Friday, November 06, 2009
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Halloween 2: The Disastering
The plan last Sunday morning was to get up early-ish so we could hit the first (i.e., cheap) showing of "Inglorious Basterds". I'd looked up the movie's start times on Fandango.com and I will swear to my dying day that it said the film started at 10:00 a.m. We drove out to the theater in Rockaway and it pretty much all went downhill from there.
"Inglorious Basterds" did not, in fact, begin until 11:35 - a full 90+ minutes after the time Fandango had indicated the day before (which got me thinking that maybe the Sunday times are different than the Saturday times, since I'd looked the info up the night before ... I got to thinking about this too late, obviously). We really didn't want to wait, because the movie itself is about two and a half hours long and we had other errands we wanted to check off our list. We'd anticipated getting out at about 1:00, and now we'd be pushing 2:30 or later, depending on how many trailers we'd be forced to endure.
We had also wanted to check out "Halloween 2", but wanted to see "Inglorious Basterds" more. "Halloween 2" started at 10:05, though, so we decided to see Michael Myers kill a bunch of teenagers instead of hanging out to see to see Brad Pitt killing a bunch of Nazis. (Just so you know, we're not sociopaths - the week before, we'd gone to see "(500) Days of Summer", which was very good and not a single person died, thank you very much.)
I'd liked roughly the first two-thirds of Rob Zombie's "Halloween" re-make a couple of years ago. I thought it fell apart toward the end when he started re-hashing John Carpenter's story (Michael Myers trying to kill Laurie Strode), but liked the whole new backstory he'd created along the way, showing us an "origin" story rather than just a simple slasher flick. I also liked "The Devil's Rejects", though it was a very, very difficult movie to watch. Very violent, very gruesome. Something about it clicked, though, and while I certainly wouldn't recommend it to just anyone, I'd give it a thumbs up overall.
And I'm no prude when it comes to graphic content. I've seen zombies tear people apart whole ("Dawn of the Dead"). I've seen fountains of spouting blood ("Kill Bill"). I've seen compound fractures ("The Descent") and dental torture ("Old Boy"). I've seen unimaginable horrors I wouldn't want to repeat, because they're too repulsive to describe (Rob Schneider in "Deuce Bigalow, European Gigolo").
Pretty much, I'm up for everything and anything.
About fifteen minutes into "Halloween 2", Nicole and I got up and left the theater leaving the other four people there to wonder why were were taking off so soon.
Nicole was visibly ill from what she'd seen and heard, and even I was uncomfortable in my seat.
The movie opens with an interpretation of what a white horse means in one's dreams, and there's a flashback to young Michael Myers being visited by his mother in the mental hospital. These are the best parts of what we saw. (The story was so shocking, I will now swap verb tenses. The horror!)
Also, if you don't like reading about really, really nasty stuff (or if you just don't want to read potential spoilers) you might want to skip the next two paragraphs. Seriously.
Soon, we flash back immediately to where the last film ended. Laurie Strode, bloody and battered, shambles down a road with a gun in her hand until the police find her. She's convinced that she's killed Myers, but can barely speak and is clearly suffering from physical and mental overload and shock. She, her friend Annie, and Dr. Loomis are all taken to hospitals. The body of Michael Myers, who is presumed to be dead and weighs so much that six EMTs have to load his body into an ambulance, is also packed up and shipped off.
The ambulance driver and his co-worker proceed to use the f-word at every opportunity and have a disgusting conversation about necrophilia. Of course, the situation goes to hell, and Myers escapes decapitates the ambulance driver (who has been pleading for help, blood gushing from his mouth) with a large shard of broken glass. Next thing you know, he's at the hospital where Laurie Strode has been stitched up and resting. Too bad Zombie didn't spend more time focusing on the "resting" part, because he sure spent enough time focusing on the "stitched up" part. We are shown Strode's hands, with skin peeling off of the fingers that she has remaining. We are shown her emergency surgery. Stitches, broken teeth, giant meaty gashes ... nothing is left to the imagination. Despite all of this, Strode wakes up later that night and stumbles down the hall to find a nurse because she wants to check on her friend, Annie. Surprise surprise! This is pretty much exactly when the giant killer shows up. The nurse on duty comes around the corner, a giant slash down the middle of her face, through her lips, with blood pouring down the front of her uniform. Myers follows, and brutally and repeatedly stabs the woman with his giant knife.
I don't remember the exact context of the situation, but I recall years ago having a conversation with my friend JD about a news article we'd read about a real-life murder victim who'd been stabbed 30+ times. "At what point," JD wondered, "does it stop being stabbing and start being stirring?" This is how I felt about "Halloween 2".
Not only was the absolutely brutal, unrelenting violence portrayed visually, the sound mix was completely over the top. Every sickening slicing, squishing, and squirting sound you can think of was amped up to top volume, like someone was pouring gallon after gallon of pulpy tomato sauce on the ground next to you.
Anyway, this is when we got up and left. Nicole was a little wobbly from the experience and was willing to wait for me in the lobby, but I wasn't going to make her wait another hour-plus for me when she obviously wasn't feeling well, and at that point, I'd pretty much given up any hope that the movie could be redeemed besides.
If violence has a point in a movie, I can usually live with it. This was something else entirely. Just 15 minutes or so in, I no longer cared what was going to happen. I didn't care about the characters, I didn't care if the story found closure, and I didn't care that our morning plans were ruined. I didn't even care that Rob Zombie, who I believe to be smarter and more talented than he showed with this exhibition, had let me down. I just wanted to stop feeling like I was being assaulted by the film. I just wanted to leave.
I proposed going into one of the other 15 theaters to see something else instead, since we'd already bought tickets for a movie we weren't going to watch, but Nicole was on the green side, and the only movie about to start was "G-Force". So we bailed. Fortunately, the woman working the ticket counter was able to refund both of our tickets because we were leaving so early. "I don't like these kinds of movies", she said to us. "They're no good."
Got that right.
