Mele Kalikimaka, for reals.

Mele Kalikimaka is a greeting I found myself saying more and more this year. I had noticed that I had been pretty deliberately ducking the regular greeting last year by throwing it off as something PC and funny / cute like Feliz Hanakwansmas.

I’m afraid I don’t have exact copy of the article I read off of the AP newswire, but a bill was proposed in the Senate in order to protect schools and public institutions from lawsuits if they chose to sing Christmas carols or have “Christmas” parties. Christmas actually is a National holiday recognized by our country’s government. However, it is a holiday that has a root in Christianity and a backlash against religious favoritism has emerged as a result of this.

The front lines of that battle took place in Sonoma county, California this year. A ban against angels and stars adorning the tops of Christmas trees in government buildings was enacted. The public backlash against it was so great that it was quickly rescinded (yes the people do have a voice). By the way, one of the offending stars in question is photographed above in the Information Sciences office of Sonoma county (courtesy of Newscom)

I don’t know about you, but I’m not sure that star shouts religious ideology in any way shape or form (when I first heard of this the only star I could think of that would be religiously propagandizing might have been the star of David, which is very much a Jewish symbol and would certainly make for a conversation inducing piece atop a Christmas tree). That star pictured has only five points (which is often used in reference to another deity entirely), and I’m not entirely sure that neon pink is a color of association with the people of Israel. Obviously the strike is against the star that lead the wise men to baby Jesus in the manger, but still a star is a rather generic and non-exclusive symbol to be branded as illegal or offensive.

And speaking of generic and non-exclusive, I would personally lump angels in the same category. The varied interpretation of those beings across the globe could hardly be called exclusive only to Christians. In fact, most theologically researched Christians would view the traditional treetop angel as being quite “off the mark” from the picture the Bible paints of them. At the very least, the little cherub with wings is representative of only one “aspect” of the Biblical portrayal of angels.

Speaking of which, in the interest of lightening things up a bit, a short interlude of how that tradition started...(skip over if you wish, but I think you’ll enjoy)

Angel on top of a christmas tree

One particular Christmas season a long time ago, Santa was getting ready for his annual trip... but there were problems everywhere.

Four of his elves got sick, and the trainee elves did not produce the toys as fast as the regular ones so Santa was beginning to feel the pressure of being behind schedule.

Then Mrs. Claus told Santa that her Mom was coming to visit.

This stressed Santa even more. When he went to harness the reindeer, he found that three of them were about to give birth and two had jumped the fence and were out, heaven knows where.

More stress. Then when he began to load the sleigh one of the boards cracked and the toy bag fell to the ground and scattered the toys.

So, frustrated, Santa went into the house for a cup of coffee and a shot of whiskey. When he went to the cupboard, he discovered that the elves had hid the liquor and there was nothing to drink.

In his frustration, he accidentally dropped the coffee pot and it broke into hundreds of little pieces all over the kitchen floor. He went to get the broom and found that mice had eaten the straw it was made from.

Just then the doorbell rang and Santa cussed on his way to the door. He opened the door and there was a little angel with a great big Christmas tree.

The angel said, very cheerfully, "Merry Christmas Santa. Isn't it just a lovely day? I have a beautiful tree for you. Isn't it just a lovely tree?
Where would you like me to stick it?"

And thus began the tradition of sticking the little angel on top of the Christmas tree.

What makes this whole thing even more ironic, is that Santa Rosa is in Sonoma county. Santa Rosa being the city that is home to Charles Schulz (and the cartooning museum that bears his name, as well as the ice skating rink where he did many of the Peanuts cartoons). The city also has statues of Charlie Brown and Snoopy on display in many places (they are the same two casts but each one customized by the person who commissioned them....you would have to see it to understand, and I’m sure I’ll do a whole blog on that at some point). Well, the fact that A Charlie Brown Christmas remains about the only perennial nationally broadcasted scripture reading in modern history should certainly be reason enough to site those very statues as at least implicit congruency with Biblical Christianity.

