Still alive

Over two months since my last entry?  Seriously?

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!

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
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Healthcare Protests

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?

OK, OK ... settle down before you hurt someone.

I would like to think that the recently energized, frothing-at-the-mouth crowds that have been taking over local town hall meetings decrying Universal Healthcare are the fringe minority. 

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!

(And remember, even if you don't like the guy, some of us still support him - our opinions count too, you know!)

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.

Two Facebook questionnaires completed

I always say “I don’t usually fill these out …” and then end up filling out more of them than I expected to, so … um, don’t get used to it is what I’m saying, maybe. Unless I get another really good one, then yeah. Or maybe what I’m saying is please don’t get offended if you tag me via Facebook in one of these and I don’t participate.

First up, for Tara and Holly:

50 Bands I’ve Seen (sorted alphabetically, thanks to MS Word):

Alice In Chains
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.

Notes on a Scandal

Well, this is all very unpleasant, isn’t it?  And somewhat predictable, perhaps?

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. 

Braces update, the death of WBCN, a few more horror movies

So apparently I have "small teeth", this according to my orthodontist.  

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.

Horror movies for your consideration (also known as "a lazy blog entry")

Previously, on Facebook, I updated my status to read:

Remember when Michael found the dead dove in the bag marked "dead dove" in his fridge on Arrested Development and said "Well, I don't know what *I* was expecting"? That's how I felt watching the "Friday the 13th" remake the other night.

A former co-worker responded that she had also just seen it, but that she was a relative newcomer to the "horror realm", and that she was "now addicted". 

First of all, welcome to the club.  Second, what took you so long?  And third ...

There are so, so many really horrible "horror" movies out there, and it's really easy to get suckered into watching something awful at the expense of seeing something awesome.  I put "horror" in quotes, because all too often these films are "boo! scary" (relying on someone jumping out of a closet at a predictable time, for instance) rather than actual suspenseful "oh crap, here it comes!" scary, or genuinely "wow, that's creepy and disturbing" scary.  It's all to easy to forget that you're supposed to care about the characters you're watching in most modern horror movies (say, since the mid 1980s), since we've seen the plot devices time and again.  The characters become disposable.

Fortunately, there are some truly excellent works in the genre that I heartily recommend.  Mostly, this list is for my ex-coworker, but if you're looking for a good scare, maybe I can turn you on to something good (or vice-versa!  I'll give almost anything a try, as long as I'm in the right mood).

Classic slasher horror:

The original "A Nightmare on Elm Street" is one of the greatest horror movies of all time, in my estimation.  We didn't know Freddy Krueger's full backstory yet, so he was a mystery.  Adding to the creepy factor is that, in this first film of the series, we never really get a good look at Freddy's face, just ominous shadows hidden in the dark under his hat.  Like they say, sometimes what you don't see is scarier than what you do.  The violence and bloodletting are unrelenting, and unlike the sequels, in which Freddy gets a clever (er, "clever" - it gets old, fast) one-liner in after every kill, the action is not played for dark comedy.  Freddy's a bad-ass, he will do bad things to you without thinking twice.  And that scene toward the beginning, when he comes down the alley and his arms are about 10 feet long?  Still creeps me out to this day.  Awesomeness.

I'd also recommend "Wes Craven's New Nightmare", which is, I suppose, considered part of the series ... but it isn't, really.  Heather Langenkamp, the heroine of the first film, returns to play ... Heather Langenkamp, the actress who portrays the heroine of the first film.  Something evil has taken shape in the "real" world (not the Freddy-verse), but it has taken the form of the fictional character Freddy Krueger.  Robert Englund, who played Freddy, plays Robert Englund, the actor who played Freddy.  (He also plays the new incarnation of Freddy, who isn't really Freddy.)  It's a pretty clever twist on the series, and definitely worth a shot if you're up on the rest of the series.

The rest of the series is utterly forgettable, though.  You could do worse, but if you skip them, you're not missing out on a whole lot.

