Movie Night: Part 2

The movie night commitment is holding strong, and since I posted about It's Complicated, WH and I have seen the following:

• Sherlock Holmes
• Harry Brown
• Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time
• Robin Hood
• Leaves of Grass

We have seen a really interesting range of movies from the intense (Harry Brown) to the visually splendid (Sherlock Holmes) to the enjoyably silly (Prince of Persia) to the dark (Leaves of Grass).

It's my turn to pick again next week! I'm interested in seeing The Experiment, but I'll take other recommendations!

Movie Night: Part 1

WH and I both have Tuesday evenings at home this fall. When we realized that that was going to be the case, we decided that we would commit to devoting Tuesday evenings to each other and to doing something that wasn't related to choral music or work or housecleaning etc. We settled on movie nights.

These are the parameters:
- movies can be watched at home or by going to the theatre.
- for ease of decision-making, we will alternate picking the movie.
- no blackberries, no iPhones, no computers!

So, last Tuesday, I chose It's Complicated, starring Meryl Streep, Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin.

We both enjoyed this movie! I don't think that the movie challenged any of the three main actors very much, but they were at home and comfortable in their roles. Particularly impressive was Steve Martin's performance, which was contained, gentle and fragile. Jon Krasinski (of The Office) was refreshing and funny as the soon-to-be son-in-law who knows more than he wishes he did.

Visually, the movie is delightful. Beautiful scenery, beautiful homes and a STUNNING bakery owned by Meryl Streep. (WANT!) I was pleased to find that, part-way through the movie, I actually wasn't sure how it was going to end. This is not a typical feature of romantic comedies, so it was a nice surprise! It was a great first movie night!

WH gets to choose next week's flick, and he's talking about Sherlock Holmes... Whee!

One of those stories...

... that seems to me, completely incomprehensible. I heard this story on the radio this evening on my way home and I didn't take note of the woman's name, so the story is articulated here more impersonally than may be ideal. In addition, I've really only heard one side of the story, as told by the woman's lawyer to the interviewer. There is, of course, the possibility that there is more to the story that I simply haven't heard.

The subject of this story is a 21-year old cook in the American armed forces. She is also the single mother of a 10-month old son. She received notice that she would be deployed to Afghanistan for a year. Her mother offered to take care of the boy for the period of her deployment so the boy was moved to his grandmother's home in advance of the deployment date in order to give him some time to adjust.

Unfortunately, due to a variety of circumstances in the grandmother's life, she decided that she could not, in fact, care for the boy for the year. The armed forces informed the mother that she could delay her deployment date in order to have additional time to find a care arrangement for her son. When the boy was returned to his mother, a week before the original deployment date, she was informed that there would, in fact, be no extension and that she was to report for deployment as originally scheduled.

With no place to take her son, she missed her deployment flight.

She reported to the base the day after the scheduled deployment to meet with her superiors and explain her circumstances. She was arrested and placed under supervised confinement at the base. Her son was placed in the care of child protective services. Charges have not yet been filed, but there remain a number of possible scenarios, including that she will face a court martial and jail time. Fortunately, her son has been returned to her grandmother and will not remain with protective services.

Telling this story is not intended as a criticism specfically of the American military, as there are certainly other employers out there who do not provide adequate family-related support to their employees. But I have a hard time understanding how it could possibly be excusable to ask anybody, no matter the import of their employment, to abandon their child without other option. How does a decision like that get made? What on earth did they expect her to do with her little boy?!

Has anybody else heard about this story? Have any other information?

Could I bone a duck?

MU and I went to see Julie & Julia on Monday night.

Thoroughly wonderful. I have heard that the book by the same title was a trifle annoying -- perhaps along the same vein as this one -- but the movie is simply delightful. Meryl Streep is an absolute treasure.

And of course, the movie has got me wondering how I would fare doing a similar experiment. Could I cook through the entire Mastering the Art of French Cooking, both volumes?

Could I put a lobster out of its misery?

Would I burn the Boeuf Bourguignon?

Do I crowd my mushrooms?

Could I bone a duck?

On Last Night's Episode of SYTYCD

For those who don't watch SYTYCD, or didn't watch last night, I encourage you to take a look at the video of the second dance performed by Ade and Melissa. The piece was choreographed by Tyce Diorio, and was inspired by the impact that breast cancer has had on his life.

I've been surprised today by some of the negative feedback that has appeared on the interwebs, detailing reviewers' criticism that the dance was manipulative, that articulating the tie to cancer forced an emotional reaction from the audience and from the judges, that the piece pandered to viewers.