Which made me think of my childhood, and how much I loved Christmas. Tidings of great joy, peace on Earth and good will towards men (mankind...yet another unnecessary political correction in verbiage that even at the age of 6, I completely understood the intent....). A Charlie Brown Christmas was very much a part of my childhood (it’s first airing was a mere 5 weeks after my birth). However, I didn’t go to church growing up. In fact, after having much infatuation with Scooby-Doo, and the scary things the Scooby gang fought, I came to the conclusion that there were no real ghosts, goblins, spooks, ghouls, spirits, vampires (sorry TWILIGHT fans) or otherwise. Otherwise included churches, which I considered to be repositories of people who believed in these things. Yes, I was all of about 11 or 12 at this point. A functional atheist, though I was open to ideas*.

New ideas popped open for me in high school. I’m not going to go into it in much detail now. I will say that became involved in a church youth group. I did so only with the condition that I would not be forced to disparage any other person for having a belief system different than that of the church I was attending. That I would be allowed to respect people of other religious beliefs. Even at the time, I knew that many other people simply had been trained by the culture they grew up in to believe in certain tenants of faith that may or may not actually be the basis for all of existence. I mention this, that everyone might understand my mindset about religion.

My point here being, that I still loved Christmas. I loved Linus’ little speech, even though I didn’t quite understand the context I completely got the message. You don’t have to agree with the belief’s of Saint Nicholas** in order to be inspired by his actions and the heart behind them. By continuing to take those actions and “pay it forward” for hundreds of years, Santa Claus has remained an incredible force for good across the world (darned if radar tracking can ever actually catch up to him).

Christmas is a time brimming with good cheer and expressions of gifts, especially to those who need them most (like people staying in mangers). While it’s roots do stem into a faith system, it’s not owned by just Christians anymore. It is owned by the world and people who celebrate it and who, for if only one day a year, choose to make the notions of peace on Earth and good will towards everyone the focus of their lives.

Regardless of religion, that’s how Christmas can affect the world, Charlie Brown.

• (this raises another important point, but I’ll blog on the topic of forming theological doctrine upon the teachings of Saturday morning cartoons another time)

**"Saint Nicholas." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 25 Dec 2009, 12:30 UTC. 25 Dec 2009 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Nicholas&oldid=333956756>.

Pretty in Pink vs Some Kind of Wonderful (round 1)

There are a lot of time honored debates in the universe.

Is Hobbes really alive or just a stuffed tiger? (alive)

Who’s a better captain, Kirk or Picard? (Picard - more entertaining might be another story...)

Should Molly Ringwald have dumped that spoiled rich kid and given Duckie a try in PRETTY IN PINK?

Well, the answer to that question was answered in the almost unheard of final teen¹ movie to come from John Hughes. A little film called SOME KIND OF WONDERFUL. (if you haven’t seen, stop now, GO, watch it, call me if you can’t find it and you can borrow my copy, go ahead, I’ll wait...)

So I would like to turn all of you (my faithful readership) onto this film, but first I would like to turn back the clock and look at why Pretty in Pink is by far the more popular film. It still is today, even by those who weren’t even born when it was released...

First off, inexplicably, Molly Ringwald and Andrew McCarthy were much bigger box office draws than Eric Stoltz and Lea Thompson (granted this was right after Howard the Duck!) The soundtrack absolutely rocked and OMD’s “If you Leave” got almost as much airplay as Lady Gaga does now (ALL of her songs combined!). It was more of a comedy (despite the fact that advertising billed it as “the laughter the lovers the friends the fights the talk the hurt the jalousy the passion the pressure the real world) , and that humor was what John Hughes had made the most of the eighties out of. That, and Molly was pretty much a John Hughes staple.

I would like to point out that Hughes did not direct either of these films, Howard Deutch did, but I’ll get to that later.

Ultimately though, it was the fact that Pretty in Pink is much more of a fairy tale (ala Cinderella) than it’s sibling film.

Let’s consider the original ending to PRETTY WOMAN. I worked for the producer of that film as a script-reader. His assistant producer was a beautiful and smart woman. When she told me she preferred the original ending to Pretty Woman to what was on the screen, I give her credibility.

The original ending to Pretty Woman went something along the lines of Richard Gere dumping Julia Roberts back off at her apartment complex in Hollywood, and throwing her money on top of her. She angrily grabs the dollars fluttering around her throwing it after him as he is driving off and screaming “you wouldn’t know what real love is if it bit you in the @$$!!” (which was true, his character really was pretty much incapable of trust or genuine feelings by this point in his spoiled rich life). She grabs up the bills, storms into her apartment, grabs her messed up roommate, throws her in the VW bug and the two of them leave hooking behind to start life anew (with their new found windfall to set them up) in Bakersfield.