Also directed by Wes Craven, and an obvious choice for this list, is "Scream", which also plays with the concept of a horror movie acknowledging the important role of other horror movies.  Very fun, very witty, and very clever, especially on one's first viewing.  The two sequels are dreadful, though, and should be avoided at all cost.  Neve Campbell is also the covergirl for "Big in the 90s, Honest!" magazine (along with Bridget Fonda).  Though highly recommended, one should skip this one until after having viewed other slasher films from the 80s, otherwise the jokes will fall flat or seem confusing. 

The scariest slasher film ever is John Carpenter's "Halloween", proof that the boogeyman is very real and very scary.  Though just everyone knows who Michael Myers is at this point, it would be shameful of me to ruin any aspect of this film for those few who haven't seen this work of near-perfection, so I won't comment on any specifics.  The soundtrack, written by Carpenter himself, deserved an Oscar nomination for best supporting actor.  It's that important to the film (and that good). 

Again, forget the rest of the series even exists and only watch this one.  With the lights off.  (And the door locked.)

(A side note: one of the problems I have with the horror genre is perfectly exemplified in this film, awesome as it may be.  The eternally cute and perky PJ Soles was 28 years old when she played Lynda, who was supposed to be a high school student in the film.  And she looks it.  The miscasting of actors who are significantly older than the characters they portray is a major pet peeve for me.  I know it's because you can't actually have 17 year olds getting naked on-screen just before they're offed, but still ... if you're relying on nudity to sell a horror movie, the movie probably isn't too great to begin with.  Not to be a prude, of course.  I love boobs as much as the next guy.  And sure, sometimes in the context of a horror movie it's fine and somewhat expected.  But if you're relying on it ... ehh, maybe not so much.)

One more from John Carpenter: "The Thing".  Kurt Russell plays a scientist isolated with a small band of others in a frozen base in Antarctica when a shape-shifting alien starts to take the appearance of those it has killed.  Nowhere to go, and limited resources with which to defend themselves.  More "what ... the ... hell ..." moments than just about any other movie I can remember.  There's so much disturbing and grotesque imagery, but there's a reason for it, unlike the "guts for guts' sake" nonsense of "Saw" or "Hostel", for instance.  ("Saw" and "Hostel" are utter wastes of time, for the record.  Terrible stories, bad filmmaking, and shameful excuses for "horror" movies.)  Great stuff.

Two overlooked gems by director Neil Marshall:

"The Descent" is the story of a group of female friends who decide to enjoy a "girls' night out" in the form of a caving expedition.  Bad things happen.  Very bad things.  I'm talking "bloodthirsty mutants" bad, with a side order of claustrophobia.  The concept of the "strong female battling the evil villain" is not a new one, but it plays out in a fairly original and compelling way, and the story (despite the tacked-on Hollywood ending) is well crafted and intriguing.  Not all of the characters are as sympathetic as you think they might be, and each has specific (and well-founded) motivations to justify their actions, unfortunate as they may occasionally turn out.  

Also, and in all seriousness, to see this film properly you need to turn the lights off completely.  So much of the action takes place in the dark that room lighting may make it difficult to see everything that's going on on the screen.  You'll thank me later, I promise (and for once, I swear there's no "gotcha, the joke's on you" punchline.  Not only is the subject matter dark, so is the actual film.  They're in a cave, dude.  Go with me on this.)

"Dog Soldiers" is the best werewolf movie since "An American Werewolf in London".  It's also a pretty solid war movie, since it's about a group of British soldiers on a training mission in Scotland who find themselves trapped in a semi-abandoned house when the fit hits the shan.  There's a fair amount of gallows humor, and plenty of blood and guts for the gore crowd.  I didn't think about it until well after I'd seen the movie, but one of the aspects I really appreciated about this film is that it plays to an audience of adults so well because there are no dumb teenagers doing dumb teenage things and making dumb teenage mistakes in it.  You've got hardnosed, tough-as-nails soldiers with a supply of weapons at their disposal, and they're still up shit creek.  And hey, one of the characters is named Bruce Campbell, a nod to the man himself.  Considering it's got no known "name" actors, a relatively low budget, and a virtually no expectations to live up to, I think it really stands up very well to many of its contemporaries.  Also, I'm sure you can find a copy on DVD for less than $5 if you look hard enough.  ($5 well spent.)