Here are my thoughts.

One, I thought that the piece was absolutely beautifully danced, both artistically and technically. Were this a dance about milk cartons, you couldn't find fault with their technique.

Additionally, I don't believe that the work could have been danced by any other two dancers in the show; it required Melissa's maturity and Ade's strength to really come together.

I'm struggling with those critics that stated that putting something so emotional on the stage was manipulative. My opinion is that the fact that we were moved by the dance proves its success. The dancers on SYTYCD are asked all the time to convey stories or themes or emotions to viewers; sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It's not fair to state that just because the emotion of this particular dance worked, it was manipulative. One reviewer opined that as soon as the word "cancer" was introduced, everyone started crying, which was clearly not the case. The tears flowed when the dance was over, when judges tried to express how they had been affected by the dancing. That means the dance did what it was supposed to do. It moved them.

Others have whined that to give two dancers such a powerful piece all but guaranteed them a pass to next week, despite having both been in the bottom two last week. I'm not sure how this feedback can translate into something constructive... "We would have prefered if you'd danced something more boring? Funnier? Less technically difficult? Shame on you for taking an admittedly emotional theme and translating it successfully onto the stage through movement?" if by doing what they did last night they moved enough people to pick up the phone and vote for them to remain on the show, then how is that their fault? That's how the show works.

And to those people who have asserted that Melissa and Ade couldn't fail with this number, you're wrong. As successful as it was, it could have been that much of a disaster too. The dancers could have failed to connect, or danced it sloppily, and I can assure that if they had, the emotional impact would have been lost and it would have been an awkward mess.

Where I will agree with critics is in their statement that Nigel's reference to a future Emmy nomination was misplaced. It was a silly comment, but really, the guy's an executive producer. It's his job to be silly.

You can read a response to the performance here, and see the video as well.

How much do I love...

... Jenny Sanford?

I have a certain respect for the many, many political wives who have come before Mrs. Sanford, who have chosen to stand next to their cheating, lying, philandering, horny, jerky husbands and who have offered quiet support and forgiveness because they believed, or had been told, that that was the only appropriate way to react. It was always more grace and respect than their husbands deserved.

But how refreshing is it to see Jenny Sanford flip her husband the political wife's equivalent of the bird, refuse to cover for him, refuse to support him, refuse to appear with him, and refuse to teach her four sons that their father's behaviour is appropriate?

RIP Billy Mays

On Eat, Pray, Love

Ok, so just a forewarning for any readers out there who liked the book Eat, Pray, Love. You probably aren't going to agree with anything I say from here on in. Read on at your own risk, or go on your merry way without prejudice!

I'm coming at this blog post so long after the book was released because of the recent news that the story will be made into a movie starring Julia Roberts.

Let me start by saying that I like Elizabeth Gilbert's writing. She's witty and funny and I think she has a gift for describing beautiful things. She's good at what she does.

That being said, I was so annoyed by the time I got through Eat, Pray, Love that I could barely see straight.

My annoyance isn't really with the trip itself. The trip sounded beautiful and I'm sure was a lovely experience. It was neat to read about. I like Italian food too.

My annoyance was largely with the fact that SOMEBODY ELSE PAID FOR HER TO TAKE THE TRIP, a fact which goes by in her early chapters astonishingly quickly. And that, knowing that someone else was paying for her to have this incredible experience, she still acts like she was entitled to it.

Most of the rest of us, when our lives get messy (and they all do), work it out. We yell, and cry, and fight, and compromise, and make sacrifices, and take stock, and move on, and heal, and seek help, and brush ourselves off, and take responsibility. We figure it out. It takes time, but we do it. And maybe somewhere in there, we take ourselves on a bit of a vacation to clear our heads. A vacation that WE PAY FOR.

We don't abandon our lives and go and do whatever we want on the other side of the world, on someone else's dime.

I have no objection to the trip itself. Like I said, it sounded fascinating. I certainly believe that we are entitled to genuine adventures in our lives. And I fully appreciate (and even like!) books about people's travels around the world.

My objection was the feeling I got that the author was bereft of any sense of responsibility for the mess in her life, any sense of maturity or accountability. And because of that, to me, her healing experience isn't grounded in reality. It doesn't resonate as true. And the rapidity with which critics fawned at the profoundness of her experience irritated me no end. Because I wonder what a book would have been like detailing how the author stayed put, and worked through her issues, and took responsibility and made it work. Because those, too, are profound experiences.