A couple of weeks ago I watched the Kevin Smith comedy "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" via Netflix. It's certainly not a great movie, and I didn't need to see Seth Rogan's naked ass or Jay Mewes' naked EVERYTHING. There were some boobs thrown in for good measure. There were all sorts of synonyms and euphemism for various sexual acts and body parts during clearly humorous conversations. Nobody died. There wasn't a drop of blood to be found. And in the end, there was a happy ending. (Not that kind, either.)
Before it was released to the theaters, "Zack and Miri" was slapped with an X-rating and had to undergo many cuts to earn an R. TV and print ads wouldn't use the film's full name.
How there was so much attention paid to that movie yet "Halloween 2" slid by with an R is beyond me. The violence in just the first 15 minutes of H2 should have earned it an X-rating, or an NC-17 ... hell, given our reaction to it, NC-35 might have been too lenient.
It's frustrating to me that such varying standards of what is allowed and what isn't exist in the eyes of the MPAA. Apparently, if you show the body you're born with, that's a horrible thing that nobody should be allowed to see, but if you chop all of those parts off, you can do it on-screen in whatever revolting, graphic, bloody way you want. Not that I want every movie to feature sexual situations just because they can, of course - it's just that I wish filmmakers would also realize that they don't need to pile on the violence just because they can, either.
I wonder about the DVD release of this film. I'm sure the studio will release an "Uncut Director's Special Edition" at some point, but given what we saw, what the hell could Zombie have left out? I would think it impossible to be even more violent, but I'm sure I'd be wrong.
So there's our horrible experience at the movies, which might have been prevented (or, at the very least delayed) had Fandango given us the correct film times.
Thank you, internet!
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Another entry about Universal Health Care
While I appreciate President Obama's desire to include Republicans in the health care reform process, I've long passed the point of expecting them (the Republicans) to bring anything constructive to the conversation.
If Obama were to step outside the White House and say it's a beautiful sunny day, a dozen morons would be on Fox News within hours claiming that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that the sun is too hot, and that the use of trees for free, relaxing shade is a socialist plot anyway. As long as rich white people have air conditioners and everyone else can't afford them ...
But anyway, the point is, those who seem to be most vocal (ie, screamin' blue crazy) about the issue are the ones who:
1. Probably aren't relying on their insurance right now for major health issues, or
2. Are rich or employed by insurance groups who are using scare tactics to get those in #1 to support them. (Obama's going to kill you. It's true! He's hiding under the bed, and the call is coming from inside the house!)
President Obama has stated, quite clearly, that those who like their current insurance plans and doctors can keep them. Even more emphatically, he's tried to explain (with little success so far, as so many seem to have stuck their fingers in their ears, shouting "lalalalala!" to block out his words) that there is not/has never been/will never be a government "death panel" that will decide who gets coverage and treatment. (If anything, the insurance companies so fiercely opposed to the current reform considerations should embrace government-run death panels - what better way to convince people to stay with their current, private insurance rather than adopt a public, government-sponsored option? I can see the advertisements now: "100% Death Panel Free!", "Our co-payments and cost of medications may be ridiculous, but at least you'll be around to pay them!", "An arm and a leg? Doesn't sound like such a bad deal now, does it?")
In fact, Obama has stated an awful lot of things quite clearly about what kind of legislation he's looking for. The "trillion dollar" cost that's been decried was explained very well at one of his town hall events in New Hampshire a couple of weeks ago - that cost is spread out over ten years (it's not a one-time, immediate expenditure) , and part of it is paid for by canceling uncompetitive, wasteful contracts currently in place. In the President's own words (complete transcript here):
About two-thirds of those costs we can cover by eliminating the inefficiencies that I already mentioned. So I already talked about $177 billion worth of subsidies to the insurance companies. Let's take that money, let's put it in the kitty. There's about $500 billion to $600 billion over 10 years that can be saved without cutting benefits for people who are currently receiving Medicare, actually making the system more efficient over time. (Jim's note: read the entire transcript for more on this.)
That does still leave, though, anywhere from $300 billion to $400 billion over 10 years, or $30 billion to $40 billion a year. That does have to be paid for, and we will need new sources of revenue to pay for it. And I've made a proposal that would -- I want to just be very clear -- the proposal, my preferred approach to this would have been to take people like myself who make more than $250,000 a year, and limit the itemized deductions that we can take to the same level as middle-class folks can take them.
So yes ... taxes will go up. For those making $250K+. Those making under that amount pay no more in taxes. Which is what, exactly? Oh, yeah ... fulfilling his campaign promise. You know, the one that helped get him elected by people like me who voted for him for a reason?
A quick sidebar on taxes and new programs: no, they aren't all perfect. Some criticisms about the "cash for clunkers" program are very valid. The offer should have been for American car purchases only, for instance. The ball was dropped on that one, I'll be the first to admit. But as far as the argument that "we pay enough taxes already and I don't want my money to pay for someone else's insurance" is BS. As of now, Obama has stated that he wants to return to Clinton-era tax rates - you remember Bill Clinton, right? The guy who created a budget surplus and led us into a period of peace and prosperity in the 90s? But back to the point: the government is always going to use your tax money to fund programs that you'll disagree with. It's just the way things are. Unfortunately, we don't get to choose where or how our money is spent. I don't have any kids, but my tax dollars have been used to pay for public schools. While I lived in Boston, and then for a while in Portland, I didn't own a car - but my tax dollars funded upkeep and repair of roads and highways, walk signs, and red lights. Though I didn't get a direct benefit from these services, I certainly didn't complain that my tax contributions were being spent on them. And if I did have a choice on how my money would be spent, it certainly wouldn't have been allocated to pay for the war in Iraq. Anyway.
