getmygoat

Today my goat and I finished watching the John Adams miniseries that aired on HBO last year (hooray for Netflix). For those of you who haven’t seen it, I highly recommend it. And since it’s a fairly accurate account of historical events, I’m not going to worry about spoiling the end for anybody.

It’s important to think about this film not only in terms of the history it portrays, but also in terms of the events current to its production and release. For those of you unfamiliar with US history, I’ll give you a little brush-up:

John Adams was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America. The movie begins with the Boston Massacre; he defends the British officers involved in court. The movie portrayed him as fair and pragmatic - though strict with his children - throughout his lifetime. When you watch it, you’ll see him wrestle with the idea of revolution, and only when the situation reaches a boiling point does he really push to separate from Britain. Adams debates with his pal Thomas Jefferson about how much power the national government should have over the individual states. John and his wife Abigail (one of my heroes) discuss the position of women and people of color in the new nation.
The movie continues through his presidency, during which he tried to maintain neutrality when Britain and France went to war. We watch as he signs the Alien and Sedition Acts (hmm… is anyone else thinking about Homeland Security and the Patriot Act?).

The final hour and a half of the show chronicles his life post-presidency, past the death of Abigail and two of their children. John Adams was too stubborn to die; he was almost 91 when he passed away, which is a pretty good run in those days. The movie ends when Adams and Jefferson pass away on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

The miniseries was filmed and released right before an election year, right in the midst of several current debates of legality and state lines. We watch the Founding Fathers struggle with the notion of going to war while their nation enters yet another year in combat in the Middle East. We watch the Adams women come to terms with the state of women’s health (most explicitly with Nabby’s battle with cancer) and challenge the terms of women’s subjugation.

The goat and I, again, recommend that you peruse this film should you get the chance, and if you’ve already seen it, we’d love some feedback about what it means to you in today’s political climate.

After yesterday’s blog about personal accountability and health, my goat and I found ourselves thinking about the best way to be good, healthy citizens in our neoliberal society.

Of course, one should avoid smoking, drinking, illicit drug use, and extreme sports. Those are pretty universally dangerous things.

The next thing we are told to do is exercise and eat well. But what type of exercise should we do? Is stretching and strengthening the muscles enough? Should we run? Lift weights? All of the above?

Regardless of how we straighten that mess out, we still need to figure out what to eat. All the diet plans have completely different criteria. Some say to eliminate fats while carb-loading; others say that carbohydrates are evil and to eat as much protein as possible. Some suggest (surprise!) moderation.

If you manage to come up with a good diet and exercise routine, you’re still bombarded by all the supplements on the market. Which miracle pill/root/herb will help you get into prime condition? I’ve heard of every solution from incorporating special berries into my diet to eating a particular kind of cactus.

Despite the sensory overload that is accessible health literature in this day and age, my goat and I have one big question: Just which plan are we supposed to follow to adequately care for ourselves?

My father and I are watching another trial on TruTV; in the case at hand, Marc Benayer is accused of shooting and killing Jonathan Samuels. Apparently TruTV is doing reruns of trials now, because my cursory online research says that Benayer has been found guilty and sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison (which may not be all that long, since he was 79 at the time of the crime).

All verdicts aside, what piqued my interest was an interview with a guest (I apologize for the vagueness in some of my entries; I catch what I can and try to research the rest). The topic at hand was Benayer’s mental state; he was found competent to stand trial and elected to represent himself despite indications of advanced Alzheimer’s disease. The lady guest mentioned that mental illness is not particularly different from physical illness, but people many people view mental illness as a type of weakness.

Last week I just happened to read an article by a woman named Rose Galvin, and she was discussing just the opposite. Many chronic illnesses and conditions are often blamed on the sufferer in the current neoliberal system. We live in a society which prefers prevention over treatment. This is a fine philosophy, but many illnesses have more than one cause and cannot be avoided so easily.

Galvin gives the following example: A man has a heart attack, the doctors ask whether or not he has a good diet, smokes, drinks, etc. He had been eating good foods and avoiding toxins, but he did not work out regularly. The doctors decided that the heart attack happened because the man didn’t work out enough.

