To begin, let me say this about Ann Althouse and her blog. I like to read it, it is not a daily must for me but it is a weekly dive or so. She is an opinionated woman with no qualms about expressing herself, what's not to like?

Now you know I'm getting to the "but", right? Her post about the Oscars is just over the top, maybe I am misreading it? But I don't think I am. She writes:

First: how mad I am at Jamie Foxx for romanticizing child abuse! Why did people just sit back and laugh and accept his account of how much his grandmother beat him? Just because he presented it in a positive light? I'm grouping this with the stories surrounding Hunter S. Thompson's suicide. People in the public eye need to see beyond themselves and think about what they are legitimating when they choose to present a bad thing in their own lives in an uncritical positive light.

I am sorry but I didn't watch the Oscars. I did however watch Oprah and her post Oscar special, which included Jamie Foxx's magnificent speech. If I had known that such grace and talent was going to be on that stage last night, I may have even watched.

So I can not agree at all with Ann's view of being mad at Jamie Foxx for "romanticizing child abuse". Jamie Foxx was reccounting a time in his life that obviously was very near and dear to him, he would most likely never consider himself a victim of child abuse. Though I may not agree with the discipline that Jamie's grandmother used for him, and Ann, I know certainly does not agee; it is from a different era. Things were done differently then and certainly even Ann can understand that. What most people will take from Foxx's few words is how much love and respect he has for a woman who taught to "act like he had some sense". A tough woman who obviously loved him and did the best she could. It is a shame that there are children that no one cares about enough to show them the way to go, but Jamie is criticized for his respect and gratitude of someone who was obviously influential in his life. Oscar speeches are fleeting moments of time, that only a select few ever get to make, let them say what they want.

Which brings me to this next statement made by Ann: "People in the public eye need to see beyond themselves and think about what they are legitimating when they choose to present a bad thing in their own lives in an uncritical positive light."

I disagree with this as well. People in the public eye can say whatever they want. Why should my rights to do and say what I want be more than people who are celebrities? The only thing these "people in the public eye" need to be aware of is that they will suffer the consequences of their opinions. Just like here, if I say something you don't like, you stop reading (please don't stop reading! Please...). If a celebrity says something you don't like, stop going to their movies. Stop buying their CD's. Easy. See?

Come on Howard Dean, say something else, so I can stop disagreeing with bloggers that I like!

Oh and one more thing -- was it not scary how accurate my Oscar predictions were? I am almost psychic!