The problem, of course, is that those who oppose Obama (and it isn't so much his plans that they oppose, it's Obama himself; Mitt Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, led an effort to require health insurance for every resident of the state, but since he's a Republican that's apparently not socialism) so vehemently will never listen to him and believe what he's saying - which I can sort of understand, given that I didn't believe any of the bullshit from the Bush/Cheney years. But at least there was legitimate proof that Bush and Cheney were lying bastards; Obama hasn't done anything remotely similar in his few months in office so far. For instance: Bush said there was no domestic spying, and that there were WMDs in Iraq. Cheney even said he knew where they were. There's ample evidence at this point that illegal, warrant-less domestic spying took place; the WMD thing is subject to the argument that the weapons were all moved out of the country, which is possible, but the fact of the matter is that the stockpiles that the previous administration assured us were an imminent threat to the world have not been found and may not have actually existed. Two demonstrably false statements with major implications, right there. Meanwhile, there is not a single shred of evidence that "Barack Obama is going to kill your grandparents!" (Unlike Sarah Palin, who's apparently had a hand in just that sort of thing, intentional or otherwise.)
And if the anti-reform protesters aren't of their opinions because they intrinsically don't trust politicians, I'd venture to guess it's because they're ill-informed, paranoid, or bitter that their party lost during the last election cycle.
I should clarify and state that I'm referring to the crazies who show up to town hall meetings with guns, who shout down their elected representatives instead of trying to engage them like civil human beings, or who insist that Obama is, somehow, a Nazi. Only in today's Glen Beck-inspired Bizarro America is wanting to help preserve the health of 42 million people the equivalent of attempting to exterminate an entire religion's followers. It is absolutely possible to disagree with the President's plan, or to feel that Universal Health Care is a poor idea, and not come across as a raving lunatic or violent asshole. While I strongly disagree with many of their viewpoints on the health issue, I can at least respect that they're trying to maintain some level of class and decorum. I still hold out hope that the majority of Republicans and conservatives silently fall into this category, actually. I have no reason to doubt that they do.
The ones who are agitated enough by and then parrot what they see on certain 24-hour news networks and read on slanted blogs and websites, though ... hoo, boy. A few scant hours had passed following my last post warning that violence seemed imminent when a couple of scuffles broke out nationwide. I'm not exactly optimistic that we've seen the worst of it all at this point, either, though I hope I'm wrong. I mean, geez Louise, people are bringing loaded firearms to these events now. WTF?
My feelings about the whole circus echo many of the ones that others have already stated very eloquently:
1. That bringing firearms to town hall rallies has nothing to do with the health care issue itself. (Uh, derrr!)
Also, starting at about 2:35 of this clip from The Daily Show, you'll be reminded of how much hoopla there was when anti-Bush protesters were thrown out of various rallies for simply wearing anti-Bush t-shirts. Guns outside venues where President Obama is speaking? That's PATRIOTISM, apparently.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| The Gun Show - Barrel Fever | ||||
| ||||
2. That Republicans are bringing no viable alternatives to the discussion despite their alleged desire to be part of the process.
(Chris Matthews shows an unexpected flash of spine, especially at about 1:50 - this whole clip is really solid, though.)
"Here's my problem with you guys. The conservatives talk reasonably when the Democrats get in power and say 'well, we've got an alternative that's more free-market, it's less onerous, it's less big-shot, big-government stuff...' but when you guys are in power, you don't do anything on health care. And that's what happens, and that's why for, god, almost a century of foot-dragging on this, the Democrats get in power, whether it's Truman or it's Bill Clinton, or it's Hillary Clinton, or it's Barack Obama, they try something and it fails, because you guys are good at playing negative politics. You're really good at destroying Democrats plans, chances for reform..."
3. And that you don't mess with Barney Frank (Give 'em hell, Barney!):
**************
So, all of that having been said, are my own opinions regarding why I support Universal Health Care (or socialized medicine, or whatever you want to call it).
1. In my opinion, health care is a basic human right, not a privilege. That's a personal moral statement, and the least politically defensible one I can make. As such, I find it distasteful (at best) that health care is treated as a profitable commodity rather than a basic human decency.
Now, I realize it's impossible to completely dissolve the current system, which is slanted to heavily favor the bottom lines of insurance companies' financial books and which has its hooks deeply into the world of political lobbying. The thought of a single-payer system, in which everyone has access to the exact same medical plans via the exact same medical coverage, is a nice one, but it's a fantasy. It'll never happen, so we have to think in terms of what is possible. And what is possible is a public option.
2. A public insurance option would provide an affordable insurance choice, for example, to those facing a lack of comprehensive insurance coverage from their current employers. Some employers will cover vision, for example, but not dental - or vice versa. Imagine you've got two or three kids in grammar or high school ... ok kids, your choice: healthy teeth, or the ability to see clearly. One or the other! A public option could help solve issues like this.
Or, say you're currently unemployed (a problem facing almost 10% of the American workforce these days). Vision? Dental? Nope, nope. In fact, you might as well just lock yourself inside and not move around at all, because you're not covered for anything. You take the bus or subway one day to a job interview and touch a pole to hang on so you don't fall over, then you rub your eyes. Better hope you get the job, and that you don't get pinkeye! Cha-ching!
Or maybe you have what looks like decent insurance, but there are so many exclusions and deductibles that you're still kinda screwed anyway.
3. The "death squad" thing again: all this anxiety about the government telling you that you can't get care, yet insurance companies are already constantly rejecting claims on the basis of pre-existing conditions, or policy limits on the amount of coverage one can receive. "Well, Mr. Smith, I hate to give you the bad news, but you're not covered. Nobody told you to get cancer! You should have thought of that before you had to spend $10K per month for medications!"
Tell me this doesn't horrify you. It should. People should not have to choose to forgo care because the cost is so extreme.
Whatever happened to President Bush's "compassionate conservativism"? A myth from day one.
Believe it or not, I'm all for a free market, and I'm pro-capitalism, but come on now ... aren't we supposed to "love thy neighbor", or is that just convenient religious conservative lip-service? Haven't Republicans been telling us forever that "all life is sacred"? Apparently not, if you're poor. If you can't afford it, please step aside, because Mr. Limbaugh needs his pain pills and he can pay out of pocket.
4. And again, if you like your current plan, as President Obama has repeatedly stated, you can keep it. You don't have to be part of the public plan! Just smile, be happy, and let everyone else worry about themselves while you worry about yourself. Speaking of poking your nose into other people's business ...
