Book Review: "Call Us What We Carry" by Amanda Gorman

Call Us What We Carry is a collection of powerfully soaring, inspiring, relevant poems by the National Youth Poet Laureate.

Like many across the world, I marveled at the incredible talent of Amanda Gorman during President Biden’s inauguration, when she became the youngest presidential inaugural poet in U.S. history. Her poem, “The Hill We Climb,” dazzled me, leaving me emotional, breathless, and endlessly replaying the video of her reading on YouTube.

This collection examines the pandemic and how it affected our collective consciousness. It looks at history, race, bigotry, despair, hope, rebuilding, and capturing the spirit of our country. It feels both immensely ambitious and yet so timely, viewing the world from a distance and yet close-up at the same time.

I don’t read a lot of poetry so this was a wonderful change of pace for me. The design of the book itself is incredible too—some poems are formatted into different shapes, the book needs to be turned in different ways to get to different parts—and it adds to the experience. Each poem is also uniquely told.

Wonderfully, “The Hill We Climb” is included in Call Us What We Carry, and I watched her once again on YouTube as I read that poem. It remains as mesmerizing today as it was over a year ago. I’d imagine the audio version of this book might be incredible. Gorman’s talent is truly a gift.

Book Review: "Here She Is: The Complicated Reign of the Beauty Pageant in America" by Hilary Levey Friedman

What do you think of when you hear the words "beauty pageant"? Do you think programs like Miss America, Miss USA, Miss Universe are relics of an earlier time and out of step with our current world, or do you think they're empowering and relevant to the women who participate? (Spoiler alert: While at times they may be a little of the former, there's still a lot of the latter to be found.)

In her new book, Here She Is: The Complicated Reign of the Beauty Pageant in America, Hilary Levey Friedman traces the origins of the beauty pageant, from the days of P.T. Barnum and his American Gallery of Female Beauty in the 1850s and early baby shows and bathing beauty revues, to the programs pageant fans know and love—Miss America, Miss USA, Miss Universe, and Distinguished Young Women (formerly America's Junior Miss). She looks at pageants that are racially or culturally based, as well as those focused on those with different abilities, different body types, even pageants for married women and senior citizens. It's a fascinating look at the mindset and the condition of the world when these pageants were created, and juxtaposing their initial purpose with where many stand today.

Friedman didn't just pick this topic at random. Her mother was Miss America 1970, she taught a course at Brown University called "Beauty Pageants in American Society," she served as a mentor to Miss America 2018, and she's judged some pageants here and there. This book is impeccably and thoroughly researched—she literally pored through national and state program books spanning a number of years for several different pageant systems, so she can understand the "typical" contestant in these pageants and see how far the reality strays from the public perception.

She spends a great deal of time looking at Miss America and the changes that program has made through the years, including those made in the wake of the #MeToo movement over the last several years, changes that have both been celebrated and criticized by long-time fans and former contestants. But she also looks at the genesis of the contestants and how they have changed, in terms of educational and career goals as well as demographics. This isn't a view through rose-colored glasses; she looks at the positives and negatives of the pageant and its effects on contestants.

There's also been no shortage of scandal in the pageant world, and she touches on those as well, from Donald Trump's former ownership of the Miss Universe Organization and the criticism of child and "glitz" pageants, to the recent controversies around Miss America. All the while, she examines the evolving nature of pageants and their relationship with Third Wave Feminism, and what they may need to do to remain relevant.

I've been a fan of the Miss America Pageant since I first watched in 1982 and as many of you know, I was a volunteer in the Miss America Organization for just short of 15 years. I'm also a fan of Miss USA, Miss Universe, and Miss Teen USA, and certainly understand the differences and similarities between the two systems. Because of that, I loved this book. While I knew some of the history and scandal, there were things that surprised me and things I learned for the first time. But more than that, I've never really stopped to think of the pageants and their relationship to feminism (I'm such a guy sometimes), so that was an eye-opening experience.

Pageant fans should love this, but I think those who might have seen a pageant once or twice or just like to read about different aspects of American culture will enjoy this as well. As Miss America celebrates its 100th anniversary next year, Here She Is is a great look at that American tradition.

The author provided me a complimentary advance copy of the book in exchange for an unbiased review. Thanks for making it available!

Here She Is publishes August 25.

Book Review: "Shortest Way Home: One Mayor's Challenge and a Model for America's Future" by Pete Buttigieg

Where my reading is concerned, I mainly subsist on a diet of fiction (both mainstream and YA), thrillers, and rom-coms, with the occasional dash of sci-fi/fantasy. But every now and again I choose to sample a little nonfiction, usually in the form of memoirs, when someone that interests or fascinates me writes one.