I see evidence of this with advertising all the time. Many weight loss programs claim that losing weight will reduce the chances of disease, which is true, but one cannot assume that one will be disease-free because he or she maintains a healthy lifestyle.

I experienced this mentality a few months ago when I came down with bronchitis. It was such a miserable experience that I actually went to a physician instead of toughing it out. I told her my lungs hurt; the first thing she asked me was whether or not I smoke. While I understand the rationale behind asking this question, I did not go to the doctor for lifestyle advice; I went to the doctor to get rid of the pain in my chest. And no, I don’t smoke; some other irritant must have caused the condition (perhaps secondhand smoke from my friends and family, but she never asked about that).

I am not claiming that some illnesses and conditions cannot be prevented; I do believe that maintaining a healthy lifestyle can benefit most people in the long run. I do, however, question the reasoning behind the system of prevention versus the system of treatment. Is it my responsibility as a citizen to be healthy? Am I somehow weak if I cannot maintain my vigorous work-out schedule and strict diet? What if I am poor and don’t have the means to take proper care of myself? Who is to blame for my condition if I become ill? Why are the people the problem and not the diseases?

The goat and I were watching the news the other day (always a big mistake, if you ask me), and the announcer said that the United States’ presence in Iraq is allowed by a United Nations agreement. This agreement is due to expire at the end of this year, and the Armed Forces will need to either get out or renew the agreement (or break the agreement and stick around without permission, but we would never do a thing like that…).

Now the goat and I aren’t the smartest folks around, but we were a little confused with this news. We have several friends serving in the military, some of whom are in Iraq now. Out of those sent to Iraq (many of whom are taking a second tour), none of them gave a return date prior to January 2009. If this agreement has been in place since America began occupying Iraq, how come none of these branches (I’m thinking specifically of the Army, Army Reserves, and USMC) are prepared to pull out when the contract is over? Did everyone assume that it would be renewed? Why did I not hear anything about this agreement before now?

I support the troops, which is apparently a big surprise since I’m a registered Democrat. I enjoy having a military force to protect me and my home. I also want my friends to be as far out of harm’s way as possible. So personally, I’m hoping the United States will honor this agreement and bring my boys (and girls) home for the new year. I’m not betting on it. I understand that many people are concerned about terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, and if popular opinion has anything to do with it, this conflict will continue a long time.

Like many critics, I can’t help but compare the situation in Iraq to the one in Vietnam: we constantly dance around actually calling either one “war”, both attracted support with the use of buzzwords like “communism” and “terrorism”, and both were linked at times to a supply of natural resources (rubber plants and oil, respectively). I wonder if the huge difference between these two conflicts will not be the terrain but the exit strategy. From what I understand, the United States pulled the military out of Vietnam when they said they would (years too late as many would argue, but that’s not my point); I can only hope that this agreement will help bring those brave men and women home in good time.

This weekend my goat and I saw Body of Lies. It pissed us off, which is a sign of a pretty good movie. I won’t get into spoilers, but it gives you an idea of just how much the CIA plays fast and loose with international law and civil liberties.

To contextualize all this, I’m also trudging through Steve Coll’s Ghost Wars, a giant book that nicely sums up the United States’ involvement in the Middle East from the end of the Soviet war until September 10, 2001. It tells you, in a relatively accessibly form, about the key players and the main projects going on in Afghanistan during that time. It’s an interesting read if you’re into strategy, politics, or if you simply want to read up on the world around you.

Both the book and the movie show that the current situation overseas has been brewing for a long, long time. Whether or not anyone could have avoided it or what we should have/could have done is irrelevant now, but it gives one an idea of what’s happening in the world at large.

Now my goat and I don’t want to turn this blog into Ebert and Roper, but we did enjoy this movie because it made us think. We’re also intrigued by the amount of movies about current events these days. There is almost no lag time between an issue becoming apparent and the following movie about it. How frequently do we see movies about a particular president while he is still in office?

At any rate, we want to know what you think. Is it good that Hollywood directors have taken it upon themselves to educate us on current events? Does it make information more accessible? Or do they forsake facts for art and revenue?

I’ll bet you thought I meant Christmas, didn’t you? Well I didn’t. To be honest, Christmas has too much baggage and family drama attached to it, and I don’t much care for it at all.

