no news is good news

One memory I have of my maternal grandfather came from an instance when we were watching the local news together.  They usually made time in their house to watch the evening and nightly news, though I don't recall him frequently commenting on the details of what was on the news.  At the beginning of that particular newscast he encouraged me to count the number of negative stories and compare it to the number of positive stories that were being reported.  As you would expect the ratio was somewhere in the 8:1 to 10:1 range.  He never let me know if there was a specific lesson that he wanted me to get from the exercise, but the experience did stick with me.  I've wrestled with myself over the years regarding what the exercise proved.

One thing I am certain it proved is that the media makes the world far more scary than it really should be.  To allow a newscast to define your understanding of the world is to imagine a world that is far more terrifying than the reality for the average person.  There aren't murderers lurking around every corner.  Most people want to do good, or at least be thought of as someone who does good.  Those good things don't get reported, though.  I am not saying that most people are good.  People are sinners--the whole lot of them, including myself--but people also have humanity and by and large want to do good.

Another thing I think it proved is that the things that are noteworthy sort of establish the opposite about what society is like.  Things that happen all of the time aren't considered newsworthy.  As an example, a news crew could conceivably go to a city rescue mission seven days out of the week and find positive things that people do for others in need, but if someone is stabbed at that rescue mission one day out of the year that bad thing is the newsworthy event largely because it is both abnormal and consequential.

Something that I've given a lot of thought to is what positive news would look like.  Usually when I see a positive story on the news it comes across as either a puff piece or mildly propagandistic.  I don't know how you'd report on positive stories in a better way, though.  Maybe I'm so cynical I can't properly process a good, positive news story.  Is the problem me?

I've also given some recent thought to the news that my grandfather had been exposed to in his lifetime.  I've been watching a documentary on the Vietnam War over the past few months, and I'm coming to understand that the sixties were as much a time of upheaval as the current day.  This is to say nothing of time of the Great Depression and World War II.  So, when he was discussing the news with me he had a perspective I did not have regarding how scary news could be.  Maybe he was preparing me for a time period like the current one when there's a lot in the news to discourage a person.  If so, I think it worked.

confederate flags

Every once in a while I'll start to type a blog post and not really feel right about publishing it.  Ten or so years ago one of those posts related to a semi truck pulling a trailer I saw on the highway.  On the back it sported a Confederate flag and a verse from Psalms.  At the time, my irritation was in the fact that the love for these things could be conflated.  In my life, experience, and reading of Scripture, they are incompatible with each other.  That is still something that irritates me, but I never felt like my thoughts were developed well enough to post on it.

I've had another observation lately.  I don't live in the deep South, but I've still seen more Confederate flags around than I remember seeing before.  I don't know if this is just a situation of me noticing them more than before or there actually being more than before.  Maybe it's a bit of both.

I know there's been a debate for years around whether the flag is important for honoring past generations or if it's just racist, but I'll be honest that I don't understand how it isn't just racist.  If honoring the past requires pretending that the sins of the past weren't sins, or requires venerating the symbols of those sins, perhaps it is better not to honor that aspect of the past.

I do say a lot of political things here, but this is the one I'm the most concerned will cause problems for me.  Most people don't care about the Confederate flag, but those who do really do.  I'm not attempting to attack a region or cultural identity, but there's no way to discuss this without sounding like I am to a certain group of people.  Nikki Haley made it a bit easier to broadcast that view a few years back, but I could see this getting push-back in some quarters.

This brings me to a final observation that is difficult for me.  For a stretch of time when I was a kid "The Dukes of Hazard" was my favorite show.  As a six-year-old I couldn't go over a hill in the car without yelling "Yeeeee-haw!" like the hero Duke boys jumping over some obstacle in their Dodge Charger, the--uh--General Lee.  Which had a Confederate flag on the top.  And whose car horn played Dixie.  The 80s certainly was a far different time!

fight

I've done a lot of posting about, "When I was a kid," in the past few months.  This is one more, but with the twist of it being about what I didn't do when I was a kid.

A few weeks ago I heard another man around my age who I generally like and respect make a blanket statement about guys from our generation that doesn't describe me, and I'm not sure if that's because he's the odd one or I am.  The comment was went something to the effect of, "When I was a kid I'd fight on the playground with another boy, and afterward we'd be great friends.  I got a lot of my best friends today that way."  He stated this like it was a universal male experience and went on to make the point that this is one way in which men and women are naturally different.

I wrestled with friends a lot, and I got into arguments with one of my friends on a regular basis, but I never got into a true physical fight with anyone in either childhood or adulthood.  I'm sure that some of that comes down to parenting, and some comes down to the fact that I had a smaller than average build through most of childhood, but I never thought of fighting being the norm for boys.  I recall seeing boys on rare occasions "fight," if you could call it that, but I recall seeing many more boys stay to the sidelines in those "fights."

I do recall seeing several TV shows try to teach the lesson of physically standing up to bullies, but that always struck me (pun intended) as bad advice for the following reasons.

