I just finished listening to the audio version of The Diary of Anne Frank. I have a few thoughts on this, but I'll address the one that strikes me the most in this post. That is that our perceptions of others is almost always inaccurate. I'm not even taking this from the obvious direction of the fact that people thought wrongly of the Jews. I was affected by a completely different manifestation of this in the book.
Ms. Frank apparently wrote her diary with the idea that it would one day be used as documentation of the life she and others lived during the German occupation. This was brilliant of her, but it also establishes that this is not just any teen-aged girl's diary. This is the diary of someone who is writing thoughts that she on some level expects to be broadcast to others. Given this, her clashes with others in the annex where she hid are fascinating. She probably expected those she wrote about to eventually discover what she was writing. What she thought the end result of that discovery would be is beyond me, but that reality had to be known to her.
Once or twice she has a deep conflict with her mother, but the person she seemed to constantly be irritated with was the matriarch of another family in the annex. In the book, this woman is named Mrs. van Daan, but her real name was apparently Auguste van Pels. To me, the clashes sounded driven by personality and generational differences between Ms. Frank and Mrs. van Daan.
It's easy to take Anne's side when she complains about how intolerable Mrs. Van Daan is. She is the one who gets to tell her side of the story, after all. Having concluded the book and learned that only one person who hid in the annex survived Nazi captivity, though, has given me pause and empathy for all of its inhabitants, including Mrs. van Daan. It has also caused me to wonder how I would be portrayed in such a work.
Can I imagine being trapped in a poorly ventilated annex with seven other people and minimal privacy for two years without coming a bit unhinged? Can I imagine the constant stress of potentially being captured, and slowly going further and further into poverty (There is a poignant situation recorded in the diary where Mrs. van Daan has to sell her prized fur coat so that they can continue to make ends meet.)? I am sure that there would be multiple instances of my having said or done things that would appear indefensible. Then, to have those recorded for posterity as the most noteworthy description of my life and character would be difficult to bear. I don't want to pretend that dying at the hands of the Nazis was in any way a good thing, but it is a minor mercy that Mrs. van Pels never learned of her future notoriety.
This sort of thing actually comes up a lot today. Someone will be filmed saying or doing something that is objectively wrong, then they are punished in an out-of-proportion fashion through a viral video or social media post. Sometimes it's even for things that aren't objectively wrong, but are just violations of social norms. An example of this showed up in a news story a few weeks back about someone who was caught shaving on a train (below).
Objective wrongs should be corrected, but people's lives shouldn't be destroyed in the process; and they should certainly not be destroyed over minor social rule violations.
That I am saying this isn't to imply that I'm better than those who share such viral things. I'm as likely to laugh and click share. I'm as prone as anyone to seek righteous comeuppance through online mob justice. My primary point is that I'm trying to do my best not to be part of the problem when I'm online, and I'd encourage anyone reading this to take conscious steps to do the same.
Showing posts with label videos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label videos. Show all posts
Friday, November 02, 2018
Tuesday, February 06, 2018
brain health
This past year I have been devoted to improving my health, especially as it relates to my cholesterol level. In a not-so-humble brag, I was able to bring my overall cholesterol down 68 points (and, less importantly, lose 42 pounds) in just over a year's time, so the effort has not been in vain. Given this new focus and my increasing age, I am starting to think more about how my lifestyle now will affect my quality of life when I am older and how it will affect how long I live.
One concern that I've had for a while is that there's Alzheimer's in my family. My grandfather on my mom's side had it, and his mother probably had it as well. While my dad's side of the family is clear of the disease, I take after my maternal grandfather in a lot of respects, so it would make sense that I get this risk factor from him. This makes the following video hit close to home.
I've gotten the cardio-vascular health issue under control for now, for the first time in my life, and I am actively attempting to learn new things at a far greater volume than I have in past years. This is the good news for me. There are other risk factors I haven't addressed, though. Specifically, I've got downright horrible sleeping habits, and I allow stress to get to me more than I should. Since my last step toward being healthy in my old age was addressing eating and exercising habits, sleeping and stress habits are the next logical step.
I have always had trouble going to sleep on a good schedule. Part of that has to be genetic, but part of it stems from the observation I've made about how I handle stress. I figure I'll need to address how I handle stress if I'm to crack the code of sleeping properly, so that's priority #1 for me now.
So, my question to everyone else out there is what do you do to manage stress, and do you find you get enough sleep during the week? Do you have any helpful strategies you follow to manage that?
One concern that I've had for a while is that there's Alzheimer's in my family. My grandfather on my mom's side had it, and his mother probably had it as well. While my dad's side of the family is clear of the disease, I take after my maternal grandfather in a lot of respects, so it would make sense that I get this risk factor from him. This makes the following video hit close to home.
I've gotten the cardio-vascular health issue under control for now, for the first time in my life, and I am actively attempting to learn new things at a far greater volume than I have in past years. This is the good news for me. There are other risk factors I haven't addressed, though. Specifically, I've got downright horrible sleeping habits, and I allow stress to get to me more than I should. Since my last step toward being healthy in my old age was addressing eating and exercising habits, sleeping and stress habits are the next logical step.
I have always had trouble going to sleep on a good schedule. Part of that has to be genetic, but part of it stems from the observation I've made about how I handle stress. I figure I'll need to address how I handle stress if I'm to crack the code of sleeping properly, so that's priority #1 for me now.
So, my question to everyone else out there is what do you do to manage stress, and do you find you get enough sleep during the week? Do you have any helpful strategies you follow to manage that?
Monday, October 02, 2017
fiber
When thinking about today's topic, my mind keeps going to the old SNL skit below.
When I started watching my calories this past March I very purposefully avoided putting too many rules in place. I figured if I started trying to manage carbs, or sugar, or anything else I'd eventually give up. So, I kept it to simply managing calories, and that was a very effective approach for me in cutting weight.
In the course of managing my calories I noticed a side benefit to this as well that minor digestion issues that regularly flared up for me largely died down. Over time, I have concluded that this is because my fiber intake has increased some as I've started eating more low-calorie fruits and vegetables.
