for middle-aged women in unsatisfying marriages before the credits role" cake). See, I don't think either Richard Gere OR Diane Lane can really carry an entire movie these days - and while Gere did seem to stop aging altogether the second Pretty Woman wrapped, he's on that same fence that Harrison Ford fell off of a few years ago: the "no longer appealing in a romantic leading role" fence. Cast him as the rogish politician, the slightly hunky dad, the rakish boss, but the "best sex of her life" role? Hmmmmm. As "the man that brings out the woman in her," I'm just not really convinced he's still got it.

And, Diane, bless her little mom-jeans-wearing heart, is EITHER the greatest con-artist Hollywood has ever been taken by (because the Movie Powers That Be are still convinced she's redefining acting for her generation, that she's a powerful screen force to be reckoned with, that she's been reborn as the Meryl Streep in Waiting, or - wait for it - that she's a Good Actress) OR, she really has yet to find that "perfect script." Because the long string of movies in which she's cast as an every women, wronged, scorned, and ultimately, strengthened and victorious keep falling flat with me. They're both a little past their prime when it comes to delivering the romantic punch. They don't...smolder anymore. They don't even spark. They play to cliches. And Lane's Mary Lou Retton cum Victoria Beckham bob doesn't do her any sexy favors - it just makes her look...well...old. Which she shouldn't. Because she's not. In fact, I watched that George Clooney eyebrow vehicle "Leatherheads" a while ago and really spend the entire movie thinking there might have been some real chemistry if they'd replaced poochy-lipped Renee Zellweger with Diane Lane.

Then there's the location: stately beach house during a hurricane. No cliche there. Stolen kisses against a backdrop of thunder and lightning: original. Inspiring. Really.

On another level, casting Christopher Meloni as the estranged husband sabotages Richard Gere even further. In fact, I'd probably be rushing to see this movie to oogle Meloni and swoon over the kisses stolen against the thunder and lightning backdrop (receding hairline, golden skin and upper body of steel - Heather's dream man....toss Meloni, Jason Statham, Bruce Willis and...oh, Shia (for a little youth and beauty) into a movie together and I'd watch it, period). Then I'd at least understand the character conflict.

BUT, then, I'm going to see this movie for heckling purposes only. So in that regard, I suppose it's perfectly cast, perfectly set - just flat perfect.

So this is what they REALLY think of the voters...

So, the 2004 Governor's race in the State of Washington was one of closest, most hotly contested in the history of....oh, politics. Ever. Came down to recount after recount, a lawsuit or twelve, and - eventually - 133 measly votes ultimately crowned Christine Gregoire the Governor. She "beat" (though that's still a source of contention among those grudge-holding types) a guy named Dino. Dino Rossi.

Groovy.

Well, Gregoire's 2004 nemesis Dino is back in the race. And, in a move that can only be called....um....shoot....what do we call something so... litigiously frivolous? Oh! Litigiously frivolous, yes, let's call it that. In a move that can only be called Litigiously Frivolous, Gregoire (or, fine, the State Democratic Party) filed suit demanding that Nemesis-Dino change his party designation on November's ballot to read "Republican" instead of "GOP" as he's currently designated.

The basis of their suit (if it can be called anything other than baseless in the first place):

Allowing Mr. Rossi to obscure his true party preference and affiliation directly violates the law, would mislead a substantial portion of the voting public and would breed cynicism and mistrust in our public institutions and, indeed, in our electoral process. This Court has the power and the duty to correct such threatened errors in the preparation and printing of the ballot and should exercise that power to protect the integrity of the electoral process.

Okey dokey. My favorite part (and the part that reveals the most about what the democratic party thinks of the greater "voting public") is that bit that suggests that a substantial portion of voters would be mislead by the GOP moniker.

Pardon?

So that suggests that a "substantial portion" of Washington State has never heard the republicans referred to as members of the GOP. That suggests that most voters go to the polls and look for the "R" or the "D" next to the name and check boxes accordingly.

Here's the problem with that logic:

If you're one of these "I always vote republican" box-checkers, then odds are you're perfectly familiar with what GOP means and wouldn't be unduly fooled by those 3 letters.

If you're one of those "democrat and democrat only" voters, then you've got nothing to worry about: vote for Gregoire, with the nice, clear DEMOCRAT designation next to her name.

No problem.

The problem I have is with the idea that our state democratic party seems to have no problem suing to pander to what they obviously feel is a completely stupid body politic. Hmmm....

I say, if Dino wants to try a new approach to his brand, go for it. And Governor Gregoire: try hitting the campaign trail and clearing up that confusion over what GOP means rather than wasting any of the next 40 days in court arguing about semantics.

People (and research institutes) having worse Mondays than I...

Time for another round of my favorite game, a good opportunity for me to realize that my day isn't so bad - I could be any of these people (or research institutes) - though, as a sidenote, I notice that this is also a good thermometer against which to measure my general mood - the easier it is to find people having a worse day than I, the better I figure my spirits must be...when it's difficult to find good examples of bad days....I must be having a Monday:


OJ Simpson


I'd say "good morning" to OJ, but if the jury selected for his trial due to begin today is any indication, OJ's morning is anything but good. The all-white panel of nine women and three men will hear opening arguments in a case that alleges OJ and five other men (two of them armed) raided a Las Vegas hotel room to recover what Simpson claims was "stolen sports memorabilia." He's facing armed robbery and kidnapping charges, and, if convicted of all charges, faces life in prison. Even worse for OJ than a predominantly female, white jury: four of his five co-defendants flipped on him and are scheduled to testify for the prosecution. That's a photo of Judge Jackie Glass - she maintains that the prosecution had "race-neutral" reasons for dismissing African-American potential jurors.