The rest of Pretty Woman actually is leading towards this ending. The tacked on “climbing up the ladder despite my fear of heights” proof of his courage never rung true for me (perhaps because of the private jet he didn’t seem to have any problem looking out the window on). In any case, it’s a character plot point that was given lip service once (or twice) and then serves as the crux of the climax.

Thrillsville...

However the movie was a huge hit, and that was obviously the ending audiences wanted to see. Ironically, Julia Roberts would actually correct this when she starred in MY BEST FRIEND’S WEDDING, but then we did get to see the guy she lost hook up with CAMERON DIAZ, hardly a sad way to end the flick...

Pretty in Pink arrived at it’s happy ending much more satisfyingly, however it was an even more last minute decision than Pretty Woman was. The original ending to Pretty Woman was never shot. Pretty in Pink got all the way to test screenings, and it fell flat. Originally, Duckie and Andie to to the prom despite Blaine’s dumping of her and have a charming evening in front of their antagonists despite all the crud every one else in that school had dumped on them (note, she didn’t fall for Duckie, but recognized better a true friend than a two-faced boyfriend)

A few things contributed to the original ending falling flat:

1. Molly Ringwald didn’t have any chemistry for Jon Cryer. She had originally heard that Robert Downey Jr. was cast in the role and that’s why she took it (she would later rectify this with the PICK UP ARTIST...what movie is that do you ask? Good question, I don’t know either, I saw it and forgot it before I left the theater...)
2. The test audiences wanted to see Andie get with the “cute guy”, or, as I prefer to think of it, they wanted her to have the guy she really liked the whole movie and wanted something to go right for her. The fact that there is obviously a contingent that wasn’t as satisfied with this outcome is undeniable considering Cryer still has people stop him on the street telling him he got robbed! And it’s not just nerdy guys, at the People’s Choice Awards a couple of years ago when he and Charlie took awards for TWO and HALF MEN, a whole plethora of women in the front of the audience screamed at him “WE LOVE YOU DUCKIE!!!!”
3. John Hughes came up with a brilliant last minute save. He let Duckie be the one to encourage Andie to give Blaine another chance. Blaine was never overtly self-centered throughout the film, he was however, like his name suggests, rather BLAND (like an appliance). He had no real internal strength, it was that strength that attracted him to Andie in the first place. Standing up to James Spader’s character, and apologizing, AND being alone at the prom were actually as sincere a gesture as Blaine was capable of making, given what we knew of him, which wasn’t much, which is my big annoyance with the film, we just don’t anything about Blaine except he’s rich, cute and not as bad a jerk as James Spader, which is like saying a black widow isn’t as dangerous as a rattlesnake...as an audience member, I’m not sure he’s good enough for Andie based on those virtues, however it’s not about HIM it’s about ANDIE’s dream come true. By the way, James Spader was fabulously vile and supercilious in this film, a stellar debut to the big film leagues (not counting the New Kids).

It was enough, the audience bought it, and the isolated dark lighting in the mist (which was to conceal the hastily set up sound stage and Andrew McCarthy’s wig) were poignant enough to leave us awash in Andie’s little wrong side of the tracks world being just a little bit magical for a moment locked in time.

And Duckie got to dance off with KRISTY SWANSON (BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER the movie) The better end of the deal anyway IMHO. Duckie had to get something, because, let’s face it, 20+ years later we still love him. He had a tremendous amount of screen time in the film (far more than Blaine, who was merely an object of desire) and Duckie was pretty much the source of all the comedy in the movie, which is what people went to go see in a John Hughes film in the first place. I don’t know if the Duckie character was supposed to occupy so much of the film originally, but I think Jon Cryer’s performance is such a stand out in the movie (the record store dancing is a show stopper, you know you’re good when Jack Black apes on your schtick).

I think this off balance of traditional roles in a teen angst romance ultimately contributes to it’s memorableness. It’s a little off kilter, but not in a bad way. It’s that offbeat energy that saves it from being a by the numbers Cinderella-ish story.