This confused me a little since the way fiber helped me seemed to be the opposite of what it's reputation is. I was visiting the bathroom less frequently rather than more. The jokes I had always heard were always about how fiber kept you chained to the toilet.
With this evidence behind me and having learned about some of the purported benefits of a high fiber diet I decided a few weeks ago that I would increase my fiber intake. If increasing my fiber intake a little helped out my digestion increasing it a lot would make it even better, right!?
WOW, have I learned a life lesson! Specifically, it is not wise to increase your fiber intake between 50% and 75% overnight. The body has to adjust to this new way of life. Fiber has to be stepped up gradually. The problem is, this is hard to do. Too much fiber produces just so much gas (Sorry for that detail!), but too little fiber will not adjust my body to being able to handle the volume of fiber I need to have in my diet. Furthermore, it's not always easy to know whether I've properly hit my fiber target.
So, I'm hopefully at the tail end of this adjustment period. Having gone through this, I really don't ever want to fall off the fiber wagon because it'll be painful getting back on.
When I started watching my calories this past March I very purposefully avoided putting too many rules in place. I figured if I started trying to manage carbs, or sugar, or anything else I'd eventually give up. So, I kept it to simply managing calories, and that was a very effective approach for me in cutting weight.
In the course of managing my calories I noticed a side benefit to this as well that minor digestion issues that regularly flared up for me largely died down. Over time, I have concluded that this is because my fiber intake has increased some as I've started eating more low-calorie fruits and vegetables.
This confused me a little since the way fiber helped me seemed to be the opposite of what it's reputation is. I was visiting the bathroom less frequently rather than more. The jokes I had always heard were always about how fiber kept you chained to the toilet.
With this evidence behind me and having learned about some of the purported benefits of a high fiber diet I decided a few weeks ago that I would increase my fiber intake. If increasing my fiber intake a little helped out my digestion increasing it a lot would make it even better, right!?
WOW, have I learned a life lesson! Specifically, it is not wise to increase your fiber intake between 50% and 75% overnight. The body has to adjust to this new way of life. Fiber has to be stepped up gradually. The problem is, this is hard to do. Too much fiber produces just so much gas (Sorry for that detail!), but too little fiber will not adjust my body to being able to handle the volume of fiber I need to have in my diet. Furthermore, it's not always easy to know whether I've properly hit my fiber target.
So, I'm hopefully at the tail end of this adjustment period. Having gone through this, I really don't ever want to fall off the fiber wagon because it'll be painful getting back on.
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
actually healthier dust
Sorry for the length of this post. My health routine has sort of taken over my life, so there's a lot I want to report. No one is under any obligation to read this entire thing.
As should be obvious, I have had the longest hiatus from posting to this blog since I opened it. This wasn't intentional, but was a direct result of my exercise routine and church teaching prep cutting into the spare time I would have had to post.
I did want to report back in on how my healthier lifestyle is progressing.
When I started this exercise routine I wasn't extremely excited about it because I had real doubts that I would be able to stick with it, and to me it was worse to start and give up than not to start at all. I still have those concerns because it's an extraordinary challenge to squeeze my routine in, but I have stuck with it. I don't know if I'll be still doing this in a few years, but my mindset right now is that nothing I'm doing now is worth it if I don't stick with it over the long haul.
One thing that changed since I last posted is that I did actually start watching what I eat. I didn't at first because I didn't want to commit to more than I could stick to. However, in March I determined to try modifying my diet because I felt like if I'm already exercising hard I should do what I can to see good and more speedy results. I started using the app Lose It! to keep track of what I eat, and I've been a real stickler to keep on top of it. This has actually helped me stick with the exercise routine because it's undeniable now that there's a benefit to what I'm doing.
At this point, the benefit I can see is having lost about 35 pounds and somewhere between three and four inches of belly fat (belly-button level). My body fat levels have gone from somewhere in the 25% to 28% range to 20% or 21%. I know my VO2Max (how much oxygen your lungs can take in) is improved too because I can breathe better when exercising, but I don't know how to measure that. All of this is gravy (hmmmmm... gravy), however. My real goal is to lower my triglycerides and LDL cholesterol, and I won't have a reading on those until my next annual doctor's appointment in January.
I've had a few observations along the way.
As should be obvious, I have had the longest hiatus from posting to this blog since I opened it. This wasn't intentional, but was a direct result of my exercise routine and church teaching prep cutting into the spare time I would have had to post.
I did want to report back in on how my healthier lifestyle is progressing.
When I started this exercise routine I wasn't extremely excited about it because I had real doubts that I would be able to stick with it, and to me it was worse to start and give up than not to start at all. I still have those concerns because it's an extraordinary challenge to squeeze my routine in, but I have stuck with it. I don't know if I'll be still doing this in a few years, but my mindset right now is that nothing I'm doing now is worth it if I don't stick with it over the long haul.
One thing that changed since I last posted is that I did actually start watching what I eat. I didn't at first because I didn't want to commit to more than I could stick to. However, in March I determined to try modifying my diet because I felt like if I'm already exercising hard I should do what I can to see good and more speedy results. I started using the app Lose It! to keep track of what I eat, and I've been a real stickler to keep on top of it. This has actually helped me stick with the exercise routine because it's undeniable now that there's a benefit to what I'm doing.
At this point, the benefit I can see is having lost about 35 pounds and somewhere between three and four inches of belly fat (belly-button level). My body fat levels have gone from somewhere in the 25% to 28% range to 20% or 21%. I know my VO2Max (how much oxygen your lungs can take in) is improved too because I can breathe better when exercising, but I don't know how to measure that. All of this is gravy (hmmmmm... gravy), however. My real goal is to lower my triglycerides and LDL cholesterol, and I won't have a reading on those until my next annual doctor's appointment in January.
I've had a few observations along the way.
- Most of the diet challenge was finding foods I'm happy to regularly snack on at night. For now I've settled on a rotation of apples, celery, pickles, oranges, and carrot sticks. I'm convinced that this is the change that has effected my health the most.