5. I love the argument that "health care should be solely between the patient and the doctor." Actually, I completely agree with that, one hundred percent. What I really love is the hypocrisy. Like the Terry Schiavo case, for instance, in which
President Bush returned to Washington D.C. from a vacation to sign legislation designed to keep Schiavo alive, making the case a major national news story throughout that month. In all, the Schiavo case involved 14 appeals and numerous motions, petitions, and hearings in the Florida courts; five suits in federal district court; Florida legislation struck down by the Supreme Court of Florida; a subpoena by a congressional committee to qualify Schiavo for witness protection; federal legislation (the Palm Sunday Compromise); and four denials of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States.
Yup, patient and doctor, strictly adhering to the grand conservative plan. Well played, guys! Nice job!
6. Public option coverage should only cover legitimate medical issues. Plastic surgery, for instance, should absolutely not be covered.
Likewise, I don't think a public option should cover abortion procedures unless the life of the mother is explicitly in danger. I say this despite my pro-choice stance. It's an issue that will be a deal-killer in congress if it's included, no doubt. I wouldn't want to risk the wide-reaching benefit of what Universal Health Care has to offer for this one single issue.
Besides, abortion is not the only option for an unwilling parent-to-be. Adoption, counseling ... there are other ways to handle unexpected or unwanted pregnancies.
I do, however, feel that abortion should be available to those who are willing to handle the procedure outside the realm of a public health care insurance option. I just don't support coverage by a public plan. Safe, legal procedures should remain available on an out-of-pocket basis.
7. Universal health care could save loads of cash for patients that could be used in the private sector for purchasing goods (food, cars, homes, clothes, whatever).
Say you wake up one morning with a nasty headache or some dizzy spells. Next morning, same thing. Maybe it goes away for a bit but comes back with a vengeance, but you don't want to risk getting plugged with an expensive bill for a doctor's visit, blood tests, maybe an MRI or some x-rays because you're currently unemployed. Who knows. So you skip going to see a doctor hoping it goes away, and that you can keep your $350 so you can pay your rent next month.
But the pain doesn't go away and eventually gets worse. On the plus side, you've managed to land a new job and now have insurance, so a couple of months after the pain started you bite the bullet, go to the doctor, and find out you have a brain tumor, and the cost to you will be, oh, let's say in the ballpark of $200,000.
But hey, it's a free market, right? The insurance company is just making an honest buck, and as the condition was pre-existing since you were showing symptoms prior to your current coverage from your new employers, why should little ol' you be covered when the company only made a profit last year in the tens rather than hundreds of millions of dollars?
Or how about if everyone could simply show up at their doctors' offices to get free flu shots? In the big picture, doesn't it make more sense for everyone to be vaccinated for free rather than for the economy to take a hit due to an overwhelming number of man-hours lost to sick time?
Doesn't it make sense to make prevention a priority rather than concentrating on curing a sickness once it's already set in? An ounce of prevention vs. the pound of cure? Anyone?
(The same argument has raged between liberals and conservatives for ... well, forever, I'd guess, regarding law enforcement. Liberals think providing social program options like after-school, or gang-prevention, or prison eduction programs are worth more because you'll nip potential societal issues at the bud, whereas conservatives would rather just wait until something bad happens and throw everyone in jail after the fact. News flash: that plan isn't working. The jails are overcrowded, and the prisoners being released at the end of their sentences are often not ready to rejoin the workforce. So they commit more crimes and end up back in jail. And the cycle continues, unending. But I digress ... that's another issue.)
************************************************************
So there you go. I hope that was all somewhat coherent.
I would like to think that Republicans would realize that they are no longer in control of the White House and Congress, and that it's for a reason: more people liked what the Democrats were bringing to the table, imperfect as that may be. You had your turn, you screwed it up. Now, unless you can come up with a better, viable alternative, please step aside and let the Obama administration have a chance to try to fulfill it's potential. If anything, despite Mitt Romney's complete about-face on the issue and criticisms about Obama's direction, Obama has already ceded too much to the Republicans and hasn't been liberal enough in pressing his plan.
I would hope it doesn't come to this, but the "signing statement" option, odious as it is, could be how this all gets decided - which is a total kick in the pants, given the President's stated desire for bipartisanship. Given the Republicans' desire, apparently, to take their ball and go home, Obama's hand might be forced. But Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and (most frequently) Bush II all used signing statements, so - in theory - the Sean Hannitys of the world should have no problem if Obama chooses this route. Hannity couldn't possibly be so two-faced that he'd be against a strategy that George W. Bush used so often simply because his successor uses it to, right? Right?
I'm not naive enough to think that I have the answer for every aspect of this problem. I'm certainly not confident that any adopted reform won't face unexpected hurdles along the way. Will there be waste and corruption? Undoubtedly there will be some. New policy tends to bring out the worst forms of mismanagement and make-a-buck scam artists one can imagine. But it wouldn't be the first time (post-Katrina FEMA trailers, anyone?), and it won't be the last. I hate to resign myself to it, but it's just the way it is. And the Democrats and Republicans will blame each other. And the sun will rise in the East and set in the West.
But if that too-hot sun on a beautiful day should cause you anything from a minor burn to severe skin cancer, wouldn't it be nice to know that your health plan isn't going to kill you if the symptoms don't get you first?
Thursday, August 06, 2009
OK, OK ... settle down before you hurt someone.
Mind you, I'm not saying that I oppose or dislike all people who don't agree with me on the subject on the basis of personal opinion - not at all. Disagreement is one of the wonderful aspects of a democracy, and I'm always open to a healthy debate because I could change my mind if properly persuaded ... and I hold out hope that I could possibly change someone else's mind if my argument is persuasive enough.
But that's not my issue with what's been going on. My issue is the way that these increasingly vocal crowds have decided not to embrace civility, instead choosing to shout down elected officials and crank the angry knob up to 11. Embracing every worst-case scenario ("they'll ration our healthcare!"; "They're going to kill our elderly!"; "Barney Frank drinks the blood of children!") and apparently following the Glen Beck road to mental wellness, some of these people are getting a little scary. I'm all for a "power to the people" movement, because yes, elected officials work do for us, and they should listen to their constituents when making their official congressional votes.