I first heard of Pete Buttigieg when he ran for chair of the Democratic National Committee. I didn't know much about him other than that he had made real progress as the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and he was openly gay. But the more I paid attention to him, the more impressed I became, and I definitely stood up and took notice when he announced the formation of an exploratory committee to run for President in 2020.

Shortest Way Home is more about Buttigieg's journey, both political and personal, than it is a roadmap for his presidential ambitions. He talks a lot about the progress he has helped bring to South Bend, a town once labeled one of America's dying cities. Elected mayor at the age of 29, he brought audacious plans, unbridled energy and enthusiasm, and a passion for service, but he learned a lot from South Bend's citizens as well.

"Good policy, like good literature, takes personal lived experience as its starting point. At its best, the practice of politics is about taking steps that support people in daily life—or tearing down obstacles that get in their way. Much of the confusion and complication of ideological battles might be washed away if we held our focus on the lives that will be made better, or worse, by political decisions, rather than on the theoretical elegance of the policies or the character of the politicians themselves."

Buttigieg doesn't try to take credit for all of South Bend's success, nor does he claim to have cured all of the city's ills. He juxtaposes his work in the city with the major decisions he has made in his life—leaving his home to attend Harvard University, pursue a career as a management consultant, join the Navy, run for political office (his first attempt, a run for state treasurer, was unsuccessful but it taught him a lot), and come to terms with his sexuality—and how each has enhanced him and, in turn, enhanced his ability to lead.

One of the reasons Buttigieg appeals to me is because he doesn't stoop to the negativity that has infected all of us so much today. He has criticisms about the way the country is being run, the hypocritical way some of our leaders try to inflict their own personal views in their governing, and the inaccurate thought that greatness can be achieved only by hearkening back to an earlier time.

"There is nothing necessarily wrong with greatness, as an aspiration, a theme, or even as the basis of a political program. The problem, politically, is that we keep looking for greatness in all the wrong places. We think we can find it in the past, dredged up for some impossible 'again,' when in reality it is available only to those who fix their vision on the future. Or we think it is to be found in some grand national or international adventure, when the most meaningful expressions of American greatness are found in the richness of everyday life."

Shortest Way Home, like Buttigieg himself, gives me hope. His story, and the sequel to South Bend's story that he has been such a vital part of, are fascinating. While there is a long time until November 2020, if you had told 16-year-old me that in my lifetime not only would there be an openly gay, viable candidate for president, but that he would announce his candidacy with his husband at his side, it would have given me hope during a time where I wondered if I would ever fit in.

This is not a preachy book, nor is it filled with political jargon or swipes at the current administration. It's a positive book, by and large, and it's well-written, too. It certainly proves this is a man who can do anything he sets his mind to, and hopefully becoming president is next on his list of achievements!

Book Review: "What Happened" by Hillary Rodham Clinton

"Losing is hard for everyone, but losing a race you thought you would win is devastating."

I was one of many Americans watching the 2016 presidential election results come in, feeling shock, disbelief, horror, and utter disappointment as the realization that Hillary Clinton had been defeated began to sink in. I really thought, despite the last-minute bombshell dropped by now-former FBI Director James Comey regarding her emails, that she'd be able to prevail.

I honestly believed, as did Clinton and her staff, as well as polling organizations, political experts, and many media outlets, that despite the concerns so many had expressed about her character and her lack of trustworthiness, the idea of electing a person who had never held public office, one who (at least to me) clearly was unprepared for the presidency, would finally persuade people to cast their votes for Clinton.

As we know, the polls and many political experts and others were wrong, and Trump is now president. There were a lot of factors contributing to his victory—the never-ending email scandal being one significant one—but I still found it hard to understand just how a woman I felt was perhaps the most qualified individual ever to run for president could be defeated. (And as hard as it was for me and so many of Clinton's supporters to understand, I could only imagine how she must have felt!

What Happened is not only a powerful, first-hand account of the 2016 election and its aftermath from Clinton's viewpoint, but it's also a candid look at what convinced her to run for president again after losing the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama. It's also an in-depth glimpse into Hillary the candidate, Hillary the former First Lady and dedicated public servant, Hillary the mother, wife, and daughter, Hillary the friend, and Hillary the person.

"I wear my composure like a suit of armor, for better or worse. In some ways, it felt like I had been training for this latest feat of self-control for decades."

While the book does tread on some familiar territory, it's pretty candid in sharing things you probably didn't know about Clinton. Not only does she share the emotion, despair, disappointment, and frustration she felt when she lost, but she also shares how she felt being vilified as horribly as she was during the campaign, going from being the most-admired woman in America when she left her position as Secretary of State to being followed by people chanting "Lock her up" and pictures of her in prison clothes. She doesn't go into great depth about the challenges to her marriage through the years, but she does touch on the struggles she had, and how she addressed her questions and her fears.