- Early on, I'd occasionally still be hungry come time to go to bed, but I rarely am any more.
- I still snack on cereal and cheese and crackers occasionally. The difference is that it is more sparing, and I'm careful to limit the amount of milk I swallow with the cereal. I remember my great aunt telling me that I should use all of the milk that I poured into my cereal when I was a kid, but I believe now that advice made more sense when she was a child during the Great Depression than it does today.
- I used to make peanut butter and jelly regularly just because it was easy. I very rarely do that any more because it's a high-calorie food.
- If I'm ahead in my calorie count for the day, I absolutely splurge on some food I'm craving. There are two reasons for this. One is that eating too few calories negatively affects metabolism. The other is that there's a great psychological benefit to being able to regularly eat higher calorie foods when I'm ahead for the day.
- I track calories because those are quantifiable, but I'm coming to believe the calories matter less than that I'm eating more fruits and non-starchy vegetables.
- I personally avoid diet and fat-free foods and beverages. I used to drink Diet Pepsi, so I cast no judgment on those who use those. In fact, if you like the taste it might make sense. Whatever research I've been able to find on those products has made me doubt that diet and fat-free foods are beneficial, however.
- My weight loss has been reasonably steady at around a pound a week (maybe a little more) throughout this whole process. Everything I'm reading indicates that you don't want to lose more than two pounds a week.
- Just in the last few weeks I've started watching videos from NutritionFacts.org. They basically just walk through what the research says about different dietary habits, and it's extremely interesting. I'd recommend it for anyone who's interested in improving their health through (possibly minor) dietary changes, such as consuming a few more nuts a day or eating brown rather than white rice.
- I never dreamed I'd be the sort to look into supplements because that's the world of snake oil salesmen and bodybuilders. In fact some research indicates that vitamin supplements have a negative affect on peoples' health. However, I just ordered creatine supplements for the first time because the effects that specific supplement has on the body align with my personal health goals (namely, I'm targeting18%-ish body fat). It's a whole new world for me.
- Even after exercising for this long it's still obvious that my body has not been gifted with endurance or the ability to get a runner's high. Maybe it's because running is not part of my routine?
- I'm actually amazed at the number of minor things that these life changes have helped with (example), and I've also discovered some things that I didn't realize were an issue that I still need to put a plan together to address.
- I have never once exercised in a gym, and I don't ever expect to have a gym membership because I don't have time to go. If my exercising relied on me going to the gym, I wouldn't exercise at all. Everything I'm doing right now is from a FitnessBlender YouTube video in my living room.
So, lest anyone make the mistake of thinking I'm doing anything extraordinary, the following is the routine I've been doing.
When I first started out I was very out of shape, so I just rotated through the following routines, exercising five or six times a week until I started seeing some improvements. Mind you, they felt very slow in coming, but I did start to see them after a few weeks.
Then, I started working in some resistance exercises into my routine because I had read that it was important to have a mix of cardio and resistance to lower LDL cholesterol.
As I improved I slowly started working in more challenging and/or targeted routines and dropping old routines. Right now I have a five-day rotation that I typically go through in a week.
Day 1: Abs/Core (The hardest of all days)
Day 2: Tabata Style HIIT Aerobics
Day 3: Arms and Legs
Day 4: Beginner HIIT Aerobics
Day 5: Total Body Workout
I'm constantly reassessing this, so there will be changes in the future. I still have a lot of room for improving how challenging my cardio routines are, and I need to start stepping up my weights on "resistance" days. For now this is what I'm doing, though: about 140 minutes of exercise a week plus some watching what I eat.
Golden sometimes joins me in my exercising as well. Those are fun days.
Thursday, April 07, 2016
melancholy songs
I'm not usually drawn to melancholy songs, but every once in a while I'll lock onto one and listen to it to death. When I was in high school it was Elle G. by The Newsboys.
In my twenties I could not stop listening to the Johnny Cash cover of Hurt.
Oddly enough, the melancholy song I've been going to lately is an old one rather than a new one. It's the Gary Jules cover of Mad World.
For whatever reason, these particular songs are the sad ones I decided I wanted to listen to when I want to listen to a sad song. The songs themselves feel like they have more substance than a run-of-the-mill sad song, but that might be me rationalizing after I've decided I like a song.
Do you have any that serve this same function?
In my twenties I could not stop listening to the Johnny Cash cover of Hurt.
Oddly enough, the melancholy song I've been going to lately is an old one rather than a new one. It's the Gary Jules cover of Mad World.
For whatever reason, these particular songs are the sad ones I decided I wanted to listen to when I want to listen to a sad song. The songs themselves feel like they have more substance than a run-of-the-mill sad song, but that might be me rationalizing after I've decided I like a song.
Do you have any that serve this same function?
Saturday, March 28, 2015
low-fat diets
Every once in a while we'll end up with a low or no fat food product in the house. It's rarely on purpose, and is more likely due to someone not noticing the wording on the label, but those instances have led me to appreciate the effect that fat has on flavor.
Likewise, I have had a few similar instances to taste the low sodium versions of some things I like (V8 being the noteworthy one), and can appreciate the positive affect that salt has on the flavor of my food.
As long as I can remember I have heard that healthy foods are low fat, low salt, and low cholesterol. This has been promoted for decades. What I am now hearing is that much of that is wrong. The latest source I have heard this from is the following video, but it is by no means the first time I have come across this information.
What is particularly frustrating about this video is that it points out that when the dietary recommendations were made decades ago the evidence was already available to indicate that low fat diets were not medically beneficial. I have to say that if I learned this after going through a low fat diet or a low sodium diet I would be none too pleased. Those foods are simply not very good, and to give up those pleasures for no benefit would be difficult. That is to speak nothing of the people who died and may have survived if they knew to focus on something other than fat intake.
So, the good news is I can continue to eat food with fats in them without feeling bad about what that fat is going to do to me. The bad news is that many tasty foods that I want to eat are still known to be bad for me.
Likewise, I have had a few similar instances to taste the low sodium versions of some things I like (V8 being the noteworthy one), and can appreciate the positive affect that salt has on the flavor of my food.