What some of these people seem to have forgotten, however, is that elected officials are elected by the people. Sometimes politicians who are elected are total duds. That's unfortunate, inevitable, and unescapable. Fortunately, we have a simple solution: vote them out!
But for anyone shouting that "Obama needs to listen to the voters" because "we're his boss, not the other way around" (both absolutely true statements), keep this in mind: President Obama ran for election on a particular platform against the Republican ticket after eight years of Republican control of the White House (six of which also featured control of the Senate and the House). And you know what?
He won.
He ran on a platform that supported healthcare reform, up to and including Universal Healthcare. And he won. President Obama was able to convince more people to vote for him than to vote for John McCain. Now, just six months after being inaugurated, he's trying to implement some of the "change" around which he centered his campaign - the "change" that the majority of voters supported - and look at what's happening. The gathering crowd is trying to find their torches and pitchforks, the way Springfielders handle populist uprisings on 'The Simpsons'.
People, people, people ... We're only six months into this thing! Give the man a chance!
I can hear it now: But you guys hated George Bush! Why is it OK for you to do this and not us!?
A couple of things to consider:
1. Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore, but moved into the Oval Office after a series of very controversial rulings by various courts and election officials who seemed to have very personal connections to the Bush campaign (Katherine Harris, anyone?). The deck seemed somewhat stacked in Bush's favor going into that entire ordeal. And even if the election results hadn't been touched by subjective controversy, the unalterable FACT is that more people voted for Gore than Bush. At the very least, the "belief" (if you want to call it that) that the Bush administration was not legitimately elected at least has some basis in reality.
The "belief" of the birthers who don't feel that Obama is actually a U.S. citizen, on the other hand, has an epicenter squarely located in Crazyville. Or Fox News. Take your pick. The birthers ... oh, they deserve their own post eventually, just not this one (actually, they deserve nothing, but I digress). I will say this, though, with confidence: the true, hard-core birthers are insane. Certifiably. Obama was legitimately elected in both the popular vote and the electoral college, something Bush could not say after his first election.
2. Six months into Bush's first term, Bush did not have to deal with such a horrible economic crisis following Bill Clinton's Presidency as Obama now has after Bush's. Anyone who wants to blame Obama for the current mess has selective memory at best. Does the stimulus leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth? Sure. Has Obama handled everything perfectly? No. But I firmly believe he's doing the best he can and acting in the best interest of the American population (which means EVERYONE, not just the rich white people who usually get to make the rules that favor their own).
Also, keep in mind, the first stimulus package was signed by GWB, not BO.
Holding Obama accountable for the entirety of the economy is like blaming the Fire Department for water damaging your stuff after the blaze has already burned it all to a crisp. He's trying to put the fire out, people. He didn't light it.
3. This is subjective, I realize, but it would appear that the intensity of dislike for President Obama in just six months more aggressive and violent than it ever was under Bush. For instance:
"Barack Obama faces 30 death threats a day, stretching US Secret Service"
Since Mr Obama took office, the rate of threats against the president has increased 400 per cent from the 3,000 a year or so under President George W. Bush, according to Ronald Kessler, author of In the President's Secret Service.Unbelievable, isn't it? I may have wished that Bush would exit, stage left, much sooner than he did, but I never wished him death, that's for sure.
And I certainly never insinuated that Bush was the Anti-Christ. But nobody would ever say that about Obama, right?
Nahh ...
So my advice to the fringe minority would be this, I guess (again, I don't aim this at all conservatives, just the ones on the Crazy Train): Take a step back. Take a deep breath. Try to take a fresh approach to your opposition. If you feel so strongly that you're right, try to explain yourself with clarity and civility, instead of screaming until you're red in the face. Because right now, you all just look like a bunch of assholes.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Two Facebook questionnaires completed
First up, for Tara and Holly:
50 Bands I’ve Seen (sorted alphabetically, thanks to MS Word):
Beastie Boys
Bevis Frond
Black Rebel Motorcycle Club
Brad
Buffalo Tom
Counting Crows
Dear Leader
Deathcab For Cutie
Dinosaur Jr
Dismemberment Plan
Evan Dando
Faith No More
Foo Fighters
Franz Ferdinand
Goldfrapp
Guns N’ Roses (both lineups)
Helicopter Helicopter
Helmet
Letters to Cleo
Los Straitjackets
Megadeth
Metallica
Morphine
Mum
Ned’s Atomic Dustbin
Nine Inch Nails
Orbit
Paul Westerberg
Pearl Jam
Prince
Queensryche
REM
School of Fish
Scissorfight
Sigur Ros
Slayer
Sloan
Smashing Pumpkins
Swervedriver
Ted Leo + Pharmacists
The Black Crowes
The Cure
The Gravel Pit
The Mighty Mighty Bosstones
The Sheila Divine
U2
Urge Overkill
Van Halen
ZZ Top
For Shawn:
“Getting to know unshitty people”
1. What time did you get up this morning? 7:50
2. How do you like your steak? medium
3. What was the last film you saw at the cinema? Harry Potter 6
4. What is your favorite TV show? Arrested Development
5. If you could live anywhere in the world where would it be? Boston, MA or Portland, OR
6. What did you have for breakfast? A banana and some coffee
7. your favorite cuisine? Grilled stuff (chicken, cheeseburgers) – does that count?
8. What foods do you dislike? Cantaloupe – I absolutely detest it.
9. Favorite Place to Eat? Cha (23rd and Glisan, Portland OR)
10. Favorite dressing? Anything from the Paul Newman brand
11. What kind of vehicle do you drive? Currently a 2004 Mazda 3 hatchback
12. What are your favorite clothes? Shorts and a t-shirt.
13. Where would you visit if you had the chance? Australia
14. Cup 1/2 empty or 1/2 full? Depends on the subject matter.
15. Where would you want to retire? Pacific Northwest
16. Favorite time of day? 7-9 p.m., I suppose.
17. Where were you born? Worcester, MA (technically Shrewsbury, I guess … that’s where the hospital is)
18. What is your favorite sport to watch? Baseball is my favorite sport, but put the two worst NFL teams on TV and I’ll watch it – so football, I guess.
