What a wonderful day!  I got the chance to drive down and play golf with Dad and our friend, John Gould.  I say our friend since John was complaining about only having one friend (Dad) and I graciously volunteered to be friend #2.  By the end of the outing, Sally had agreed to be friend #3, but David declined to be friend #4.

One of the things I love about playing with these two fine gentlemen is the camraderie and laughs.  No one gets a free pass from the teasing and yet everyone cheers everyone else's successes.  The highlights of this round were John's birdie, Dad's and my (and John's) multiple pars, and a rather amusing slip of the tongue by yours truly.

I was yanking all of my iron tee shots to the left.  As John and I left the tee box, I allowed as to how I used to always slice the ball.  "But now," I said, "I'm more of a hooker."

Then I put my finger on my lips and said, "Hmmm...I don't think that came out quite right!"  I'm sure I'll hear about that one on future outings for years to come.  The only downer of the day was that we were supposed to be joined by my sister-in-law, Donna...and she couldn't make it at the last minute.  (We missed you, Donna!)

Given that I drove for 3 hours today, I also got the chance to catch up on my podcasts.  On one recent "This Week with George Stephanopolous," Senator Lindsay Graham was on.  George (just easier to type than Stephanopolous...it's not that I know him on a first name basis) asked Senator Graham about his opinions on the healthcare reform bills currently being marked up in the Senate and the house. 

Not once, but twice, Graham responded with the Republican talking points that a public health plan was "socialized medicine" and would lead to a "bureaucrat standing between a patient and healthcare."  Two comments.

1.  I fail to see how a public health plan that allows choice between current health plans and the public plan is "socialized medicine."  Nice buzzword designed to drum up fear of a European style of medical care (a type of care that few Americans bother to research enough to know that even if Graham's falsehood were true, it wouldn't be as bad as the hype).  But it's not true...socialized medicine implies a single payer system where the payer is the government.  And that's not going to happen.

2.  I don't know about you, but I currently deal with a pretty good health plan.  And even so, there's a bureaucrat standing between me and proper healthcare on occasion.  It's an insurance bureaucrat, but it's a bureaucrat all the way.  Again, another bogeyman designed to instill fear rather than a legitimate argument against a choice of the government plan.

As an adjunct, I should mention that I was intrigued by one idea being floated by Senator Max Baucus of Montana--co-op healthcare instead of a government run program.  I'll have to read more, but it seems like it may be a reasonable compromisel 

(See, I'm a Democrat and I'm not for socialized medical care...how can that be?)

Enough.  Off to the couch to rest up after my glorious day of golf.

I've been busy meeting with doctors, hearing incredibly wonderful news, feeling slightly surreal and celebrating the news with Dan.  (And with tons of emails and phone calls from Team Laura and beyond.)  So...no time for a blog the past few days.  I've been too busy doing the happy dance.

My apologies to readers who long for serious stuff: political commentary, saavy movie reviews, the odd poem or two.

That said, we did take in a movie this evening.  Public Enemies with Johnny Depp, Christian Bale and Marion Cotillard (who won an Oscar a few years back for her performance in La Vie En Rose).  I enjoyed the performances overall.  Depp has some great moments, Cotillard is wonderful.  Bale seemed a bit workmanlike in his role, but also had a few good scenes, especially when he was conflicted over methods used to "get" Dillinger.

Unfortunately, Billy Crudup was woefully miscast as J. Edgar Hoover.  And equally unfortunate is that the movie is more of a biopic than a story.  So few of the qualities that appeal most in movies are present.  There is no real story arc, no transformation of character, and really only one person with whom the viewer can readily identify--"Billie," Dillinger's onscreen girlfriend.

I also found it somewhat disturbing that in the end, I was rooting for Dillinger/Depp over Purvis/Bale.  I could have been influenced by the fact I find Depp more appealing as a person and actor...but I also believe that the movie pushes the audience to sympathize with Dillinger by romanticizing him through the vehicle of his love story with Billie.  The film also pushes the audience away from sympathizing with the FBI by emphasizing the brutality of law enforcement during the era.  I'd have to see the (longish) film again to be sure of why exactly I felt the violence done by Dillinger's gang was somehow less disturbing than the violence done by the FBI.  But I'm not sure I'll be up for that for a while.