It's possible that I am cold and heartless, but a complete lack of empathy and a strong desire to scream "GROW UP" into the pages somewhat diminished my ability to fully appreciate her story.

On J&K +8

Yes, ok, I know. Jon and Kate and their adorable eight are getting to be old news.

But like many of my blog posts on these kinds of things, I hem and haw and toss them around in my brain until I'm ready to post about them. That process usually takes me well past the topic's best-before date. Oh well.

What has happened to this family is profoundly sad. The breakdowns of all family units are sad, but this one feels more so because we are all witnessing it, on television, on the internet, in magazines. And because this family is, in so many ways, a normal every-day North American family, with nothing exceptional about it but its size, the breakdown hits a bit close to home. The problems that are plaguing their marriage are common problems: infidelity, mis-communication, changing priorities, busy lives.

What has bothered me most about what we've witnessed and how we've responded, from the perspective of a distant viewer, is the almost total assassination of Kate's character. Let's be clear on one thing: if Jon is spending inappropriate time with women who are not his wife, then that's totally, 100%, without question on him. It is awful and shameful and cowardly. And of course, the same is true if the inappopriate time is being spent by Kate with men who are not Jon.

What has emerged, however, from the pictures of Jon and his lady friends, is increasingly detailed numeration of Kate's personality flaws. She nags him. She belittles him. She's bossy. Which all may be true, but NONE OF WHICH EXCUSES HIS BEHAVIOUR. What is most profoundly upsetting about all this is is the whisper of "How can you blame him? See what he has to live with?"

I have been particularly taken aback by how vitriolic some of the commentary along these lines has been. And I've been trying to think why. If I had guess, I would say that a significant number of women see in Kate some of the aspects of their own personalities that they dislike. The moments where husbands are lumped in with children and bossed around. Nagging. Snarky comments made under-breath. The kinds of things we all have done, and are never very proud of.

Well here we have Kate, displaying those same behaviours in HD for our public consumption, giving us a target against which to rail, desperately trying to draw attention away from the ways that we may be like her.

I don't know Jon and Kate or, really, anything about their personalities. They may be difficult, angry, disagreeable people. Their situation, including the children and the TV show and the publicity, is bizarre and surreal. But I think that at the heart of them is a family, much like yours and mine, desperately trying to figure out a way to mend what's broken.

Five Reasons

Why So You Think You Can Dance is a better show than American Idol

1) Quality of Contestants: I remain convinced that there are more better dancers out there than there are singers. SYTYCD and it's sister show, SYTYCD Canada, have demonstrated simply astonishing depth.

Which leads neatly into #2...

2) We get to see that depth. I get irritated by American Idol's tendency to show nothing but hideous auditions and to skim over tiny snippets of the good ones. While we're certainly not spared the awful on SYTYCD, it always feels to me like more time is spent showing really wonderful auditions.

3) Variety. I don't believe that American Idol is particularly interested in diversity of style, despite "theme" weeks. After all, contestants are asked to take specific kinds of music and "make them their own." On the other hand, SYTYCD requires that successful competitors be strong in a variety of kinds of dance from hip-hop to ballroom to contemporary to Bollywood. This makes for more interestingly diverse television, greater growth for the contestants, and a strong sense that the competition is immensely difficult. The addition of new styles each season shows that SYTYCD producers are invested in the show growing alongside dance culture.

4) Judges. The American Idol judges reached a new level of both annoying and useless this season. Fourth judge Kara added absolutely nothing to the show except a ridiculous tendency to cause the show to run long. Feedback was often contradictory, obtuse, confusing and manipulative. While the SYTYCD judges certainly do not lack personality quirks, they are consistently more accurate, more detailed, more profound and more constructive. The addition of a new guest judge from a different dance background each week reflects the show's emphasis on diversity. And yes, Mary is weird and possibly drunk and she dresses funny. But she knows her stuff and it shows.

5) And finally... Cat Deeley. Genuine, funny, loving, exciting, both gorgeous and adorable, slightly geeky, gentle, involved and never, ever condescending. Best. Host. Ever.

Bonus Reason: Group numbers that are actually good.

On American Idol

In honor of the final week in this season's American Idol run, and my delight in America's selection of Kris and Adam (go Glambert!) as the finalists, I had to post a link to one of my favourite videos.