As long as I can remember I have heard that healthy foods are low fat, low salt, and low cholesterol. This has been promoted for decades. What I am now hearing is that much of that is wrong. The latest source I have heard this from is the following video, but it is by no means the first time I have come across this information.
What is particularly frustrating about this video is that it points out that when the dietary recommendations were made decades ago the evidence was already available to indicate that low fat diets were not medically beneficial. I have to say that if I learned this after going through a low fat diet or a low sodium diet I would be none too pleased. Those foods are simply not very good, and to give up those pleasures for no benefit would be difficult. That is to speak nothing of the people who died and may have survived if they knew to focus on something other than fat intake.
So, the good news is I can continue to eat food with fats in them without feeling bad about what that fat is going to do to me. The bad news is that many tasty foods that I want to eat are still known to be bad for me.
Wednesday, February 04, 2015
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.
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.
Thursday, December 11, 2014
torture is wrong
I include the video below only because I started thinking about this topic due to watching this tonight.
One of the bigger recent news stories has been of the fact that details of how the CIA interrogated (or tortured, depending on who you ask) combatants captured in the war on terror. In the video above John McCain argues that he agrees with the Senate committee that released the details and also argues against the use of such interrogation techniques.
I for one do not know whether releasing the information was a good or a bad thing. I do not really intend to argue one way or the other because I do not have enough information to take an informed position on that. I do believe that I have enough information to take a position against the use of torture, however.
For a while I held the position that, while torture is a bad thing, it should be allowed in serious circumstances. If we believe that a bomb is going to go off in a city center, for example, and someone has information that could keep that bomb from going off, then I figured that torturing that individual should be an option on the table. This presents a few problems, though.
First, once Pandora's box is open where and how do you draw the lines? What is allowed and not allowed? How urgent is urgent enough? Is a bomb that threatens five people below the threshold but one that threatens twenty above it? Ultimately, in any scenario where the lines cannot be clearly drawn and where proper oversight is impossible the envelope will continue to be pushed until torture is allowed in scenarios that were never intended.
Second, I have heard multiple sources, including Senator McCain above, claim that torture does not produce useful information. While this may not be entirely true, I do believe its usefulness is more limited than most people realize. Is torture worth the moral cost if the information it gleans is minimal?
Third, the rationale I always used was an economic one, and that is not appropriate when dealing with moral issues. The thought went that if the action saves enough lives it is worth the moral cost of abusing someone else (who may or may not have it coming to them). Lives are not measurable units, however, and neither is the abuse something that should be measured against the value of lives. Certainly, if my family are the people threatened by the bomb I would probably be the first in line to extract the information to diffuse the bomb through abuse, and maybe in that it could be an act of love, but more of that is a confession of my sinful nature than I would like to admit.
In going along with this thought, I watched the movie Unthinkable about a year ago. From a philosophical standpoint the movie is interesting, but I would warn anyone who wants to watch it that it is not an enjoyable watch for a normal person. It deeply disturbing and very difficult to watch because it directly addresses the question of what torture is acceptable by presenting an extreme situation where millions might die, someone who has information to address the extreme situation, and a torturer whose job it is to extract that information. The movie is named by the fact that the torturer feels compelled to resort to unthinkable means of extracting information from the subject near the end of the movie, and the question in the viewer's mind is supposed to be whether he should take those truly disgusting steps in the name of saving so many lives.
I would argue that God does not calculate moral decisions based on the number of lives at stake. Therefore, something that is immoral to save one life is immoral to save a million lives. Again, if it is my family's lives, of course I am going to turn into a hypocrite, change my tune, and advocate whatever it takes. I am only a sinful human.
Finally, this may sound like a rehash, but I see no support for torture in Scripture, and rather an indication that it is Christians who should expect torture instead of dealing it out. Sure, we see that governments are given power to enforce justice (Rom 13:4), but we also see that God stood in judgment of nations and people who abused that power (Is 47:5-11). Further, we see no indication that Christians as individuals are permitted to do anything but respond to ill treatment by actively being kind and respecting their abusers (Matt 5:38-47; Rom 12:17-21). There was certainly violence that God commanded in the Old Testament, but I do not recall Him commanding torture.
Update (12/16/14):
I have two further notes I would like to make.
First, I am going to step away from political issues for a little while, so my next few posts should be largely apolitical. Thanks for indulging me on these, though.
Second, I did not address the justification that I keep hearing for torture that the recipients of said torture deserve it. Since I am addressing this from the perspective that it is unacceptable for Christians, I would point to the fact that, "they deserve it," is never a justification for doing something wrong to someone else for new covenant believers. This was the whole point of the parable of the unmerciful servant. The unmerciful servant was punished, not because he was unjust toward his fellow servant, but because he had no right to demand justice in the face of the mercy he had already been shown.
One of the bigger recent news stories has been of the fact that details of how the CIA interrogated (or tortured, depending on who you ask) combatants captured in the war on terror. In the video above John McCain argues that he agrees with the Senate committee that released the details and also argues against the use of such interrogation techniques.
I for one do not know whether releasing the information was a good or a bad thing. I do not really intend to argue one way or the other because I do not have enough information to take an informed position on that. I do believe that I have enough information to take a position against the use of torture, however.
For a while I held the position that, while torture is a bad thing, it should be allowed in serious circumstances. If we believe that a bomb is going to go off in a city center, for example, and someone has information that could keep that bomb from going off, then I figured that torturing that individual should be an option on the table. This presents a few problems, though.
First, once Pandora's box is open where and how do you draw the lines? What is allowed and not allowed? How urgent is urgent enough? Is a bomb that threatens five people below the threshold but one that threatens twenty above it? Ultimately, in any scenario where the lines cannot be clearly drawn and where proper oversight is impossible the envelope will continue to be pushed until torture is allowed in scenarios that were never intended.
Second, I have heard multiple sources, including Senator McCain above, claim that torture does not produce useful information. While this may not be entirely true, I do believe its usefulness is more limited than most people realize. Is torture worth the moral cost if the information it gleans is minimal?