Bottom line?  It's an interesting film with some good performances.  A good way to stay out of the summer heat, but not an Oscar contender, imho.  (Although they are going to have 10 nominees next time, so who knows?)

In the meantime, I'm taking my happy dance and going to bed.

In an article in today's LA Times, writer Claudia Eller posits that the reason several recent summer films have failed is that audiences are no longer drawn to A-list actors.  She cites the dismal box office performances of three films as part of her argument: The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3 (starring John Travolta and Denzel Washington), Land of the Lost (with Will Ferrell), and Year One (which boasted Jack Black and Dana Carvey).  She also mentions the earlier in the year drubbing of State of Play and Duplicity, films that starred Russell Crowe and Ben Affleck, Julia Roberts and Clive Owens, respectively.

Even without quibbling over Eller's definition of a star (C'mon, Jack Black?  An actor, yes.  A celebrity, perhaps.  But not a star in my book), I think she's got it wrong.  The reason movies like Up, The Hangover and Star Trek have hit it big this summer is twofold:

1.  Innovation.  Up is the latest movie from Pixar, the animation geniuses who turned the genre on its ear with Toy Story.  The Hangover takes a "should be predictable" premise and livens it up with mystery, unexpected twists and a genuine story of transformation in the middle of all its antics.  Star Trek took a classic series and reworked it in a way that drew Trekkies and their grandkids.  (Trekkies may not have liked it, but they had to see it.  Their kids and grandkids loved it.)

2. Audiences are tired of reruns.  Pelham is a remake.  Land of the Lost is another in a series of Will Ferrell films that seems increasingly desperate for an audience (think Steve Martin in the late 80's).  Year One is Dumb and Dumber set 2008 years ago.  Similarly, State of Play and Duplicity both had a "been there, done that" sort of feel to the trailers.  State of Play was too close to Michael Clayton and Duplicity seemed like a pared down version of any of the Oceans films (11, 12 or 13).

What Ellers did get right is that this movie going season, word of mouth moves a lot quicker than it used to.  Films are instantly reviewed by bloggers, like yours truly; via tweet and text.  I think that's a good thing.  The audience is showing, I believe, that its hungry for a story that either surprises or touches off emotions (laughter, tears, something).

Studio heads shouldn't eschew stars in an attempt to "fix" this issue.  They should eschew tired stories and poor writing.

Dan and I watched an episode of the British version of "Eleventh Hour," a series that ran for four episodes in 2006.  The last show of the series was called "Miracle."  The story involved a young boy who had a tumor.  He drank water from a spring that had recently begun flowing again and he was cured of cancer.

Naturally, the press got onto the story and swarms of people with cancer started showing up to "take the waters."  The show's hero, Ian Hood (wonderfully played by Patrick Stewart) sets out to disprove the miracle.  By the end of the show...SPOILER ALERT...he proves that the boy's tumor was healed by heavy water leaking from a secret nuclear weapons factory.

Which leads to the Sunday question:

Given what I've just described in terms of plot, is Hood correct that no miracle has take place?  Or is it a miracle of sorts that the boy happened to be near heavy water which he drank and which cured him?

Today is the first day I've worn shorts this summer.  It's also the first day this summer that the June gloom we have (and I enjoy so much) in Laguna Niguel burned off before 9:00 a.m.  Which means that it's been fairly warm so far...but not so warm I've turned on the air conditioning.  (Gotta save that for the really hot days with NO breeze.

We had a little celebration of my scan news.  Last night it was a bit of bubbly (just a bit...gotta preserve that liver) and dinner out at a favorite Italian restaurant.  Then this morning the celebration continued with the wild abandon only found in sticky buns.