Some have questioned why Clinton wrote this book, and immediately assumed she would point fingers at everyone other than herself as factors contributing to her defeat. While she does discuss the impact of many factors—from Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein's participation in the 2016 race to the imbalanced media coverage she received, as well as Trump's oversized persona—she reserves the largest amount of blame for herself.

"On the campaign trail, I offered ideas that I believed would address many of the underlying causes of discontent and help make life better for all Americans. But I couldn't—and wouldn't—compete to stoke people's rage and resentment. I think that's dangerous. It helps leaders who want to take advantage of that rage to hurt people rather than help them. Besides, it's just not how I'm wired. Maybe that's why Trump was now delivering the inaugural address and I was sitting in the crowd."

At times, the book gets a little too in-depth in areas of policy, as Clinton shares those issues which are most important to her and how she feels America could move forward. She also discusses areas she believes Democrats need to focus on in upcoming elections if they want to be successful.

But what makes What Happened so good is the raw emotion Clinton imbues it with. I read the book, I didn't listen to the audio version, but I could still hear her voice narrating it, and there were times when the things she said really choked me up. I can't imagine what it must be like to come so close to achieving a goal you spent nearly eight years of your life tirelessly pursuing, not to mention the disappointment you felt about letting your supporters down, but this book evoked those emotions so powerfully. She also wasn't afraid to show glimpses of her sense of humor and the generosity of her spirit.

I remember how disappointed I felt the night the election results came in, how I struggled to reconcile the country Trump and his supporters saw from the one I did. But if Hillary Clinton can persevere, I know I can.

"Things are going to be hard for a long time. But we are going to be okay. All of us."

Movie Review: "Jackie"

To me, Jackie Kennedy has always seemed like a total enigma. Although she approached her role as first lady with tremendous poise, grace, and style, quite often it appeared as if she wished she could have been anywhere else. And while I wasn't alive during the Kennedy administration, I always admired the fierceness with which she protected her privacy despite still being such an iconic figure, as well as her devotion to her children.

Pablo Larraín's film mainly concentrates on Jackie's life in the moments, days, and weeks after her husband's assassination, one of the most traumatic events the American public had experienced in some time. It also looks back on certain instances in which she demonstrated the flair, the youthful interest in culture, the elegance which endeared her to the public.

The majority of the movie has Jackie (Natalie Portman, practically disappearing into her character) talking to a journalist (Billy Crudup) about what she thinks her husband's legacy should be, and what life was like for her prior to, during, and after the assassination. Of course, she's not going to let him actually publish most of what she says, but the interview is a perfect opportunity to share her frustrations, her fears, what she perceives to be her lack of purpose, and most of all, her grief.

Immediately following the assassination, Jackie had to deal not only with her grief, but how to appropriately embody that to the American people. She was determined that her husband's funeral and burial should be appropriate for a world leader, especially one with his stature, despite his family's reticence and the desire of the new president to control the situation. (Those not alive during this time might not realize that for a while, no one was completely sure whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, or if Kennedy's assassination was part of a larger plot which could endanger the country.)

Jackie was a whirlwind of emotions and demands, much to the chagrin of Bobby Kennedy (Peter Sarsgaard), who has appointed himself her protector. He, too, is concerned about his brother's legacy, but isn't sure the spectacle Jackie wants is right for the country. But as she struggles with her faith, her feelings about her husband and their marriage, and her crushing grief, she is more concerned with doing what is right, what will make people remember her husband and his presidency into the future.

While the movie itself moves at a very slow pace, Portman is utterly mesmerizing. She has Kennedy's breathy, patrician speech patterns down pat, and many times when I saw her on screen I didn't think I was looking at an actress portraying Jackie Kennedy, I thought I was looking at Kennedy herself. This is truly a tour de force performance, one I thought was even stronger than her Oscar-winning performance in Black Swan. It could even net her a second Oscar.

Amazingly, although this movie has a large cast, it often seems like a one-woman show, because the focus is mainly on Jackie. I'm a Sarsgaard fan but didn't think he brought anything special to his portrayal of RFK, and while Greta Gerwig does a sympathetic turn as White House Social Secretary Nancy Tuckerman, and John Hurt brings some crusty charm as Jackie's priest, this is Portman's movie.

I don't know how close to the truth this movie adheres, but it was a fascinating look at such a turbulent time in American history, and how passionate Jackie Kennedy was about preserving her husband's legacy. Living in the Washington, DC area, it is a legacy that is still very much a part of this city, so we can be grateful for all she fought for.