The Cedars-Sinai Womens' Cancer Research Institute


This weekend marked the 4th anniversary of The Pink Party to benefit womens' cancer research at Cedars. Good cause - and who better to raise money for an LA hospital than celebrities? Faux-celebs, it appears. Yes, the marvel of modern gossip-website-marketing "SPEIDI" were on hand, looking decidedly...mismatched. I'm not sure who Heidi was channeling when she figured slicked-back hair and drag queen makeup were the best way to accent her, um...rather sharp features. Dlisted said it best: "Cindy McCain called, she wants her hair back." Naturally, cancer research doesn't know the difference between celebrity money and faux-celebrity money, but, um...I do. And as much as I like to laugh at the strange "cue the commercial break" silences at the end of conversations on "The Hills," I still haven't figured out how Lauren, Audrina, Heidi, et all, have managed to maintain enough pop culture relevance to still warrant invitations to things like charity parties. I just. don't. get. it. As "reality television stars," they're right up there with Billy Bush on the annoying scale. As "famous people" they're about as confusing as...Starr Jones. As style icons, they're...um...on par with Miley Cyrus. As walking advertisements for the merits of breast augmentation procedures and the many opportunities afforded post nose-job, they're bar none. Bottom line: I think women's cancer research was undermined this weekend (but okay, it still won't keep me from using Lauren Conrad as my bellweather for what nail polish shade will be hot this fall...).


Debbie Phelps


It must be tough to be reminded that your son, Flipper, is, in fact, human after all. If he'd actually nailed his SNL hosting-gig even I would have had to ponder whether or not Jesus still walked among us. Good to know that Flipper has his limits. Even the golden love-energy of Carrie Underwood couldn't make un-funny material funny. Or help him read a teleprompter. Hmm - you mean they don't teach that in the pool? Swim fast, date pretty girls, read without moving your eyes. Oh - and that smiley creature in the phonetic t-shirt: I won't be buying one of those shirts. We know how I feel about Flipper.


Shia LeBeouf


So, I'll get my opinion out of the way early: this kid is the only movie star under 40 worth looking at these days (just too cute for his own good...*sigh*). So, I don't know if the final installment of Shia Post-Crash Hand Surgery really means that he's having a rough day, but it's an excuse for me to toss up another picture of him. According to MSNBC, he has one more operation to repair the crushed hand, then he's "back to 100 percent." Meaning, I suppose, that then he's free to get belligerent on another drug store, or whatever young things do to stir up trouble these days...

How quickly we turn on ourselves...

It's OK to aspire to the highest office in the land...as long as your children are grown and out of the house and your child-rearing days are behind you. It's OK to balance a career and a family...as long as the family is perfect and the kids don't do...well, things most Alaskan kids do. It's OK to be driven, determined, successful - just make sure your husband's never done anything sketchy in his younger years. It's OK to throw our support behind a woman...just make sure her hair is conservatively cut, she's dressed like a man and there's nothing to suggest she's...well, female.

I'm amazed by how quickly women have turned on Alaska governor Sarah Palin.

I'm amazed by how dramatically we revert back to the ideals that a woman's responsibility is FIRST to her family and second to her career.

I'm amazed that we're comfortable judging a woman's professional capability based on decisions her children make.

I'm amazed that a male senator light on experience and heavy on oratory and inspirational chutzpah is hailed as a savior, but a female governor light on experience and heavy on voter connection and the ability to excite her party is expected to "belly flop."

Newsweek calls her nomination "great political theatre," but reasons that rookies "never score hat tricks." Fine. Couldn't we say the same of a rookie senator aiming not for the supporting position, but the big "actor in a leading role" nod? Can't we just admit that the tickets are pretty balanced now, on both sides of the aisle and decide to TRULY leave everyone's families off limits? If we can't, can't we at least give everyone's perceived "shortcomings" as parents equal face time?

Why is it that this woman's hairstyle is open territory on national news websites? Why is it OK to preface a description of her with the "beauty queen" history and "hockey mom" status first and professional accomplishments second?

It seems women have been more dramatically critical of Palin than men (who, as far as I've overheard, fall into two camps: the "I'd do her" camp and the " she's no Hilary" camp). It's women that have come out of the woodwork to condemn her parenting, her preparedness, the state of her family. Many of them the same women that praised Hilary's attempts to smash the glass and score the ultimate executive position have their claws firmly sunk into Palin's decision to serve her country...

If you want to attack her for "Troopergate," go right ahead.

If you want to nail her for flip-flopping on the "Bridge to Nowhere," debate, have it it.

If you want to pick apart how accurate her pro-ANWR-pillaging statistics are, feel free.

Take her to the wall for her preparedness to debate foreign policy.

Enough with the rumors about who the baby really belongs to. Enough of the critique of the pictures of her in the bikini. Enough with the claims that "if she can't control her family, she's ill-equipped to govern."

Last time I checked, educators weren't hired on the basis of how well their own children perform long division at home. Coaches aren't selected based on how far their sons and daughters can throw a football. CEO's aren't promoted based on how many of their kids are pursuing master's degrees. Books weren't published because the writers' children were perfect at spelling. Since when were politicians disqualified because of decisions their kids make behind closed doors? Believe me, there are plenty of good kids - raised by great parents - making wrong decisions every day.

The mark of a good parent and a good leader is how they handle the aftermath. We can't prevent hurricanes, earthquakes, or tornadoes, but we can clean up after them.