Only problem was the weather – it rained most of the day, and was coming down cats and dogs when we arrived at the Heritage House in Hamstead Heath. Fortunately, the rain let up about an hour before the concert was scheduled to start. We picked up our picnic baskets and settled down – we had decent seats, sea-deck chairs that reclined, it made for a very relaxing event.

Our seats were good – only four rows back, a little to the left of the stage. While normally we would have wanted a more central view, it actually worked out for the better; the rain had made the central area a mud pit.

The concert was great! Jamie is a great musician, a fantastic singer, and an amazing showman. He’s got so much energy, and you can tell that he really loves his music. He uses the piano as a percussion instrument, all he needs are his vocal cords and a mic and he can sound like a bass, trombone, or jazz drummer. He really builds a rapport with the audience.

Here are some clips we took at the show – courtesy of our new iPhone:

High & Dry – a big favorite of the MBH.

Jamie jumps in to the crowd! We used this chance to really get in close,
and stayed near the stage, front and center, for the rest of the show.

Mixtape, one of our favorite songs

More Mixtape

Jamie ended the show with Wind Cries Mary. Unfortunately,
no encore because of noise regulations (concerts have to end by 10pm)

All in all, this was one of the best concerts I’ve been to. Slightly disappointing that the it was kind of short – Jamie was only on stage for a bit over an hour and a half, and he didn’t do a lot of songs I was hoping to hear. But the setlist was a great mix of old covers and new songs, and closing the concert with Mixtape and Wind Cries Mary was a great choice. Would have been a bit better if the weather had been warmer, but the seating was good and the music was great! We’re looking forward to another Jamie concert sometime soon.

There’s a new Sherlock in town.

Yes, perhaps the most well-known sleuth in history is on TV again, in BBC’s mini-series, Sherlock. The twist this time? They’ve taken Sherlock out of Victorian England and put him smack dab in modern times. Instead of using telegrams and candle lamps, this Sherlock uses cell phones, Google, and GPS.

It’s slick, hip, chic, and stylish – which usually makes me worried, because an overemphasis on style usually means there’s no substance. In Sherlock Holmes’ case, substance usually equals the interaction between Holmes and his trusty sidekick, Watson. And in this case, the miniseries has (so far) delivered.

The Holmes character, played by relatively unknown (outside of the UK) Benedict Cumberbatch, is extremely well done: he has brought some of the idiosyncrasies and flare for the dramatic that made Jeremy Brett’s Holmes the icon that it is. And the Watson character, played by Martin Freeman of The Office fame, is one of the best Watson roles to hit the screen: while not measuring up to Holmes in intellectual prowess he proves his worth with his physical fortitude and courage. Freeman clearly lost a lot of weight for the role, and he plays the ex-soldier role very well. One can only hope that this will help him be remembered for more than just The Office (even if there are times when one can imagine Tim Canterbury delivering some of the lines).

One would normally think that moving Holmes into 21^st Century London would force massive changes to Doyle’s original story line. Surprisingly, the first show last Sunday stayed very true (for the most part – more on that later) to Doyle’s original script, detailing how Watson and Holmes became flatmates. There were some tweaks – Holmes’ brother Mycroft was introduced (via somewhat devious fashion) very early on – but by and large many of the scenes (even dialogue) was left intact, usually with just a modern makeover. One point that stayed the same: In both versions, Watson is a former medical doctor wounded from fighting in Afghanistan. Only difference, of course, is that the modern Watson wasn’t fighting the Taliban. The modern difference? I suspect that Watson will end up narrating Holmes’ adventures on a blog, as prescribed to him by his therapist.

The camera work and editing is top-notch. The initial deduction scene in particular – where Holmes explains how he knew Watson was a former soldier, with an alcoholic brother – is Fight Club-esque. Equally clever was the idea to add in narrative text on the screen as Holmes examines the body of one of the victims. While not specifically needed – Holmes usually has to explain each item anyway to Watson and Lestrade – it gives the viewer a few minutes’ headstart, in a way. Clever.

One entirely modern twist is how the show handles same-sex couples. The new show even manages to make a slight joke at Doyle’s expense: In the very first Holmes story, Watson says he was wounded in the shoulder, yet Doyle writes several manuscripts later that Watson was wounded in the leg. This discrepancy crops up with Freeman’s Watson, who starts out the show with a psychosomatic leg injury (it eventually disappears altogether), but says near the end of the show that he was wounded in the shoulder.

The first show wasn’t perfect: The ending in particular left much to be desired. I can only surmise that the producers did not have the time in 90 minutes to flesh out the backstory that the original Doyle version requires. After 80 minutes of superb storytelling the ending thus came up a bit lame, not least of which because it wasn’t clear if Holmes had actually ‘solved’ the case or not. But this modern Holmes and Watson combination shows definite promise; we have three more weeks to see if they can deliver.