"28 Days Later" / "28 Weeks Later"
Danny Boyle made a handful of really solid movies before "Slumdog Millionaire", and one of them re-invented zombie films as we know them.  "28 Days Later" is a personal favorite (as in "personal top 10 favorite movies of all time" favorite), redefining unrelenting horror in just less than two hours.  Boyle insists that the unleashed hordes are "infected", not zombies, but that's all semantics.  You get bitten, you turn.  That's a zombie movie to me.

Nobody is safe.  People you expect to stick around a while?  Maybe you shouldn't get too attached to them.  People you think you can trust?  Perhaps that priest isn't all he's cracked up to be.  Think there's nothing hiding around the corner?  Don't be so sure.  Because you're surrounded, and you're going to have to run.  And you'll never be able to stop running or let your guard down, even if you're able to make it to the military outpost that's rumored to exist ...

The sequel, though not directed by Boyle, is also quite strong.  The strength of the this film is that it doesn't try to live up to its predecessor (it realizes it would be an almost impossible task), instead taking the story of the outbreak in an entirely new direction.  In the first film, you see the very early events that lead to the outbreak, but you're thrust into the story not entirely sure of what happened (though you do, in fact, know it happened to the entirety of London, if not all of England, as a result of science-gone-wrong, 28 days ago).  In this film, you see the outbreak as it happens, from "patient zero" right through the re-destruction of London.  The first scene, set at the same time but completely separate from the events of the first movie, sets the tone perfectly (and heartbreakingly), and asks you, the viewer, "well, what would YOU do in that situation?"

It's fair to say that you don't need to see "28 Days Later" prior to seeing "28 Weeks Later", but I'd strongly suggest it, just to be safe. 

I'm a sucker for zombie movies, I'll be the first to admit. Any fan of the genre will wholeheartedly also recommend "Dawn of the Dead" (the Romero original is a classic, of course, and the 2004 remake by Zack "Watchmen/300" Snyder is surprisingly good - to this day, I think the opening credits are masterful) and the playful-yet-still-zombieriffic "Shaun of the Dead" (which is enjoyable enough on its own, but even better if you're familiar with the films that "Shaun" was influenced by). 

You may be asking yourself, "where are the vampires?"  I omit them, simply because I can't recall seeing any truly awesome/scary movies with vampires as the protagonists.  "Blade" ain't horror.  I refuse to watch whiny emo "Twilight" crap.  It ain't horror, either.  "Interview With The Vampire" wasn't scary. 

That's not to say there aren't great vampire stories - they're just not horror the way I define it.  I recently watched "Let The Right One In", which was an absolutely gorgeous gem of a movie (soon to be ruined with an American re-make!), and which deserves its own post.  It was fantastic.  And to my surprise, I've found "True Blood" to be a lot of fun, too.  I didn't expect to like it at first, and now I can't wait for new episodes.

So there you go ... a handful of slasher flicks, some cool walking dead films, werewolves, a shapeshifter, and hungry cave mutants.  A solid start, I think, for any horror newbie.  Enjoy!

On Michael Jackson's passing

Just got back from Texas, and I have to go through my photos before posting a summary of the trip.

While I was out of town, though, the Michael Jackson thing happened.  Specifically, I was in Woodsboro, Texas, at my wife's paternal grandmother's house, where there is no cable TV and regular television reception included three Spanish-language channels, a Fox affiliate, and an ABC affiliate.  My cell-phone reception was spotty at best, but using it to check my friends' Facebook updates and various news feeds were the only contact I had to what was going on in the rest of the world.