Because if Blaine is bland, Andie is too rock solid (like the Andies mountains? I’m stretching here...I guess she could be sweet like the candy too) There is not a flaw in this girl. She is totally defined by the challenges she has in her very flawed life (mother left, dad’s a drunken depressed mess, her best friend / boss Annie Potts is 30 going on 13 and boy crazy and rather charmingly nutty at that, and she withstands the constant berating of the “richies”, the constant love him / hate him friendship with Duckie and gets good grades AND makes her own fashion style with handmade clothes from thrift stores

YAARRRGH! Could even kryptonite stop this kid? You get my point. Andie is perfect. She helps her dad to let go of her mom, and suffers so much through it by having to relive the hurt herself in the process. She ultimately let's Blaine (deservedly) have it, and it's Molly Ringwald's best moment in the film) By then you’re really cheering her on for that anger and sadness release. You pretty much think that what little she vents off is not nearly enough compared to her suffering. She’s way too forgiving, kind, patient....well you get my drift.

It’s a little difficult to connect with someone like that. We admire and feel sympathy for her, but I don’t know if I felt like I really could invest in her story as much as I wanted to. Maybe it has to do with being a guy, maybe it has to do with the fact that I still wonder WHAT did Andie see in Blaine? Apparently the same thing Molly saw in Andrew and the audience saw too...they were "cute".

Kind of reminds of the Little Mermaid

ARIEL: "Daddy, I love him!"

TRITON: "No it's too dangerous, they EAT us."

ARIEL: "Fine them I've going to sell my soul to the wicked witch of the sea, because he's cute! That's what upstanding bright young Princesses do!"2

I'm not saying Blaine is a bad guy, but after re-watching this AGAIN last night with my wife, I actually didn't see the two character's connecting. Mostly we see Blaine covering and apologizing for his family and friends. I certainly didn't see anything in Blaine that I thought would truly make him worthy or attractive to Andy by the end.

In fact most of the movie is a little two-dimensional, especially when stacked up against SOME KIND OF WONDERFUL...

...to be continued

¹A note, John Hughes hated, and rightfully so, the use of the word “teen” as if it were a genre. Why is a teen romance different than a romance? Aren’t teen-agers just people who happen to be aged in early double digits? (yes I realize this discussion is up for some debate but just go with it).

²Go read the actual Hans Christian Anderson story for a very very different girl, with much deeper motivations. A a VERY different ending, involving the Little Mermaid realizing she screwed up because the Prince was already engaged and the sea witch giving her a chance to get her mermaid form back by having to plunge a SILVER DAGGER INTO his chest while he's asleep in his wedding bed beside his bride. Ouch!

My Wedding Day...(cont from previous)

...Not just any parrot...but a wounded parrot. One I found lying on the sidewalk outside my home when I lived in Silicon Valley and was about to enter into the black hole of adolescence known as junior high school.

The poor thing couldn’t fly. I was doing some yard work for our elderly neighbors, and the lady called her granddaughter to see if she would come over (since she apparently was good with birds). Turns out she was also good with unicycles, which I saw as she rounded the corner on the sidewalk and I said hello to my first big case of puppy-love.

She was the lovable tom-boy type. Popular, strong, independent, cute. I was the nerdy, orbiter type (those of you who have read “the game” KNOW who I was). The “friend” who was always there through the next 6 or 7 years of my teen existence. I wasn’t quite as ridiculous or consistent as Ducky, but in the back of my mind she was usually there.

Our senior year I finally got the nerve to ask her out to the senior ball. One day too late as it turns out (and boy that night turn out to be a disaster for her). But a day before graduation, I got to hang out and we said those cool bittersweet things you say to good friends, including that she indeed WOULD have said yes to me to go the ball, and it would have been a much better time. I got a kiss on the cheek and floated all the way home.

Flash forward to summer between my sophomore and junior year of college. I’m home working and said crush’s grandmother sees me and calls her granddaughter to kind of get us back together. We see each other off and on for a few months...and by which I mean we have one great date and good time one week, and she totally stands me up the next week. A few days later she would show up at my work with an expensive gift and tears in her eyes apologizing.

Being the naive doofus I am (and not wanting to wake up from my dream come true after 8 years of longing) it took me a while to figure out she was seeing someone else. What I didn’t quite know (but suspected) was she was seeing another girl.