Since it’s World Cup time, we got this shirt for Adair. Shame England left the World Cup so early….

Actually, as you can see in the picture above, we got a high-chair for Adair this past weekend – kind of like a birthday present, since he turned 6 months old on July 4!

He loves the chair, but also spends a lot of time in his crib.

Adair and Windsor get along great. Windsor is surprisingly gentle. The only danger he presents to Adair is possibly licking him to death.

And here’s the MBH, Adair and Windsor!

“That foul was a bit cynical”

“They deserved to win”

“They’re really looking for the equalizer here”

“They’re showing great discipline”

“He’s picked up the foul, but it was a bit harsh from the referee I think”

1) A lot of people are going to point to the final score and say that the non-call on Lampard’s goal didn’t change the outcome of the game. I guess that is factually correct – England were horrible on defense the entire game, it seemed like every time the ball was near the England goal there were 2 or 3 white German shirts and nary a red shirt to be seen. That said – I think starting the second half all level at 2-2 is quite a bit different then starting out down a goal. Don’t know if it would have changed the outcome – after all, England had an entire half to pull level, so it wasn’t like they were pushing everyone forward for a goal, and they still got burned repeatedly. But it is an unfortunate blemish on the game that will detract from the awesome German performance.

2) Outcome of the game aside, FIFA should be absolutely embarrassed. Lampard hit an amazing shot that hit the top cross bar and bounced at least a foot inside the goal line. Everyone in the stadium, everyone on TV, saw it was a goal – everyone, apparently except the three officials on the pitch. In that respect, I have to give the German goal tender all the credit in the world for his acting performance – he had to have known the ball was behind him – yet he grabbed the ball and quickly threw it out to keep the ball in play. 

Either way, however:  FIFA should be ashamed. The World Cup is the highlight of their sport. It’s played only once every four years. Countries spend millions – nay, billions – of dollars getting teams through qualifying to play in the most prestigious tournament of any sport in the world – and you’re going to tell me they can’t even figure out how to keep score properly? Judgement calls are one thing – think holding calls in American Football, or balls/strikes in baseball. But American Football has it just about right – if it comes down to clear non-judgement calls (in-bound/out-of-bound, ball over the line for a touchdown or not?), a quick video replay removes all doubt. Plays (such as off-side/on-side) that result in goals should be reviewable. Whether the ball crossed the line or not should be reviewable. End of story. Make it happen.

And let me just say – people that complain that video replay would ‘slow down the game’ have obviously never seen a real soccer game. The game slows to a crawl every time a player flops dives  succumbs to the inevitable pull of gravity at the slightest of nudges as the other team prepares for a free kick. I’ve seen marching bands get in formation faster.

3) After thinking that I was getting used to the vuvuzela, for the first time this World Cup I heard the England fans singing…and it made me realize that I really miss the songs and chants at the World Cup. I am already looking forward to 2014 in Brazil….

I wonder what this means for soccer in the US. Truth be told the US never really looked that strong. It needed a gift goal to draw with a sub-par England team, and they played a horrible first half vs Slovania. They played a good second half vs Slovania and better vs Ghana in the second half, but they did not come close to playing a full 90 minutes. That is the major difference between a team that can luckbox its way in to the second round, and a team that actually represents a real threat to go deep in the World Cup.

Donovan is the heart and sole of this US team. He’s 28, and even if he is playing in the next World Cup, he will most certainly not be the core of the team. Put it another way – if he remains the best player on the team, the US may not even qualify in four years. Dempsy is 27, he may or may not be around. Tim Howard is one of the best goaltenders in the world, but he’s 31. He might not be around in four years. The US are going to have to pull in new blood if they want to do better in Brazil in 2014.

1) I have three teams to pull for in the Round of 16: US, Japan, England. Of the three, the US should have the (relatively) easiest route to the semi-finals: Ghana, then winner of Uruguay/South Korea. Japan has a tough – but winnable match vs Paraguay, then likely Brazil in the quarters. That’s still better than England, which must face Germany, then the winner of Argentina/Mexico. Although I suppose this is a great chance for England to exorcise the demons of World Cups past….

2) Great to see Japan and South Korea do well in the World Cup outside of Asia….and, perhaps most importantly, with managers from their home companies (ditto the US as well, for that matter). Really gives a great boost to the country’s confidence when it can win with a home-built infrastructure. One wonders if the UK would be better off going with a home-grown manager?

