Favorite 'Bad Movie' Scene

While most movies suck like a redneck chick's hickie loving beau, they can usually hide their bruises better. Some scenes save a movie like a turtleneck on a promiscuous tramp. But, like the turtleneck they only hide a portion of the pic. A stinker is still a stinker. My all time favorite, 'turtleneck' scence:

True Romance's "eggplant" scene:

This racist clash between Dennis Hopper and Christopher Walker is one the best verbal showdown duels on film. Walker's godfather-like character, sharp and slick, belittles Hopper's blue collar trailer trash with grace and spite. Out of no where, Hopper shoots back with a family tree history tale of Walker's origins. Now, Hopper's on top, confident and strong pounding this monologue-rebuke down Walker's throat. It's classic mobster ball breaking. Of course, Walker's the one with the gun.

Explicitly Stereotypical

I want to stress what Crash is really about. The best way I can do this is quote my favorite online critic and fellow USU student Alex Jackson.

It’s a film about racism. Don’t think that it’s about anything other than racism any more than Traffic is about anything other than the drug trade. It’s a broad epic film about a specific social issue. Second, the characters in Crash are not human beings. They are placeholders representing the converging attitudes and frustrations of their host race and ethnicity. Yes, the film is not at all subtle, and no, these characters are not at all three-dimensional (though writer/director Paul Haggis has his characters do lots of contradictory things and his talented cast successfully finds ways to join these contradictions in order to give their characters the illusion of depth). Subtleness and three-dimensionality are not virtues in this situation, though. Racism is a fairly complex issue and in order to examine its complexities we need everything to be blown-up and larger than life.

Jackson’s point illustrates the true nature and purpose of Crash’s characters. Its fun to think this is a meditative exploration into real Los Angeles. But in this case, Haggis just uses L.A. as a backdrop to play out his point. He could have used any town in America. Racism is not exclusive to L.A but since its universally known as a melting pot of diversity it seemed a logical choice for Haggis.

Explicit Stereotyping
The Eastern European shop owner exchanged a heated confrontation with locksmith, and Mexican-American Daniel. The shop owner felt he was being cheated, partly because the two couldn’t communicate and partly because he harbored certain prejudices toward Daniel’s ethnicity. Daniel’s appearance: shaved head, tattoos, and a wife-beater tank tap fit the requirements for the shop owner’s definition of a lazy, low balling Mexican. When Daniel tried to explain that he couldn’t fix the lock because the door was not aligned correctly, the shop owner shouted obscenities and blamed Daniel when his shop was broken into and vandalized. The shop owner applied his anger and explicit stereotypical grudge-riddled vendetta toward Daniel and tried to kill him. The expression, an engaging encounter involving a gun and torn conscious, was public, not necessarily because people were or weren’t around but because it was done without any hesitation or discretion. The Fundamental Attribution Error refers to the observer’s bias and is supported in this case. Unknown to the shop owner, Daniel was actually an honest hardworking father who had been at the mercy of implicit stereotyping earlier in the film (with Sandra Bullock’s character). Daniel is aware of how difficult it is for him to convey his true character in an area where people like him are easily pointed out for societal flaws. The shop owner knew nothing of his reformation or renewal work ethic, and only saw him as a stereotype. Luckily the shop owner’s forward thinking daughter, who must have known of her father’s impulsiveness, bought blanks for his gun instead of the real thing. The encounter with Daniel could have ended messy.

Implicit Stereotyping
Whereas explicit stereotyping is conscious, deliberative, and controllable, implicit stereotyping involves a lack of awareness and automatic activation. In the beginning of the film, Jean (Sandra Bullock) and her husband walk by two young black guys in an upper class part of town. Jean unconsciously veers out of the way of the two young men to avoid them. Later in the film we find Jean as a bitter, homemaking burnout. She is a racist but doesn’t know it. Her aggression toward other races is built on her silver-spooned fed upbringing. She is entitled and they (everyone else) are her stepping stools to high society. She sees the two young black men on the street as thieves or muggers. She doesn’t feel these two young black men should be in her side of town. Although her expression of the stereotype is done publicly, Jean feels it’s justified because of who she is and what she is. Therefore it’s not a matter of a public or private forum; it’s a matter of entitlement and internal class distinctions. She would have done the same thing in front of a large crowd. Jean represents the implicit stereotyper in all of us. She is the most universal character. Her role as a housewife indicates that it could be anybody. Jean’s expressions however, do not support the Fundamental Attribution Error because she’s right. At least in this case she is. The young boys do mug them and steal their car. In addition, it’s important to point out the active narration provided by Anthony (Chris "Ludacris" Bridges). Anthony, an articulate, well-dressed carjacker is also bitter and tired of being stereotyped. He feels that America owes him because of its history with inequality. Anthony would bite the hand that feeds him and then complain that it doesn’t taste good enough; all the while expressing how much the hand owes it to him to feed him. He symbolizes the obvious, out-in-front contradictory nature of himself and others like him; as well as the irony in openly rebuking the very nature of the very thing your engaging in.