1. It's naive to assume that bullies are cowards who will back down to a smaller kid standing up to them.  Even if they are cowards, they'll be incentivized to make an example of anyone who stands up to them.
2. It's naive to think that when adults actually show up to deal with the situation that they'll understand that you were simply, "defending yourself."
3. It's naive to think that getting into a real fight won't lead to serious injuries that will be painful and take a while to address.
4. It's naive to think that a weapon won't get used in a real fight.

The advice always struck me as a roundabout means of victim blaming.  It allows for people to complain about the way these situations are handled today, because back in my day we understood that it was the victim's responsibility to stand up for themselves.  Fortunately, I didn't really have a lot of situations where this was applicable, but I always intended to back down from any fight as long as the fight wasn't about protecting someone.

Before our kids went into elementary school I had very genuine fears of them having to deal with bullying, and especially of NJ being in situations where someone wants to fight with him.  That sort of situation didn't appear in elementary school that I am aware of, and now he is going to an online school so it isn't likely to appear in the future.  Some of that is situational, and some of that is because society has changed.  I'm actually very happy that the cultural mindset has shifted on this topic.  Unless it's an absolute necessity, fighting is stupid.

doesn't age well

One of the things that most strongly shaped my childhood was that my parents were far more cautious than most other parents about the media that I consumed.  There's good and bad to that, and I'm finding that I'm a relatively strict parent in that regard as well, but it has given me a different perspective on some of the modern reflections on former media coming out of the #MeToo movement.

Today, watching TV and movies that came out during my childhood in the eighties or nineties is a non-stop experience in thinking, "They wouldn't get away with that today." What has become weird to me is that some of the very issues that would have violated my conservative parents' rules as a kid have become unacceptable in today's society.

One example is The Breakfast Club. I didn't watch it when it came out in the 80s. I was only five-and-a-half in February 1985, after all. I did watch it for the first time almost exactly twelve years ago, though, and remember feeling it was a bit off even then. I remember thinking that I didn't like any of the three male character's arcs because the jock and the troubled teen didn't really learn that they needed to change anything about themselves, and the nerd simply got a justification for doing everyone else's project. Based on the content in the movie, I would never have been permitted to have watched it in my parents' home. Apparently, Molly Ringwald rewatched the movie recently with her daughter and had a similar experience, though more for #MeToo reasons.

In one odd one I remember that Friends was off-limits because of sexual themes.  In more recent years I've seen analysis complaining about the jokes made at the expense of trans people.  So, the complaints about that show have come from both sides.

It's also very likely that jokes I've made or things I've done in years past haven't aged well either.  If so, it probably exposes wrongheadedness on my part more than anything else. So, if you've ever been offended by something I've said here because I've pushed that line, consider this my apology.  It was done in ignorance, but that doesn't excuse it.

More than ever, the times they are a changing. Rightheadedness or wrongheadedness stays the same, though.

binge watching

One thing that has been difficult on me lately is that I want to take part in what is becoming a national pastime of sorts--binge watching shows on Netflix.  My current life situation and responsibilities preclude this possibility, however.  Most of the shows I'd want to watch are not completely kid-appropriate, and there are too many other responsibilities I need to devote my time to in a given week.  This isn't to say I don't watch TV, but it is much less so than at other points in my life.


I remember earlier times in my life when people would say they didn't watch TV because they didn't have time, I would wonder how that could be.  I still wonder that, because I still make time, but I understand better now.  Now what I don't understand is how people who I know are as busy as I am are able to make time for a marathon of Stranger Things or The Crown.  They have time management skills that I still need to master.

This being said, I actually have more time than Golden.  Where I could realistically add a TV series or two to my schedule due to my willingness to give up some sleep, and her more constant responsibilities, it's a serious challenge to get small things added to her schedule.

All of this will change one day.  We're in a busy stage of life.  When the kids are older and some of our other responsibilities are lessened I anticipate us having more time for such pursuits.  This is just an outgrowth of our time of life, and some of our life choices.

This has me asking a few questions, though.  Is this a greener grass on the other side of the fence situation?  Will I look back on this busier time with nostalgia because of the kids' ages, or will I look back with relief that things are slower?  What percentage of adults are in a stage where they can't realistically binge watch a show without neglecting other responsibilities?

conspiracy theory, take 2

Years ago I wrote a blog post where I was very sarcastic toward people who held to conspiracy theories. That is not something that I would write again today, as I have realized in retrospect that the tone was somewhat detestable and more than a little self-righteous. If I haven't repented of this before, consider this my repentance now. That was a vain approach, and it wasn't the only vain thing I wrote in that era.

I have given a lot of thought to conspiracy theories since, however.

My issue with conspiracy theories has long been that they are intellectually lazy. The approach takes the form that I believe the world is a certain way, but the objective evidence suggests otherwise, so I decide that the objective evidence is just what some secret and powerful group of people want everyone else to believe. It exchanges a logical approach for storytelling, and it implies that anecdotal evidence is more valid than quantitative evidence.  It also appeals to the human desire to be superior to others since I get to be part of the small group of people who have figured out the way the world really works.