3) I hope the US-Ghana match doesn’t come down to a bad call against the US. Between the horrible call in the US-Slovania match which cost the US a win, and the bad off-side call against Algeria which could have cost the US a spot in the knock-out round, officiating has not been great in this World Cup, and the US has been on the bad end of a couple of horrible calls. The very subjective officiating is very much a ‘soccer’ thing, and very alien to US sports fans, where things are much more black and white. One more bad call going against the US could really sour US fans off the sport.

4) Argentina has looked really, really good. Germany has looked solid, but not world-beaters. Brazil has looked decent at times, but not scary good. Spain’s ‘ticcy-tac’ is easy on the eyes, but they also have enough solid finishers to be a major danger. I still stick with Spain as my Champions, beating Brazil in the final. Argentina is my dark horse (although can you call a team with Messi a dark horse?)

5) The scoreless tie vs Algeria really hurts England – they now have to go through Germany, probably Argentina, probably Spain, then probably Brazil. That’s a real murder’s row. Let me put it this way – if they win the Cup, they will have really, really earned it. I have a funny feeling they’ll get through Germany, but I wonder if the moment won’t be so big for England that they’ll have a let-down in the quarters.

6) I think Japan will beat Paraguay – probably off some set pieces - and will likely go down in game fashion vs Brazil. Although it might all be wishful thinking.

7) Finally – the incessant drone of the vuvuzelas has sort of blended into the background. Not like it wasn’t still annoying as all hell, but at least it wasn’t making me want to stick a chopstick in my ear and stir…

So let’s see: Japan’s public debt is careening towards 200% of GDP. The country has gone through 3 prime ministers in less than 3 years, the country remains in the grips of deflation, its population is aging, it has no immigration policy to ensure its national health insurance stays solvent, workers haven’t had any real income growth in close to 10 years…but have no fear! The People’s New Party head, Kamei, knows what the real priorities are: preventing foreigners from voting, and making sure women use their husband’s surname after marraige.

Interesting to note that husbands and wives using different surnames is ruining the Japanese family…..especially because for Japanese marrying non-Japanese (who don’t have registars in Japan), trying to use the same name after marriage is a bit of a hassle. I guess they don’t really count…

I don’t think Kamei is blaming foreigners’ right to vote as the reason behind Japan’s problems – in fact, he 100% can not be – since foreigners in Japan have zero right to vote.

Japan is hardly the only country to not allow foreigners to vote. It’s not allowed in the US at the national or state level (as far as I know), although it is allowed at the local level in some states. The difference for the US, of course, is that foreigners in the US are – by definition – people born outside the country (i.e., they have a home to return to if they really disagree with the politics of the US. Obviously this grossly over-simplifies the situation, but you get the point). The largest group of foreigners in Japan, however, is Koreans – born and raised in Japan – but without Japanese citizenship or voting rights. It’s an extremely thorny issue, and it certainly deserves debate. At least at the local level, if I’m paying taxes and my kids go to the local school, shouldn’t I have a right to representation in how my tax dollars are used? If I’m paying into the national health system, shouldn’t I have a say in how it’s managed? Are there really enough foreigners in Japan to sway national policy (in California – maybe! In Japan – very doubtful). I think giving limited voting rights at the local level would make it easier for foreigners in Japan to be involved in society – and as I’ve said repeatedly before, I think immigration is absolutely necessary to offset the low birth rate / aging population problem it faces.

That said, I can understand the other side as well. Should someone who’s only been here six months have the same say as someone that’s lived here all their lives? Probably not – by and large, in the US local voting rights are given only after a number of years of living in the area. That seems reasonable.

No denying that this is a topic worthy of debate. BUT – the issue I have with Kamei is that – in the face of all of Japan’s problems, he thinks the answer is to run primarily on such a platform. Surely there is a more responsible way to have this debate without resorting to open bigotry. It’s this kind of bait-and-switch approach with the real important issues that conservatives in the US are using – and if Kamei were smart, he’d realize that it hasn’t really worked for them (see Gingrich, Newt etc)

Wow.

He spends 4 years telling everybody he’s innocent, blames everybody – the media, the French, doping officials – for making him a pariah in his sport…so now his course of action is some lame attempt at making himself feel better by throwing his entire sport under the bus? Including all the people that stood by him?

What a complete tool. If he really wanted to ‘come clean’ he would have confessed to his actions. Trashing others – with no actual, you know, evidence – reeks of the kind of selfish behaviour that someone on the verge of self-destruction resorts to when they realize they’re ruined, and they have no one else to blame. By ‘naming names’ he’s trying to create a justification for his cheating – ‘see, everyone else was doing it’.

Shameless, gutless, honorless. On top of that, I’m disappointed because now we’ll have to listen to a month of ‘when is Lance going to get caught’ stories during the upcoming Tour de France, instead of focusing on the actual race.