What I encountered that afternoon is how I expect word of the impending zombie outbreak to spread - lots of "did anyone else see on the news ..." and "did I hear right that ..." and "so and so is reporting ..." type stuff.  Pieces of information, but nothing definitive, and all coming from various sources.

Sure enough, when ABC's national news began, the news I had heard literally ten minutes before was confirmed.  Michael Jackson had, indeed, died at age 50.

I don't know exactly how I feel about it, to be honest.  Yes, I had my Michael Jackson phase when I was about seven years old.  By about nine years old, I think I'd outgrown it.  After the countless headlines and allegations that followed in the succeeding years, I thought most of America had, too - until his death, that is.  Suddenly, an outpouring of affectionate, semi-revisionist history grew into a robust outpouring of what could possibly pass as sadness, but I'm not sure.

I find it odd that so many celebrities (and semi-celebrities - like Arsenio Hall) were suddenly running toward any video camera in their vicinities to talk about how great Michael Jackson was, and what a great loss his death was, when in the years preceding Jackson seemed like such a toxic persona with whom to be associated.  It didn't seem like anyone wanted to be part of Michael Jackson when his public stock was down, but now that he was gone ... all aboard!  

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the way it seemed.  The reactions I've seen from so many seems incredibly fake.  It seems like people are saying what they're expected to say when any famous person dies, but I don't get the sense that anyone feels like there's been a real loss with Jackson's death - probably because Jackson didn't have, as far as I can tell, real friends or real relationships with anyone outside of his handlers.  It's hard to get emotional at the death of someone about whom so little is actually known personally.  I feel like people would have been just as emotional if asked how they felt about Beethoven's death in the 1820s.  "Yeah, it's really sad, he was very influential ..."  But those words ring incredibly empty given the magnitude of his accomplishments, and how people *should* be reacting, I think. 

As for the dude himself, I kinda just feel sorry for him.  On one hand, the media made him into a musical Howard Hughes; on the other, he didn't do himself any favors with the decisions he made.  He undoubtedly surrounded himself with people who wanted only to take advantage of him and give him bad advice, but ultimately he was responsible for his own actions and decisions.  He could/should have just walked away from it all and lived by his own "leave me alone" credo.  

Was he a musical genius?  I don't think so.  His (terrific) material in the Jackson Five was written by others.  As far as "Thriller" goes as an album and phenomenon, well ... right place, right time.  MTV was an emerging "big deal", and Jackson propelled the artform of the music video into the stratosphere.  "Thriller" itself is a fantastic song and still my favorite video of all time.  "Beat It" crossed genres thanks to Eddie Van Halen and the more aggressive rock style.  But there were some forgettable tracks, too, and the albums that followed weren't nearly as good as far as I'm concerned (though I'll be the first to admit that my musical tastes changed rapidly in the mid/late 1980s).

A talented guy?  No doubt.  The greatest entertainer in history?  Not to me.

But to each his own.  All I know is this:  the media that created the monster that became Jacksonmania and helped turn the musician into a mysterious, unfortunate man-child who lived under constant public scrutiny (the oxygen chamber!  the plastic surgery!) and who for the longest time hadn't been in the public eye for his actual talents but for the side-show that was his private life has now, once again, descended into a feeding frenzy with Jackson at the center of it all.  Even in death, the guy doesn't seem to have earned any dignity.  

The ultimate musical recommendation?

Virginia vacation recap

Very much in need of getting away for a few days, Nicole and I drove to Virginia and had a wonderful vacation visiting several historic sights, one water park, and one amusement park. 

I have to admit that I hardly feel qualified to attempt to reproduce this histories of the locations and people we learned about during our trip, so I'm not going to try.  Understand, though, that we took a week to explore the region and easily could have spent much more time soaking everything in.  Though I certainly became no expert in Revolutionary history in this short amount of time, I do feel that I gained a terrific perspective on the era that I'm sure I never had previously.  Though it will likely prove to be just a passing phase, I currently feel inspired and compelled to read about and watch anything related to the subject (the day after we returned home, for example, we watched Ken Burns' three-hour PBS movie about Thomas Jefferson). 

