Regarding Armando Galarraga's perfect game

I promised myself that this wouldn't be a sports-only blog, but sports are just about the easiest thing to write a few lines about now and then. That said, I'm also still number-crunching and trying to figure out how to properly express how I feel about Daisuke Matsuzaka.

Last night, Nicole and I went to trivia with a couple of our friends, as we do almost every Wednesday night. My buddy Darren and I were BSing about the season so far, and fantasy sports, and just baseball in general when he got a message from another of his friends about a perfect game being ruined in Detroit by a bad call from an umpire. Having watched the final innings of both the Braden and Halladay perfect games on MLB Network (who are doing a bang-up job this season, by the way), I thought that the message must have gotten garbled, because three perfectos in one year (barely over two months, at that!) seemed just short of impossible. I checked the MLB headlines on my cell phone, read the short blurb, and couldn't wait to see the highlights when I got home.

By now, it's all old news. I assume that even the great majority of the nation's non-sports fans even know what happened last night. I also assume that 99% of the population feels that Galarraga deserves to be awarded the perfect game upon some kind of ruling by Commissioner Bud Selig (the other 1% being total jerks - people in Philly once booed Santa; these people exist).

So to add my thoughts to the tens of thousands of other bloggers who are also writing about this today:

Umpire Jim Joyce apologized. He admitted he was wrong, and he legitimately sounded very, very sorry for missing the call. Honest apologies are so hard to come by today in any facet of life, and his was from the heart. Everyone needs to give the guy a little slack. The poor bastard took the field in tears today in Detroit. Was it a big deal? Absolutely. But only in perspective to sport. Nobody got hurt. Nobody's livelihood was destroyed.

In the long-term, this is almost a better story - no offense to Mark Buehrle, for instance, but in 10 years, people are going to remember this game, not his. Even if Bud Selig doesn't overturn this (and he absolutely should, of course), the people who matter - the fans - will always know the truth. I think that as far as we're all concerned, it was a perfect game, official or not. Really, that's what matters.

You know what would be kind of cool, though? If Bud Selig does overturn this, then Galarraga would have the first regulation-length 28-hitter perfect game in history, if you look at it that way!

So yes, I feel that Bud Selig "absolutely should" overturn the decision, but I honestly don't know that he can, because he'd be opening himself up to criticism every time a controversial play occurs and he does nothing.

But I think that this is a very, very special exception:

1. It's recent. It's not worth going back to overturn the Vince Coleman call in the 1985 World Series at this point, because it wouldn't mean anything. This is fresh and relevant.

2. The umpire admits he was wrong and clearly wishes he could go back in time. This wasn't a matter of being screened by a defensive player and not seeing things clearly. He blew it, he admitted he blew it, and there's no disputing that he blew it.

3. It didn't affect the outcome of the game. Galarraga retired the next player, preserving the score at 3-0 and securing the win. It doesn't reverse a loss or take a run off the scoreboard, and it doesn't affect any of the players' stats adversely other than the batter who was incorrectly awarded a hit. I'm sure the batter, Jason Donald, would happily give up his 1-for-3 line in the box score for an 0-for-3 in order to "correct" history. Likewise, I'm sure that Trevor Crowe, who made the as-of-now "official" final out, wouldn't mind erasing an 0-4 for an 0-3, as minor as that change would be.

4. Galarraga was a class act in the face of a horrible set of circumstances. Things would have gotten incredibly bad if the pitcher had been Carlos Zambrano, for instance. Joyce would have ended up in the hospital, and Zambrano would have ended up in jail.

5. To not change it would be an incredibly short-sighted, completely dickish move by MLB.

And given the way Selig handles things, I'm sad to say it's what I expect to happen. But we'll see, and as a baseball fan I'm definitely going to keep my fingers crossed that Selig does, in fact, overrule the play.

Simply, and for no other reason, because it's the obvious and right thing to do.

Glen "Big Baby" Davis is the best physical comedian in the NBA.