The mathematical take on this is that a true conspiracy with many members would be difficult-to-impossible to maintain, but as the number of people involved shrinks the potential for a secret conspiracy to be maintained increases.  So, a secret cartel in some industry that requires ten or twenty people to keep a secret is logically feasible, whereas a secret but huge cabal of thousands necessary to convincingly fake the moon landing or hide the fact that the earth is flat from the populace is not logically feasible.

The problem is, a lot of people whose opinions and intellect I respect do buy into specific conspiracy theories. The list of people I respect who I know believe in some conspiracy theory or another has grown significantly in the past few months. I don't know what to do with that fact. It bothers me because my respect for them is challenged, but then I still see the other areas of their lives and intellect that are worthy of respect. It's a difficult thing to reconcile.

So, the way things are now, if I hear someone relay their opinion that some conspiracy theory is true my reaction is one of two things. If it's a small conspiracy it is to consider the greater-than-zero odds that the theory is accurate. If it's a large conspiracy it is to do my absolute best not to let that theory tarnish my respect for that person. So, I'm doing my level best not to hold Fox Mulder in disrespect, but it's a serious challenge!

feature i wish netflix had

This is very much a first world problems post, but they happen.

A little under a year ago we cut the cord on cable.  Between Netflix, YouTube, and an over-the-air recorder (Tablo), Golden and I get most of what we want to watch..  However, I am sure the kids might prefer to have more ready access to the Disney and Nick channels.  One thing that gets on my nerves more now that we rely on it, though, is Netflix's impossible-to-navigate interface.

At first blush, the Netflix interface looks great.  It's clean and attractive.  It does a decent job of recommending things we'll probably want to see.  However, it is a major source of frustration for the way I want to use it.

The way I want to use Netflix is that I want to be able to go out searching for things I might like to see when I have spare time to investigate.  Then, I want to tag a movie or a show as "Something only I will like" or "Something to watch with Golden and I" or "Kid's shows" or "Good for watching with the family over the holidays."  What Netflix offers me instead is the ability to add the show or movie to a single list.  We have decided at times not to try to find something to watch on Netflix because we couldn't easily find something that fell into one of those categories on the spot.

This idea could be expanded upon as well.  As a parent it would be great if I could tag shows as "Only play once I enter a code" or take the opposite approach of disallowing everything unless I have tagged it as allowed.  It would also be nice to be able to tag movies in this way that are not yet on streaming, but might be some day.

A year ago I looked into whether I could write something like this myself using the public APIs Netflix allows developers to use.  I found that this may have been possible in the past, but they recently locked down what is truly accessible through their APIs to block what they viewed as competing services from using their data/system.

I also looked into submitting this request directly to Netflix because I imagine a lot of people would like a system like what I describe, and it honestly would not be very difficult to build.  It turns out that Netflix does not have a support email address to send these requests to, and only has an online chat function which is never active when I have time to submit my request.

So, I post my request here.  Maybe at some point someone in Netflix Product Management will be doing a Google search for desired features, run across this post, and decide that it isn't such a bad idea.  That's my only real hope for getting this incredibly useful feature added to the product that I subscribe to and use with some regularity.

why i'm a tightwad

I used to watch Suze Orman quite a bit.  It could have really been any personal finance advisor on TV, but she was the one who was on CNBC on Saturday nights years ago when I had an hour every week.

The thing I always noted about the show was that the people featured on it tended to fall into one of two categories.  The first category were the people who made every right financial decision in the book, had great jobs that allowed them to do what they were supposed to do, and called or wrote into the show more to brag than to ask for genuine advice.  The second were people who made a lot of bad decisions, or who were in unfortunate situations such that their finances were in shambles or close to it.  I never felt I fit in either category.  That, plus no longer having the spare hour every week, caused me to lose interest in the show after a couple of years.

Like most people in our demographic, we are in between these two extremes.  We are nowhere near destitute.  We aren't in the impossible ideal where many financial advisors say you should be either.

One of the things I have wished existed was some way to indicate whether you're making the right financial decisions.  I am not concerned with decisions about investments, or things of that nature.  As ridiculous as it sounds, I just wish there were guarantees that if I made such and such decision or put a certain amount of effort into work that this would cover all of the unforeseen things that we'll need to handle in the years to come.

I know that the worry that drives this is sinful.  I'm trying to repent of this, but I'm still human and I still have human drives.  It is something God is still working on in me.

The real problem I have been butting up against is that on a basic level I don't know what my responsibility is and what God's responsibility is.  Both the Bible and American society frown upon men who do not financially support their family.  What that actually means and what responsibilities it entails seems fluid, though.  What one person considers being financially responsible another considers not trusting God enough, or putting career in front of family.