Undoubtedly Duba

Dibley's pups

Duba, the sole survivor

Last day with Mom and Dad

Duba Now

We had this great idea: Breed Dibley, sell the pups and use the money to pay off Havyn's birth bills. If it sounds too easy it probably is. Dibley's pups came a week early and we weren't ready. She had them throughout the house. Blood splattered our carpet, couches and the christmas decorations in the closet. It was the one saturday that Ty and I couldn't be home, but by our estimations we didn't need to be. We found Duba, the largest of the four pups, through his this-can't-be-right cries. He was tucked inbetween the micro-fiber love-seat cushions. The other three were scattered throughout the closet. We placed them in Dibley's Welping box and let Mom go to work. Unfortanately Mom didn't want to go to work.

Less then a week later I sat peering at the remaining two through the incubator glass at the animal hospital. Both on inabators. Their two siblings died in my hands a few days earlier. Life is fleeting. When you watch something, no matter how small, take its last breath you feel its death. Its muscles stiffen and skin grows cold. The transition from life to death is soft and slow. I remember giving some make-shift form of CPR to try to revive the first one. The second one's neck looked broken, it went much quicker. Dibley had been moving her pups back and forth in her welping box since their births. Each one had puncture holes. Duba was the biggest. Being nearly twice the size of the other three and much more lively, Duba surivived when the others couldn't. It was almost as if he was fighting to live. After his sister died we brought him home and hand fed him every two hours for four weeks. He continued to get stronger, livelier and more playful.

Havyn was born when Duba was five weeks old. We were swamped with responsiblities and made the decision to sell him, even after committing to keep him a few days earlier. We hated to see him go but were happy with who he went with.

Even though the whole dibley breeding/birthing experience was sad and difficult it acted as a parental precurser for Havyn. By the time she came around we were used to crawling out of bed every two hours and fixing up a bottle. We knew about the art of sucking and proper bottle nipples. We were used to having patience with sucking too fast and spit-up clean-up on asile floor.

Now looking back I can't imagine not having the experience of taking care of little, run-in-to-anything-and-everything Duba. He helped us more than we helped him.

My New Perspective

Havyn's happy as a lark

punky Havyn

Our first family portrait

When I'm cruising around Blogger checking out the various blogs I see many a baby-page-blog. Proud parents uploading baby pics by the folder load, and commenting on the ins and outs of their baby's lives. A lot of this stuff is easy, cheesy and quick: a pic and a caption, a pic and a caption and an occasional comment on how exhausted the parent is.

Most of this stuff is universal: baby ate, she was so cute; baby slept and oh how cute she was; baby pooped, and if there wasn't the darndest poop-relief cute expression on her face.

Most of these blogs I came across were set up just for this purpose. And what a purpose indeed. Comedian David Cross has this schtick on one of his CD's where he comments about what it's like to be the non-parent friend to these overly exited parent types. To paraphrase, "Oh my baby was so cute, he ate a grape today, you should have seen him eat this grape." Cross fires four letter worded sarcastic quips, indicating how great it must be to watch your kid eat a grape. He pounds across how little he cares about his friend's kids and their grape eating moments and goes on and on about various related experiences and how he could care less. I laughed my ass off while listening. He definetly had a point. But when you're a parent, no matter how cynical and hip, it's different. Watching this little spasm-frenzied milk spitter smile, laugh and feel the water of a bath for the first time is enchanting. Especially since the proudful humming of the inward thought that "this little bobble-head is mine" replays like a broken record. Every move, either controlled or not is realized as a first, and there's something poetically rich about it.