That is all.

Pearl Jam covering Van Halen (mp3 download)

Hot off the presses (well, a couple of days ago, but it's new to me)! Some of you guys might enjoy this. Sounds like an audience recording, very good quality - this is a 320 kbps MP3.

Pearl Jam covering Van Halen's "Ain't Talkin' 'Bout Love" live in Hartford, CT on May 15, 2010.

"Ain't Talkin' 'Bout Love"

fast food foibles

So with Nicole out of town, I decided to give in to my cravings and find some greasy food. We're usually relatively health-conscious and try to limit ourselves to one "outside" meal a week, usually pre- or post- weekend movie trip, but while the cat's away ...

So I ended up going to Wendy's, because it's only about a five minute drive from the apartment. I toyed with the idea of going to Five Guys in Madison, but the weather was crummy and I didn't want to drive all the way out there to either:

1. Sit by myself and rush through a giant burger and (way too many) fries just so I could get back home to listen to the Bruins game on-line, or

2. Drive there, get the burger, bring it home, and "enjoy" everything semi-cold instead.

I got the classic double, small sized, and something was off with the fries. They were really soft and kinda gross, not crisp the way they should be. And I just didn't enjoy the burger, for whatever reason. When Nicole called to say goodnight, I told her about the experience and I think she nailed it: we're so used to eating "good" fast food at this point (like Chipotle) that we've lost our taste for the burger chains. I love a good cheeseburger, but I've become too picky.

For $8, I could have gone to Costco and gotten an entire rotisserie chicken *and* had $3 left over for ... I don't know. Donuts or something.

Plus the Bruins lost anyway, and my feet got soaked through my sneakers while taking Fritz out for a walk out on the wet grass.

I also realized that I could have just driven downtown (or whatever that area is in regard to Morristown - using the word "downtown" is a bit of brave optimism, I think) to get some fantastic empanadas at Raoul's instead.

Total fail.

Oh, well.

In which we attend a taping of "The Daily Show"

If you're reading this via Facebook and the links/photos don't work, you can also read this entry here: 

http://comeaujim.blogspot.com/

Hello, internet. How have you been? It's been a while.

So yesterday was a pretty good day all around, I'd say. Not only was it Star Wars Day (May 4th, as in "May the Fourth be with you"), which would have made it plenty awesome on its own, but Nicole and I had tickets to sit in the audience for a taping of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart".

I've always liked Jon Stewart, and not just because we agree on so many political issues. He seems to "get it" - funny, engaging, smart, and into a lot of indie/alternative music. A good guy all around. One of his favorite bands is one of mine, as well: Boston's own Buffalo Tom, the final band to perform on his pre-TDS talk show (a quick Google search returned no results for the video - anyone care to look more carefully to find it for me?).

A couple of months ago, I saw a Facebook message from the show saying that tickets were available for early May, so I headed over to the TDS website and furiously began filling out my ticket request so I wouldn't miss out. Then we waited, waited, and waited some more for the day to finally come - we did not go home disappointed. (Meaning, specifically, his guest for the show was not comedian Richard Lewis. When we got confirmation that we had tickets, I was afraid we wouldn't get a good guest. To that end, my definition of lousy, boring, uninteresting guests uses Richard Lewis as a measuring stick.)

An aside: getting into NYC is a total pain in the ass. It's a wonderful place ... you know, despite the Yankees and most of their fans. But anyway. I have a blast every time I go into the city (if you'll excuse the choice of words, given the recent attempted car bombing), but getting there shouldn't take nearly as long as it does. We drove to Newark, took the PATH to the WTC site, and then took the subway to 50th. Grand total, about two and a half hours. Granted, there was a fair amount of waiting for the PATH train to leave Newark station, but still. (In "Date Night" with Tina Fey and Steve Carrell, there's a joke about how Fey's character, a real-estate agent, knows full well she is lying to her clients about how long it takes to get from New Jersey to Manhattan.)