Third, the rationale I always used was an economic one, and that is not appropriate when dealing with moral issues. The thought went that if the action saves enough lives it is worth the moral cost of abusing someone else (who may or may not have it coming to them). Lives are not measurable units, however, and neither is the abuse something that should be measured against the value of lives. Certainly, if my family are the people threatened by the bomb I would probably be the first in line to extract the information to diffuse the bomb through abuse, and maybe in that it could be an act of love, but more of that is a confession of my sinful nature than I would like to admit.
In going along with this thought, I watched the movie Unthinkable about a year ago. From a philosophical standpoint the movie is interesting, but I would warn anyone who wants to watch it that it is not an enjoyable watch for a normal person. It deeply disturbing and very difficult to watch because it directly addresses the question of what torture is acceptable by presenting an extreme situation where millions might die, someone who has information to address the extreme situation, and a torturer whose job it is to extract that information. The movie is named by the fact that the torturer feels compelled to resort to unthinkable means of extracting information from the subject near the end of the movie, and the question in the viewer's mind is supposed to be whether he should take those truly disgusting steps in the name of saving so many lives.
I would argue that God does not calculate moral decisions based on the number of lives at stake. Therefore, something that is immoral to save one life is immoral to save a million lives. Again, if it is my family's lives, of course I am going to turn into a hypocrite, change my tune, and advocate whatever it takes. I am only a sinful human.
Finally, this may sound like a rehash, but I see no support for torture in Scripture, and rather an indication that it is Christians who should expect torture instead of dealing it out. Sure, we see that governments are given power to enforce justice (Rom 13:4), but we also see that God stood in judgment of nations and people who abused that power (Is 47:5-11). Further, we see no indication that Christians as individuals are permitted to do anything but respond to ill treatment by actively being kind and respecting their abusers (Matt 5:38-47; Rom 12:17-21). There was certainly violence that God commanded in the Old Testament, but I do not recall Him commanding torture.
Update (12/16/14):
I have two further notes I would like to make.
First, I am going to step away from political issues for a little while, so my next few posts should be largely apolitical. Thanks for indulging me on these, though.
Second, I did not address the justification that I keep hearing for torture that the recipients of said torture deserve it. Since I am addressing this from the perspective that it is unacceptable for Christians, I would point to the fact that, "they deserve it," is never a justification for doing something wrong to someone else for new covenant believers. This was the whole point of the parable of the unmerciful servant. The unmerciful servant was punished, not because he was unjust toward his fellow servant, but because he had no right to demand justice in the face of the mercy he had already been shown.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
everyone is now dumber
Adam Sandler is one of those actors who you either loved in the nineties when he was relevant or you didn't. I really didn't. It's not that I had such overwhelmingly cultured taste that I couldn't appreciate his low-brow humor. I just felt like most of his jokes were rehashes of his other jokes. There is one scene from Billy Madison, however, that rises above Sandler's typical mediocrity. I present it below.
For those who didn't click on the video, the main character in this scene has just provided a wildly inaccurate answer to a question in an educational competition. The judge then insults the main character with the assertion that everyone in the room is now dumber for having heard the irrational answer, but he does it in a much more humorous fashion.
I will frequently hear someone say something mind-numbingly idiotic, and my mind will come back to this quote. If I am honest I have to acknowledge that that someone is often me, but I realize how dumb it was in retrospect.
I'll stop now before I provide too much opportunity to justify this being quoted at me today.
For those who didn't click on the video, the main character in this scene has just provided a wildly inaccurate answer to a question in an educational competition. The judge then insults the main character with the assertion that everyone in the room is now dumber for having heard the irrational answer, but he does it in a much more humorous fashion.
I will frequently hear someone say something mind-numbingly idiotic, and my mind will come back to this quote. If I am honest I have to acknowledge that that someone is often me, but I realize how dumb it was in retrospect.
I'll stop now before I provide too much opportunity to justify this being quoted at me today.
Monday, March 11, 2013
all that jazz
For one reason or another, one data point that some people have determined is valuable in determining whether someone else is intelligent or has artistic taste is what that person's opinion of Jazz music is. If you can appreciate Jazz it somehow establishes that your brain works in ways that are superior to normal brains in certain functions. Perhaps this is true, but if that is the case I cannot count myself among those superior thinkers. I simply do not like Jazz music.
The reasons for my disinterest in Jazz are numerous and detailed below.
Jazz is played in 7th chords. I do not generally like 7th chords. An example of what I am talking about is below.
Jazz focuses on improvisation. This shows up both in the instrumentals and in "scat," which most people know is the "boop-diddy-bebop" that some singers throw into the improvisational sections of songs. All of this improvisation sounds random, as it is supposed to. I think this randomness and unpredictability is appealing to a lot of people, but it does not do anything for me.
One of the main instruments utilized in Jazz is the saxophone, and for reasons that I cannot currently articulate, this is one of my least favorite instruments. I think I have a weird mental association with the instrument because I largely find saxophone music to either be depressing or boring.
Finally, and probably more importantly, Jazz is different from most other forms of music in that there is little or no focus on resolution. Most music follows a pattern of question and answer. Two or more musical phrases will be put together where the first phrase or group of phrases builds tension, like a question in verbal communication, and the final phrase will resolve the tension by concluding on a note or chord that answers the previous question. So, where most music sounds to my mind like a question and response, Jazz sounds to me like a run-on sentence that, even for its length, never completes its thought.
I am sure that a lot of my distaste has to do with the fact that I have not put enough effort into understanding Jazz to appreciate it. I do think that I have some valid perspectives for an art form that is intended to be subjective anyway, though. Sometimes people are just not wired to be able to enjoy specific things.
The reasons for my disinterest in Jazz are numerous and detailed below.
Jazz is played in 7th chords. I do not generally like 7th chords. An example of what I am talking about is below.
Jazz focuses on improvisation. This shows up both in the instrumentals and in "scat," which most people know is the "boop-diddy-bebop" that some singers throw into the improvisational sections of songs. All of this improvisation sounds random, as it is supposed to. I think this randomness and unpredictability is appealing to a lot of people, but it does not do anything for me.