Movie Review: "Bridge of Spies"

I'm not exactly sure when my Tom Hanks fatigue started. For a while it seemed like he played a similar role in so many movies—the steadfast, unflappable hero, no matter what the situation—and he was involved in producing television shows, plays, etc. Every time I turned around, there he was. And while I enjoyed him in Saving Mr. Banks, I thought his accent in Captain Phillips was a little too reminiscent of the old Pepperidge Farm commercials of my youth.

All of this is prelude to say that I didn't have enormously high expectations for Bridge of Spies, but given the awards buzz the film has been getting, particularly around Mark Rylance's performance, I figured we'd give it a try. And I was very pleasantly surprised, both by the film itself, and the performances, anchored by Hanks.

It's the height of the Cold War and Americans fear the Russians and the threat they may detonate an atomic bomb. A purported Soviet spy, Rudolf Abel (Rylance), is caught, and Americans clamor for his execution. For reasons he (and I, to be honest) doesn't understand, insurance attorney James Donovan (Hanks) is handpicked by his law firm to defend Abel. But while Donovan is expected to simply give Abel a proforma defense, he is committed to ensuring his client gets the due process he deserves under the law, even if those in the legal system, his firm, his family, and his community disagree.

Donovan's doggedness catches the eye of the CIA, and following the Soviet Union's capture of U.S. pilot Francis Gary Powers (Austin Stowell) while on a covert mission, the CIA enlists Donovan's help to negotiate for a trade of prisoners, Abel for Powers. This is a mission unrecognized by the U.S. government, and Donovan is essentially on his own.

He travels to East Germany, which is caught between German and Russian politics, just as the Berlin Wall is being put up. Despite his instructions to the contrary, Donovan pushes Russian and German officials for the prisoner exchange on the U.S.' terms. This sets up a potentially dangerous cat-and-mouse game for all involved.

While I'll admit I rolled my eyes at the unlikelihood an insurance attorney would suddenly be employed by the CIA for delicate negotiations with foreign entities, Bridge of Spies is based on true events. The movie definitely kept me guessing, because I really didn't know how the plot would resolve itself.

I thought Hanks did a terrific job in this movie—he conveyed his fear for his family and his future as he struggled with his need to see justice served. Rylance's performance is funny and understated, and while I don't think it's Oscar-worthy, I do think it deserves recognition. Steven Spielberg's direction is tremendously assured and not showy, and while this film certainly had a message (one that resonates particularly in this time when so many fear ISIS and Muslims in our society), it wasn't too ham-handed in its delivery.

This was an entertaining and compelling film, a reminder that there are still good stories out there to be told.

Movie Review: "American Sniper"

Chris Kyle was the deadliest sniper in American history, credited with killing more than 160 Iraqi insurgents on his four tours. Clint Eastwood's adaptation of Kyle's autobiography not only sheds light on Kyle's time in Iraq, but what drove this man to continuously put his life on the line, and the struggles he faced when not in the field.

Growing up in Texas, what Chris Kyle (a beefy Bradley Cooper) wanted more than anything was to be a cowboy. It seemed like the perfect match for his devil-may-care, reckless style, plus cowboys do pretty well with women, too. But when the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed in 1998, he realized he had a more important purpose, and joined the military, training to be a Navy SEAL.

While training, he meets Taya (Sienna Miller), an intelligent and independent woman who quickly falls for the brash soldier. But after 9/11, she knows Chris is headed to Iraq, and that he faces danger and possible death. As he becomes an elite sniper known as "The Legend," protecting his fellow soldiers and taking down insurgents before they can cause greater harm, Taya wants to understand how Chris feels about killing people, and how it will affect his life, and theirs. But Chris is single-minded in his determination to serve his country and protect his fellow soldiers.

His time in Iraq doesn't affect Chris nearly as much as being home does, even as he and Taya begin raising a family. The difficulty of being away from Iraq and knowing that his compatriots are at risk without him affects him greatly, as do the simple, startling sounds of everyday life which affect many soldiers returning home from war. As much as Taya wants him to stay home and build their life together, he wants to go back to Iraq, and each time he decides to return it puts a greater strain on their marriage.

While in Iraq, Chris and the squad he eventually leads are in search of a deadly sniper known as Mustafa. Chris wants more than anything to kill Mustafa, and is willing to risk everything—even his own life—to do it, as it would symbolize retribution for the lives Mustafa has taken. But as the tension grows in Iraq, Chris starts to realize that he wants to be present in his own life, and for his family.