When she told me I was the only man that could possibly be for her, I didn’t realize quite how literal she was being. Oh the irony.

Now I was pretty crushed and confused. This challenged all the beliefs I had been taught at my Christian youth group. As if that wasn’t stunning enough for a college junior (who’s relationship experience still amounted to not much more than pining over the Go-Go’s) I had this bomb dropped on me.

She was going to get married to her girlfriend. Her family had completely turned her back on her. I was her longest friend. She wanted me to give her away at the wedding.

Gulp!

Keep in mind, this was 198errrr something or other. This was not legal, completely underground. It was a bonding ceremony, but it meant the world to her and was pretty much the same as a wedding to her. (aha there is that connection).

I wrestled greatly. No easy answers here. Most of Inter Varsity Christian Fellowship friends were dealing with things like needing a good grade to keep up a scholarship. Sheesh, not a lot of help to found there.

It wasn’t much of a battle really. I (with great trepidation) very strongly said I loved and would support my friend and be there for her when all others fled. I walked her down the aisle (again makes for great conversation with the guys during that first big wave of weddings that happens right after college...)

“I got to be a groomsman for a wedding.”

“Well huh, I’ve been a best man.”

“I’ve only ushered, how about you, Kent?”

“Uhhhh...uhhhh....how’s the surf today guys?”

At the ceremony she had a brief shining moment of happiness and a new start on life (the life in union itself would be whole story unto itself, but that is not to be told now, if ever).

After the ceremony I had a rain cloud over my head and some very empty, lonely, frustrated nights ahead of me. I started working out like a fiend. I would be so riled up I would take off up the coast on my bicycle at 11:00 o’clock at night just to clear the cobwebs. No amount of praying or talking with friends or counseling could do anything for my anger and frustration and confusion.

On Easter (a couple of months later) I took a bike ride crosstown from UCSB to Westmont College. A campus my high school youth group used to go to as a summer camp and home to many happy memories. It was there that I first finally fell across the little chapel that you see at the top of this blog entry.

I bet you were wondering what that had to do with anything, after sitting through two full essay sized web blogs...congratulations! You’re rewarded, it all really does mean something... It was almost burned down last fall in the Tea fire, hence the scorched earth around it...also symbolizes the firestorm of controversy that I was referring to. (Really! Go back and read the first sentence of the first part of this blog to see if I’m bluffing.) Anyway, back to the tale...

It was there that I entered alone and went to the front pew of an empty chapel and sat, bowed my head, and cried and vented and silently yelled at God. I don’t know how she got in without me hearing her, but when I lifted my eyes a lady was right next to me in a wheelchair. She only said...

“Isn’t Easter wonderful. It reminds us of how much God did for us.”

I felt so small in that moment that I could have crawled under a caterpillar with fallen arches.

That was it. My angst was over. Totally. My head got screwed on correctly and outside of a semi annual Easter pilgrimage back to that place (for meditation, rest and soul searching) that chapter in my life was completely healed and put away.

Fast forward a couple of decades (give or take a year). I take Joy (my lovely bride to be) to said same chapel on Easter Sunday...where for the first time in my life I invited someone else to pray with me in my sanctum sanctorium, my private of privates. A pretty big deal this is.

We both bow our heads and after a time we both look at each other. The air was totally still and silent. There was a presence there, not unlike the one I encountered so long ago. Tears were rolling down Joy’s face. I can’t quite describe it...but we both were told the same thing, the same words written on our hearts. Even my Christian friends kind of look at me strangely when I describe this one to them. They don’t understand.

But we (Joy and I) do. It’s a big plus towards the equation that has lead us to answer in the vows we’ll be reciting this Saturday. It’s spiritual, it’s emotional, it’s commitment, it’s communal, it’s sensual, it’s partnership, it’s challenges, it’s holy...

...and it’s what marriage means to us.

Define Marriage (alt title: Can 'O Worms)

(reprinted from my website May, 25, 2009)

Does it seem like a firestorm of controversy is surrounding the institution of marriage?

Tomorrow (Tuesday) the State Supreme Court of California (yes the close to bankrupt, snail paced, 2/3rd majority to approve a budget bureaucracy State) will pass a judgement that will uphold or overturn Prop 8 (California's 2nd voter mandated will to define marriage as being between a man and a woman the first was overturned by 4 judges as being unconstitutional) as being illegal and unconstitutional (to change the California Constitution). Dizzy yet?