Our first stop was in Alexandria, Virginia, where we visited Mount Vernon, George Washington's home (PHOTOS HERE).  The line for the tour of the home grew very quickly, and we were happy we'd decided to get there in time for the grounds to open.  Our time waiting in line for the tour inside was mercifully short; by the time we were done, the line had grown to two or three times the size of the one we were in. 

Unfortunately, nobody is allowed to take photos inside the building. 

The most amazing sight of the entire trip, to me, was the view from the rear of the house (essentially Washington's back yard).  The Potomac stretches out forever, and the view is spectacular (though this photo does it absolutely no justice).  The grounds are gorgeous, and we had a warm, sunny day to explore them.  Washington found sanctuary here, and it's easy to see why.  That he would leave the life he had here to become our first President, which he didn't really want to do in the first place, is a testament to his character.  Given the choice, I can't say I wouldn't have just stayed at Mount Vernon and enjoyed life such as it was at the time. 

The next day, we drove to Charlottesville and visited Monticello, Thomas Jefferson's home (PHOTOS HERE).  Our tour guide was an author named Rick Britton, who's written a book about Jefferson ("Jefferson: A Monticello Sampler") and clearly knew the history of Jefferson and Monticello in incredible depth and with remarkable clarity.  He was fantastic, and his knowledge definitely helped put many of the items inside the home into better perspective.  As with Mount Vernon, no photos were allowed inside the residence. 

One of the most memorable rooms in the house is Jefferson's study.  Though most of the books on display are "of the era" and not Jefferson's personal items, some of the books are in fact originals.  Jefferson was a voracious reader, and he collected volumes in their original languages, so as not to lose meaning in translation.  His collection became the foundation upon which the Library of Congress has been built.

We had some time left over after touring Monticello, so drove a couple of miles to Ashlawn, home of James Monroe, fifth President of the United States (PHOTOS HERE).  It's not as impressive (or historically important, or crowded with tourists) as Mount Vernon or Monticello, but still ... in two days, we'd managed to see the homes of three of the first five US Presidents (and, morbidly, their death beds). 

Out next step was Jamestown, Virginia, site of the first permanent English settlement in what would become the United States (PHOTOS HERE).  I kept calling it Jonestown and had to keep correcting myself, though the original colonists only had marginally better luck surviving than those in Jim Jones' cult.  The site we visited was a reconstruction of the original settlement; nothing in the site itself is original.  The best feature on the grounds though is the one that didn't allow photography: there's a wonderful museum located in the visitor's center that displays many original artifacts of the era and puts the settlement into a better historical perspective.  We spent more time inside the museum than we did outside looking at the ships and other reproductions.

The bulk of our time was spent in Historic Williamsburg, Virginia (PHOTOS HERE).  If you're ever looking for a great vacation destination, I can't recommend it enough.  We had an absolutely wonderful time, and it's safe to say I learned more about the events leading up to the Revolution in just a few days in person than I ever did in history classes throughout my scholastic years.  I vaguely remembered something about the House of Burgesses from high school history classes, for instance, but now that I've actually been into the same room in the Capitol Building in which
Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry (among others) debated the course of
the colonies' fate, a trip to the library is in order. 

It's impossible to take a trip like this and not find some sort of inspiration to learn more about the figures that freed the colonies from England.  Everyone knows about Thomas Jefferson, but who really remembers Peyton Randolph (described by Jefferson as "large and inert")?  After this trip, I can't wait to learn more. 

(We ate like kings, too.  The seafood fricasse I ate at Christiana Campbell's, which reportedly was one of George Washington's favorite restaurants when he visited Williamsburg, was one of the greatest meals I've ever eaten.  Just sayin'.  If you ever visit Williamsburg, make sure to make reservations here, because it's well worth it.)