This is an intense film, and Eastwood does an excellent job in particular with the scenes in Iraq, ratcheting up the tension and giving the film a "you are there" feel in the heat of battle. Cooper gives a fantastic performance as a man whose immense physical and emotional strength at the most chaotic of times can't protect his heart, or his life away from the battlefield. It is a mixture of bravado, vulnerability, and confusion that he can't control everything the way he can control the bullets from his gun. Miller does a great job as well, although her character sometimes has the thankless job of begging her husband to stay home with her instead of serving his country and protecting his fellow soldiers.

I thought that the movie ran a little longer than it needed to; although the movie was faithful to Kyle's memoir, which followed him on all four tours of Iraq, I felt as if it got a little repetitive at times, although I understand why. I also wish that we had gotten to know some of Chris' compatriots a little better, save the two who had the most screen time. But these are merely quibbles—this is a tremendously powerful movie that does great justice to the life of Chris Kyle and his amazing bravery in protecting the lives of so many. We are fortunate that men and women like Chris Kyle are willing to lay down their lives to serve and defend our country.

A heartwarming Veterans' Day story...

World War II veteran Harold Jellicoe Percival died in his Lancashire, United Kingdom nursing home on October 25 at the age of 99. Being that Harold was single and had no surviving family or friends to attend his funeral, the funeral home added to his newspaper obituary a request that any serviceman in the area attend if possible.

Thanks to the beauty of the internet, which found Harold's obituary, posted the image online, and saw it quickly go viral on Twitter. A reddit post calling on reddit users to attend was upvoted to the top of the front page for most of the weekend. The funeral was held today, which is Remembrance Day in the UK, and according to BBC News, "About a hundred people were inside [the service] with another 400 standing silently outside in the rain."

With today being Veterans' Day, I'd like to take another opportunity to thank everyone who has served in the military for their courage and their willingness to sacrifice their own lives to ensure we have the freedoms we do. The world is richer and we are luckier because you have stood tall and defended us. As I said earlier today on Facebook, never forget for a single second that we are the land of the free because of the brave.

Making sense of nonsensical things...

The news first came like it almost always does—during a birthday celebration for a colleague, someone mentioned that they had heard about some explosions occurring near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. It seemed, like things did that strangely quiet September morning nearly 12 years ago, almost too outlandish to comprehend. Could someone really have set off bombs at the end of a race like this?

By now, we know that yesterday's events were all too true. Three people, including an eight-year-old boy, have died, and more than 140 people have been injured. By whom, and for what, we don't know, except the fact that whatever person(s) or group that is behind this are cowards. That's the only word that can describe someone who puts shrapnel-filled devices in trash cans and detonates them among people gathered to celebrate victory. But what was accomplished, even if it temporarily dazed and dizzied us, was that this incident again made us stronger. As I mentioned on Facebook, there are many, many things in this country that divide us as a people, but at times like this we react as one. We may bend but we don't break.

What is so unfathomable about yesterday's events is that it took people from one of their proudest moments to one of their most afraid in a split second. I ran a half marathon in December 2009. I trained for six months, worried about the race for weeks, and although I wound up tearing my hip flexor muscle, I crossed that finish line (a lot slower than I should have). I remember how it felt to cross, to walk away with a blanket, a medal, and a banana that tasted like ambrosia. My heart goes out to those robbed of that feeling of accomplishment, and especially to those who were in the direct path of the explosions.

One of the greatest things, as I've seen in so many places on social media, is the tremendous bravery and sacrifice of the first responders and all those who provided assistance in the seconds and minutes following the explosions. With no thought of their own safety, they did what they do best—help, comfort, and protect. I'd say, as I have so many times, that Mr. Rogers said it best:

What is happening in the Volunteer State??

All apologies to my friends from Tennessee, but things are going utterly crazy in your state! While one of these instances alone is enough to raise eyebrows, all three together make me wonder just what exactly is in the water these days...

See this dog? Looks pretty harmless, right? Well, apparently his owner took him to a Jackson, Tennessee shelter to be euthanized, not because he was vicious or tore things apart, but because he suspected the dog was gay. Seriously. The shelter wrote on its Facebook page:

This guy was signed over to RC, not because he's mean or because he tears things up, but because...His owner says he's gay! He hunched another male dog so his owner threw him away because he refuses to have a "gay" dog!

Fortunately, the dog is in the process of being adopted by a rescue agency, which will have him neutered, tested for heartworm, and vetted for behavioral issues before placing him in an approved home. All I know is, someone deserved to be euthanized in this situation, and it wasn't the dog.