19. Who do you think will not tag you back? Not tagging anyone to begin with …
20. Person you expect to tag you back first? See above.
21. Who are you most curious about their responses to this? See above.
22. Bird Watcher? No.
23. Are you a morning person or a night person? Both, but I prefer night.
24. Do you have any pets? Not currently, but I still miss our dear Joey very much.
25. Any new and exciting news you'd like to share? I wish.
26. What did you want to be when you were little? Taller than I am now, that’s for sure.
27. What is your favorite childhood memory? Summer trips to Fenway with my family
28. Are you a cat or dog person? Dog, without question
29. Are you married? Nearly three years!
30. Always wear your seat belt? Always have.
31. Been in a car accident? Yeah, 15+ years ago
32. Any pet peeves? The ignorance of the average American
33. Favorite Pizza Toppings? Sausage
34. Favorite Flower? I have no idea. Let’s say Sunflower.
35. Favorite ice cream? Chocolate chip (two scoops, please)
36. Favorite fast food restaurant? Burgerville
37. How many times did you fail your driver's test? Zero-point-zero.
38. From whom did you get your last email? Nicole
39. Which store would you choose to max out your credit card? Best Buy
40. Do anything spontaneous lately? No
41. Like your job? Grr …
42. Broccoli? Absolutely yes.
43. What was your favorite vacation? So many to choose from! First trip to Disney World was a lot of fun.
44. Last person you went out to dinner with? Nicole
45. What are you listening to right now? Pandora radio (specifically “Bark at the Moon” – Ozzy)
46. What is your favorite color? Navy blue
47. How many tattoos do you have? Not a one
48. How many are you tagging for this quiz? None.
49. What time did you finish this quiz? 3:48 p.m.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Notes on a Scandal
David Ortiz, until this season the ever-grinning, always optimistic President of All Things Good in Red Sox Nation, has been named in an article in the New York Times as having tested positive for performance enhancing drugs (“PEDs”) in 2003, the year before the Sox broke their World Series drought with their first championship since 1918.
And now, less than a day since the news broke, everyone is trying to figure out what it all means.
I’ll be the first to admit that I was born with a Red Sox hat on, and I’m absolutely loyal to my team, but I hope I’m not so partial as to be blind to the bad and to embrace only the good. I write the following as a fan of the team specifically, as a fan of the sport in general, and as a guy wants to see the world in a “glass half-full” kind of way but is constantly reminded that it is, in fact, so often nearly empty altogether. So a few thoughts:
******
I’ve read a few articles/blog entries about how David Ortiz, like others who have tested positive (Manny Ramirez), who have faced damning evidence outside of a court of law (Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa …), or who have admitted to using banned substances and written tell-all books (you-know-who), is no longer considered a candidate for the Hall of Fame. Let’s be honest here - Ortiz was never going to be a serious candidate for the Hall in the first place. The Red Sox Hall of Fame? Absolutely still a candidate, no matter what. All the clutch hits, and there were many, and impressive stats are overshadowed by what he meant to the faithful as a person rather than just a ballplayer, with a personality as big as Fenway itself. The fantastic memories, carrying the team through the mid-part of the decade, the whole “Big Papi” mystique … great stuff, but it meant a lot more to the region than it ever did to the game as a whole. In the end, he only had a handful of great years, and if he’d never been touched by scandal of any degree, he still wouldn’t be a viable Hall of Fame candidate. Five or so great years is far from a qualifier.
*****
This whole ordeal underscores why I usually prefer not to get jerseys or t-shirts with specific player names on them. My exceptions to this rule will generally be either retired players who have retained clean reputations, or oddities/freakshows upon whom we will look back fondly no matter what their career accomplishments add up to. My favorite player growing up was Mike Greenwell, and I have a #39 replica jersey (the boring bluish gray roadie from the late 80s) – he's the clean retiree. The Sox have a left-handed Japanese pitcher who doesn't look at home plate when he throws the ball, thus I have a Hideki Okajima shirt – he's the oddity. As far as the freakshow example goes, I really wish I had a Rich Garces/El Guapo shirt - someday ... someday. I had a million chances to get one and blew it. (And please believe me when I say that I call Garces a “freakshow” in the most loving way possible. That dude was awesome.)
*****
Did the 2004 and 2007 Red Sox, with Ortiz and Ramirez leading the offense, in fact have their championship years tainted by this?
In the short term, possibly, but in the long run I don’t think anyone’s going to care too deeply (except Yankees fans, or maybe some St. Louis Cardinals fans - see below). In 2004, the team overcame the Curse of the Bambino and made the greatest comeback in the history of baseball, if not all of sports. It was the team full of “idiots”, with a caveman in center field, Pedro throwing nasty stuff with a greasy Chia Pet on his head, and Dave Roberts earning a reputation in a span of just a few weeks that will allow him to never have to pay for a meal or a drink in Boston for the rest of his life. 2004 will be remembered for the trade of Nomahh, the arrival of Orlando Cabrera and his 2,332,081 handshakes, and Doug Mientkiewiczwickiemienwickz trying to hold the final pitched ball of the World Series ransom from the team. There was something about a bloody sock, too, if I remember correctly …
These are just a few of the many reasons that 2004 will continue to warm the hearts of the Nation. Those memories will last. The Ortiz thing – ugly as it is – will pass, as soon as the next wave of names comes out, as soon as the next sports scandal steals away everyone’s attention. Or as soon as this year’s World Series ends, when the baseball world can celebrate their new World Champions (unless, of course, that team is the Red Sox … which, I’m not going to lie, would be awesome and downright preferable, thankyouverymuch).