One of the main instruments utilized in Jazz is the saxophone, and for reasons that I cannot currently articulate, this is one of my least favorite instruments. I think I have a weird mental association with the instrument because I largely find saxophone music to either be depressing or boring.
Finally, and probably more importantly, Jazz is different from most other forms of music in that there is little or no focus on resolution. Most music follows a pattern of question and answer. Two or more musical phrases will be put together where the first phrase or group of phrases builds tension, like a question in verbal communication, and the final phrase will resolve the tension by concluding on a note or chord that answers the previous question. So, where most music sounds to my mind like a question and response, Jazz sounds to me like a run-on sentence that, even for its length, never completes its thought.
I am sure that a lot of my distaste has to do with the fact that I have not put enough effort into understanding Jazz to appreciate it. I do think that I have some valid perspectives for an art form that is intended to be subjective anyway, though. Sometimes people are just not wired to be able to enjoy specific things.
Saturday, December 01, 2012
c64 batman
When I was a kid our family had a Commodore 64 computer, and most of the games I played were on that machine. Of everything that I played, though, the game that probably had the greatest impact on me was Batman: The Caped Crusader. I was really into the old campy TV series, and the game was more advanced than most Commodore 64 games, so it made sense that I would like it. It also held some value as one of the gifts for me that my dad had picked out.
As much as I liked the game, I was never able to complete either of the two missions, one against the Penguin and one against the Joker. In both situations I was able to get right to the end, but was never able to figure out the last thing to do to complete the mission. I spent hours trying to figure it out, and never to any avail. In the years since I have often wondered if I was missing something or if the game had been broken. What I would not have given for the ability to get a game walkthrough like is available online for most games today.
In thinking about game walkthroughs recently occurred to me that I could probably get a walkthrough of completing the game online, and I quickly found some YouTube videos of someone completing each mission. That completing both missions combined lasts less than twenty minutes is not a reassurance to my gaming abilities as a sixth-grader.
I'm including the videos below of the game for my reference rather than anyone else's because there is no reason anyone who did not play the game would care. However, I still wish it would have taken the person playing this less than twenty minutes.
Joker, Part 1:
Joker, Part 2:
Penguin:
As much as I liked the game, I was never able to complete either of the two missions, one against the Penguin and one against the Joker. In both situations I was able to get right to the end, but was never able to figure out the last thing to do to complete the mission. I spent hours trying to figure it out, and never to any avail. In the years since I have often wondered if I was missing something or if the game had been broken. What I would not have given for the ability to get a game walkthrough like is available online for most games today.
In thinking about game walkthroughs recently occurred to me that I could probably get a walkthrough of completing the game online, and I quickly found some YouTube videos of someone completing each mission. That completing both missions combined lasts less than twenty minutes is not a reassurance to my gaming abilities as a sixth-grader.
I'm including the videos below of the game for my reference rather than anyone else's because there is no reason anyone who did not play the game would care. However, I still wish it would have taken the person playing this less than twenty minutes.
Joker, Part 1:
Joker, Part 2:
Penguin:
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
rolling in the deep
In what appears to be an embarrassingly growing trend in me liking songs about women standing up to or wishing revenge on their exes (What's that about?), I'm finding that I'm somewhat drawn to Adele's ridiculously popular Rolling in the Deep. The lyrics are not written for me at all, but for whatever reason I enjoy the song.
I have every reason to not like the song. I think it's the anthem of a woman who does not understand the role she had in someone leaving her, so she wants to stew in revenge mode. One line from the song, emphasized below, gives away the singer's mistaken perspective.
I am torn on enjoying this song for this reason. Vengeance fantasies feed off self-righteousness, and this song is definitely a revenge fantasy, but in this case it seems screamingly obvious that the self-righteousness is unfounded. The woman isn't without the man because she is too good for him. She is without him, can't figure out why, and feels self-superior because she is stuck in the mindset that her fantasies should have been their fantasies.
I think that a lot of the popularity for this song comes from the fact that a lot of people—while it would be women in this case men are just as guilty—see relationships as ways to meet their own fantasies without concern for the other person's needs. When the other person either takes advantage of the him or her using the fantasy or breaks up recognizing how much effort the relationship is going to be, a song like this speaks to the person whose heart and fantasies have been broken.
This is probably too much thought to give to a pop song, isn't it?
I have every reason to not like the song. I think it's the anthem of a woman who does not understand the role she had in someone leaving her, so she wants to stew in revenge mode. One line from the song, emphasized below, gives away the singer's mistaken perspective.
The scars of your love remind me of us,This hearkens back to something that I noted that I have learned in the time since being married. Many phrases mean something completely different to a typical woman than a typical man. In my opinion the "it all" that they "could have had" has almost no connection with whatever the guy who left her wanted in the relationship in the first place, and that is why he left her. He didn't understand her and she didn't understand him. She had some fantasy about the relationship that she assumed had meaning to him, but that he probably did not even know existed, and so things played out the way they do when two people don't understand each other because they're only concerned about fulfilling their own irrational fantasies.
They keep me thinking that we almost had it all.
The scars of your love, they leave me breathless,
I can't help feeling,
We could have had it all,
Rolling in the deep,
You had my heart inside your hand,
And you played it to the beat.
I am torn on enjoying this song for this reason. Vengeance fantasies feed off self-righteousness, and this song is definitely a revenge fantasy, but in this case it seems screamingly obvious that the self-righteousness is unfounded. The woman isn't without the man because she is too good for him. She is without him, can't figure out why, and feels self-superior because she is stuck in the mindset that her fantasies should have been their fantasies.
I think that a lot of the popularity for this song comes from the fact that a lot of people—while it would be women in this case men are just as guilty—see relationships as ways to meet their own fantasies without concern for the other person's needs. When the other person either takes advantage of the him or her using the fantasy or breaks up recognizing how much effort the relationship is going to be, a song like this speaks to the person whose heart and fantasies have been broken.
This is probably too much thought to give to a pop song, isn't it?