By the time we got to the studio, which is just far enough from the craziness of Times Square to make you almost forget you're in Manhattan, we found ourselves facing the perfect combination of problems: we were both hungry and early. We found a Thai place (Heng2 Thai Bistro) about a block away and took advantage of one of life's overlooked treats: the lunch menu. So much great food for a ridiculously low cost, plus a tall glass of "Thai Iced Coffee", which sounds like code-speak for an underaged college student who wants to order alcohol without a valid ID but is, in reality, roughly five tablespoons of coffee grounds in a single glass of water, mixed with another five tablespoons of sugar. It was thick. And the sticky rice? By the end of the meal, after it had been sitting on its plate for a while, I literally had to cut it with a knife to take a bite. Still, it was an unexpected treat and we highly recommend it if you ever find yourself in that neck of the (paved over, highly industrial) woods.

After lunch we had enough time to walk to FAO Schwartz, but not enough time to really explore it. Plus we didn't have our camera (more on that later). We have to go back, because we were not able to see the part of the store used for the piano scene in "Big", and because of the very important discovery that you can make your own muppets, which we are absolutely going to do sometime much sooner than later.

We headed back to the Daily Show studio and arrived at about 3 p.m., and there were a few dozen people already waiting in line. Within 15 minutes of our arrival, the line doubled in size. The picture I linked to is not my own, and I don't know when it was taken. There was a stanchion set up to guide the line, and when we arrived we were literally under the "733" on the left-hand side of the awning.

We waited in line for about two hours before being let into the studio, as they're very organized but pretty strict about how they go about filling the audience.

If you're in a group but waiting for people to show up, they have to be there and in line with you by 4:30, no exceptions. At 4:30, staff members take their attendance check-list (the list of names of those who registered for tickets on-line) and move down the line, handing out physical tickets (no more than little slips of paper with a number on them, really). If you're the fourth person in your group but don't have a ticket because you're weren't in line at 4:30, even though your three friends are there and have proof that 4 tickets were requested, too bad. Off to the stand-by line with you!

No outside food or drink is allowed, you can't chew gum in the studio, and all electronics must be turned off before entering the studio. We left our camera at home because the website and ticket-confirmation e-mail specifically said that all cameras were forbidden. Realistically, though, they tell you you can bring the camera into the studio but it must be off (cell phones, iPods, etc. too) before you walk through the door. While in line, staffers inform attendees (several times, to make sure the message is not missed) that anyone who even looks like they're using anything electronic in the studio to take pictures will have their gear confiscated and held until after the show, and they'll have to show staff members photos on the devices before they're allowed to take their gear back. If there are photos of the studio found, attendees are told, they will be made to erase them immediately.

They are not messing around!

I wish we'd taken our camera anyway for pictures during the rest of the trip, but we figured we'd go the "better safe but sorry" route.

Upon going through the front door, all attendees pass through a metal detector and into the studio, directly to the left. The studio itself was exactly as I'd envisioned it in my head. The entrance leads to a short set of stairs (maybe 4 or 5 steps) down to the floor. To the immediate right is a staging area used for bits such as Jon's hilarious impression of Glenn Beck (though the chalkboard was nowhere to be found during our visit). In front of that, to the right as you enter the studio, is what you see on TV: the desk, the glass globe where the TDS correspondents sit, the monitors. Seeing it in person was a bit of a "holy shit" moment, I have to admit.

Just beyond the desk as you enter the studio is the first section of audience seating, to the left of Jon's desk (or to his right, depending on your perspective). To the left is the main seating area, which is where Nicole and I were placed. That's another rule, actually: they ask you to please not ask for different seats, and to sit where you're directed. They acknowledge that at various times one's view may be blocked by cameras or props, but that it's the nature of the beast, and it can't be avoided. There are many TV screens hanging from the ceiling showing what's going on at the desk anyway (including the various video clips used during the show, etc. - what you see on the screen is what viewers will see at home when the show airs every night).