As far as 2007 goes, we’ll remember it for Josh Beckett’s clutch performance against Cleveland in the ALCS. We’ll remember it as the year that Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia showed baseball fans that the Sox don’t have to buy all their stars from the free-agent pool, and that they had a very solid farm system. It was the year that the Red Sox finally had a dominant closer who, quite possibly, had forgotten to take his medications for several months in a row – a guy who will be responsible for a generation of little league pitchers shifting their gaze, all crazy-eyed, off their chin and to home plate before throwing the ball. Mike Lowell, the grizzled veteran throw-in who came over with Beckett, earned chants of “RE-sign LOW-ell, DON’T sign A-Rod!” literally moments after the Series ended. It was the year Jon Lester came back from cancer to earn the title of “ace” starter. Diasuke Matsuzaka showed he was worth the ridiculous investment Theo made in the Japanese star (for the first couple of seasons, at least).
And, no offense to the Rockies, the Sox were clearly the better team throughout.
I wasn't naive enough to think that the team would be left untainted (well, maybe a little ...). There are about 100 names on “the list”, and quick math would indicate that every team could probably expect, on average, to have 3-4 players on it. So the fact that the Sox had names on the list is far from shocking. There may even be more - rumors about Nomar sprung up around the time of his SI cover, for instance. Johnny Damon was mentioned a couple of times. Jason Varitek, too, especially since he spent a significant amount of time recovering from injuries, coming back to play a grueling schedule at a physically demanding position. But until anyone learns otherwise, they're just unfortunate, hopefully misguided rumors.
What does shock and completely disappoint me, though, is who exactly it was that tested positive.
Nobody would have cared if Mark Bellhorn or Curt Leskanic was revealed to have tested positive. Given how strongly Ortiz seemed to take a stance about steroids (going so far as to say that those who test positive should be suspended for a full year rather than just 50 games), and given how upbeat and positive (and un-douchebaggy) he seemed to be, I thought he was clean. I really did.
So now, do I look at him as a cheater? Do I look at him as a liar like Palmeiro, who insisted with a finger-wag to Congress that he never used banned substances? Do I look at him as a guy who made a bad decision six years ago but has since come to his senses and has been clean ever since?
I don’t know. The news is too fresh, and there’s so much of the story left to be told.
Drama queens like the Boston Globe’s Dan Shaughnessy have already been quick to say that Ortiz’s "entire Red Sox career is a lie", but anyone who knows his work also knows that he loves being the first to jump headfirst off a bandwagon. Once someone attains a level of celebrity or fame, news outlets write obituaries in advance that may not run for years, just in case. When Michael Jackson died, half of what you read in the paper had been written before we learned the news. I get the feeling that people like Shaughnessy had already written this column a million times in his head. Now he finally gets a chance to commit it to public record.
But still, I want to trust in David Ortiz if for no other reason than he’s David Ortiz. He’s never shown himself to be anything other than what we see on the field – a big, loveable goof who loves his fans and enjoys playing ball. He’s an upbeat guy. He’s incredibly charitable with local foundations. He’s a good egg by all accounts, even if his personal lifestyle choices apparently aren’t quite as impressive. A-Rod has been unlikeable for a long time; Ortiz, not a day. This is where I just can’t shake my personal bias at the moment.
Much like Fox Mulder, I want to believe.
That said, I’m not excusing him based on personality alone. History tends to prove the cliché that where’s there’s smoke, there’s fire. I’m not trying to gloss over the news of the day while waiting for another, worse story about someone else to come along and capture everyone else’s attention.
I just think it’s unfair to completely condemn him so quickly, though, until we get more information.
As of the time I’m sitting at my desk writing this, we don’t know what he tested positive for. He may have taken something defined by Major League Baseball as a “performance enhancer” that was not a steroid. He may have taken something that was not banned by MLB at the time, so he didn’t think it was illegal. Again, that doesn’t make it right or justified, but until we know exactly what happened, we don’t know exactly what happened. Our imaginations, given the recent history of baseball’s fallen heroes, are now primed to fill in details that may not have any actual basis in reality.
What we have is an article that contains information that was supposed to have been destroyed years ago by MLB (but wasn’t) and that was supposed to be under court-ordered seal (but was leaked) and that was provided by anonymous lawyers. Meaning, the whole thing leaves more questions unanswered than not.
In fact, in what seems to me to be an odd turn in the story, Ortiz seemed surprised that his name was on the list in the first place.
From an article on Yahoo Sports:
"I’ve just been told that the report is true,” Ortiz said in a statement after contacting the union. “Based on the way I lived my life I’m surprised to learn I tested positive.”Has he been telling everyone that he thinks players who test positive should be suspended for a year because he’s a hypocrite, or because he legitimately he thought he was playing clean? And if he tested positive, was he seriously never told of the result? Really?
I don’t know. Which is why I – why we – need more information before passing judgment. If it’s the former, it’ll make it a lot easier to say goodbye when Ortiz’s contract with the Red Sox expires, despite what he’s meant to the team for the past half-decade. If it’s the latter, then who takes the blame? The players’ union? Bud Selig?
In all, it’s disappointing, no matter how you look at it. But I don’t want to banish the guy to the darkest depths of public opinion before the whole story comes out, and I have to believe there’s a LOT more to this story that we just don’t know yet. With lawyers (anonymous and otherwise), the Times, a legion of sportswriters, bloggers, and radio hosts, and everyone else involved, though, we may never actually *get* the whole story, just parts laced with innuendo, which is a shame.
The difference between Ortiz and Alex Rodriguez, before we start drawing parallels too soon, is that A-Rod admitted to using steroids flat out. Before Ortiz is damned as a steroid user, we should keep in mind that we have not, as yet, had such an admission from Ortiz or acknowledgment from MLB. We don’t know what he’s been found to have taken.
Certainly, it would be refreshing if Ortiz held a press conference and just laid everything out without reserve, if in fact he knows more than he’s letting on.
Now, for the Yankees and Cardinals fans (not all of them, but there are some who will be very vocal on the issue) who would argue that the Red Sox championships are tainted and possibly somehow “shouldn’t count”, keep in mind the following:
St. Louis: you guys had Mark McGwire, who WAS a future HoF’er and a figure of near-legend following his pursuit of Roger Maris’ single-season homerun record. Had you won a World Series during his years playing under the arch, would you be so willing to relinquish your championship?