Monday, April 23, 2012
hymns
Tonight our church had a hymn sing, and this brought to mind how full circle I have come on this genre of music.
When I was growing up my family listened to hymns a lot, and since I went to church regularly in traditional churches I heard my share of hymns as a kid. As anyone who hears a lot of a specific type of music will do, there were songs that I liked and songs that I did not like. I appreciated hymns overall, though, until I became a teen.
As I got into adolescence I grew to resent the expectation that church-goers would like the one genre of music over the others, and the attitude that many had that everything that was not a hymn was inferior (or worse, unholy). I also got tired of the tendency of hymns to use outdated jargon, and plenty of "thees" and "thous." As such, while I did not hate hymns, I learned to strongly prefer other styles of music.
As I have grown as an adult, and especially in the past two or three years, I have come to appreciate the depth and maturity that exists in many hymns. This is probably mostly due to the fact that I have more life experiences to appreciate a This has been in part because my understanding of Scripture and what practical Christianity really is has increased, and so some of what I thought I grasped before strikes me more seriously now. Some of this is that I am no longer in a situation, or have recently been in a situation, where there are any expectations on what music I am going to like or what I am going to relate to.
One example of a song that I have only recently been appreciating on a doctrinal level is "Rock of Ages." I am not Calvinist, and maybe this is one of the reasons it has taken some time to connect with me, but I feel I am only now grasping what I always claimed to believe—that I, and everyone else, truly come to God empty-handed. I bring nothing to the equation except a reticent willingness to be changed.
An example of a song that I appreciate based on life experience in a way that I did not when I was a kid is "The Solid Rock." Of my myriad of weaknesses, if there were one that I would pick out to say how much I underestimated the depth of it earlier in life, it is my ability to trust God. My strength is in trusting Him, but it's something I need His help to even consider doing.
One song I am including here just because I like it is the Owl City version of "In Christ Alone." It was written more recently than most traditional hymns, but it is essentially a hymn. It is also every bit as meaningful as the other hymns I have been contemplating lately.
There are certainly some hymns I still do not enjoy, and probably never will. However, I am getting to the point in my life where a good number of songs that I may have overlooked ten or twenty years ago can profoundly touch me. I must be getting old.
When I was growing up my family listened to hymns a lot, and since I went to church regularly in traditional churches I heard my share of hymns as a kid. As anyone who hears a lot of a specific type of music will do, there were songs that I liked and songs that I did not like. I appreciated hymns overall, though, until I became a teen.
As I got into adolescence I grew to resent the expectation that church-goers would like the one genre of music over the others, and the attitude that many had that everything that was not a hymn was inferior (or worse, unholy). I also got tired of the tendency of hymns to use outdated jargon, and plenty of "thees" and "thous." As such, while I did not hate hymns, I learned to strongly prefer other styles of music.
As I have grown as an adult, and especially in the past two or three years, I have come to appreciate the depth and maturity that exists in many hymns. This is probably mostly due to the fact that I have more life experiences to appreciate a This has been in part because my understanding of Scripture and what practical Christianity really is has increased, and so some of what I thought I grasped before strikes me more seriously now. Some of this is that I am no longer in a situation, or have recently been in a situation, where there are any expectations on what music I am going to like or what I am going to relate to.
One example of a song that I have only recently been appreciating on a doctrinal level is "Rock of Ages." I am not Calvinist, and maybe this is one of the reasons it has taken some time to connect with me, but I feel I am only now grasping what I always claimed to believe—that I, and everyone else, truly come to God empty-handed. I bring nothing to the equation except a reticent willingness to be changed.
An example of a song that I appreciate based on life experience in a way that I did not when I was a kid is "The Solid Rock." Of my myriad of weaknesses, if there were one that I would pick out to say how much I underestimated the depth of it earlier in life, it is my ability to trust God. My strength is in trusting Him, but it's something I need His help to even consider doing.
One song I am including here just because I like it is the Owl City version of "In Christ Alone." It was written more recently than most traditional hymns, but it is essentially a hymn. It is also every bit as meaningful as the other hymns I have been contemplating lately.
There are certainly some hymns I still do not enjoy, and probably never will. However, I am getting to the point in my life where a good number of songs that I may have overlooked ten or twenty years ago can profoundly touch me. I must be getting old.
Friday, March 16, 2012
kony
I figure that most people reading this know about the "Kony 2012" video that has been circulating the web, but in case you haven't seen it, it is below. As a warning, this is a half hour long so it requires a bit of a time commitment to watch.
For the uninitiated who don't have a spare half hour to watch the film, the video details the goal to capture Joseph Kony, a warlord from the region around northern Uganda, so that he can be tried for war crimes. The goal is a noble one, at least in intent. Many will disagree with the notion that the U.S. should get more involved in foreign affairs, but a scant few would disagree with the assertion that the world would be a better place with Kony put away for a long time.
I get some positives out of this. First, I do believe that the nations that are the "haves" have a moral obligation to assist in dealing with the issues that the "have-nots" deal with that result in massive suffering and death. Second, while I am not technically a neo-conservative or a pacifist, I get some pleasure seeing something targeted to the people most likely to be pacifists making what amounts to a neo-con's argument.
Two negative things strike me about this too, and I don't know right now whether these two things are mindless gut reactions or valid concerns.
First, this video seems like it is promoting slacktivism, which is something that seriously bugs me. On some level I have always believed that purposeful people work to accomplish tangible goals and lazy people who want to feel good about themselves spend the mere seconds it takes to share a video to raise awareness. I know that is an unfair generalization, and I know that this post could be construed as slacktivist as well. However, generalizations usually have some grain of truth, and issues such as this do not exist for the sole purpose of allowing people to feel good about themselves for taking a popular stance on them. You're against a warlord stealing children from their families to use in his child army? You must be a wonderful, caring person!
Second, it occurs to me that Kony's victims may have different ideas regarding the best policy for capturing Kony than the video presents. Indeed, the following video from Al Jazeera—I know, the source isn't the most trusted with a U.S. audience, but bear with me—and the reactions they captured to a screening of the Kony 2012 video at least appeared overwhelmingly negative. Video can be cut to prove nearly any point, but I still have the open question in my mind regarding the best way to deal with Kony.