Because of all of this I sort of default to being a tightwad since it's the safest option.  If I don't allow many frivolous expenses it's not my fault if some day if we're unable to cover some important expense.

I know this seems silly coming from someone in my situation.  I've got a decent job, a couple of degrees, and no student loans.  I still think about it, though.

boredom

When I was seven I remember wondering how I would ever outgrow Sesame Street.  I knew it would happen.  I could see that my parents, and other adults for that matter, only had a passing interest in it, but for the life of me I could not grasp what would change about me such that the show would no longer hold my interest.

A few years later my parents worked for a school on an Indian reservation (no one--even Native people--ever called it a "Native American reservation" in my recollection) they used to have a week of sermons at the school called spiritual emphasis week.  Something that those who have not spent much time on a reservation might not know is that time has a different meaning there.  Starting and ending times for a lot of events on the reservation are more generalizations than rules, and so many of the sermons would go hours long.  I distinctly remember sitting through a two-hour (or three-hour... they did occasionally go that long) sermon at nine years old wondering what would change about me for me to be as interested as my parents appeared to be in the sermon's contents.

Even today, I am often struck by how some forms of entertainment that others genuinely enjoy are painfully boring to me, and how many things that deeply fascinate me hold no interest in most anyone else.  What is it that drives fascination and boredom?  That question has been in my mind for at least the last thirty years.

I think there are three things that cause things to be boring.

1. Something is too simple.

Why do I find most kids' entertainment boring?  Easy, it's because there's nothing unexpected or engaging in it.  Bar none, if a children's show or movie is entertaining to me it is because something has been added to it that goes beyond it's primary audience.

2. Something is too complicated.

Many subjects are boring to me merely because I don't even possess the knowledge necessary knowledge to know how to be engaged.  By definition, it is difficult for me to provide good examples because the moment I have enough insight to cite an example I have stepped toward the issue not being so complicated. I do suspect that this is the main reason I am bored by much of what is considered high literature.

3 (or 2b). It doesn't speak to my experiences in life or the needs I have that drive me.

This is sort of like #2, but the reason for lacking understanding is not due to how complicated the issue is, but rather my not being equipped with fundamental background to appreciate the thing.

The best example I have of boredom from a lack of fundamental understanding is Pride and Prejudice.  I tried very hard to care about the book and the movie about ten years ago, but I just couldn't.  I lost interest in the book about four chapters in, and I could not connect with the characters on the most basic of levels simply because I had no fundamental understanding of what drove the main character.  I even got the sense that the things I sort of understood about the main character I understood wrong.

One of my pet peeves is when I am expected to enjoy something when I do not have the underlying drives or experiences that lend value to that thing.  I suspect that most other people feel similarly.

So, in order for something not to be boring to a person it has to reside in their window of knowledge where it isn't too dumbed-down to drive engagement or too complicated to make sense.  It has to also have some basis in the audience's experience and fundamental needs.

So, what do you think?  Are there other things that cause things to be boring?  Have you been as fascinated with this as I, or do you find this whole line of thinking boring in and of itself?  What is so boring to you it is painful?

wars versus trek

For whatever reason, many of those who love either Star Wars or Star Trek seem to have either disdain or condescension for fanboys of the other franchise.  Throughout the years I have heard many arguments between those who think that Star Wars is the epitome of storytelling and those who think that Star Trek provides great intellectual depth and something to aspire to as the human race.  I don't understand the debate at all, though, because neither series really should be considered part of the same genre.

Can you imagine for a moment people arguing about whether The View or Sportscenter is better?  They're both popular shows where hosts sit behind a desk, present news, and pontificate upon it's significance, right?  So that has to mean their comparable enough to debate which one is qualitatively better.  Of course that's ridiculous, and I think it's equally ridiculous to argue about Star Wars versus Star Trek.

While both franchises are Science Fiction story lines that have garnered rabid fan-bases, that is where their similarities end.  Their central purposes for being are entirely unrelated.

Star Wars is, and always has been, meant to be classic archetypal story that happens to be set in a futuristic setting (yet in the past and far, far away).  The setting is not supposed to be what drives the story.  The setting simply provides the surrounding details for a story that could just as easily, though less entertainingly, be set in a less exotic locale.

Star Trek is, and always has been, an optimistic view of what humanity could achieve, and what humanity could discover through those achievements.  The setting not only drives the story, it is the story.  An episode of Star Trek (or one of the movies) is presented with a hint of, "See what the crew of The Enterprise is discovering and experiencing?  We could discover and experience that too if we commit to technological advancement and supplanting Capitalism!"

The primary reason I have been thinking about this is that I have always been torn when people argue about these two franchises.  There have probably been times in my life when I would have favored one over the other, but never by much.  I greatly enjoy both of them on the right day and in the right mood, but I have never been a fanboy of either.  Both have great strengths and both have extraordinary flaws.  There is very little appropriate way to compare them, however, and do either justice.

boring silver corolla

I destroyed the engine in my car a few weeks ago.  I don't know all of the details, but somehow oil was not getting to all parts of the engine, and so I burned it up one morning on the way to work.  Due to this, I had to purchase a car fairly quickly so that we would not have to deal with the complications of being a one-car family for too long.

