Catchin' up
The last few PIcks of teh week plus a critique on a "debate" I went to. not as boring as it sounds.
The Boondocks
Since the genius that was Chappelle’s Show has left the air (those Lost Episodes don’t really count) there’s been a space left for brave comedy that’s unafraid to examine and send up the stereotypes, misconceptions and double-standards regarding race in today’s North American society. Chappelle’s show (I don’t have to tell you how great that is do I? You’ve all heard “I’m Rick James, bitch!”) Which only lasted two seasons before burning out at it’s height, didn’t really get to develop characters, though, unlike the show I think is it’s successor, The Boondocks.
In 1997 Aaron MacGruder began writing and drawing The Boondocks in his student newspaper at the University of Maryland. It was later picked up and distributed to newspapers across America and became widely read and discussed. MacGruder took a hiatus from the strip in 2006 and in October announced it was officially dropped. The cartoon loses none of the strips bite.
Ten-year-old African-American Huey Freeman and his brother Riley are taken in by their Grandfather Robert and move into an affluent, mostly White “boondocks” suburb in Woodcrest, Maryland. Grandad tries to fit in but the boys have other plans.
Huey (voiced by actress Regina King) is an intellectual, left- wing, Afro centric radical, (he was named after Black Panthers co-founder Huey P. Newton) who is constantly challenging any White authority he can; but at many times is the voice of reason. Riley (also King) is his polar opposite, he’s easily influenced and obsessed with “gangsta” and Hip hop culture and instead of arguments and debates like Huey would engage in, Riley vandalizes homes and attacks a mall Santa with a golf club for “not payin’ what he owe”. Grandad (voiced by John Witherspoon) was a member of the civil rights movement, even sitting next to Rosa Parks on the bus, but she received all the credit. The neighborhood has two other main Black characters, Uncle Ruckus (voiced by Gary Anthony Williams), a Black man so self loathing, if he were white he would make a great Grand Wizard of the KKK; and Tom Dubois (voiced by Reno 911’s Cedric Yarbrough) a friendly lawyer married to a white woman. The town is almost completely owned by Ed Wuncler (voiced by Ed Asner) a heartless businessman who’ll exploit anyone to make himself a buck. His Grandson Ed Wuncler III (voiced by Chappelle’s Show alumnus Charlie Murphy) and his army buddy Gin Rummy (none other than Mr. Snakes on a Plane, Samuel L. Jackson) often rush into poorly thought out situation with guns blazing and are regarded as heroes, hmm. sound familiar? W and Rummy?
Along with the digs at the Iraq war ( “the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence” bellowed by Rummy is a quote from Donald Rumsfeld himself) there are parodies of Gangsta Rap (The Story of Gangstalicious), The American judicial system (The Trial of R. Kelly), Christmas and Charlie Brown specials ( A Huey Freeman Christmas) and reality tv ( The Real). The Soundtrack features Kanye West, Public Enemy, and Reakwon.
You’ll laugh, you’ll gasp and you’ll think. If you like the show, check out some of the comic strip collections at the public library. Season 1 airs on Teletoon weekends at 11.30 pm and 1 am. Monday to Thursday at 1.30 am and 3.30 am. It’s also available on DVD.
Rescue Me
Yes, it’s co-created, co-written and starring Denis Leary, so it’s very often wickedly, irreverently funny. Centreing around a group or macho New York firefighters, their discussions can often be reminiscent of college boys or the “true meaning of like a virgin” conversation in Reservoir Dogs. But it’s also very dark and depressing. The firefighters themselves deal with death and tragedy everyday, like the detectives on Law & Order, but they also get a great big helping of it in their personal lives. Leary’s character is haunted, literally, by ghosts of those in his life that have fallen; his cousin, a firefighter who died on 9/11, Jesus, those he couldn’t save on the job and his son who was run down by a drunk driver. The humour and the tragedy can come at unexpected times, sometimes in the same scene, like the time a distraught firefighter retreats into the bottle, dropping his liquor by a railway, he climbs down and begins contemplating touching the third rail to electrocute himself and then gets into an argument with a similarly minded homeless man about who decides to die more.