To set the stage, this video was taken during the final results night last season. David Cook and David Archuleta were the finalists. The former, a hard-edged rocker whose performance of Michael Jackson's Billy-Jean may go down as one of the greatest in Idol history, and the latter a doe-eyed cutie-pie whose baby-face made him look all of 14 years old.

The girls in the video are David Archuleta fans. Watch and Enjoy.

_________________

On another Idol-related note, I just wanted to reinforce that I think that Adam Lambert is the most exciting contestant to come out of the show ever and he is the sole reason I've kept watching this long. Usually, the performance shows bore me and I tune out. Not this season! I have faithfully PVR-d every episode in order to see what the glam rocker was going to do next. I have loved him ever since he made Randy Travis uncomfortable during country music week.

Both vocally and in entertainment value, he is in a league of his own, drawing comparisons to the likes of Steven Tyler, Axel Rose, Mick Jagger and the formerly incomparable Freddie Mercury.

He's gonna be a star, that one.

Oh CNN...

From CNN, my comments in blue.

(CNN) -- British model and television personality Katie Price, also known as Jordan, and her singer husband, Peter Andre, are to separate, according to a statement released Monday.

Quite honestly, I have never heard of either of these people. I stumbled on this article by accident, and found enough bizarre things in it to want to share.

Peter Andre and Katie Price, who ran the London Marathon last month, are separating.

Question: Does the fact that Katie Price ran the London Marathon last month have anything to do with the separation? I mean, if the sentence read, "Peter and Katie, who cheats on her husband regularly, are separating," I would understand the subordinate clause, but otherwise...

The couple have been married for four-and-a-half years and found romance on the reality show "I'm A Celebrity... Get me Out of Here!, " which was filmed in the Australian jungle.

I'm sorry, they met where? I don't even know what to say. Read that sentence aloud to yourself and try not to laugh at the Australian jungle part. I dare you.

The statement said: "Peter Andre and Katie Price are separating after four-and-a-half years of marriage," the British Press Association reported.

"They have both requested that the media respect their families' privacy at this difficult time."

Only last month the couple, whose reality TV show of their life features on British television, said they were trying for another child.

Ok, I'm sorry, but these people have been on both a Survivor-esque reality show AND a reality show about their lives, and NOW THEY'RE ASKING THE MEDIA TO "RESPECT" THEIR PRIVACY?? Good luck with that.

They have two children together, son Junior, three, and one-year-old daughter Princess Tiáamii.

I'm not sure what's weirder: their daughter's name, or the fact that her brother is simply named "Junior."

Price has a six-year-old son Harvey, by footballer Dwight Yorke, who is disabled.

Who's disabled, Harvey or Dwight Yorke?

And, "These are my children, Harvey, Junior and Princess Tiaamii?

Price first made her name as an English page 3 girl, but has since gone on to become a television star, author and clothes designer. She also competes in show jumping events and has her own stable of horses.

So we have: Model, Television Personality, Marathon Runner, English page 3 girl (I don't know what this is), Television STAR, Author, Clothes Designer, Show Jumper and Stable Owner. Naturally.

Andre, an Australian, came to prominence in 1996 with his international hit "Mysterious Girl."

If this was, indeed, an "international hit," it skipped Canada.

Stand By Me

A video to feed your soul today!

Stop the Madness!

It used to be that when nefarious and infamous people were looking for a way to make the celebrity last a bit longer or to make a few extra bucks, they would "write" a book. Meaning, they would sit down with some author or another and spill their guts or give the inside story or rat out their teammates or whatever, and the NY Times Best Sellers List would eat it up, etc. etc.

See Canseco, Jose, for a perfect example.

But now apparently, these same kinds of people have found a new and much lazier way to stretch the fifteen minutes. Reality Television.

Vick, Michael
Suleman, Nadya
Blagoyevich, Rod

WHY DO WE LET THEM DO THIS? In no way will any of these television shows improve our cultural landscape, inspire intellectual discourse, amuse us, or provide any kind of redeemable entertainment value. They are annoying, self-aggrandizing, self-pitying(to say nothing of BORING) tripe.

If Michael Vick wants to redeem himself in the public eye, then fine. But I'd have a much easier time believing the genuineness of that desire if there wasn't a fast buck to be made in the process.

Just... GO AWAY, all of you.

Things that make me happy

From www.time.com

(WASHINGTON) — NASA's online contest to name a new room at the international space station went awry. Comedian Stephen Colbert won.

The name "Colbert" beat out NASA's four suggested options in the space agency's effort to have the public help name the addition. The new room will be launched later this year.