My thinking was that I wanted an affordable car that would last a long time and get decent gas mileage, so I found a low-mileage Toyota Corolla, and now that is what I drive to work.  It's exactly what I was looking for-a practical means to get to the office-but I have been going through a bit of a grieving process because I don't like having car payment.  That is not what this is about, though.

When I got this car it was not due to flash.  While a modern Corolla is not an ugly car, a Toyota will never excite anyone. That point was driven home while I was watching the following advertisement during the Super Bowl.


I also found the following commercial in looking for the first commercial.


The silver car in this ad is essentially the one I just bought.  Talk about timing.

Honestly, I prefer to drive an unassuming vehicle rather than a flashy one, and I'm happily married, so commercial doesn't bother me.  Also, I know that much of the difference is in the vehicle colors, but I prefer the silver to the red as well, so that says something about me. The type of man who drives a red pickup is not me. So, while I didn't really take it personally, I did let out a, "Hey now!" when re-watching the, "leave him to be with him," part of the commercial.

What can I say, though.  My priorities are boring.

state of the union

I noted earlier that I wouldn't post on politics again for a while.  What I should have rather said is that I won't take a political position in a post for a while.  What's worse is that I don't know how to right this in a way that doesn't sound snobbish.  Forgive me for this.

I generally pride myself on keeping up with political policy news, as well as the implications of different political positions.  However, I decided many years ago that I detested watching the State of the Union address as well as the rebuttal, so I have refused to watch either speech for the past ten years or so.  I also largely avoid televised political debates and political speeches.  No matter who is giving the speech I always feel like the sketchiest logic is used to score political points, and I get the sense that these events are meant to appeal to the people who care about the drama of politics rather than the nuances of policy. Since this turns my stomach—and it truly does—I do my civic-duty research elsewhere.

I do typically read up on the highlights of the State of the Union and its rebuttal after it occurs.  I am also usually very interested in reading about the highlights of political debates they occur.  However, I am less concerned about the drama that frequently creates headlines ("Politician so-and-so drew applause by issuing a killer jab to his opponent," or, "Idiot politician thought the capital of North Dakota was Helena."), and more interested in whether they gave hints to the nuances of their policy positions or proposals.

I always feel a little like I am not doing my civic duty by refusing to watch these events.  I can imagine the groans of a thousand social studies teachers at what appears to be my apathy or cynicism at this part of the process.  It does my emotional health good to avoid them, though.  With that, I think that not watching the State of the Union has to qualify as a very specific guilty pleasure of mine.

out of place

A lot of the time corners must be cut in television shows, movies, and other forms of entertainment due to budget.  To an extent I understand that, as I believe that most people do.  Some of the cost savers bother me more than others, though.  The biggest may be having someone who is very obviously not from a certain area of the world portray a character from that area of the world.  In this case I am talking about when this is blatant.

An example of what I am not talking about is having Apu in The Simpsons voiced by Hank Azaria or Kahn  Sr. in King of the Hill voiced by Toby Huss.  In both of these cases the characters are presented as a bit tongue-in-cheek, and there's at least a hint of what seems like it should be the right accent in their voices.  I am also not talking about the fact that ancient Roman, Greek, and Hebrew individuals are frequently presented with a British accent.  I don't know how people are supposed to have sounded like in those regions a few centuries back, so it isn't as offputting as it might otherwise be.

Three examples of what I am thinking about spring to mind.

The first example is more significant to me than it would be to others since I had some childhood experience living on and around reservations.  Native Americans have historically been portrayed by non-Native actors who do not talk a bit like any Native Americans I have met and whose facial features were very Caucasian.

This has gotten better in more recent decades than it used to be. I remember talk about relatives of a Native family I knew actually holding a short part in Dances with Wolves when it was filming in the area so some Natives have found roles. My bar for acceptability here is pretty low.  All I am really ask for is someone with a believable accent and who looks Native American to play Native American characters.

As an aside, Dances with Wolves was a pretentious and poorly paced movie if ever there was one. 

The second example is from a movie I rewatched several months back: Around the World in Eighty Days.  One of the main characters is Princess Aouda who is presented as an Indian (from India) princess who the protagonist rescues from a cult that is trying to sacrifice her.  She is played by Shirley MacLaine in this movie.  In case you are wondering how not Indian Shirley MacLaine looked in 1956, the below image from the movie should give a hint.

Shirley MacLaine playing an "Indian" princess

She made no attempt to adopt even a mild accent during the movie, so the entire time that character was on the screen I was thinking, "Had anyone associated with this film ever met someone from India?" Now I know that I am asking a lot for a movie released fifty-eight years ago, but I also know a lot of people from India.  No film holding a Best Picture Oscar should have been allowed to pass off Shirley MacLaine as Indian.