The Hostel Brokeback Saga

As seen on Hard News Cafe

Being a Utah native and growing up LDS in a predominately LDS community, I'm very familiar with Jazz owner and the you-know-this-guy car dealing czar Larry H. Miller. Miller, during the opening weekend of Brokeback Mountain at his Salt Lake Jordan Commons Megaplex this summer pulled the picture hours before its Utah début. Of course this sparked a fiery controversy with community members. Supposedly Miller had just heard that morning that the film was about homosexuality and made the call to pull the film. Miller is known for his deep religious conviction. He doesn't go to Jazz games on Sundays and bankrolls LDS film projects.

The controversy, of course, was good publicity for Brokeback. As a limited release film Brokeback surpassed box office predictions and received all kinds of accolades. It also did well in Utah and eventually came to Logan and stayed for an astonishing four weeks (those of you who know Logan, know that that's saying something). Miller, when asked by the local Media as to why he did it, said he didn't agree with the content and got a lot of flack and praise for saying that. My staunch, straight arrow father called him a hero. Others called him a hypocrite, pointing out other films that the church would also frown upon that were shown in his theaters at the same time as Brokeback. Case in Point, Eli Roth's Hostel. After having seen both Films, I can't help but comment.

Hostel is brutally baked with decapitations, chainsaw limb hacking, disembowelments, eye plucking and brick powered skull bashing. In addition it blows Brokeback out of the water in the sex/nudity category as well. This film boarders on NC-17 and by nature is anti-American, inhumane, sadistic, cruel and bloodthirsty. But, one thing is for sure there are no homosexuals, if anything, the film is also anti-gay. One scene shows a man on a train touch the knee of the man he's sitting next to and get's called a 'faggot.'

In contrast, Brokeback is the classic tragic love story. It follows the romantic and secretive 20 year relationship of cowboy's Jack and Enis and profoundly defies the stereotypical masculine nature of the cowboy image. It provokes altered, off-the-beaten-path thinking and promotes conversation about the traditionally taboo subject of homosexuality. It's also a reflective portrait of small-town America and typical conservative, xenophobic closed-mindedness.

So, Is Miller heroic for standing up for his values and standards or is he just another homophobe? Had he seen both films would his decision still have been the same? Perhaps this is just another illustration on mainstream society's homophobia. Does showing Hostel over Brokeback imply that Miller would rather promote brutality and merciless killings over homosexuality? If the content concern for Miller was sex scenes, why didn't he pull Hostel and many other films like it that showcase explicit erotica? Would he rather watch people die than see men kiss?

At the time's of Miller's decision I posed this hypothetical question to a co-worker while conversing about the situation. "Would you rather watch 2 guys kiss or someone get decapitated?" Surprisingly his answer was the later. My co-worker is a non-traditional male nurse and just got his doctorate degree. I was banking on a different answer from him. So maybe Miller's not so far off. Maybe the later would be the consensus of most Americans. I would like to hope it wouldn't be.

Super 'Spoiled' Sweet 16

Entitled rampaging teens on MTV's "Super Sweet 16" demand, command and repremand everyone in their path. They sulk, pout, beg and temper-tantrum like terrible-two-year-olds. The only difference is they get the latest BMW sportscar when their parents give in. Self-proclaimed diva's and daddy's-little-princesses are followed by MTV's cameras as they plan and promote their self-indulgent birthday bashes. Being the priviliged, coming-of-age youth of America has its price, and in this case, the parents pick up the tab. As with most reality shows, and especially MTV teen reality programs, "Sweet 16" follows a simple, scripted formula: watch child beg for the best, spirial out of control when things don't go her way and sigh at the end how wonderful it was to feel famous for a day.

How does it feel for the viewer? "Time" Magazine's Ana Marie Cox says it best:

To witness such unself-conscious acquisitiveness in one sitting is like eating an entire normal-kid birthday-party sheet cake, wax decorative candles and all. There's the same queasy sense of monochromatic excess because all the shows are alike, from the fake panic that the party may not happen to the scary-sexy dry humping on the dance floor. And no matter what the nominal theme of the party--California beach party, Moulin Rouge, the color pink--each guest of honor is really after only one thing. "I feel famous. I love it," says one. Another: "I definitely felt like I was famous." Yet one more: "I felt like such a star." The teenagers take on all the tics of fame, from tiny dogs to referring to oneself in the third person. We are all Paris Hilton now

The ungrategul diva's and their enabling parents make great drama-trauma tv, but more importantly, as with most my other favorite guilty-pleasure programs, they reinforce the notion of my own supposed stability. Which is the greatest, half-ass reason to justify watching these exploitative meditations of American society.