Saturday...I will be walking down a sandy aisle myself, and the very nature of the institution I am buying into (and by the amount of fees and insurances this very same broke State is charging me I mean BUY) may be radically reconfigured one way or another when I get there.

Although, I can make one point I think everyone can agree on up front. I think marriage ought to be to “love, honor and cherish one another, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer, for better or worse til death do you part...” It’s amazing how many problems we seem to have just getting that part right... All the other stuff seems rather secondary don’t you think? And I’m not sure the legislature of the State of California (or any State or Nation on the planet) has ANYTHING to do with that definition...

The government is here to say what legal ramifications entering into the CONTRACT of marriage entails. That’s it. When you get down to it, our government doesn’t really have a say in the above definition of marriage. Do they care if two people are in love? There is some lip-service to it...but how the blazes do you enforce that? If California could find a way to ticket “apathetic” couples I’m sure they would. NO, our government simply handles the court cases and money connections associated with the customs...that’s pretty much it.

There is SO much more to marriage than that. Marriage carries a NUMBER of separate but intertwined meanings and definitions.

• Cultural - (ever go to India and see what their marriage traditions are like? If you want to take one in, better book a month and half off from work...) and cultures have traditions that mean things to people...even if they are outdated (ever see Fiddler on the Roof?) or nonsensical (why do we have a Groundhog Day???) but there are strong ties to a sense of identity and security and comfort in traditions. Groundhog Day doesn’t seem to harm anyone (unlike Weasel Stomping Day...) so we keep it going cause it’s fun and Bill Murray immortalized it...
• Religious - (yes there is a faith based component that has existed a LOT longer than the U.S. government),
• Legal - Your tax return status changes among other things (visiting rights, next of kin, extended family, etc...etc..)
• Emotional - Huh? Of course there is a LOT of emotion tied up with marriage. I’m not just talking about the aforementioned love, honor and cherish between two people who want to make a public declaration of their newfound identity as a twosome. There is a lot of emotion over the issue involved right now in simply stating that marriage validates people in the eyes of society. They are capable of love, of being loved, and in this particular time issue, of being equal members of society.

The problem is, an inherit need to be recognized and validated on an emotional level by those around you ISN’T a CIVIL RIGHTS issue. It’s a HUMAN issue. All humanity wants to be accepted and respected. No one (that I know) wants to be seen as inferior or second class.

But does the government law actually GIVE people respect and acceptance? It can make acts of discrimination illegal, but just as a piece of paper doesn’t mean two people will actually love and honor and cherish one another, nor will that same piece of paper validate the and equalize the oppressed minority.

Cultural attitudes will ultimately be the battlefield that is truely wanting to be won here. It’s why I think the popular vote IS the best way to decide the issue. The changing attitude of the population is what really needs to happen.

Back to the whole marriage issue, there is again a bunch of conflicting ideas of what marriage is. And it is true that there are some legal ramifications that amount to unequal treatment of a sub-set of the population at the current time.

However many, many, many people have other ideas of marriage outside of a civil rights issue* that their own good conscience and beliefs cannot allow sway on. however, I will speak primarily of religious and Judeo Christian in particular. I can’t really change the words of the Bible, and I don’t believe the government has the right to tell the church what the word marriage is going to mean.

HOWEVER, I don’t think the government has the right to determine the definition of marriage PERIOD!

The word marry and husband and wife should be stricken from every legal document across the land from sea to shining sea.

Instead, the government DOES have the authority to enact the legal ramifications of two people being joined in a CIVIL UNION and all the benefits / drawbacks that comes therewith.

All this wind and I may now sound like this is just a matter of semantics to me...but it’s not. Marriage means something...a LOT of things...to a LOT of people, and to the best of our country’s ability we should try to respect and abide by all, by getting out of the way entirely.*

A number of you may be wondering (or have already dismissed out of hand) the opinion of a never married, WASPy hetero, conservative(ish) person like myself as not having the life experience or perspective to speak on such an issue.

Believe me when I say I do have some personal experience with gay marriage...(no not what you think)...but I’m going to start a new blog entry to get into that....

I will say, it all began with a parrot...

* for the sake of brevity I will leave the issue of polygamy out of the arena.