Finally, I spent some time last month playing a game on the Wii called Secret Files: Tunguska.  It's largely a puzzle game where you are supposed to pick items up around a playing area and figure out how to combine them to work toward a specific end goal.  The storyline for the game has German characters traveling on a Russian train, in an Irish pub, and through a Cuban psych ward.  At no time did any speaking character in the game come close to having even a fake German, Russian, Irish, or Cuban accent.  Ultimately, since this was a puzzle game the storyline did not matter so much, but it was jarring hearing "German" and "Russian" characters who sounded like they were from the American Midwest interact.

All of this being said, throw the flimsiest of Sci-Fi plots my direction and I will eat it up.  Perhaps I am not as discerning as I am portraying myself here.

world games?

I'm not sure how much of the Sochi Olympics we will be watching this year.  The kids are at that age where they can sort of watch the events, but they get bored with most of them.  Our five-year-old daughter was able to sit through and watch one or two figure skating routines this evening, but otherwise complained when the games were on.  I think the upcoming games in Rio de Janeiro and in PyeongChang will hold their attention better than this year's games in Sochi.

For my own part, some of the Winter Olympics sports can be a little difficult for me to get into.  I sort of alluded to this eight years ago (Has it really been that long?), but a lot of the events feel like the sorts of things that only a few hundred or a few thousand people in the world even have the access and resources to compete in if they are interested.

As an example of what I am talking about take a look at the list of official bobsled tracks in the world.  Cool Runnings taught us that you don't need to live near one to compete in the Olympics, but you certainly cannot expect to place well unless you live near a good track, can afford a bobsled, and have the time and money to practice.  This means that there are only a few thousand people in the world who can even realistically have the opportunity to compete in the sport, so this doesn't feel have the world-reaching feel that it should.

As another example if you live in the United States and you want to get into ski jumping you'd better hope you live near one of the seven ski jumping slopes in the country.  Really, any skiing competition limits the pool of potential competitors quite a bit based on means and geography, but the ski jump is the most extreme of those.

Every sport requires some sacrifice and/or means, but it seems like there are more that have this limit in the Winter Olympics than in the Summer Olympics.  My sense is that there are more Winter Olympic games that are outside the reach of what a typical family with an Olympian could afford than there Summer Olympic games.  I do acknowledge that there examples of accessible and inaccessible sports in both.

I think speed skating, and especially short track speed skating, is among my favorite sports in the Winter Olympics for this overall reason.  While training and equipment are probably expensive, it is an accessible sport.  You can become fast on skates without a trainer and without equipment, and so it is conceivable that you could acquire a sponsor of some sort to get a trainer once you prove your natural and practiced abilities.  It's the track and field events of the Winter Olympics.

I am looking forward to the Rio games in a couple of years.

love at first sight

I watched Warm Bodies this past weekend.  I did not love or hate the movie.  It was interesting enough.  The movie was a love-conquers-all zombie flick regarding the transformation of zombies back into something more resembling living humans.  That's not really a spoiler, as that's the selling point of the movie's trailer.  Also, the plot is directly influenced by Romeo and Juliet to the point that the main characters are named, "R," and, "Julie."

The storyline relies more on the power of relational love than most other movies with a romantic bent that I have seen.  It's love that drives the zombies' change after all (also in the trailer).  Part of that relational love thing was something that annoys me in most love-conquers-all stories—that initial romantic puppy love is the powerful love that conquers all.  In the movie it is not only puppy love that drives the change, but the main plot follows what I consider a puppy love relationship.

I know it seems only lightly related, but as long as I can remember a common question in movies and TV shows has been whether a character believes in love at first sight.  Frequently, some character's arc then sends them through a love-at-first-sight scenario.  In Warm Bodies, there is a love-at-first-sight scenario, but the writers built in some rules for how zombies work to make it not really love at first sight even though it totally is.

I have long wondered at the appeal of love at first sight for two reasons.

1. It seems like a lot to throw into a (potential) relationship way too early.  Love—real love—is wonderful, but also burdensome.  Real love involves willingness to sacrifice even when sacrifice is not reciprocated.  It is selfless.  That's a huge deal.  People are human, and being in a real romantic love situation before you have any idea what that person's strengths, weaknesses, quirks, and flaws are is a recipe for pain and disillusionment.  Will you choose to sacrificially love someone if you find that your life goals and priorities conflict?  Is that willingness something you want based solely on initial physical attraction?
2. Since loving at first sight implies severely limited knowledge of the other person does this mean that the person who idealizes love at first sight is attracted to people who make impulsive and unwise relationship decisions?

My guess is that the people who dream of love at first sight are not actually thinking about love when they dream.  I suspect that most people who long for love at first sight fall into one of the two following categories.

1. They want a serious relationship rather than a casual one so bad that they dream of someone skipping the important initial stages of the relationship.  Those initial stages of the relationship are the part where each person finds out about the good and the bad things about the other before putting their heart on the line.  Maybe this person does not figure that he or she will get past that stage if it is not short-circuited?
2. They want the self-esteem boost that comes from the knowledge that they are so hot they can cause someone else to stop thinking rationally.

