Slate's Today's Papers column from today contains several classics:

All of the papers allow the politicians to dominate the debate over the stimulus, with the NYT and WP (which is not a fan of the package) featuring House Minority Leader John Boehner's predictable criticism. "We cannot borrow and spend our way back to prosperity," he said (for the first time in eight years).

and

The WP reports that al-Qaida is peeved at Barack Obama. With polls showing the new president popular in the Muslim world, the terrorist group has resorted to hurling insults at him, even when they make no sense. The Post notes, "He was even blamed for the Israeli military assault on Gaza, which began and ended before he took office."

and

The NYT fronts a profile of Rahm Emanuel, the new White House chief of staff who, officials say, has calmed considerably. Ray Lahood, the new transportation secretary, says Emanuel has increasingly taken on the demeanor of his boss, whom he still teases...like when he told one congressman that he was too busy to talk and handed his phone to Obama.

and finally

The NYT Magazine's cover story tackles the age-old question: "What do women want?" But after 7,372 words and numerous clinical references to genital arousal, the answer is still frustratingly unclear. TP imagines that a similar article on what men want would be significantly shorter.

Tonight we watched Fireproof (2008,PG) (ScreenIt! Review).  From ScreenIt!:

A firefighter begins an experimental, 40-day program to try to save his marriage.

Last weekend small groups at our church started the associated 6-week study.  We missed the screening of the film because we were in D.C., so we caught up tonight.

Let me first say that Christian multimedia has come a long way.  That doesn't mean this was a masterpiece, but it was decent.  It reminded me more of a TV movie than one for the theaters, but that's OK.  I thought it was strongest in it's dead-pan, humorous bits.  Caleb's dad's description of God's holiness was somehow particularly effective too.  With divorce as prevalent as it is, this is obviously a worthwhile subject.  We thought it was a little funny that the task of salvaging the marriage appeared to be entirely on Caleb's shoulders.  I also thought it was a bit strange that Caleb seemed to have so many positive influences while Catherine apparently had none (until the white-haired lady got all up in her business).  The black female characters were a bit too one dimensional ("Uh huhhhh! Oh no he dit-unt!"), but at least Caleb's pal at work, Michael, was strong.

I give it 4 out of 5 for effort.

For family movie night this week we watched Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves (1997,PG) (ScreenIt! Review).  From ScreenIt!:

Two sets of parents are accidentally shrunk to miniature sizes and watch as their kids have a party.

This one, of course, doesn't take any unexpected turns...but it's enjoyable enough.  Lisa was shocked when I told her it was from 1997.  It seems like an earlier vintage.  Or maybe we're getting old.

I give it 3 out of 5.

Yesterday I finished listening to The Pillars of the Earth.  Lisa is in a book club, and Pillars is this month's selection.  It's a very long book, so we decided get it from Audible (40 hours unabridged) and listen to it in the van (while the kids watch DVDs) during our road trips over the holidays and for the inauguration.

From Wikipedia:

The Pillars of the Earth is a historical novel by Ken Follett published in 1989 about the building of a cathedral in Kingsbridge, England. It is set in the middle of the 12th century, primarily during the time known as The Anarchy, between the time of the sinking of the White Ship and the murder of Thomas Becket.

The book traces the development of Gothic Architecture out of the preceding Romanesque Architecture and the fortunes of the Kingsbridge priory against the backdrop of actual historical events of the time. Although Kingsbridge is the name of an actual English town, the Kingsbridge in the novel is actually a fictional location representative of a typical market town of the time.

I enjoyed it, but 40 hours of listening is a long book!  I get the impression that we didn't enjoy it as much as others we've talked to about it.  By the end, Lisa and I were both ready for it to be over.  I think we're also both in agreement that the sexual content of the book was one of its weakest aspects.  It's not like we're prudes when it comes to sex in art and movies, but in this book it was...I'm not sure what the right word is...melodramatic, cheesy, overwrought, lame...something like that.  I wonder if we experienced it differently because we listened instead of reading on paper.