Okay, Nation: I need your help. Between claw pulls, tears, and the fullness of fashion time, my black-cardigan fleet is down to one acceptable option, and even that one is kind of a C-plus. I need you to find me black cardigan sweaters.

What is not wanted:

• crochet or other open weave
• three-quarter sleeves
• big, contrast-y, or otherwise showy buttons
• a cropped outline (I have a very long torso; a "boyfriend" cardigan on most of you hits me at the hip)
• aggressive/elastic bracelet cuffs or bottom edge
• vintage (see previous two list items for why)
• wrap or "shawl" cut — no closure + added bulk in front = ixnay
• 100% wool 

What is okay/workable:

• cashmere/expensive, within reason
• cheap or cheap-seeming; I ain't proud
• nipped, shaped, or fitted
• ruffles (little 'uns, within reason) or other "action," as long as it's not too young, because I…am not, anymore
• sequins (ditto)
• a bird on it ('cause I'm that guy) 
• any cardi that fits the above specs but isn't available in black (no pastels please)

Brands you can skip thinking about:

• Lands' End/Lands' End Canvas (cute on some; too boxy on me)
• J. Crew (good call, but they got nothin' right now)
• Target (already own three in other colors) 

Nation: This English major is chilly right here. SHOP FOR ME.

For the past couple of years, I have asked for my birthday/Christmas for a charitable donation (mainly DonorsChoose). I even had a housewarming and asked guests that instead of a hostess gift, they make a donation. This request comes from a genuine desire to donate to charity. Also, I tend to be particular about what I wear or keep around the house. I'm not trying to sound ungrateful, I am very blessed to have people in my life who are very kind and generous, but a charitable donation seems like the best and easiest way to take care of the gift-giving conundrum.

However, almost without fail, this never happens and I'm not sure why. My husband says we give enough to charity and he doesn't want to give any more. Other than that, there seems to be a real resistance from other people. Can you help understand why there is such a hesitance to giving donations, and if there is anyway I can help encourage it?

Thank you for your help and advice,

Vanessa

Dear Vanessa,

Assuming that you don't tend to suggest divisive or politically fraught non-profits as the recipients, it's probably that some people just don't like to buy from a list. They consider it "cheating," somehow, and whether it's a registry or an Amazon wish list, it's a shortcut that they can't bring themselves to take. I'm sure that, like every other engaged couple in the history of forever, you and your husband found yourselves writing "thank"-you notes for hideous and hard-to-store nonsense like a set of eight martini glasses with little charms on the stems, or a bread dough…something-ometer. You didn't put it on the registry, and you didn't put it on the registry because you had neither the room nor the desire to own the thing, but inevitably a couple of people consider it insultingly "unoriginal" to buy from a list, and it is important to them that you know that they thought about it, and went to some effort with it, and gave you a unique present. Gift-giving should not become about competition, or have a weird performative aspect to it…but it often is and it often does. People are weird and make things about themselves, and that's what Goodwill is for etc. and so on.

Another reason, which is sort of related, is that people get funny about money, by which I mean cash, in the gift "space." Like, the same person who will cheerfully drop $60 on a coffee-table book will get all pearl-clutchy about a $25 donation to charity, because a book is a gift, but a donation is money and that's tacky. It's not even conscious most of the time, I don't think, but if it feels like a transaction, some people get ooged out.

So that's why, probably. Alas, knowing why doesn't really mean you can — or I guess I should say "should" — do anything about it. Again, it's a gift, and the most you can do is, as you put it, "encourage" people to donate to Donors Choose or another worthwhile non-profit instead of buying you stuff. You can try making little jokes about cutting down on clutter in 2012; you can go the heartfelt "this organization really means a lot to me, so if you must buy a gift, a few bucks in their direction would be the best present"; you can just say "no gifts — your presence is your present" and hope nobody follows up.

