Hysterical. Hilarious. Sooo Not Hillary!

I'll give Gov. Palin credit for being a good sport...looks like she's got a little rhythm.

Oprah, Spiderman and Farms: Wha?

Oprah. (You know to which Oprah I refer, right?) Her personal story is inspiring, her charitable works admirable, and her character flawless. Her book club, the turnout for her appearance at Barack Obama's rallies earlier this year and other instances demonstrate what some folks have already figured out: Oprah's got a lot of clout, y'all.

But she's clearly missed one of the big lessons of Comics 101: with great power comes great responsibility. (That line, from the Spiderman comics, is often credited to Peter Parker's uncle, Ben.) And here's where I run the risk of having my Woman card revoked: she was, in my view, completely irresponsible with her power and her platform on her Oct. 14 show. Tsk, tsk, Oprah.

The October 14 show, entitled "Lisa Ling Reports: How We Treat the Animals We Eat," was a semi-investigative report about the conditions in which many of the animals we rely on for food (chickens, pigs, cows) are kept, with the goal of educating viewers as to what "cage free" and "free range" mean. I say semi-investigative because while it may have clarified some of the confusion/uncertainty surrounding these terms and how their different from conditions on other farms, it was mostly an hour-long political plea from Oprah.

Let me explain: apparently, California voters are considering a new proposition (Prop 2) that will "prohibit the confinement of certain farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs." (Wikipedia's got more info here.) Essentially, the proposition asks for more humane conditions for these animals -- something I don't have a problem with. In fact, once you see the conditions these animals live in, you can't help but feel for them. So the show was really about informing "consumers" (voters) about both sides of the Prop 2 debate so they could make "conscious choices" when appropriate.

My beef (get it?) is that Oprah failed to present a balanced view, despite claims that said otherwise. (The onus was on her to get it right, considering that 1998 libel lawsuit with cattle ranchers. She doesn't want another lawsuit coming her way.)

What did Oprah do wrong? The short list:

• It was clear from the jump that Oprah favors Prop 2. She opened the show by telling her viewers that she believes we can measure our humanity by our treatment of the smallest of us. (I'm paraphrasing.) Yellow flag! Tug at the heart strings, but be clear: it boils down to how you view these animals -- as providers of food, simple commodities, or something more. And couldn't you just extend the "smallest of us" play to insects and vermin -- they're living. I'm sure Oprah isn't humanely letting bugs, mice, or other living pests roam freely on her properties around the world.
• She was more aggressive in questioning Prop 2 opponents about their positions, while the Humane Society flak was able to make his case for the proposal with nary a query from O.
• Oprah made the observation that what this really comes down to is economics but failed to get in the weeds. When the family farmers said their costs would go up if Prop 2 passed, Oprah looked to the Humane Society flak for answers. As if she couldn't (or wouldn't) trust the word of the family farmers. And when the premium price of cage-free and free range products came up, Oprah and the Humane Society dude correctly observed that prices would come down as demand increases for cage free and free range products. But what would spur such demand? How about an hour-long Oprah infomercial!!

The least Oprah could have done, a day after a Suze Orman show about budgeting and the "things we can afford," was compare the cost of the whole host of free-range and cage-free products with those produced by industrial farms. Show, in numbers, how the cost of eggs, pork and other products will rise initially as more farms move to meet Prop 2 -- because their cost of doing business will go up and it will be reflected in the price you pay at the supermarket -- but later stabilize and come down once those changes go into effect. Efficiencies will be found -- they're key to being able to turn a bigger profit.

Oprah also should have reminded her viewers that all of the products, cage-free/free-range and industrialized, are FDA approved. Watching Lisa Ling's tape, you could easily walk away with the impression that products from industrialized and family farms are sub-standard when that's just not the case.

Given that Oprah used to be a serious journalist, I'm a bit disappointed that the show seemed to blantantly favor one position over another. If animal cruelty is the issue -- and it truly is -- then take on all industries built on the sacrifices of animals -- fashion is a biggie. Are these farm animals mistreated? They're well-cared for regardless of the method in which they're kept. (My Dad raised an interesting point: are there different standards for the treatment of pets and the treatement of animals raised for food?) To present it in such a black-and-white way, not taking into account the budgets of families across the country, the animal vs commodity viewpoint, economies of scale issues, etc., is irresponsible. But Oprah knew what she was doing, and she knew the number of people she would reach (she mentioned that such issues may find their way onto ballots across the country soon), which is why I think she abused her platform a wee bit.

The show may have been about consumer education, but given the shortcomings I've mentioned, I just don't see it. With the vote a couple of weeks away, the show seemed more about influencing viewers -- particularly California viewers -- to vote the Oprah way.

(I know I can't afford cage-free and free-range products. Would I like for farms to house their food-producing animals a bit more humanely? Yes. But in this economy, not enough to stop buying industrialized and family farm products to force the move.)

Did Oprah give viewers adequate and accurate information to make "conscious choices?" In the end, I think she gave viewers enough info to make the Oprah choice.

Based on the way all Oprah-approved things go, I'm sure Prop 2 will pass. But will it have passed for the right reasons?

Parsing The Gift of Soap

Ever get the gift of soap from someone and wonder, "What exactly is this person trying to say?"

My friend Shash and I talked about this last weekend over a bottle of wine. I was sharing stories about my fiance-to-be's family, you know, things that would give her a sense about the family I'd be joining. (We went ring shopping, so barring a natural disaster, a proposal is imminent.) And so I mentioned that my FFIL (future father-in-law) has given me body wash/soap sets for Christmas every year since I started dating his son. We're at five plus years now.

"What, does he think you stink?" she asked jokingly.

"That's what I said!" I replied in mock horror. We had a real good belly laugh over it. Until she said, "Well, it makes sense."

Hold up. Wha?

It's an impersonal nice gift, she explained. He can't possibly judge how serious you two are, nor does he know you well enough to know your hobbies or things you'd like. So he gets you Bath and Body Works. It's a nice gift, shows he was thinking about you.

I think you're onto something, I told her, but in my heart, I felt a little twinge. I truly do appreciate every gift he's given me, even though I did at first wonder if he was trying to give me a hint. But you'd think, over time, that soap wouldn't be the go-to gift. The FH (future husband) must talk about me enough to give Pops some sense of me, right?

But here's where I take heart -- FH once told me that Daddy-o advised him to give his brother's girlfriend the gift of soap for Christmas. The ladies love it, FFIL told his son. And sure enough, it's become my boy's go-to gift when he's running out of time to be creative. Because you know what? Soap sets are nice, despite what they could imply on some left-field level. (Maybe I'm just sensitive like that.)

Another plus: the quality of the soap sets has gotten better over the years. Last year, FFIL and his girlfriend got me the above gift set from Crabtree and Evelyn, and I loved it. I loved it so much that I held out on using it for as long as I could -- I've got one bar left.

And...I haven't gotten soap and only soap in at least two years, a reflection that we've gotten better acquainted over the years. Pops is a big-time gourmet and he knows I consider myself a budding foodie. So he showed some love and gifted me some of his fave cooking condiments, including Stonewall Kitchen's Roast Garlic Onion Jam (despite what it sounds like, it tastes great!); Iron Chef's Orange Ginger Glaze; and a yummy cranberry mustard.

More importantly, FFIL has opened both his heart (and home) for me. His acceptance is a great gift and means more to me than any soap set.

So soap. It's an odd gift. It's a nice gift. But it's a gift, and the giving of a gift is a lovely gesture in and of itself.