I'll take the under on this one.

I watched the Oscars with my wife and her folks. The show was good. I'm not usually a fan of the Oscars, but the format changes they made, combined with Hugh Jackman's talented singing and dancing, and his low-key MC style, made for a very enjoyable experience.

I did think it was funny, though, to hear from the now-Oscar winning writer of Milk (the movie about Harvey Milk, the openly homosexual San Francisco politician from the '70s), whose name I forget (and am too lazy to google), and Sean Penn (who won the Best Actor Oscar for portraying Harvey Milk) concerning same-sex marriage. Both talked about how they were in favor of "equal rights" for homosexuals to marry. (Nevermind that "gay" marriage is a contradiction in terms, like "square circle" or "crooked straight line". Marriage has not always been monogamous, but it has always and everywhere been heterosexual.)

Sean Penn even went so far as to effectively call those in favor of traditional marriage hateful for their successful campaign to exclusively affirm traditional marriage in California through Proposition 8. (Which is also amusing, given the Stalinist-style tactics and shamelessly relentless moral bullying engaged in by enraged Prop. 8 opponents. If anything about Prop. 8 has been hateful, it's been Prop. 8 opponents' relentless efforts to punish people for having the temerity to successfully oppose them.) Had there been a recipient expressing remotely conservative or traditionalist opinions, I can all but guarantee that we would see a flood of articles online and in the papers tomorrow condemning the recipient for using the Oscars as a platform to push his own politics or partisan agenda.

What do you think the over/under should on how many articles we'll see about Dustin Lance Black's (the Milk screenwriter -- I overcame my laziness and googled his name) or Sean Penn's editorializing about same-sex marriage or homosexual rights? Hmmm ... How about zero? That sounds fair.

I think I'll take the under on this one.