But: they will. Or they will ignore you and buy some chenille horror, and you will have to act delighted by it. If it's a housewarming, they will bring you wine and novelty coasters, because this is the extent of the thinking most people want to do about a housewarming. Good news, though! 1) 99 percent of them mean well, and love you, so you can enjoy the process on that basis, and 2) there is nothing you can do about the behavior, so permission not to stress about it anymore, ever, is hereby granted. Thank friends and relations sincerely; display the item prominently, once, so they can see it; escort it off the premises with respectful promptness or whatever you want to do (but: maybe don't sell it on eBay? Or the next letter on The Vine will be about you? Just a thought); done, next thing. But a lot of people have a lot of cultural synapses about gifts that you will never re-carve for them, and trying to will only annoy and alienate everyone involved. Accept this, accept them, and go buy your own neat clothes and coasters and enjoy life.

Current score: Oscars 43, Sarah 18 (1 category completed)

Actually sitting slightly ahead of that, but have several write-ups still outstanding.

In case you missed them:
Warrior
A Better Life
A Cat In Paris

Not terribly confident at this point, but four weeks out, you just try to keep paddling. Don't forget, for updates on the ODR, you can follow the Press Play blog's Twitter right here.

There is an earworm that has been crawling around inside my brain for the better part of three decades, and I am seeking the assistance of TN's loyal readers in identifying (and possibly purging) it.

My family moved to the Puget Sound region in 1984 and we were devoted watchers of the two PBS stations that we could pull in on our little television via coat hanger and tin foil. One was KCTS 9, which is still on the air, but I don't remember the name/channel of the other one, and nothing I pull up online rings any bells. (I suppose it might even have been one of the Canadian channels.) Whichever station it was would put little filler pieces in between programs as necessary to even out the start/end times. One of these fillers was the source of my previously-mentioned earworm.

The piece was short and began with a group of interestingly-dressed musicians standing around in some studio space waiting for an off-camera cue. (The waiting was awkward and obvious, and usually caused me to do a little, "Aaannnnd, Action!" routine in front of the TV, which I found entertaining but I'm sure wearied my parents.) The group then launched in to their song, which I loved but do not know the exact name of. Neither do I know the name of the group. The lyrics that I remember go like this:

Chorus:

Come to the dance at D.J. McKay's 

there'll be (something something something)

and lights all a-blaze

Come faster, come quicker

bring lots of hard liquor

and if you come sober

you'll leave in a daze.

(I'm here to tell you, "come faster come quicker" is not a word combination you want to type into Google.)

Many verses about this shindig at Mr. McKay's followed, but I don't remember anything more specific until the last verse which goes something like:

Said D.J. McKay as they put ["hauled"? "took"?] him away,

"Dear God, what a glorious spree!"

The song was very folk-y (is that a word?) and some of the musicians looked a little like they had recycled parts of their old Renaissance-festival garb to wear for the taping. But they were talented, the song was quite enjoyable, and after all these years, I'm increasingly frustrated that I can find no trace of it. I would love to find a copy of the video online somewhere, but barring that, I would settle for the name of the group and a complete set of lyrics.

The only other information I can offer is that I can narrow the dates down to between March 1984 and late '86/early '87. After that, we finally got cable and we watched a lot less PBS.

Oh, and I did send off an e-mail to KCTS a couple of years ago, but their response basically said that they never kept records of the filler pieces from that era and they couldn't really help me. So I'm turning over my aging earworm to the Vine readers. Any help would be immensely appreciated.

Thanks,
PNW Expat

If I am describing how something relates to another thing, I generally use "in relation to" or "in respect of." However, I keep seeing the phrase "with respect to" used in the same way. My boss actually changed some a sentence recently to use "with respect to" rather than "in respect of" in this way: "an indication of what is to come with respect to a strategic, regional or landscape approach."

I think "with respect to" means something different to "in respect of." Like, you are giving actual respect to something or someone, not describing how something relates to another thing.

Am I in the wrong here?

In other words, is it "Our conclusion was influenced by consultation undertaken in respect of the Tomato Nation" or "Our conclusion was influenced by consultation undertaken with respect to the Tomato Nation"? I am not talking about the respect given to the Tomato Nation during that consultation, but rather that the Tomato Nation was the subject of the consultation.

Thanks so much,
Lauren

Dear Lauren,

My first instinct is twofold: 1) neither phrase has much to do with "respect" in the sense of esteem; 2) "in respect of" sounds like a clanky overcorrection to me, and I would change it to "with respect to" or "regarding" in any document in which I found it.