But that's not all. The Tennessee state assembly is again discussing passage of SB234, or the "Don't Say Gay" bill, which died with the adjournment of the assembly last year. This bill bars Tennessee teachers from discussing any facet of "non-heterosexual" sexuality with children in grades K-8. But the newest iteration also includes a provision requiring teachers or counselors to inform the parents of some students who identify themselves as LGBT. The bill says:

A school counselor, nurse, principal or assistant principal from counseling a student who is engaging in, or who may be at risk of engaging in, behavior injurious to the physical or mental health and well-being of the student or another person; provided, that wherever possible such counseling shall be done in consultation with the student’s parents or legal guardians. Parents or legal guardians of students who receive such counseling shall be notified as soon as practicable that such counseling has occurred.

Are members of the Tennessee state assembly satisfied with the number of children committing suicide because they are depressed about coming to terms with their sexuality? Are they willing to chance that more children are turned out on the street by their parents because they're "turned in" by those purporting to provide guidance and advice? To me, this bill is unconscionable, and any lawmaker who votes for it should be ashamed. I know that those who support equality are increasingly finding themselves on the right side of the law, but this is simply unacceptable.

And from the sublime to the ridiculous, in an interview on MSNBC's The Daily Rundown with Chuck Todd, Senator Lamar Alexander, Tennessee's senior senator, former education secretary under President George H.W. Bush, and a former presidential candidate himself, said that "video games is [sic] a bigger problem than guns because video games affect people." Seriously, folks. It doesn't get much better than this. Watch for yourself.

It's not the only thing, but it's one hell of a thing...

As I've said so many times over the last four years, if you had told me that one day in my lifetime the President of the United States would mention the need for equality with regard to sexual orientation, I would have thought you were crazy. To hear these words during President Obama's second inaugural address today made me cry, made me proud, and made me hope.

While there's no guarantee of what the next months will bring, particularly with the Supreme Court, I feel more optimistic than I ever have. And for that I say, thank you, Mr. President.

Movie Review: "Hyde Park on Hudson"

In so many movies and plays (Annie comes to mind most frequently), FDR is portrayed as almost a benevolent, godlike figure, probably the way many in the country saw him while he was president. Hyde Park on Hudson, the latest film from Roger Michell (Notting Hill, Venus), gives Roosevelt more than his share of flaws while telling the story of his relationship with his distant cousin, Margaret "Daisy" Stuckley.

It's 1939. FDR (Bill Murray, surprisingly effective) and his staff are summering at Hyde Park, his mother's home in upstate New York. Concerned about all that is happening in the world around him, he is in a state, and Mrs. Roosevelt sends for Daisy (Laura Linney) to help distract him. At first, Daisy is somewhat intimidated by her cousin and all the pomp and circumstance surrounding him, but as they spend more time together, driving around the beautiful New York countryside, she finds herself beginning to worship him, and their relationship deepens.

With England just on the brink of entering World War II, the newly crowned King George VI (Samuel West) and his wife, Queen Elizabeth (a terrific Olivia Colman), come to America to visit the president and ask him to come to England's aid. The royal couple is somewhat shocked by their experience in the more rustic Hyde Park than the grandeur of the White House, the familiarity of Eleanor Roosevelt (a marvelously droll Olivia Williams), and the lack of social graces of their hosts. Yet the King and Queen know the future of his country—and his monarchy—depends upon asking the president for help.

When the film depicts the dynamics of the royal couple interacting with each other and the Roosevelts, the film is wonderful. But when the film shifts gears to explore FDR's relationship with Daisy—and others—the film completely loses its focus and charm. It's interesting that a film essentially about a relationship between two people is at its least effective when portraying that relationship, and I'm not so sure if that is because the relationship made me somewhat uncomfortable or if Linney is woefully miscast and doesn't have much to do but vacillate between acting flighty and taciturn.

Murray, in a Golden Globe-nominated performance, does a terrific job as FDR. The sly humor Murray brings to nearly all of his performances works well here, and he isn't afraid to make his character seem unsympathetic at times. But for me, the movie belonged to Colman and West as the royal couple; Colman has some of the funniest lines and her delivery is priceless, and West brings an impressive combination of bravado and vulnerability to a man seen in film just a few years ago. Olivia Williams (Rushmore, The Sixth Sense) brings an interesting physicality to her portrayal of Eleanor Roosevelt, along with an amusingly jaded cynicism.

This is a somewhat enjoyable movie made more so by several terrific performances. I'm sad to see Linney underused (if not misused) but was surprised by Murray, Colman, West, and Williams. I wouldn't run out and see this one, but it's definitely worth catching on DVD or cable, if for the performances alone.

Wait, don't throw out your ticket just yet...

Yeah, we lost last night, too. So much for opening a restaurant or buying a villa wherever it is people have villas...