We had previously been turned on to Trader Joe's sticky buns, but those have mysteriously vanished from the marketplace.  So we're now onto Williams Sonoma sticky buns (pricey, I know, but you get 12 in 3 packages of four).  Not quite as sticky as TJ's but amazingly flakey and so, so good.

By lunchtime, I'd recovered myself and had a macrobiotic lunch at the local vegan place.  We ventured really far from the normal post-chemo agenda (i.e., the couch) and went to see The Hangover.  I laughed harder at that movie than I have in quite some time.  It's like watching a slow motion series of pratfalls, all elegantly crafted, with unexpected twists when you're expecting veers.

Last weekend, Lynne and I saw The Proposal.  More of a chick-flick, it was also funny but in a more dignified, and somewhat more predictable way.  There were times that the plot veered dangerously close to another favorite Sandra Bullock movie, While You Were Sleeping.  But leading man, Ryan Reynolds, and supporting actress, Betty White, both pulled the movie out of romantic comedy predictability with charming performances.

I ask you, what's better than a summer day, wearing shorts, hanging with your honey (or an amazing friend) and laughing out loud at a funny movie?

(I couldn't think of anything either.)

Today was a very good day in that I got a lot accomplished, had zero nausea and good energy.  Still, there were a lot of little things that didn't make sense to me.  Here's a list:

1.  Since it's my body and I drank the barium on Monday and stayed still for the PET/CT scan, why is it that my test results can't be released to me until my Doctor approves their release?

2.  How is it that service reps at the Toll Road won't let me deal with Dan's account (when I've got all of his information including last payment, account paid from, our car registration numbers, etc.) in order to fix their silly error?

3.  Why is it a "security issue" for Dan to send a fax to UPS allowing Chad to pick up the jeans that we sent to him?

4.  Why do we settle for "news" organizations who chase their tails over a governor's infidelity but don't seem to be capable of actually reporting any substantive news?

These are just a few of the questions running around my noggin.  And this is on a good day...just imagine if it had been a tough day!

Hope that your day was "Huh?" free.

Howdy, ya'll.  I had quite a fun day today.  Breakfast with Dan.  A nice long shower (to last me 3 days).  A 2 1/2 hour infusion followed by lunch with my long-time friend, Peggy Edwards. 

She and I chatted about various projects she's been working on and the book I've begun working on (click here for the Introduction to Golf on Monday, Chemo on Tuesday: One Woman's Approach to Advanced Cancer.)  Then it was home for more chatting before Peggy headed for the Santa Clarita Valley.

I spent the afternoon working on the first of 20 recommendations for folks who've been diagnosed with cancer.  And then I had the ultimate summer pleasure of going for a sunny walk at 5:00 p.m.  Since then I've had dinner and now am talking to you, dear readers.

One other thing that made the day most pleasant was reading a positive article in the LA Times about South Central Los Angeles and the folks who are making a life for themselves in what some would consider one of the worst places to live in L.A.

Fascinating to see how the story these folks have about where they live and how they invest time and energy in making their homes beautiful reflects the lessons I've learned about thriving even though I have cancer.  It's so very much about the stories we tell ourselves.

Just a quick blog today.  I am dead tired after playing 18 holes of golf (110 with a chip in on the 10th hole) and then driving 4 hours from Laguna Niguel to Santa Clarita.

The drive was worth it (even if my rear got sore from driving and sitting) because I was able to have an excellent dinner with my friend, Lynne.  And I yakked most of the way up here with various folks on the hands-free, cellular phone.

The title of today's blog refers to the changes in my chemo-related neuropathy.  I have feeling coming back as the Oxylaplatin works its way out of my system...but I also had my first treatment with acupuncture yesterday (designed to mitigate the numbness).  Since yesterday's treatment, I've had significant return of feeling to the bottoms of my toes and to my palms. 

That means there's more of the pins and needles feeling and less of the numbness.  Yahoo!  I have 9 more treatments to go on the acupuncture (suggested by my friend, Katherine).  If this first one is any indication, I should see great results after the treatments are done.

So I'm going to crash now, celebrating one excellent golf shot and the pins and needles in my toes.