Embedded or 'Inbedded' Journalism

Embedded journalism is a political strategy to control content flow in the Iraq war resulting in limited skewed coverage. The limited coverage ranges from loss of objectivity due to uncontrolled assignment locations to the dependent and fraternal nature of the relationships of reporters and soldiers in their assigned units. Reporter’s views are altered and their empathy increased when their dependency to survive is solely based on the soldiers in their units, whose psychological and emotional states may be affected by what is reported.

“The embedded reporters depended on the men and women in the units they were attached to for food, water, companionship and indeed for their survival at times. Gordon Dillow, a reporter for the Orange County Register, wrote in the Columbia Journalism Review, that he found himself falling in love with his subjects. ‘I fell in love with ‘my’ Marines.’ In some stories, he said, “I wasn’t reporting the truth; the point was I was reporting the Marine grunt truth—which had also become my truth.” There was no misrepresenting of facts, just an empathetic tone, reports that often lacked a skeptical edge” (Pember, "Mass Media Law," p.87).

Bob Steele, from the Poynter Institute, says the access "has allowed reporters and photographers to get closer to understanding (the complexities of war), to tell the stories of fear and competence, to tell the stories of skill and confusion. I think that's healthy." But, Steele cautioned that “while closeness can breed understanding, journalists must remain objective and not write about ‘we’ or ‘our,’ but about ‘they.’ There's nothing wrong with having respect in our hearts for the men and women who are fighting this war, or respect for the men and women who are marching in the anti-war protests. The key is to make sure those beliefs don't color reporting” (Pros and Cons of Embedded Journalism on www.pbs.org).

In the process of embedding journalists the war coverage may be distorted or even shaped to protect the troops. However, Journalism ethics demand objective coverage so to perpetuate and promote open and honest communication with the audience in contrast to shifting the news to protect the soldiers.

Syracuse University Professor Robert Thompson warns, “When you are part of the troops that you’re going in with, these are your fellow human beings. You are being potentially shot a together, and I think there is a sense that you become part of that group in a way that a journalist doesn’t necessarily want to be” (Pros and Cons of Embedded Journalism on www.PBS.org).

Some critics felt that the level of oversight was too strict and that embedded journalists would “make reports that were too sympathetic to the American side of the war, leading to use of the alternate term ‘inbedded journalist’ or ‘inbeds’” (Embedded Journalist on http://en.wikipedia.org).

The embedded journalists feel pressure to adhere to the agenda of the unit their assigned, and often times feel the repercussions of reporting ‘negative’ stories differing from the views or intentions of the members in their unit.

“When journalists working for the Washington Times revealed that two U.S. Marines had died when they were ordered to swim across a canal in full battle gear without a safety line, they were blackballed by the unit with which they were embedded, cut off from all information. They eventually joined another unit” (Pember,"Mass Media Law," p.86).

In addition to reporting empathetically, being subjected to only a fixed area and unit may alter the reporter’s perception of the war. Part of the process of embedding journalists is to unite them with a particular unit whom they will be with for the duration of their report. The unit’s location assignment is now the reporter’s, and the reporter’s experience and perception of the war is based on where he is assigned. This strips the reporter of an objective opinion because it controls his experience to a limited, fixed area.

“Even reporters who supported the system [embedded journalism] admitted that it provided viewers and readers with only a tiny slice of what was happening in the war. New York reporter Vincent Morris said, ‘This war is whatever piece of dirt you are sitting on.’ He was attached to a helicopter unit, so the war is about helicopters, he said. Reporters were not permitted to leave their units to look outside, at what was happening elsewhere. Eric Sorenson, president of MSNBC, estimated that the embedded reporters saw far less than 10 percent of what actually was taking place, and that is what they reported” (Pember, "Mass Media Law," p.87).