I've drawn a very crude sketch of the studio layout. The two red dots?



That's where Nicole and I sat. We could not have asked for better seats. We were slightly off center, four rows up. We could see around *and* over the cameraman who shoots the straight-on desk angle, which was fantastic, because when we have tickets for various events, we always seem to end up sitting behind Kevin McHale and Frankenstein. But not this time!

The show starts at about 5:45 or so. After the audience had been seated, the music in the studio (mostly classic rock - Led Zeppelin, the Stones, etc.) seemed to get louder and louder until the warm-up comedian came out to chat with the audience and go over some ground rules. He explained that the audience had to be very active during the show, because watching passively and laughing to yourself at home is a very different experience than being in the studio. When you listen to the audience when you're at home, it's an important part of the organic experience of hearing a joke. The reaction in the studio helps to get a reaction at home. He encouraged everyone to have a great time, and to laugh heartily without faking it. This is actually a very easy thing to do once you're there and "in the moment" with the 230-or-so other audience members.

There are microphones hanging over all sections of the audience to pick up the response to Stewart's "performance", but there is NO "applause" sign anywhere in the studio. I can assure you that the energy from the audience is not fake or forced, and that the reaction to the videos and jokes is very natural. It gets loud in there. The stagehands do a quick countdown to let everyone know when the commercial break will be ending, so everyone can make noise at the beginning of the next segment, but that's it.

After the warm-up comedian did his thing, Jon came out to answer a few audience questions (most of which, on this afternoon, were of the "I was wondering if you had any advice for someone who ..." variety). He tried to shrug these off a bit, in his typical self-deprecating "why would anyone thing I'm an expert" kind of style, but he was a good sport. He did warn everyone, though, that his guest (former first lady Rosalynn Carter) was violent and swearing a blue streak backstage (funny, because she's in her 80s and could not possibly have been more soft-spoken, kind, and warm).

Literally seconds after taking the last question from the audience, he went behind the desk and the show started almost immediately. No countdown, no anything, just time to go!

Watching the show on TV, you know that Stewart often swears during the taping, but it was a little weird to actually hear the words instead of just the bleeps.

I was a little disappointed that the second segment was a recorded one, as I was hoping we'd see John Oliver, Larry Wilmore, or better yet John Hodgman. Oh well. I don't know if Jon sees these segments prior to their becoming part of the show, because he sat at his desk watching it on his monitor along with the audience, and he was clearly enjoying himself and laughing as well as it aired. After leading into a commercial, he pointed to the top of the stairs where we had all entered and introduced Jason Jones, the correspondent who had produced the segment.

Between segments they played more music, to which Jon would frequently play pencil drums or mouth the words while preparing for the next bit. They played Foo Fighters and Bush when we were there, but not whole songs. Very little time is wasted, and the 30 minutes of TV that aired last night was actually taped in about 23, I'd guess. Intro, segment 1, outro, short break, intro, segment 2, outro, short break, intro, guest, outro, short break, intro, Moment of Zen, credits, go home. The show was over so quickly I could barely believe we were already done.

After the show, Jon thanked everyone for coming and headed backstage. As we got up to leave, I went over to one of his staff members and handed her two DVDs to give to Jon: I had burned him MP3s of 24 Buffalo Tom bootlegs that I'd acquired over the years on one DVD; on the other, 17 Tom Waits shows. I wrote a short note simply thanking him for the great work he did. I hope he got them. I didn't put my name on it or anything (I wasn't fishing for a handshake or autograph or anything), but if one of his staff members ever finds this blog entry someday, perhaps they can let him know it was me who was responsible for the discs, and that I hope he enjoyed them as much as I enjoyed being part of the Daily Show's audience.

Perhaps we'll get to attend another taping in a few months, when we're eligible again. Or perhaps we'll see the Colbert Report ... my fingers are crossed!

If you missed it, here's the episode directly from Comedy Central.

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!