Now, there are things that I do believe in at first sight.  I think strong physical attraction (mutual or otherwise) can appear at first sight.  Disgust or disdain can occur at first sight.  Intrigue frequently occurs at first sight.  Most frequently, I believe that indifference occurs at first sight.  One thing that I do not believe ever occurs at first sight, however, is true love.

the volcano sisters

Lately, the kids have really gotten into the TV show called The Backyardigans.  I am enjoying this because it has long been one of my favorite kids' shows.

The idea of the show is that five kids play in their back yards, and whatever storyline they imagine up during play time is the story for the show.  They play pretty much any characters a kid could think up from pirates to spies to traveling polka musicians.

One specific episode sticks out as a favorite, though, because I think it is so illustrative of a lot of relationships I have witnessed (and most assuredly not my own).  This is the episode entitled "The Legend of the Volcano Sisters."

In this episode the two girls play the Volcano Sisters who control the volcano on an island, and the boys play the Luau Brothers who are planning a luau on the island.  The girls announce that they are unhappy and announce that the volcano will go off if the boys are unable to address this.  Not wanting their luau ruined the boys run off, sure that the girls want something grand.

One boy climbs up a mountain to find the giant Very Heavy Tiki Mask on Tiki Mountain and brings that to the girls.  They announce that this is not what they want.  The next boy swims into the ocean to grab the Shiniest Pearl and brings that to the girls.  They reject this gift as well.  This point of the story is summed up in the song "Huka Pele," and this whole sequence is why I love this episode.  To see the guys running around clueless while the girls make demands is simply hilarious to me.  Finally, the last boy presents his idea of what the girls want.

The final boy brings a flower to the girls and asks them if they would like to come to join them for the luau.  Of course, this final boy actually did figure out what the girls wanted.  They were not looking for some spectacular gift.  They just wanted to be included.

There is probably more I can say, but I will leave it at that.  I truly just love this whole scenario from the episode.

the dad who works too much

I recently saw a Lifetime movie the title of which I don't recall that belongs in a very specific niche genre of movies.  It is a movie where the central focus is that a relationship is restored to a functional state once the man in the relationship discovers that he has focused too much time on his job at the expense of his family.  I can't begrudge this about the movie too much , since this is the type of movie that would be well-targeted to Lifetime's typical audience, and I did enjoy it more than I would have expected.  These type of movies do get to me on some level, though.

I have mentioned this before at a time in my life when this was much more of a sore spot for me than now, but I'm still a bit sensitive to movies where the fault is placed squarely on the husband who places work above family.  I know there are a lot of men who focus more on their work than their family, but it oversimplifies a complex issue.  It also usually couches the issue in terms that make the husband irrevocably the selfish bad guy who is the only person who needs to change for the relationship to be made functional again.

Most breadwinners in situations similar to the characters in these movies are not working long hours to afford a nice summer home, but rather to provide standard of living that they see as important.  The movies do not usually appropriately portray the inherent split priorities trying to be a good dad and a provider can be in the best of situations.  What we learn from this sort of movie is that if a man has to spend a lot of time working or if he pursues his career dreams at some family sacrifice that he doesn't really love his family or is not committed to them.  So, the women in the audience who feel like their men care about work more than them are supplied with a erroneous perspective that will only add harmful conflict and tension to the relationship.

I should acknowledge that of course the fact that this is a sore spot for me says a lot of negative things about me.  Of course it says that I view financial and other types of responsibility differently than I should, and it will be a long time before that is not true.  Of course it means that I still need God to set some of my priorities right.  All of this is something that I have been trying to allow God to fix in me, but old tendencies die hard.

As is obvious, this is a sort of soapbox for me but I have said enough of my peace.  Is there a specific sub-genre of movie or type of character or common plot twist that sets you off like this, even when you find the movie overall enjoyable?  Do you have a movie soapbox?  The obvious caveat to answering that question is that it reveals something about you as well.

march nothingness

I enjoy March Madness for a different reason than most everyone else does. I love this stretch of time when most other people are spending time watching a sport that I don't care about and TV shows are preempted, so that I can get a bit of extra time that I wouldn't have if I were a basketball fan.

By rights I probably should care about basketball. Now that I have a degree from the University of Kansas, I probably should care how the basketball team does. Of all the major sports, though, basketball is probably the one I care about least. I really, genuinely don't care. Golf, tennis, and NASCAR don't count as major sports.

I have a few problems with basketball. First, it is the sport where physical build most obviously trumps determination. Someone who is seven feet tall is going to outplay someone who is five-and-a-half feet tall regardless of the amount of practice they put in. Second, I can't recognize most strategy in the game like I can for a game like football, so it just looks repetitive to me. Finally, I have never played basketball well, so I never had a reason to care about the sport.