My favorite holidays are in the fall. Halloween may well be the best; it encourages everyone to be someone ELSE for a day and eat lots of junk food. What could be better?

Thanksgiving! It’s the often-overlooked holiday devoted to football and gluttony, and I can hardly wait!

But back to Halloween. I think my generation needs to revive the masquerade ball. When did this holiday turn into nothing more than an excuse to dress up like a whore? I don’t have anything against whores, mind you, but there should be an art to costuming. There should be some humor and some thought in it.

I want to break out a ball gown that requires special underwear! I want a sparkly mask with feathers on it! And I want to be able to wear it again on Mardi Gras (another favorite holiday which has turned into little more than an excuse to get drunk and flash people).

This is not a cry for a return to conservatism (I’m always skeptical of people who talk about the Golden Years or the Good Ol’ Days). It’s a cry to make this time of year a little classier, and a little more interesting.

Then again, my goat and I aren’t quite ready to give up on our slasher films and haunted houses just yet. Perhaps we can devise a way to make it all come together…

In honor of the approaching end of hurricane season, my goat and I would like to talk about cones.

Those of you who watch the weather reports religiously (I’m looking in the direction of my fellow Floridians now) know all about the Cone of Uncertainty. We won’t be seeing that for a few more months, so we’ll have to watch out for some other cones to monitor.

My dog has a skin condition which makes him itch terribly. To keep him from chewing himself raw we stick him in the Cone of Despair. Don’t stick your hand in there, or biting may occur!

I prefer the Cone of Happiness, which is usually filled with ice cream, possibly dipped in chocolate, and always full of goodness.

Another possibility is the Cone of Debauchery, which is full of gin and vermouth (don’t forget the olives!).

We can kick it 80s style and bring back the Cone(s) of Madonna or wrap the Eiffel Tower in paper to make the Cone de France.

My goat is always equipped with Cones of Defense, but we’re open to any more suggestions you faithful readers out there may have.

My goat and I apologize for leaving you in the collective lurch yesterday. I sustained a minor fencing injury, and the goat diagnosed it as a broken finger; I couldn’t type with two fingers taped together. Fortunately for me, the goat was wrong, and I once again have full use of all ten digits. For the record, I did not consider taking one for the team and cutting it off in order to deliver your daily goat.

I’ve been halfway watching a trial with my father; unfortunately I did not catch any names, and I can not find this particular trial on Google. If you know the case of which I’m speaking, please give me a link.

A young woman (16 years old, I believe, 15 at the time of arrest) was found guilty of patricide today. During the trial the claim was that she convinced her older boyfriend (20, 19 at the time if I have my numbers right) to kill her father with a baseball bat. She helped plan it, made sure the dog was not in the room to protect her father, and gave the young man the means to commit the crime. The cases were severed, and I have not heard his side of the story yet.

After she was found guilty, the young woman in question admitted to committing the crime herself. The motive presented by the prosecution was the girl’s despair over her father’s disapproval. She could not continue her relationship with the older boy while she lived with her father.

This threw up some red flags for me. I was recently a teenage girl, and my father did not approve of all my friends (big surprise, that’s what dads do). I bitched about it. I wrote angry poetry about it. I glared and slammed doors. I did not try to harm him.

When I Googled “patricide” along with other possible terms like “16-year-old girl” and “baseball bat” I got several results (oddly, none for this case) dating all the way back to the King brothers who put my hometown on the map by beating their father to death with the same weapon. While there were some exceptions, these stories usually involved some type of abuse.

I am not condoning blaming the victim (especially since the defendant giggled throughout the trial and only showed remorse after the verdict was returned), but I am curious about what exactly took place in that house prior to the crime. The combination of the brutal manner in which that man died and the motive of wanting to run away with a boyfriend made me think that this was more than a typical father-daughter dispute.

Personally, I try not to advocate substituting one bad situation for another (i.e., getting married young to move out of a dysfunctional home), but I see it happen regularly. And while I do not doubt that this young lady believed (possibly still believes) that she was in love with the young man in question, there are always other options.