Leary stars as New York firefighter Tommy Gavin, an angry, recovering alcoholic going through a bitter separartion with estranged wife Janet (Andrea Roth), the mother of his two surviving children. He’s also had a relationship with Sheila (Callie Thorne), the widow of his cousin, which he’s ended but she still carries a clingy, needy flame for him. The rest of the Gavin clan is just as maladjusted. Dad Micheal (Charles Durning) is a crabby old man who constantly berates his children. Tommy’s brother Johnny (Dean Winters, whom you may remember as Ryan O’Reily on Oz) is a cop, who may be betraying Tommy in the worst way you could to your brother. Their sister Maggie (Tatum O’Neal) is just as foul-mouthed, hard-living and angry as her brothers.
The other guys at the firehouse, too, have a lot of complication in their lives. Chief Jerry Reilly struggles to care and provide for his wife Jeannie, who suffers from Alzheimer’s . Ken “Lou” Shea is reeling after being scammed by a hooker for his life savings. Franco (Daniel Sunjata) is the reluctant single- father to (age) Keela, while still trying to maintain the firefighter and single-guy life. Sean Garrity might start walking through the landmine field that is dating Maggie, enduring the wrath of Tommy and Maggie’s non-monogamous lifestyle. And Mike “Probie” Sileti, the newest guy in the firehouse is just generally confused and this season it takes a whole new level.
Because it airs on Showcase “television without borders” and FX in the states, you can guess it’s one of those “viewer discresion is advised” shows, and you’d be right. There is blood and violence, and not just in the firehouse, the main characters give and receive some heavy beat-downs and serious injuries. Centering around a bunch of macho single-guy firefighters, you can guess how much sex and raw language there is (Like I said, Reservoir Dogs comes to mind). And being written by Leary, you can guess it gets into controversial territory. I don’t like to throw the term “controversial” around a lot (I haven’t yet used it in any of my reviews) but this has some controversial storylines and scenes. I don’t want to give too much away, I want you to see for yourself, but in season three you are forced to think about your definition of “rape”, “misogyny”,“gay” and "chaise lounge".
If you think you can handle it, check out season one and two on DVD and Season three will begin again on Showcase Tuesday, November 28th at 11pm.
Boston Legal
Let me just start by telling you the starring actors on Boston Legal. Candice Bergen, James Spader, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine’s Rene Auberjonois, and Captain Kirk himself, William Shatner. Not sold yet? Really? Okay, how about guest stars? It’s had Golden Girl Betty White, Parker Posey, Michael J. Fox, Katey Sagal, Al Sharpton, Tom Selleck and Freddie Prinze, Jr. Now, at the risk of sounding like a name-dropper, I’ll tell you about the actual show.
Over the years super-producer David E. Kelley has created many, many dramedy shows, usual about lawyers. In the past 10 years or so, I’ve found them to be either a little too much on the side of quirky, sexy lawyers in weird cases (I call Ally McBeal to the stand) or too dramatic and hot button pressing (The Practice, which Boston Legal was spun-off from, and Boston Public stand accused of tackling “issue of the week”). Like the porridge Goldilocks chose, Boston Legal is just right. Comedy like Betty White begins robbing convenience stores balances out the drama of a young man accused of killing a woman to get over his Oedipal obsession with his mother.
Boston law firm Crane, Poole & Schmidt is full of characters as odd and neurotic as Ally McBeal minus the visible ribs and anti-feminist whinings. Shatner acts better than you’d expect and steals the show as Denny Crane, a lawyer as daring and womanizing as Captain Kirk himself (the show throws in plenty of Star Trek references for all the fans out there). He shoots a homeless man with a paintball gun for asking for money, he’s been married more times than you can count on one hand, may have Alzheimer’s but tells people it’s Mad Cow Disease, loves to hear his own name and is an absolutely brilliant defense attorney. Candice Bergen is smart, witty Shirley Schmidt, who once slept with Denny after losing a bet. James Spader, who has a knack for playing normal looking guys with a kinky underbelly, (remember his bondage loving boss in Secretary?) keeps it up as unscrupulous Alan Shore, Denny’s best friend and often rooftop confidante as they share cigars and stories in some of the best scenes. Rounding out the offices at Crane, Poole & Schmidt, are Jeffrey Coho (Craig Bierko) and eye-candy Brad Chase (Mark Valley) and Denise Bauer (Julie Bowen). Titular partner Edwin Poole (Larry Miller) is on extended leave after having a breakdown and coming to work with no pants on.