Yankees fans: Keep in mind that during the late 90s and early 00’s, your team was filled with the likes of Andy Petitte (who, to his credit, copped to using steroids, however briefly), Roger Clemens, Chuck Knoblauch, Kevin Brown, and David Justice, who were all publicly named in the Mitchell report. It could very easily be argued that the Yankees championships of the late 90s were tainted, also.
Also, we (the royal Nation ‘we’, not me personally, though I would have had I been there myself) gave Alex Rodriguez an unbelievably rude reception earlier this year when he made his first appearance at Fenway after admitting his PED use earlier this spring. Next time the Sox go to Yankee Stadium, have at it when Ortiz comes up. Fair is fair.
More important than singling out rooters of just those two teams, though, is something for fans of all teams to realize: as much as it sucks to have to admit it, every team is somehow going to be involved in this to some degree. Unless we find out that a team condoned steroid use or directly instructed players or team physicians/trainers to use PEDs (which would literally be the very worst, most unforgiveable news in the history of baseball), everyone seems equally guilty. Nobody is cleaner than anyone else.
The players who used PEDs all made ridiculous amounts of money playing a silly game that kids play because they love it, not because they get paid. The owners also make a ton of dough selling souvenirs and jerseys and bobbleheads. Controversy and scandal will do nothing but help ESPN’s ratings, bring a higher number of calls to sports talk radio, and increase page views for messageboards and blogs.
Given these, I think we can all agree on one thing, if nothing else, no matter our allegiances: the true losers here – as always – are the fans.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Braces update, the death of WBCN, a few more horror movies
I went for my monthly adjustment yesterday, and they applied a "torque wire", which is essentially used to change the angle of the teeth in relation to their positions in the jaw. My upper front teeth have always sort of slanted in toward my throat (not at an extreme angle, but enough to notice if you're looking at them), and though they've moved quite a bit since last October, there's still some work to do. But, looking into my mouth, he said he had a "predicament" - the gap between my top front four teeth has closed, but now there's a gap between my canines and my first pre-molars. So I have that going for me, which is nice.
Anyway, he took a few moments in considering the next step, and I'm no expert (obviously), but I think he punted in favor of working on another problem (the angle) first. I dunno. My "small teeth" may mean that the gaps will take longer to shift/fill, or it may mean that I'm not going to have a nice, tight row of choppers.
Either way, I'm extremely excited about the changes in my teeth so far, to the point that if I was told "that's it, we can't fix them any further" and the braces came off immediately, I'd be thrilled. I've always been incredibly self-conscious about the way they look, and now I can't wait to show them off once the metal comes out. (That's the "brace metal". I will never, *ever* lose "The Metal".)
This photo is about a month old, but you get a good idea of the changes in just a few months (click for a larger version):
And to think that I wasn't sure I'd make it after the first few days! My teeth were so screwy that the brackets didn't allow me to properly chew my food at first since I didn't have enough surface area touching to grind my food. I'm not sure how long I have left, but I'm so used to them at this point that I'm not sure I really care so long as they're doing their job. That's not to say I'm not looking forward to getting them off, of course. I can't wait to bite directly into an apple again.
****
I haven't always been the biggest fan of WBCN, but "The Rock of Boston" has always been part of my life as a music fan. No matter what city I find myself in, there's always a station broadcasting at or very near 104.1, but I'm always a little disappointed that these other stations aren't also WBCN.
In high school, WAAF was essentially a hair-metal station, and WZLX was only classic rock. The broadcasting range for WFNX didn't reach my house. But WBCN was steady and fairly eclectic, all things considered. They played a good amount of older stuff, some decent modern rock, and a good amount of local music, which other stations tended to avoid like the plague. They would broadcast live shows from the Paradise or the Orpheum, and I'd hoard blank audio cassettes to make sure I could capture great live sets or in-studio interviews as they happened.
When I moved to Boston in fall '92 to go to BU, I occasionally took a stroll over to the studio's home over in the Fenway area to try to gather autographs (that's how I met Henry Rollins once). I skipped a chemistry class one morning to see Father Guido Sarducci "exorcise" Fenway Park (and got one of only 104 limited edition t-shirts commemorating the event). I got to go inside the studio and hang out for about an hour once with Mark Parenteau while interviewing him for a journalism class. (This was while he was still a popular, well-enough respected DJ - before the unpleasantness. He was cool with me, though, and didn't even approach being inappropriate or weird with my relatively wide-eyed naive self.)
I wasn't particularly a fan of Howard Stern at the time, and I dreaded some of the DJs. The music gradually gravitated to generic playlists that every other modern rock station seemed to be using. But still, they had a legacy, and they still meant a lot to a lot of people, including me.
And now we're on the verge of losing them forever, as they'll be changing formats next month. I haven't lived in Boston now for about six years, but this still makes me sad.
It's a sign of the times, I guess. K-rock, Stern's pre-satellite NYC home-base, became a pop station a few months ago too. And for whatever degree of complaint I may have about these changes, it's not as if I actually listen to the radio either. I'm always listening to my iPod or using Pandora at this point. So people like me, we may not have intended to kill the patient, but we didn't do anything to save him, either.
****
Nicole and I had a discussion about my horror movie recommendations and she proposed a few of her own that I had overlooked:
"The Ring" - I really enjoyed it. The Japanese original is also very creepy, but as American remakes go, they did a really good job (supposing you can suspend your disbelief, of course). The sequel, however ... Oof. That was rough.
"It" - Even though they changed a significant aspect of the story's finale, the rest of the story holds up pretty well compared to the novel. I haven't seen this in a while, but the "head in the fridge" scene really shocked me considering this was made-for-TV. And Tim Curry as Pennywise? Yikes!
"The Shining" - Another Stephen King adaptation that's holds up to the reputation that precedes it. Kubrick, Nicholson ... yes, yes, yes. "Here's Johnny" and all that. But the story's the thing, right? And this is a good one.
"Drag Me to Hell" - Sam Raimi's latest was completely underrated and overlooked. There's not a lot of blood, and there isn't a high body count, but sometimes a simple tale with a slight gross-out factor can be very effective and a heckuva lot of fun. Case in point.