The problem is, most people assume that if you are a man in your thirties and you have an interest in some sports you must like college basketball. I don't like to keep pointing out that I don't care about the sport, so I usually find other ways to deflect conversations about basketball at this time of year. This used to be pretty difficult when I was in class at KU and everyone wanted to talk about the games, the players, the history, etc. I was relatively successful in avoiding looking like I had no school spirit when that was the reality, though.

Do you have anything similar where you just don't care about something you probably should? Is there something you don't always readily admit just simply doesn't matter to you?

the amazing disgrace

I have watched The Amazing Race every season since it started. One thing that I have been noticing more lately is how much some people take from their significant others. I am probably noticing this more because I am paying attention for it rather than because there are more verbally abusive relationships on the show. Indeed, the most verbally abusive of them all was Jonathan Baker in 2005, so verbal abuse has been a constant for years on the show. In the past, though, in my mind it seemed like the relationships with excessive shouting were in the minority on the race. In this season there have been several couples where I have wanted to strangle the guy for what he said to his wife or girlfriend.

How typical are these types of relationships? I am not talking about Mr. Baker abusive, but rather blame-her-for-everything-that-goes-wrong abusive. It's not far enough that most people would consider it abuse, but the result is similar to abuse. I have a sister and I have a daughter, and I do not want either of them learning to tolerate that treatment from a man. Even more than that, I don't want to inadvertently be that man to Golden. The guys who were doing that appeared to be clueless about it, so it can be too deceptively easy to think that I am beyond that poor behavior.

While the show sounds like it would be fun to be on, I will never apply to be on the show with Golden. The main reason is that I am a competitive person and she is not, which would ensure friction throughout the race. One thing that has bounced around in the back of my mind, though, is that I wonder how I would react in some of the stressful situations I see in the show. It can be all too easy and convenient to blame your partner when the right reaction is to encourage or support your partner. I really don't think that I would be that person who shouted insults, but I have to acknowledge that I still have some things to learn about properly handling stressful situations. This might be something about myself that I simply do not want to discover.

the test

Sunday night Jimmy Kimmel hosted the Lost review show and provided an explanation about religion that I used to share, but that I now disagree with and believe is horribly dangerous. He said that most religions, and certainly Christianity, involve living your life like it is a test then finding out at death whether or not you passed the test. Kimmel's history is with Catholicism, but I am relatively certain that even the majority of Catholic theologians would agree with my take on this over Kimmel's.

Why is this wrong?

Christianity's foundational claim is that humans are flawed and that Jesus came from Heaven to atone for our flawed nature and provide a means of salvation. If our salvation relies on our passing a test, then God arbitrarily denies people salvation, or Jesus' sacrifice was unnecessary, or the sacrifice alone was not enough to provide salvation.

What could be interpreted as a test?

Since I am not Calvinist I believe that all people can reject God. If I am correct, then rejecting God could be seen as a test. This is especially the case as people go through hardships that are meant refine them. If they reject God because of the hardships, then they could be said to have failed the test.

Even in this scenario, though, this implies too much that our salvation relies on us. We are not earning our salvation. We are just enduring life's occurrences. In life stuff happens. Some stuff happens to strengthen us. Some stuff happens just because that is the way things work out. I do not think it is wise to think of the stuff that happens as questions or sections on a test, though. When God allows or causes things to happen to us He is changing us rather than testing us.

Why is it dangerous?

First, I have already mentioned that the test metaphor makes it appear that we are the source of our salvation. It goes hand-in-hand with the idea that a lot of people have that salvation is possible by just being a good person. In his most famous sermon in Matthew 5, Jesus explained to his audience that no one is perfect, but that we need to be perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect. The book of Romans is even more explicit about this. This teaching directly contradicts the idea that we can "pass the test" in ourselves.

Second, it is not merely our actions that need saving. It is our nature. Though no one has done it, even if a person had been able to follow all of the rules of the Law and keep every command in Scripture, he or she would still have a sin nature needing to be undone. The fix to our sin nature simply does not fit the test metaphor. In a test if you do the right things you pass. In real life you have to become a reflection of Christ, and that does not come from ourselves.

Third, the test metaphor detracts from the fact that we are supposed to have a relationship with God. He is not our proctor waiting to find out who makes the cut once the curve is accounted for. He is a Father who desires to draw us to Him. Even if the test metaphor was accurate, who would want to serve a God who claims to want a personal relationship with me, but expects that I score at least an eighty percent on the multiple choice?

So, what is the right metaphor?

There probably is not a perfect metaphor, but there are a lot of good ones in Scripture. The Prodigal Son, while probably more about the "obedient" son, is a good example of one I think is useful. The prodigal's salvation occurs when he reaches rock bottom, humbles himself, and throws himself on his father's mercy. The father in the parable offers the forgiveness and salvation. The "obedient" son sees this and demands justice rather than mercy, probably foreshadowing his own undoing. When compared to the illustration of a test, this is a superb metaphor.