But your original letter placed terminal punctuation outside of quotation marks, which indicates that I shouldn't necessarily look to American English for an answer here. To the Google-ator! Among the things I found:

• a definition of "respect" that mentioned "with respect to," but not "in respect of"
• Wiki Answers lists "in respect of" as chiefly a British usage
• Merriam-Webster does the same
• …et cetera and so on

Garner expresses neither a preference for either phrasing nor an opinion on differing meanings, merely noting that either phrasing is better replaced with a single preposition. (Did you know you can follow him on Twitter? You can. You're welcome.)

So, shows what I know. I still don't believe there's any meaningful difference between the versions of the phrase; it's a matter of regional usage. I would advise you to rewrite that sentence entirely so it's less garbage-y corporate, to wit: "A consultation on the Tomato Nation influenced our conclusion."

The short version: the phrase itself is not wrong. Your interpretation of it as differing from the alternative is probably fictional.

Hello, and welcome (back) to the Oscars Death Race. As you may remember, the ODR is my ridonk attempt to see all the Oscar-nominated movies — ALL of them — before the ceremony. In that regard, nothing has changed in 2012.

One awesome thing IS different, however; this year, my coverage will appear at Press Play, Indie Wire's video-essay and criticism blog. I'm thrilled that they've agreed to help me out with the ODR. Please bookmark them, or for the latest updates, follow their Twitter account. I'll have the occasional round-up/update post here, and of course you can follow ME on Twitter as well (button's at the top there, or just search "[at]TomatoNation").

My intro post for PP is below; noms start in 27 minutes; naturally I have to take the fargin' car in for service this morning, but I'll be back on the desk with a percentage score as soon as I can manage it. See you over at Indie Wire…and buckle up!

Updated 10:20 AM: 1) Press Play's coverage of ODR will begin tomorrow. In the meantime, 2) you can find the nom list here. CURRENT SCORE: Death Race 46, Sarah 15, 1 category (Best Supporting Actress) completed.

I'm Sarah D. Bunting, the head rodeo clown at Tomato Nation; the Oscars Death Race is pretty much what it sounds like, a quixotic attempt to watch every single nominee in the Academy-Awards categories that appear on the broadcast.

Why do I do this to myself? Well, the intellectual-glamour answer is that it's important for me as a writer, a storyteller, a citizen of filmmaking culture to testify to all of the work presented, good or bad. And I do believe that it's critical for someone, anyone to give a damn, or try to, about the lesser-lauded categories like Sound Editing and Live-Action Short.

The real, no-bullshit answer? I started the ODR in 2010 as a distracting lark, because it seemed like less masochistic drudgery than the house renovation I was enduring at that time — but I didn't finish the Race that year, so I had to do it again in 2011, and I didn't finish it then either because, among other things, I failed to drive to Bangor, Maine to see goddamn Country Strong. Fucking Gwyneth. Perhaps you're beginning to see the breadth of the folly here, but if not, let me brass-tacks it for you: Buntsy is stubborn and doesn't know when to quit and she will keep Death Racing until she beats this beeyotch.

Third time's the charm, though, or so I've chosen to believe, and I feel good about my chances in 2012 — not least because the Press Play brain trust is providing me with critical support this time around. (There may or may not be an "unlimited rotgut" clause in my contract. I'm told I can't discuss it.)

So! Here's how it's going to work. This is the landing/HQ page for the 2012 Oscars Death Race, where you can find:

- links to the complete list of eligible nominees;
- links to the nominees I've already watched and capsule-reviewed over at the historic birthplace of this mishegas, TomatoNation.com;
- links to more recent reviews, which the PP gang will publish; and
- a little progress widget that lets you know how close I am to the finish line.

As the ceremony gets closer, stay tuned to Press Play (as well as to PP's Twitter, @PressPlayIW, and my own, @TomatoNation) for category-prediction overviews, should-win/will-win balloting, and more. (Please note that I have never done worse in my Oscar pools than since starting the ODR. Knowing the films doesn't do squat for you, trust me. More on that in February.)

If anyone wants to join me in an ODR sidecar, I'm torn between "that's awesome" and "ohhh no no no no don't do that," but I hope you'll hit the comments, discuss on Twitter, and cheer me on. With…rotgut.