Embedding journalists may have been part of a political strategy to reconcile bad publicity generated by past military conflicts for allegations of censorship, such as in Deseret Storm. In contrast, some critics feel the government during the Vietnam War resulted in to much freedom for the press. Embedded journalism may have been a strategy to balance war coverage by allowing press free reign within certain boundaries and guidelines. In this technological age, where computer-mediated communication allows anybody to post comments and opinions it may also have been in the government’s best interest to control the flow of information by embedding journalists in actual military units. Regardless the reason embedded journalism results in worse news coverage and is a form of censorship that violates First Amendment rights:

“The objectivity of embedded journalists has been repeatedly called into question. This is often raised not so much as a direct violation of the First Amendment (in the sense of a law prohibiting journalists from reporting certain issues) as it is a violation of the free speech principles behind the First Amendment of preserving the independence of a watchdog press. Usually the charge is not that embedded journalists have deliberately become government propaganda machines, but that by unconsciously associating themselves so closely with a military unit, they have become unable to objectively report on the war without placing themselves on the military’s side” (National Security on the Press on www.ezinearticles.com/?National-Security-and-the-Press-Part-Four---The-Risks-of-Embedded-Journalists&id=83556).

If embedded journalism results in worse coverage, then what is ‘better’ coverage? In order to act as ‘gatekeepers’ and ‘watchdogs’ of information journalists adhere to ethical standards so to promote the best possible news coverage. “
Public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice” (Code of Ethics on www.spj.org).

If embedded journalism results in limited skewed coverage and represents a subjective or empathetic tone then, according to the Society of Professional Journalist’s Code of Ethics, it doesn’t meet the high standards of journalistic practice, and therefore, results in worse news coverage. The standard for war time journalism has also been set.

“Several months after the Gulf War, a committee representing most of the nation's major news media issued a report stating that ‘independent’ and ‘uncensored reporting’ should be ‘the principal means of coverage’ for all future wars and military operations. The report also proposed some battlefield press rules, including the following:

1. The Pentagon should accredit independent journalists, who must observe ‘a clear set of military security guidelines that protect U.S. forces and their operations.’ Violators of these guidelines should be expelled from the combat zone.

2. Press pools should be used only during the first 2-36 hours of any major military operation.

3. Reporters should have free access to all major military units.

4. The military should not monitor or interfere with press interviews or any part of the reporting process.

5. Written dispatches and pictures from the field should not be subject to any ‘military security review."
The press argued that these rules would ensure press freedom and offer security to our military forces” (Press Freedom vs. Military Censorship on http://www.crf-usa.org).

‘Better’ news coverage is the adherence to the ethical standards of practice and exhibiting this responsibility by reporting the news fair and objectively. Embedded journalism, by nature, restricts the reporter to a limited sector of the news and instills a brotherhood loyalty to depict the war empathetically to those you see it with. This conflicts with the journalists code of ethics and results in worse news coverage in juxtaposition to the intended ‘gatekeeper,’ objective point of view initially sought for.

Liking "King Kong" means being sophisticated

Being somewhat a film buff and certainly an avid participant of film criticism, I was stupified when my brother-in-law tried arguing why film critics, and critics in general were cynical naysayers and unneeded. True, his argument was nothing more than a bitter opinion about people who dislike the movies he likes, but he was somewhat pasionate in conveying his opinion. He tried telling me that critics are negative people and that we don't need this negativity in our lives. He suggested that we watch the movies we want and not be swayed by the views of these "detractors." It was pointless to argue. The conversation was a bit silly really. But then I got thinking, being a 'avid participant of film criticism,' who's right and who's wrong? Are there any actual experts? I know we end up jumping into a roundtable on asthestics, and the definiton of art but is it so bad to love what many would call a terrible film? All rhetoric questions really. I did stumble across an intersting perspective at Film Freak Central however.

I basically distrust the idea of the film expert simply because so few of them are really experts. There are really three kinds of film buffs: the classic film buffs who are well-aquainted with Hollywood studio films from the pre-MPAA era; the cult film buffs who are junkies for sensation, the Quentin Tarantinos and Psychotronic Movie Guide crowd, if you will, they're well-aquainted with anything "exploitation"; and then there are the art film buffs, who tend to be the most arrogant of the bunch-- the self-proclaimed experts of films. The problem with these guys is that they only watch the "cream" of the exploitation and classic genres. The only way you can get them to watch the "dregs" is if the dregs are playing in theaters across the country and are topical. Because they don't watch the shitty classics and the shitty exploitation films, they're unfamiliar with the genre conventions and can often have a grossly slanted view of something like, say, film noir.

If you think yourself a film expert you sure as fuck better be able to converse fluently about hardcore porn from the early eighties. To say nothing of the Friday the 13th decalog. I'd also love to hear your opinion on the nine films that James Cagney made between The Public Enemy and Footlight Parade.