NASA's mistake was allowing write-ins. Colbert urged viewers of his Comedy Central show, "The Colbert Report" to write in his name. And they complied, with 230,539 votes. That clobbered Serenity, one of the NASA choices, by more than 40,000 votes. Nearly 1.2 million votes were cast by the time the contest ended Friday.

NASA reserves the right to choose an appropriate name. Agency spokesman John Yembrick said NASA will decide in April, but will give top vote-getters "the most consideration."

I, for one, am hopeful that NASA sees the genuine funniness of the situation, and names the new room as the public has requested. Wonderful.

Book Review

In Praise of Slow by Carl Honore.

This is a very interesting book.

I assumed, on picking it up, that the book was going to be a fairly standard description of all the reasons why it's important to slow down and not worry so much about how quickly things are moving around us, that it would be a 200-pages of lecture on why the way that we live and the world that we've created are bad for our health.

But it's not that. The book doesn't ask the reader to make any unreasonably dramatic shifts in behaviour or attitude; the book simply asks that we think about the things that we do, and embrace opportunities, where they exist, to enjoy those things more completely. And then the book provides examples of the ways that other people and communities have put those thoughts into action, covering such topics as food, work, sex, health and exercise. And it's pretty hard to argue with the underlying theme of the book, which is that if we do a few things just a little bit slower, we might live longer and be happier. Hard to find fault with that, eh?

The book is not an overly technical or difficult read, and in fact, there is real joy in reading Honore's descriptive passages, especially those about Italian food. (DROOOL)

It's been kind of a tough month around here... WH and I have been going full steam with choral commitments for both Orchestral Choir and Chamber Choir this month, and we've had our bathroom renovation, and WH has been travelling, and we have the attempted sale of our house looming, winter won't seem to go away... it's just been very busy and we're both very tired. We suggested to each other that it might be time to find some activity that doesn't have anything to do with anything that we can just enjoy together in relative peace. I think the understanding that we have a choice in that, that we can choose to shut out the craziness around us and take time for ourselves, while a tough lesson, is the strongest message I took from Honore's book.

Wishing for you all some slow moments!

Stock Rant #1

Do you have stock rants? You know, on topics you that simply can't let go by without getting your two cents in? Arguments that you've carefully honed over years and years of being disgruntled?

I have several.

Today, I bring you: Chorus's Rant About Young Dancers

Ready? Here we go...

To begin, I started in ballet at the age of four. This was the age when my mother discovered me walking around the house on my toes. Not on my tippy-toes, but on my actual toe-knuckles, as it were. Even the thought of it makes me cringe now. Anyhoo, my mother took me to ballet class and my teacher told me that I was never to walk on my toes like that again, and I never did.

I danced ballet from the time I was four until I was about sixteen. After that, I did two years of modern dance. Intermittently, I dabbled in other things like tap and jazz and whatnot. I stopped dancing when I was 18 just because I was ready to do other things.

So here's what I believe. I believe that dance is one of the best and most powerful ways to teach young children about music, story-telling, creativity, rhythm and movement. I believe that dance makes a person very aware and very familiar with his/her own body. I believe that ballet is the best form of dance for building strength, teaching technique and laying foundations for a dance education. If pressed really hard, I would tell you that I don't believe children should be taking anything but ballet for the first 5 or 6 years of their dance education.

In short, I believe that my dancing had a wonderful and profound effect on my life.

I work on a campus that hosts, two or three times a year, different dance festivals. Our student association building becomes a teeming hive of little ones and their mothers carrying garment bags and makeup kits. (I saw a woman walking through the building the other day, surrounded by little girls, carrying a stuffed horse... I was sorry I was going to have to miss that routine.) These festivals have a wide variety of categories... tap, jazz, hip-hop, musical theatre, ballet, modern, solo, duet, trio, big groups, little groups, etc.

I remember these festivals well. But when I look at them unfolding in front of me now, I see a very different scene than the one that existed when I took part. I see an ocean of little girls who don't look like little girl dancers. They look like tiny imitations of big-girl dancers, with too much makeup on, belly-baring half-tops and hot pants in loud colours. I see choreography that is not designed to show off little girls dancing, but rather to intended to demonstrate how cute it is when 6 year olds act "sexy."

I see very little that is beautiful and even less that is artistic.

Now, granted, these are not my kids. And maybe if they were my kids I would feel all googly-eyed and thrilled about them. But I look around and all I feel is profoundly sad.