Sarah D. Bunting co-founded Television Without Pity and has written for, among others, Glamour, Time Out New York, New York Magazine, and Yahoo! Shine. She's also the head lab tech at the North American Field Guide to Revolting Snacks. Please send booze and Cow Tales c/o Press Play.

Okay, friends: I need your help. I just stepped dead in a post-snow, melty pile of dog crap. Fortunately, for once, I had on shoes with smooth soles — but 1) I usually don't (see: the right-foot Doc Marten I nailed the same goddamn pile with three days ago), and 2) why not turn my footwear misfortune into an editorial opportunity?

Give me your best, most reliable fixes for dog poop caught in shoe treads. I'll write up the best ones — and quote you, so if you want a link back somewhere, please include that in your comment — for Shine Pets. Consider it a community service. DO IT FOR DIDDY.

Dave Dickerson and I want to know which of Maria's favorite things is your favorite. We may or may not have a dollar bet on how various favorite things finish in this extremely scientific accounting of their popularity; in order for us to reveal our predictions, however, y'all need to vote.

Update 1/23/12: The poll has closed; you can see the results after the jump. DD's and my aim was to identify the LEAST favorite of the favorite things, and the internet has spoken…about its apathy towards doorbells. Thanks for voting!

About two to three years ago, I occasionally read a blog about a woman going through her second pregnancy. She had some kind of rare blood-clotting disorder that really only became a problem while pregnant. If I remember correctly, this was diagnosed after the premature birth of her first child. This little girl ended up passing away as a toddler from (I think) a lung infection — a side effect from her prematurity. The readers of the blog helped donate money for the funeral and other expenses.

Even though I started reading after that event, those entries made me cry. I stopped reading and can't remember the name of the blog, the name of the blogger or any of her family members, or even how I stumbled across it in the first place. I have no idea if it's still active.

Today I just found out that a good friend has some kind of blood disorder. From the details I recall from the blog, it is extremely similar to what the blogger had. My friend's was diagnosed after her third miscarriage. I would love to find that blog again. I'm not sure if I will pass it on to my friend (the story of losing their child might not be the best message for her right now) but maybe it has some links to support sites and more information. At least if the second pregnancy ended happily, it might give my friend some hope. 

I've tried Google but haven't had any luck. Other details I remember: the little girl visited the ducks shortly before she passed away, the father wrote a guest post or two about how he was trying to cope with the grief, the family possibly lived somewhere on the West Coast. The child she was pregnant with when I stopped reading would be about two now, if my own dates are right. The woman had some warning signs during her first pregnancy that were dismissed by the doctors. With careful management, she was hopeful she could carry the second child full-term but was of course nervous. I think the blog had a reasonable-sized readership — it wasn't like I stumbled across a personal blog that was only for family and friends. I really enjoyed her writing, and now that I've remembered the blog because of my friend's situation, I am very curious to find out how things worked out for her, and I hope it can help me find some resources for my friend. 

Any help the Nation would give me would be very much appreciated!

Thank you,

Forgetful Reader

*****

Hi Sars,

The Nation readers helped me with a childhood book title in the past, so I was hoping someone might be able to identify this one:

It's a young-adult book, set in London after WWII. The main character, Philip, is a teenager who is sent to stay with his great-aunt Jane while his widowed mother takes a nursing course. Jane, who has never married, still lives in her childhood home with Philip's teenage cousin (and Jane's great-niece) Susan. Although Philip is initially sullen about being sent to live with Jane and Susan, he gradually adapts as he and Susan bond over a mysterious light which appears nightly in the window of a room upstairs (or possibly the attic). They eventually enter the room while the light is on and discover a scene from Jane's adolescence being replayed. Philip and Susan discover that Jane was betrayed by her father, who decided not to pass on letters from her suitor, who later died in WWI.

I read the book sometime around 1995, but I think it was originally published in the 1970s, or perhaps even earlier. I thought the title was similar to "The Light in the Window" or "The Light Upstairs," but searches along those lines have yielded nothing.

I know it's a long shot, but does anyone recognize this book?

Thanks,

AK

Plagues and Bible-thumpers hang on from our last poll, plus the Fug Girls, VJs, and a brick of a book about Nixon and Carter. Pick us out a good one!