It's not just breadth and depth of knowledge about film. I always go back on that rant that these arbitrators of film culture are not experts on psychology, sociology, theology, anthropology, geography, history, or philosophy. Many are well-read, few if any well-read enough to justify their position in deciding what's art and what's not. Are there gradients? I would assume, but as there could hardly ever be anybody who is qualified to be an arbitrator of film culture, that line that somebody must cross in order to determine what's great art will be pretty much perpetually undefined.

So basically, Joe Blow's opinion really is as good as yours and mine. Find something you like, find something you hate; figure out what you like and what you hate and why. Any asshole with a keyboard can be a film critic, all you need is an opinion that you're going to stand by. I've found myself searching on the IMDB for people who love (or even just like) Man of the House, Firewall, and Dukes of Hazzard and see if they hate anything "good". I did find one Firewall fan who also really liked Aeon Flux, Uptown Girls, Resident Evil: Apocalypse and The Skeleton Key and disliked King Kong. (He also disliked 2046, but then again so did I). Granted for every film that this guy dislikes there're ten that he likes. That seems to be the dominant trend among the "bad" movie fans and disqualifies them from being regarded as valid film critics. Not because they're not sophisticated enough to like King Kong, but just because they don't have real opinions. But still, if you think that The Skeleton Key is a good movie and King Kong isn't you might be seeing something that the rest of us aren't and I'm eager to find out what it is. The Skeleton Key fans usually disappoint me, but you know I can't take the elitist position because, basically, there for the grace of God go I.

All the little in-betweens

America is a place of strong opinions. The left the right, the middle and all the little in-betweens need to articulate thier woes, worries and whims. They need to yelp and pout and let it all out, and create the sounds of democracy and freedom. Most people, in the process of recieving such "noise" wait to talk instead of listening. So much of this process seems to be one sided. I like to think I would listen to the illustrator of this painting describe it's meaning to me before spouting out my spew. I'd like to think I'd listen with the hope of being enlightened. But who's to say what I'd do. What do you think?

"The Mother and Child Reunion"

Impossible to describe, in an all inclusive manner, the up-and-down twirl-around, emotionally-charged-freight-train experience of having a child. I remember counting, pushing, blood-soaked orifice peering and sweaty furrowed brows. I remember the ground-hog like peek Havyn's slimy noggin first made. It reached the war-torn, moistened surface with valiant effort and remained the clogged-drain object for many more pain stinging pushes. Doctor wanted to suction her out. He nabbed a make-shift suction cupper and began the bruising. Her head, swelled and oozy, slipped through. The scene was familiar. I watched with interest years earlier at "the Miracle of Birth" tape during Health Ed. Most kids collapsed their heads against their desks, muddling out "eeewwww" and "siiiick." I, bright eyed and bushy-tailed, soaked in every detail. The vagina is a fascinating thing. No other body part emits such candid duality. One moment it's the tunnel to light and life, where education awaits, and the next it's the x-rated provocateur, luring men like mice to a trap.

When Havyn finally squeezed through, she was put aboard the mother ship of nursery carts. She was an awakening creature of the night, slimy and dark. Her caterwaul pierced the air like a fog horn. Nurses snaked her throat like plumbers to a drain, stuffing the probes in and suctioning meconium out. I stood between my little yelping goo ball and the abyss from which she exited. The doctor threaded his needle, calmed my wife with statements like "perfectly normal," and "happens all the time" and began the forging of the "level two," torn, animal-bite-like surface. She was white and barely moving. Her marathon, 21 hours of 2-minuet-apart contracting stomach muscles was over. The cause for her laborious, courageous effort laid 20 feet away but to her, seemingly forever. Havyn's high-decibel concert seemed to be nearing its finale. Wrapped like a burrito in a pink blanket, the nurse handed her to me and pointed to my wife. In moments like these you forget about science and biology. You don't pay attention to truths of a newborns black and white, foot-long visual capabilities. When you look in her eyes you know she's looking back. I had 20 feet with her and felt like an armored Truck driver carrying a sack of fortune, nothing was going to stop me from getting to my destination. Now, quiet, clean and warm, Havyn was nothing like the hideous mucky monster baby who crawled from out of the dark. She laid still and peaceful and I was soaking up this long-awaited meeting but something compelled me to hastely approach my wife. Because, in the words of Paul Simon "the mother and child reunion was only a motion away."