The out of Courtroom antics are as sexy and over-the-top as anything on Wisteria Lane and the legal battles are as funny as those in Harvey Birdman and as tense as any Law & Order. Season one and two are available on DVD now, and season three airs at 11 pm Tuesdays on ABC.
Debate or Sermon?
The ad on paper was enough to grab my interest as I walked back to class from my bathroom break on the top floor of McNally, where it’s always about 10 degrees hotter than outside, but that’s another story. Almost all black with a small picture of a statue of two genderless figures in an embrace and large words exclaiming “A Public discussion on Homosexuality & I deals of Erotic Love”. Not knowing quite what to expect, I went to Loyola last Monday thinking, hey, it’s a chance to procrastinate homework more and I’m always up to attending free things to possibly learn. Now, almost a week later, I’m not sure exactly what I learned.
One of the members of the SMU philosophy society began by introducing Philosophy professor Dr. Mark Mercer and Religious Studies professor Wendell Eisener who intended to try to challenge their knowledge of the opposite side by expressing each other’s viewpoint on the topic (which is by no means the viewpoint of either faculty as a whole). Dr. Mercer took to the board and started to present what he believed to be Mr. Eisener’s thesis “ An erotic loving relationship in which the couple is open to procreation is better than one that isn’t”, now in this case it’s difficult to define “ better than” but he then said “more fulfilling, richer”. Dr. Mercer talked for what seemed like a very short before letting Professor Eisener come up and clarify his viewpoint. Human beings, he argued, are not defective for needing someone else, and the Catholic viewpoint of personhood sees being alone as “not good”.
This was the point where I began to feel alienated. Isn’t that almost condemning single people? If in the Catholic viewpoint it’s “not good to be alone” why are priests forbidden to marry? He clarified some on the ideas of different types of love (charity-like love, brotherly, affectionate and erotic) and Catholic ideals of a human as rational and free animals. Rational and free to chose, but choosing not to have children is not the right choice, I guess. He argues, “sex has existential significance for an erotic relationship and any erotic relationship that lacks existential significance to have children and keep the species going is defective.” If any relationship that cannot produce children is defective, then are people past their childbearing years, infertile couples, homosexuals and those who use contraceptives for whatever responsible reason defective? Professor Eisener, in his speech, didn’t seem to talk about homosexuality as much as procreation as the most important thing a person or a couple could do.
The floor was opened up for debate to those from the University community and public who attended. But wait, I thought they were going to present each other’s viewpoints? Dr. Mercer presented what he thought Professor Eisener’s was and then Professor Eisener clarified. What is Dr. Mercer’s opinion? I can guess from the comments he made during the discussion part, but I would like to hear Professor Eisener present it or better yet, Dr. Mercer himself. Doesn’t this seem very one-sided? Only one side was actually presented. Is this truly a discussion then?
The audience discussion opened up and began to feel quite heated. Most of those in attendance seemed to be philosophy students, with a few other students like me and some members of the community who looked to me like members of the religious community. I’m not a philosophy or religious studies student and I must admit, I think some of it went over my head as things like Thomas Aquinas and authoritative natural law were brought up. I was a bit lost, but I was probably where an average member of the public would stand. At what level should a public discussion at a University be? Should any layperson be able to understand? Or Philosophy 1200 required implicitly?
There was one question that I can’t remember that Professor Eisener answered by saying “I’m not going to touch that with a ten foot pole”. How can we learn and debate if opinions aren’t presented? Isn’t that what the church would have said about homosexuality 100 or even 50 years ago? If a University philosophy debate isn’t the place, where is?
Honestly the things I understood and remembered best were Dr. Mercer’s snide one-liners about sex, homosexuality and language (to paraphrase “better than is relative. I think ice cream is better than Auschwitz”). He broke up the tension pretty well, but there was still some uneasiness in the room, which a few audience members commented on and I myself felt a little uneasiness at some of the remarks from the religious side which I wouldn’t necessarily characterize as homophobic, but they definitely weren’t warm and welcoming.
So what did I learn? I learned about different ideas of love and Catholic ideals about personhood and procreation but I didn’t learn one thing about homosexuality which was what I came to hear. I’ll tell you what I do like though; I like my debates two-sided, my comments snide and funny and my sermons to be when I attend church at Easter and Christmas Eve with my Mom.