I also got my rollercoaster fix in at Busch Gardens (PHOTOS HERE), taking about 15 rides total.  I don't know if was the economy or the timing of our visit (a Thursday in late May), but the most we ever had to wait for a ride was two minutes because the park wasn't very full at all.  The Griffon, with it's 90-degree plunge at 71 mph was fantastic, but my favorite was Apollo's Chariot (better known as the ride upon which Fabio and a goose had an unfortunate encounter).  I went on each four times.

And that's what I did on my summer vacation.

Still alive and kicking

Hey all,

Long time no see, huh? 

Nicole and I are back from a week-long expedition to Virginia, where we visited Mount Vernon, Monticello, Ashland, Colonial Williamsburg, and (of course) Busch Gardens.  I'll be sorting through and posting pictures shortly. 

In addition, if all the pieces fall together correctly, I'll also have some new live bootlegs posted shortly.  "New" in the sense that I haven't posted them before - most of them are in the 10-15 years old category, datewise.  Still, good stuff nonetheless.

Just checking in!

On a much, much lighter note ...

Proof positive that I wasted my younger years, times two:

Journey's "Separate Ways", as performed by Recess (I've watched this at least two dozen times by now, all the way through):

Iron Maiden's "The Trooper", as performed by Gauchos:

The greatest description for an episode of "Star Trek: The Next Generation" in history:

The latest on Joey (and it isn't good)

Everything was so different a week ago ... hrmph. 

Nicole and I had been talking about what we wanted to do with/for Joey given his recent health issues, and we had pretty much decided that Joey deserved a chance to stay with us as long as possible, even if it meant losing a leg.  Nicole had done some on-line research and discovered that dogs Joey's size, and with his energy level, actually bounce back pretty well from amputation. We figured that, though it would be difficult for all three of us, at least we'd be able to redefine "normal".  He'd have to learn how to walk again, of course, and the winters would be difficult, as walking a three-legged dog in the snow and ice would take some practice.  And who knows how he'd handle stairs.  For that matter, who knows how he'd handle the apartment itself?  We didn't know exactly how much it would cost, but the prospect of having Joey around for another couple of years (provided the cancer didn't spread) made it an attractive possibility.

On Saturday afternoon, just as we were about to eat lunch (timing being everything ...), I got a call from Dr. Matalon.  Everything changed. Unfortunately, though it was no surprise at all, the tests came back positive for canine osteosarcoma.  Bone cancer.  The link provided pretty much nails everything Joey is experiencing.



The development of the cancer in Joey is his Proximal Humerus (except on the left, as opposed to the illustration above).  It is an aggressive cancer.  The bone is very, very weak. 

In humans, doctors try to cure the cancer.  In dogs, the goal is merely to alleviate the pain.

The best medical option, we were told, would be amputation of the leg, with blood-work and urine testing, along with follow-up chest scans to see if the cancer had spread to the lungs, and further x-rays and scans (up to three) to track the viability of his other limbs.  Then, radiology treatments. 

Who knows how much pain Joey would actually be in, or if the treatments would work well?  Or at all?  The cancer could spread.  Would it?  Had it already?

But it just got worse.

Dr. Matalon broke the sobering news to me first, and I put Nicole on the phone to speak to him after I was done, for two reasons, really:  I didn't want to misinterpret his words and give Nicole the wrong information.  I tend to do this sort of thing.  Ask me to read a map, and I'll send us the wrong way every time even though I think I'm giving the right directions.  Second of all, and somewhat selfishly, I suppose: I didn't want to be the one to break the news.  I'd already explained the first visit, the fears that Dr. M had, the possibility of amputation ... I just didn't have the heart to break hers for the second time.

The sad fact of the matter is that, even with amputation and radiation therapy, we would not gain a significant amount of time with Joey.  We'd maybe prolong his life by 6-9 months, at best. 

Six to nine months.

Six to nine months of him learning how to walk again, of not being able to play with his tennis balls or jump after soap bubbles, of losing his appetite.  Six to nine months of our own prolonged agony, watching our poor friend slowly die before our eyes, and six to nine months of regretting that our time was running out.