Before you throw out your losing Powerball ticket or cash it in for the $4 or whatever you might have won (and if so, congratulations), here are some tips on how exactly to read that ticket, courtesy of someecards:

2016 isn't THAT far away...

Many of us have joked that the 2016 presidential campaign would start today in earnest no matter who won last night. And while news articles have already cropped up about future contenders, some more humorous items have developed as well.

Just as the networks started declaring President Obama the winner last night, around 11:00 p.m. ET, #Hillary2016 was trending on Twitter. And then the memes started:

While Hillary Clinton has said previously she isn't interested in running for president in the future, time will tell if these memes become reality.

In the end, love wins...

Thirty-two times. Marriage equality had been put to a vote 32 times before last night, and every time it was defeated. And while legislatures in seven states and the District of Columbia had legalized marriage equality, never before had voters signaled their approval.

But last night was different.

Last night history was made.

Last night voters in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington (it appears) took a stance for equality, approving bills that legalized marriage equality or defeating bills that sought to amend the state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Last night, love won. Equality won.

While nothing can take away the bravery of the legislators and judges in Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont, it is amazing to feel that for the first time, voters believed strongly enough that my rights mattered enough to take a stance. For the first time, voters in four states have said that every citizen deserves the same rights.

Obviously, this year's election was about so much more than equality, and I'm excited about the outcomes we saw last night. I was moved to tears several times last night, but none more so than when the announcement that the question of marriage equality had been approved in Maryland.

I sit at my desk this morning bleary-eyed and hopeful. There is still so much further to go, and the journey will still be a long and hard one. But this is the inroads we were hoping for.

Hopefully people all over our country, and all over the world, will eventually see that when love wins, we all win.

My gratitude to all those who have worked tirelessly, given time, effort, money, passion, blood, sweat, and tears to this cause. And my gratitude also goes to all who will give these things, because it's still needed.

To quote one of my favorite heroes, Fred Rogers, "It's such a good feeling to know you're alive. It's such a happy feeling, you're growing inside."

Indeed. It's a good feeling.

Whatever you think, whatever you feel, VOTE!

Well, it seems like this election cycle has been eight years' long, but it finally comes to a close today. While there are many questions about the end result, and obviously, I have my preferences, my ultimate hope is that equality will prevail in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington.

No matter how you choose to vote, please do. Even with allegations of voter fraud that surround every election, we are still tremendously privileged to live in a country that allows us the right to exercise our choices freely and without threat of reprisal.

Give thanks for that freedom, and GO VOTE!!

Phillip Phillips takes on the "Star Spangled Banner"

If you followed any of my recapping of American Idol's 11th season earlier this year, you'll know I was a big fan of the eventual winner, Phillip "Don't Call Me Dave Matthews" Phillips. While he may not have had the big voice of runner-up Jessica Sanchez or the versatility and stage presence of third-place finisher Joshua Ledet, I loved the gravelly sound of his voice and his interpretation of songs throughout the season.

Despite those who lamented that Phillips' win was due more to preteen and tween girls' lock on the voting for "WGWG" ("white guy with guitar") contestants, he's done pretty well since the show ended. His "coronation song," the nearly ubiquitous Home, has sold over 2 million copies thus far, which is the highest result ever for an Idol winner, and his debut album, The World from the Side of the Moon, drops in about three weeks.

Last night, Phillips sang the National Anthem at the opening game of the World Series. While his voice might not be the type you'd expect to sing the anthem, he brought a mellow, acoustic vibe to the song in a wholly different vein than, say, Whitney Houston. I really like his version if you're willing to step outside of what you expect an anthem singer to sound like.

Sounds like he's still in it to win it, yo...

Celebrating one year of demolished barriers...

Today marks the one-year anniversary of the end of Don't Ask Don't Tell. It's hard to believe that a full year has passed since the barriers that disallowed openly gay and lesbian soldiers from serving their country were demolished, but it is a pretty fantastic milestone to mark.

To the surprise of very few, the Pentagon has found that the end of DADT didn't have any negative effects on our military; in fact, the openness has even promoted greater trust and camaraderie among soldiers.

Yet that hasn't stopped some conservative Republicans in Congress from trying to do everything they can to bring back the days of discrimination and inequity. During the Value Voters Summit last week, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), chair of the House Study Committee, said in an interview that he wants to reinstate the policy if the Republicans get control of both houses of Congress in November. He left open the possibility that those service-members who have already come out of the closet, like Brig. General Tammy Smith, would be discharged from the military if DADT is reinstated.

Many thanks to all those from both parties who championed openness and equality in our armed forces, and thanks to President Obama for having the courage to sign the ban into law. This is a remarkable anniversary to celebrate.

Pink = Unpatriotic?