The Boondocks
Since the genius that was Chappelle’s Show has left the air (those Lost Episodes don’t really count) there’s been a space left for brave comedy that’s unafraid to examine and send up the stereotypes, misconceptions and double-standards regarding race in today’s North American society. Chappelle’s show (I don’t have to tell you how great that is do I? You’ve all heard “I’m Rick James, bitch!”) Which only lasted two seasons before burning out at it’s height, didn’t really get to develop characters, though, unlike the show I think is it’s successor, The Boondocks.
In 1997 Aaron MacGruder began writing and drawing The Boondocks in his student newspaper at the University of Maryland. It was later picked up and distributed to newspapers across America and became widely read and discussed. MacGruder took a hiatus from the strip in 2006 and in October announced it was officially dropped. The cartoon loses none of the strips bite.
Ten-year-old African-American Huey Freeman and his brother Riley are taken in by their Grandfather Robert and move into an affluent, mostly White “boondocks” suburb in Woodcrest, Maryland. Grandad tries to fit in but the boys have other plans.
Huey (voiced by actress Regina King) is an intellectual, left- wing, Afro centric radical, (he was named after Black Panthers co-founder Huey P. Newton) who is constantly challenging any White authority he can; but at many times is the voice of reason. Riley (also King) is his polar opposite, he’s easily influenced and obsessed with “gangsta” and Hip hop culture and instead of arguments and debates like Huey would engage in, Riley vandalizes homes and attacks a mall Santa with a golf club for “not payin’ what he owe”. Grandad (voiced by John Witherspoon) was a member of the civil rights movement, even sitting next to Rosa Parks on the bus, but she received all the credit. The neighborhood has two other main Black characters, Uncle Ruckus (voiced by Gary Anthony Williams), a Black man so self loathing, if he were white he would make a great Grand Wizard of the KKK; and Tom Dubois (voiced by Reno 911’s Cedric Yarbrough) a friendly lawyer married to a white woman. The town is almost completely owned by Ed Wuncler (voiced by Ed Asner) a heartless businessman who’ll exploit anyone to make himself a buck. His Grandson Ed Wuncler III (voiced by Chappelle’s Show alumnus Charlie Murphy) and his army buddy Gin Rummy (none other than Mr. Snakes on a Plane, Samuel L. Jackson) often rush into poorly thought out situation with guns blazing and are regarded as heroes, hmm. sound familiar? W and Rummy?
Along with the digs at the Iraq war ( “the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence” bellowed by Rummy is a quote from Donald Rumsfeld himself) there are parodies of Gangsta Rap (The Story of Gangstalicious), The American judicial system (The Trial of R. Kelly), Christmas and Charlie Brown specials ( A Huey Freeman Christmas) and reality tv ( The Real). The Soundtrack features Kanye West, Public Enemy, and Reakwon.
You’ll laugh, you’ll gasp and you’ll think. If you like the show, check out some of the comic strip collections at the public library. Season 1 airs on Teletoon weekends at 11.30 pm and 1 am. Monday to Thursday at 1.30 am and 3.30 am. It’s also available on DVD.
Rescue Me
Yes, it’s co-created, co-written and starring Denis Leary, so it’s very often wickedly, irreverently funny. Centreing around a group or macho New York firefighters, their discussions can often be reminiscent of college boys or the “true meaning of like a virgin” conversation in Reservoir Dogs. But it’s also very dark and depressing. The firefighters themselves deal with death and tragedy everyday, like the detectives on Law & Order, but they also get a great big helping of it in their personal lives. Leary’s character is haunted, literally, by ghosts of those in his life that have fallen; his cousin, a firefighter who died on 9/11, Jesus, those he couldn’t save on the job and his son who was run down by a drunk driver. The humour and the tragedy can come at unexpected times, sometimes in the same scene, like the time a distraught firefighter retreats into the bottle, dropping his liquor by a railway, he climbs down and begins contemplating touching the third rail to electrocute himself and then gets into an argument with a similarly minded homeless man about who decides to die more.