I know that dance, and ballet in particular, can be overtly and unapologetically harsh to little girls about their body images and self-esteem. I've seen it. And it's awful. But surely teaching little girls that there is entertainment value in a group of six-year olds slapping their rear-ends, thrusting their hips, and casting "come hither" looks at the audience is no better? It seems to me that Precious has replaced beauty and innocence in the way that little girls dance.

I look around and I ask, "Where is the Degas painting in THIS?"

The Rehearsal, Degas

And the Oscar goes to...

...Hugh Jackman! For being funny! And handsome! And talented! And for SINGING! And for being a truly wonderful (and memorable) Oscar host! Anybody else think that his selection was a bit weird at first? I sure did, but I was sold from the moment his "made in my garage" opening number took off. And the Frost/Nixon bit with Anne Hathaway was grand. "Frank Langella was sitting right next to me!"

Other ruminations on the night:

• There seems to be a definite trend towards neutral coloured flowing, layered gowns, which I feels sort of ambiguous about, probably because I'm not sure I could pull the look off without looking really washed out. I'm also seeing more and more of the unsymmetrical look, with dresses that have two halves that are cut differently, have different straps or are different patterns of colours. I thought that Kate Winslet's version of this look was lovely. Reese Witherspoon's didn't work as well.
• Overall, the fashion winner of the night was Anne Hathaway. She looked stunning. Alicia Keys's lilac gown was beautiful too! Heidi Klum and Tilda Swinton tie for worst dressed, in my humble opinion.
  
• I laughed and laughed and laughed at Steve Martin and Tina Fey.
• I thought there were some really lovely speeches given last night, including those by Penelope Cruz, Sean Penn and Dustin Lance Black.
• I really liked the way they identified nominees and winners in the acting categories, but I wish that they had showed clips of the performances.
  
• I'm confused as to how The Curious Case of Benjamin Button won the awards for best make-up and also for special-effects. In the case of this movie, shouldn't it really be one or the other?? Either the make-up was really good or the special effects were really good. I must not know enough about it...
  

Overally, I really enjoyed the show, even though it ran a bit long. I think they took an evening in which there were going to be absolutely no surprises in the winners of the big categories, and turned it into a barrel of fun!

Really, Phil?!

Today's post is dedicated to making a little fun of Phil Mickelson, largely because of the following quotation, which I found on golf.com. Phil uttered these words after his early exit at last weekend's FBR open, a tournament at which he went 7 over-par and missed the cut by seven strokes.

This does nothing to dampen my enthusiasm about this year. I'm excited about how I'm putting. I'm excited about how I'm driving it off the tee.

Seems innocent enough, eh?

Let's start with the last sentence, shall we? I'm excited about how I'm driving it off the tee. Really, Phil? Are you REALLY excited??? REALLY? The reason I have my doubts is that, frankly, you drove off the tee like crap last week. To be specific, David Toms had the best driving accuracy last weekend, at 69.64%. The average through the field was 50.48%. Your driving accuracy was 28.6% TWENTY-EIGHT POINT SIX PERCENT, Phil. Of a possible 28 fairways, you hit 8 of them. ... EIGHT! I've been golfing for two years, and I suck, and I HIT MORE THAN 28% OF THE FAIRWAYS I FACE.

And your putting? YOU'RE EXCITED ABOUT YOUR PUTTING?! You are currently 155th on tour in putts per round. Thirty putts per round was your average for the two rounds you played in Scottsdale, Phil. Not exactly a statistic I'd write home about in the same sentence as the word "excited," unless the sentence also included the words, "not," "at," and "all."

Phil, Phil, Phil. I think the reason that some people don't like you is that you can come across as phony. And here's a perfect example why. I would have more respect for you if your post-tournament comments this last weekend were more along the lines of, "Boy, was that ever bad. B-A-D. I'm really going to have to do better if I hope to crack a top-ten this year, let alone win something. Back to the driving range, I go!" We know you're capable of this, Phil. After the disaster at Winged Foot, you said, "I can't believe I did that. I'm such an idiot." And we loved the comment because it was true!!

Not a lot to say...

... about yesterday that hasn't been said already, but

• I thought it was a really neat day to witness, even from afar
• I thought he spoke beautifully, both at the ceremony and in his various speeches through the evening
• The First Lady is FIERCE
  
• I wonder what was said in the helicopter on the way to Texas
• Aretha's hat was a wonder to behold, and I could not pull it off in a million years
• It is a powerful thing to see people inspired

The time has come to set aside childish things.
...
In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.