Why didn’t she just run away with the boyfriend and leave the father unharmed? Was she afraid he would try to find her? Was she afraid of what would happen if he did find her? Or was this another senseless act of violence brought on my fierce teenage emotions and a drive for some sort of inheritance?

I’ll admit that I don’t know all the facts; I can’t even come up with this girl’s name. But I do know that I saw something fishy behind the smiling pictures of her late father, and my goat wants to know what it is.

My goat and I finally got around to watching the Hostel movies. If you haven’t seen them yet, I recommend you skip this entry and come back tomorrow.

Okay, are they all gone now? Don’t blame me if I spoil it for you (or make you sick, if you intended not to watch, but I’ll try to keep this PG-13).

I love to travel, which is the main reason why I avoided seeing Hostel when it came out (I believe Part II actually came out while I was in Greece, but I could be mistaken). At any rate, as someone who would be a prime target for the torture/murder ring depicted in the film, I avoided it. Now that I’m broke and stuck in America, I thought it was time to see them.

I won’t write another article about violence and the media and OH, THE POOR CHILDREN. That’s been done, and my goat hates redundancy. But I will share with you how I read the movies, which actually gave me a better experience than your run-of-the-mill slasher flick (although I truly love those).

I noticed an interesting juxtaposition (within both original and sequel) of the whore house and the torture house. When Josh walks down the hall in the brothel, catching glimpses of men who paid to do “whatever they want” with women inside various rooms, it’s a foreshadowing of when Pax looks through the torture rooms (where you can literally do whatEVER you want) looking for Josh. In some ways, Hostel has a moral about taking for granted that you can rent bodies for a time; the boys were more than somewhat piggish in their “pussy tour” through Europe, but misogyny doesn’t warrant death…

Or does it? In Hostel Part II we follow two female Americans on an excursion which is just as doomed as that of the young men we met in the first episode. As females traveling without chaperones, they need to stick together and avoid sketchy people. Whitney isn’t very good at that,  which gets the ladies into a few uncomfortable situations, but by the end of the film Beth finally gets to do exactly what she wants to a guy who uses the dreaded C-word.

My goat and I are always intrigued when the hunter becomes the hunted, and we saw that theme in both movies. We also thought that the format of Part II added a little something special when it introduced us to the would-be killers early on in the plot (and not just as “Creepy Guys 1 and 2″). The first movie made me wonder what type of person would pay thousands of dollars to hurt a stranger; the second movie told me in explicit detail.

If you can withstand the graphic violence (my goat managed to obtain unrated director’s cuts), these movies are worth watching. And if you’ve already seen them, I’d love to hear what you have to say about them. Did you notice any good stuff that I missed? Which characters did you relate to? What would you have added or edited?

Those of you paying attention to football have probably heard of Trevor Wikre. Please wait patiently while I fill in those who haven’t yet.

Wikre, 21, plays right guard for Mesa State and broke his pinky finger during practice earlier this month (amazingly, it took him awhile to notice, but that’s another story for another goat). The doctor was ready to schedule a procedure during which pins would be inserted into the finger; the healing process would take about six weeks. Instead of opting for surgery that would take him out for the rest of the season, Wikre told the doctor to amputate.

Most bloggers and sports writers are shocked that he would make such a great sacrifice to play ball at a little-known college with only a small chance of being drafted into the NFL. Whatever; it’s his finger, and he can do what he wants. Personally I’d like to know why I didn’t hear about this until last week; I suppose it was making headlines again because it was his first game back with his beloved team (read no sarcasm from me there; he obviously loves the game with a fervor).

I can tell you that my goat brayed with panic and threw up in its mouth a little when we heard this story, but it has been known for being judgmental at times. I’m curious about what other people think about this young man’s choice. I’ll admit I’ve grown quite attached (awww) to my digits in the 23 years I’ve had them, and I’ve yet to encounter anything other than the continuation of my own existence that would make me willing to part with any of them. So in some ways I admire that Wikre loves something enough to cast off a minor body part to continue with it.

What do you think? What is worth just one fewer pesky pinky finger? Does this count as an elective surgery? If so, is it fair that he can opt to cut off a finger for a sport when I can’t get LASIK to correct my legal blindness? Does this circumstance change your view of other elective procedures like cosmetic surgery?