Leary stars as New York firefighter Tommy Gavin, an angry, recovering alcoholic going through a bitter separartion with estranged wife Janet (Andrea Roth), the mother of his two surviving children. He’s also had a relationship with Sheila (Callie Thorne), the widow of his cousin, which he’s ended but she still carries a clingy, needy flame for him. The rest of the Gavin clan is just as maladjusted. Dad Micheal (Charles Durning) is a crabby old man who constantly berates his children. Tommy’s brother Johnny (Dean Winters, whom you may remember as Ryan O’Reily on Oz) is a cop, who may be betraying Tommy in the worst way you could to your brother. Their sister Maggie (Tatum O’Neal) is just as foul-mouthed, hard-living and angry as her brothers.
The other guys at the firehouse, too, have a lot of complication in their lives. Chief Jerry Reilly struggles to care and provide for his wife Jeannie, who suffers from Alzheimer’s . Ken “Lou” Shea is reeling after being scammed by a hooker for his life savings. Franco (Daniel Sunjata) is the reluctant single- father to (age) Keela, while still trying to maintain the firefighter and single-guy life. Sean Garrity might start walking through the landmine field that is dating Maggie, enduring the wrath of Tommy and Maggie’s non-monogamous lifestyle. And Mike “Probie” Sileti, the newest guy in the firehouse is just generally confused and this season it takes a whole new level.
Because it airs on Showcase “television without borders” and FX in the states, you can guess it’s one of those “viewer discresion is advised” shows, and you’d be right. There is blood and violence, and not just in the firehouse, the main characters give and receive some heavy beat-downs and serious injuries. Centering around a bunch of macho single-guy firefighters, you can guess how much sex and raw language there is (Like I said, Reservoir Dogs comes to mind). And being written by Leary, you can guess it gets into controversial territory. I don’t like to throw the term “controversial” around a lot (I haven’t yet used it in any of my reviews) but this has some controversial storylines and scenes. I don’t want to give too much away, I want you to see for yourself, but in season three you are forced to think about your definition of “rape”, “misogyny”,“gay” and "chaise lounge".
If you think you can handle it, check out season one and two on DVD and Season three will begin again on Showcase Tuesday, November 28th at 11pm.
Boston Legal
Let me just start by telling you the starring actors on Boston Legal. Candice Bergen, James Spader, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine’s Rene Auberjonois, and Captain Kirk himself, William Shatner. Not sold yet? Really? Okay, how about guest stars? It’s had Golden Girl Betty White, Parker Posey, Michael J. Fox, Katey Sagal, Al Sharpton, Tom Selleck and Freddie Prinze, Jr. Now, at the risk of sounding like a name-dropper, I’ll tell you about the actual show.
Over the years super-producer David E. Kelley has created many, many dramedy shows, usual about lawyers. In the past 10 years or so, I’ve found them to be either a little too much on the side of quirky, sexy lawyers in weird cases (I call Ally McBeal to the stand) or too dramatic and hot button pressing (The Practice, which Boston Legal was spun-off from, and Boston Public stand accused of tackling “issue of the week”). Like the porridge Goldilocks chose, Boston Legal is just right. Comedy like Betty White begins robbing convenience stores balances out the drama of a young man accused of killing a woman to get over his Oedipal obsession with his mother.
Boston law firm Crane, Poole & Schmidt is full of characters as odd and neurotic as Ally McBeal minus the visible ribs and anti-feminist whinings. Shatner acts better than you’d expect and steals the show as Denny Crane, a lawyer as daring and womanizing as Captain Kirk himself (the show throws in plenty of Star Trek references for all the fans out there). He shoots a homeless man with a paintball gun for asking for money, he’s been married more times than you can count on one hand, may have Alzheimer’s but tells people it’s Mad Cow Disease, loves to hear his own name and is an absolutely brilliant defense attorney. Candice Bergen is smart, witty Shirley Schmidt, who once slept with Denny after losing a bet. James Spader, who has a knack for playing normal looking guys with a kinky underbelly, (remember his bondage loving boss in Secretary?) keeps it up as unscrupulous Alan Shore, Denny’s best friend and often rooftop confidante as they share cigars and stories in some of the best scenes. Rounding out the offices at Crane, Poole & Schmidt, are Jeffrey Coho (Craig Bierko) and eye-candy Brad Chase (Mark Valley) and Denise Bauer (Julie Bowen). Titular partner Edwin Poole (Larry Miller) is on extended leave after having a breakdown and coming to work with no pants on.