We decided that we couldn't do that to him, and sometime in the relatively near future we're going to have him euthanized.  It's going to kill us to do it, and we've shed so many tears already, but it doesn't really even feel like there's a choice to be made.  This is the only humane way we can handle this.  I just don't want my friend to be in pain.

Making things worse (even worse still!  What's left?  Am I going to discover that he's a Yankees fan and a neo-con, too?) is that Nicole's on a business trip this week, and the week after next.  She doesn't get the time she wants to spend with him before the end comes, though we don't exactly know when that will be yet. 

Joey knows she's not here, too.  At least, I think he knows.  A couple of times he's wandered over to the front door, as if to check if anyone's coming through it.  I've been trying to comfort him and keep him company, but everything feels weird. 

It's not going to feel better for a while, either.

Joey, my dog, is very sick.

Yesterday was a rough, rough day.

Backing up a bit:

About two months ago I brought Joey up to the Morristown Animal Hospital for his yearly check-up so he could get his blood test, vaccinations, etc.  All seemed well, but a couple of days later we got a call that his blood tests had come back positive for Lyme disease.  No surprise, in a way ... our neighborhood is full of trees and bushes, and Joey likes to "dive in" head first when finding a place to pee.  I'd pulled deer ticks off of him plenty of times, and one finally managed to get him with the disease.  We put him on antibiotics for a month, with the expectation that he'd push through and get better. 

He'd been asymptomatic, which is why we're not sure when, exactly, he got the disease.  Without any warning signs, it was simply good fortune that his check-up came at an opportune time to discover the illness.

Other than the Lyme disease, though, he seemed to be doing pretty well for a middle-aged dog.  He had gained an appropriate amount of weight since we adopted him a year ago, and his behavior since the holidays (when he bit my father in law's hand and caused Nicole to have a late-night meltdown over his raucous, food-grabbing behavior) had been exemplary.  He'd stopped barking at the trash can every night and, with the exception of picking up a shoe with his mouth now and then, had started to leave items in the apartment alone. 

Since January, Joey has been the dog we'd hoped he'd be when we adopted him. 

Not long after he started taking his Lyme disease medication, he started to limp.  He favored his front left paw, so I took a look at it and didn't find any cuts or bruises.  When I touched/squeezed  his leg, from his paw up to his shoulder, he never winced or squealed or pulled away, so he never appeared to be in any pain.

We brought him up to the vet again, and he had an x-ray of his shoulder taken.  It didn't show any breaks or damage, so soft-tissue damage was suspected.  Also, one of the effects of Lyme disease, as I understand it, is joint stiffness.  I figured that might be part of the cause for his limp.

He went on anti-inflammatory/pain medications, and bounced back wonderfully.  Literally the next day he was fine - as if nothing had happened.  Two hundred dollars wasted, we though.  What a faker!

This past Friday, the limp returned.  We thought we'd let the weekend pass to see if it cleared up on its own, given how quickly he seemed to recover the last time he had it.  Nicole needed the car for work on Monday, so I couldn't schedule the appointment for that day, and we decided to schedule for Tuesday.  On Monday, he actually seemed a little better so I didn't schedule, giving it one more day just in case.  By Tuesday afternoon, though, it was clear he needed to be seen again, so I scheduled an appointment for yesterday (Wednesday) afternoon. 

He still didn't react to being touched on the left leg, but Nicole and I could both tell just by feeling him that something was wrong with his left shoulder.  Compared to the right shoulder, it seemed "enlarged", and the bone almost seemed to be protruding in a way.  His limp on Tuesday night was very pronounced, and just watching him move from the living room to the kitchen was painful.  At one point, I sat down next to him on the floor and he just put his face in my lap, as if to say "I'm hurt.  What's wrong?"