Gymnast Gabby Douglas was the toast of the world this past week after she became the third American woman in a row to win Olympic gold in the gymnastics all-around competition.

But as has become typical in our quick-to-be-critical world, shortly after her win, people (mostly women) took to social media outlets to denigrate Douglas' hairstyle. One woman asked on Twitter, "So for real though nobody wanted to go to London to do Gabby Douglas' hair?," while another commented, "Gabby Douglas is cute and all...but that hair...on camera." (Douglas was quick to dismiss that criticism, saying she doesn't care what people think.)

The latest round of criticism aimed at Douglas and other Olympic athletes is more ridiculous than that. Apparently Douglas is not patriotic enough because she didn't wear red, white, and blue, opting instead for a pink leotard.

Seriously.

Speaking on the Fox & Friends weekend show with Alisyn Camerota, conservative radio host David Webb said Douglas' attire was part of a broader sense of "soft anti-Americanism," which he feels has grown more apparent among American athletes since the previous Olympics. The radio host also pointed out that those cheering for Douglas did not break out in a rousing round of "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!" chants.

"What's wrong with showing some pride?," Webb asked of Douglas and other athletes. (As if the fact that they're representing their country at the freaking Olympics isn't enough a demonstration of pride?)

Interestingly, Webb ignores the fact that the Olympic Committee has denounced overzealous displays of American patriotism almost every time the games make their way to the United States, including in 1984 Los Angeles and 1996 Atlanta. Even during the 2002 winter games in Salt Lake City, which took place just months after 9/11, Americans were told to tone down the chest-beating. Speaking that year about a pre-Olympics tribute to those killed in the attacks, Mitt Romney—who at that time was the president of the Olympics Organizing Committee—conceded that the Olympics are "not our time to talk about how great America is."

Some may say, what do you expect from Fox News? But this type of criticism should not be acceptable. I am so tired of people calling others' patriotism into question if they behave or even look differently than what some person thinks is patriotic.

You know what is unpatriotic? Being judgmental and hate-filled. But there's more than enough of that to go around in this country.

Watch the video.

Modern-day McCarthyism...

What year is it? Sometimes I think we've gone back in time to the 1950s, when panic over Communism and a general xenophobia held our country and members of Congress in its grasp, destroying the careers, and sometimes the lives, of those accused of being Communists, or anti-American.

Luckily then we had a crusader by the name of Edward R. Murrow who helped give the world a collective shake and bring everyone back to their senses.

Today, Senator John McCain came to the rescue in a similar matter. You see, "anti-American" fear has raised its ugly head in Congress again, thanks to the delusional mind of Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN). Bachmann, as it turns out, believes the Muslim brotherhood has infiltrated Congress.

Seriously.

Needless to say, fellow Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), a practicing Muslim, wasn't too enamored of Bachmann's fear-mongering. He sent Bachmann a letter warning her that there had better be "credible, substantial evidence" for her claims. Bachmann's 16 pages of loosely-sourced "evidence" names Huma Abedin, State Department employee and wife of sexting ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner, as a prime example of Muslim infiltration, and has called Abedin's security clearance into question.

Senator McCain would have none of it. "I understand how painful and injurious it is when a person's character, reputation, and patriotism are attacked without concern for fact or fairness," McCain said according to prepared remarks. "It is for that reason that I rise today to speak in defense of Huma Abedin."

He continued:

"Ultimately, what is at stake in this matter is larger even than the reputation of one person. This is about who we are as a nation, and who we still aspire to be. What makes America exceptional among the countries of the world is that we are bound together as citizens not by blood or class, not by sect or ethnicity, but by a set of enduring, universal, and equal rights that are the foundation of our constitution, our laws, our citizenry, and our identity. When anyone, not least a member of Congress, launches specious and degrading attacks against fellow Americans on the basis of nothing more than fear of who they are and ignorance of what they stand for, it defames the spirit of our nation, and we all grow poorer because of it."

I don't always agree with Senator McCain's positions on issues, but I admire his heroic willingness to speak out—even against his own party—when he sees something wrong.

Being "foreign" shouldn't be an insult, or a cry to rally people to be afraid. I am disgusted that John Sununu said, "I wish this president [Obama] would learn how to be an American" yesterday. I cannot believe the media is still giving Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio coverage about his crusade to prove President Obama's birth certificate is fraudulent. And those who refer to the President as "Barack Hussein Obama" in an insulting tone, implying that his middle name denotes that he is un-American, is appalling.

We need to remember we are a country that is richer because of the contributions of people of all cultures, races, and religions. We have to stop living in fear, or trying to make people afraid, of those we deem "anti-American." Because that is not the American way.