The out of Courtroom antics are as sexy and over-the-top as anything on Wisteria Lane and the legal battles are as funny as those in Harvey Birdman and as tense as any Law & Order. Season one and two are available on DVD now, and season three airs at 11 pm Tuesdays on ABC.
Debate or Sermon?
The ad on paper was enough to grab my interest as I walked back to class from my bathroom break on the top floor of McNally, where it’s always about 10 degrees hotter than outside, but that’s another story. Almost all black with a small picture of a statue of two genderless figures in an embrace and large words exclaiming “A Public discussion on Homosexuality & I deals of Erotic Love”. Not knowing quite what to expect, I went to Loyola last Monday thinking, hey, it’s a chance to procrastinate homework more and I’m always up to attending free things to possibly learn. Now, almost a week later, I’m not sure exactly what I learned.
One of the members of the SMU philosophy society began by introducing Philosophy professor Dr. Mark Mercer and Religious Studies professor Wendell Eisener who intended to try to challenge their knowledge of the opposite side by expressing each other’s viewpoint on the topic (which is by no means the viewpoint of either faculty as a whole). Dr. Mercer took to the board and started to present what he believed to be Mr. Eisener’s thesis “ An erotic loving relationship in which the couple is open to procreation is better than one that isn’t”, now in this case it’s difficult to define “ better than” but he then said “more fulfilling, richer”. Dr. Mercer talked for what seemed like a very short before letting Professor Eisener come up and clarify his viewpoint. Human beings, he argued, are not defective for needing someone else, and the Catholic viewpoint of personhood sees being alone as “not good”.
This was the point where I began to feel alienated. Isn’t that almost condemning single people? If in the Catholic viewpoint it’s “not good to be alone” why are priests forbidden to marry? He clarified some on the ideas of different types of love (charity-like love, brotherly, affectionate and erotic) and Catholic ideals of a human as rational and free animals. Rational and free to chose, but choosing not to have children is not the right choice, I guess. He argues, “sex has existential significance for an erotic relationship and any erotic relationship that lacks existential significance to have children and keep the species going is defective.” If any relationship that cannot produce children is defective, then are people past their childbearing years, infertile couples, homosexuals and those who use contraceptives for whatever responsible reason defective? Professor Eisener, in his speech, didn’t seem to talk about homosexuality as much as procreation as the most important thing a person or a couple could do.
The floor was opened up for debate to those from the University community and public who attended. But wait, I thought they were going to present each other’s viewpoints? Dr. Mercer presented what he thought Professor Eisener’s was and then Professor Eisener clarified. What is Dr. Mercer’s opinion? I can guess from the comments he made during the discussion part, but I would like to hear Professor Eisener present it or better yet, Dr. Mercer himself. Doesn’t this seem very one-sided? Only one side was actually presented. Is this truly a discussion then?
The audience discussion opened up and began to feel quite heated. Most of those in attendance seemed to be philosophy students, with a few other students like me and some members of the community who looked to me like members of the religious community. I’m not a philosophy or religious studies student and I must admit, I think some of it went over my head as things like Thomas Aquinas and authoritative natural law were brought up. I was a bit lost, but I was probably where an average member of the public would stand. At what level should a public discussion at a University be? Should any layperson be able to understand? Or Philosophy 1200 required implicitly?
There was one question that I can’t remember that Professor Eisener answered by saying “I’m not going to touch that with a ten foot pole”. How can we learn and debate if opinions aren’t presented? Isn’t that what the church would have said about homosexuality 100 or even 50 years ago? If a University philosophy debate isn’t the place, where is?
Honestly the things I understood and remembered best were Dr. Mercer’s snide one-liners about sex, homosexuality and language (to paraphrase “better than is relative. I think ice cream is better than Auschwitz”). He broke up the tension pretty well, but there was still some uneasiness in the room, which a few audience members commented on and I myself felt a little uneasiness at some of the remarks from the religious side which I wouldn’t necessarily characterize as homophobic, but they definitely weren’t warm and welcoming.
So what did I learn? I learned about different ideas of love and Catholic ideals about personhood and procreation but I didn’t learn one thing about homosexuality which was what I came to hear. I’ll tell you what I do like though; I like my debates two-sided, my comments snide and funny and my sermons to be when I attend church at Easter and Christmas Eve with my Mom.