When I brought Joey up to Dr. Matalon's office to be seen again, Dr. Matalon immediately said "I don't like the way his leg looks".  He said there was swelling, and he was concerned that there "might be a tumor".  The first step, he said, would be to take another x-ray.  Go for it, I told him.  Do what you need to do.

They had to give Joey a mild sedative to move his legs into the proper position; long story short, in order to get a clear view of just one shoulder, a dog's legs have to be moved just-so, otherwise the shoulders overlap and you can't get a clear view.  Given the swelling, the possibility of pain, and the fact that he'd likely be fidgety in trying to avoid discomfort, they put him under for a while. 

I waited in the exam room while they took him for the x-ray.  For those who know part of this story already, this is when I started posting updates on Facebook via my cell phone.

I waited for what seemed like an eternity, and Dr. Matalon came into the exam room with the new x-ray.  The bone density, he said, had changed from the last x-ray. 

(Given how my thoughts are swimming around in my head right now, the following may not exactly be chronologically in order, and the facts are as I remember them - I might have gotten some parts mixed up).

Basically, the area in his shoulder seemed to be losing strength.  His bone density was apparently worse than it was in the first x-ray (my loose interpretation of the discussion - not Dr. M's exact words), and since Joey was already sedated, I was asked if I would mind if they did a bone biopsy to check for cancer.

I would have been less surprised if Dr. Matalon had come into the office and hit me in the knee with a tire iron.  Not expecting the C-word, to say the least.

But of course ... do what you need to do.

Instead of waiting in the exam room, I went to the lobby and hung out there for a while.  When he was done, Dr. Matalon came out to let me know what was going on.  Joey needed some time to awaken from the sedative and wasn't ready to leave just yet.

My first question was about his Lyme disease.  As it turns out, the timing of the Lyme disease and his current problems were coincidental and completely independent of each other.  There was nothing we could have done to prevent his current condition.  It's a cold comfort knowing this, but at least I won't have any retrospective regret hanging over me regarding our care of the big guy.

They were able to remove a sample very easily, because the bone was so weakened.  Test results might be available tomorrow (Friday), but it could take a couple of days, too.  When the results come back, they'll be able to determine the best course of action.  If the tests come back positively for cancer, they'll need to do chest scans to determine how far the disease has spread. 

There's a possibility that Joey might, at the least, have to have his front left leg amputated.  His bone is so brittle, I was told, that it could break if we let Joey play unsupervised.  One of the benefits of living in an apartment without our own yard, though, is that Joey's always here under our watch. 

In theory we'll need to cut our walks short, though this morning I didn't have the heart, and I brought him for his "long walk" all the way around our neighborhood.  He'd been trying to get me to do this for days, but I knew he wouldn't make it all the way around if we'd tried over the weekend.  He's been prescribed the same painkiller/anti-inflammatory, and he took his first dosage last night.  This morning, he was full of the same kind of energy he used to have.  When I asked him if he wanted to go out for a walk, he got very excited and started running around the apartment - I had to stop him, because one bad jump and the bone could give way ... But we got outside, and though I knew I shouldn't do it, I let him walk as much as he wanted to.  It was the most joyful I'd seen him in a week, and I didn't want to deprive him of this little bit of happiness.

As I write this, he's resting on the dog bed behind my desk chair.  My blonde dog's left shoulder is shaved and I can see the black stitches in his pink skin, as if he's got some awful medical crop circle formation in his fur.  He's in pain, but he doesn't know, because it's masked by the meds.  His bone is weak, and he might have cancer that could result in an amputation. 

How is it fair that this poor dog managed to escape whatever unfortunate past he experienced for seven years before being adopted into a loving apartment last February, learning to change his behavior and becoming an absolutely terrific pet and great friend along the way, only to face amputation as what could potentially be a "best case scenario"?

We have a lot of big questions coming up, including the obvious one that I can't even bring myself to write about just yet ...

This whole thing sucks.  I've cried more in the last 24 hours than I have in I don't even know how long.  I'm hoping against hope that the test results come back with some unexpected optimistic twist, but I know it's unlikely.