If I were in a decision-making role on this issue I would probably support the current course of action. I don't know if it is the right action, but on it's face it appears to be the best. That said, if the locals did not support it, how could we, the foreigners?
I don't really have many more opinions to add. I think this is one of those topics where people bring their own opinions and really aren't going to be easily swayed from them. The issue genuinely is worth serious thought, though.
Update (3/17/2012): I feel I should note that the Ugandan government has responded to the video with what at least appears to be a reasonable point that Kony hasn't been in Uganda since 2006 when he was forced out by the Ugandan military, so U.S. involvement in the country may not be the best targeted. I don't know any better than anyone else if the military assistance that the U.S. is providing does any good or not.
Also, in case anyone reading this is wondering why I have not mentioned it, I know very well that Jason Russell, who was behind the creation of the Kony video, was recently arrested for pointedly embarrassing behavior in public. I just don't think that the incident is relevant to the question of whether the Kony video itself is ultimately a good or a bad thing.
For the uninitiated who don't have a spare half hour to watch the film, the video details the goal to capture Joseph Kony, a warlord from the region around northern Uganda, so that he can be tried for war crimes. The goal is a noble one, at least in intent. Many will disagree with the notion that the U.S. should get more involved in foreign affairs, but a scant few would disagree with the assertion that the world would be a better place with Kony put away for a long time.
I get some positives out of this. First, I do believe that the nations that are the "haves" have a moral obligation to assist in dealing with the issues that the "have-nots" deal with that result in massive suffering and death. Second, while I am not technically a neo-conservative or a pacifist, I get some pleasure seeing something targeted to the people most likely to be pacifists making what amounts to a neo-con's argument.
Two negative things strike me about this too, and I don't know right now whether these two things are mindless gut reactions or valid concerns.
First, this video seems like it is promoting slacktivism, which is something that seriously bugs me. On some level I have always believed that purposeful people work to accomplish tangible goals and lazy people who want to feel good about themselves spend the mere seconds it takes to share a video to raise awareness. I know that is an unfair generalization, and I know that this post could be construed as slacktivist as well. However, generalizations usually have some grain of truth, and issues such as this do not exist for the sole purpose of allowing people to feel good about themselves for taking a popular stance on them. You're against a warlord stealing children from their families to use in his child army? You must be a wonderful, caring person!
Second, it occurs to me that Kony's victims may have different ideas regarding the best policy for capturing Kony than the video presents. Indeed, the following video from Al Jazeera—I know, the source isn't the most trusted with a U.S. audience, but bear with me—and the reactions they captured to a screening of the Kony 2012 video at least appeared overwhelmingly negative. Video can be cut to prove nearly any point, but I still have the open question in my mind regarding the best way to deal with Kony.
If I were in a decision-making role on this issue I would probably support the current course of action. I don't know if it is the right action, but on it's face it appears to be the best. That said, if the locals did not support it, how could we, the foreigners?
I don't really have many more opinions to add. I think this is one of those topics where people bring their own opinions and really aren't going to be easily swayed from them. The issue genuinely is worth serious thought, though.
Update (3/17/2012): I feel I should note that the Ugandan government has responded to the video with what at least appears to be a reasonable point that Kony hasn't been in Uganda since 2006 when he was forced out by the Ugandan military, so U.S. involvement in the country may not be the best targeted. I don't know any better than anyone else if the military assistance that the U.S. is providing does any good or not.
Also, in case anyone reading this is wondering why I have not mentioned it, I know very well that Jason Russell, who was behind the creation of the Kony video, was recently arrested for pointedly embarrassing behavior in public. I just don't think that the incident is relevant to the question of whether the Kony video itself is ultimately a good or a bad thing.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
the pursuit of happiness
I have not watched any of the presidential debates in the last couple of months, but there were apparently two comments in recent debates by Newt Gingrich which resulted in standing ovations. The more reported statement was a rebuttal to his ex-wife's accusations about the situation surrounding their divorce. The statement that got me thinking was one that include the following sentence.
That a focus of debate popular enough to elicit a standing ovation in what I should expect to be one of the most God-fearing electorates in the world (South Carolina Republicans) is regarding the details of pursuing happiness is disheartening. The concept is not Biblical at all, and it's one of those arenas of knowledge where research fairly conclusively backs up the Biblical viewpoint. The following video exemplifies this to a degree. If one group of people attempts to be happy and another group of people attempts to be meaningful, the "meaningful" group will always be happier than the "happy" group.
I see this same concept embedded throughout the entirety of Scripture. It's summarized by the psalmist in Psalms 37:4, in that we receive the desires of our heart only after we have delighted in (and, by implication, sought our meaning in) God. There is almost no other purpose for Ecclesiastes other than to make this point, and the point that our only meaning is found in God. It's found in the fruits of peace, patience, joy, et al that God grants us as we grow in Him. It's found in the hope that we are supposed to have in Christ that should cause others to notice.
The warnings against pursuing happiness are many, though they generally take the form of warning not to fall prey to specific sins. What is sin other than a misguided pursuit of happiness that bypasses meaning? Greed is a good example. Paul said that it was the same as idolatry (Col 3:5). Whether you are greedy is not necessarily tied to how much you make, but it is certainly tied to your awareness of what others make. I would expect that it would also be negatively correlated with a drive to find true meaning. I have noted in the past that people who attempt to climb up the social ladder beyond their level of wealth in the pursuit of happiness will almost certainly make themselves unhappy. Chasing happiness for most people is an exercise in futility.
In summary Scripture is pro-pursuing meaning and anti-pursuing happiness. While it appears at a glance that this is an anti-fun/anti-happiness buzzkill position for God to take, it is obvious that those who explicitly try to seek happiness fail where those who seek and find meaning succeed.
"I believe that every American of every background has been endowed by their Creator with the right to pursue happiness."Gringrich went on to say that he would help poor people learn how to get jobs, so the context of this was that the key to pursuing happiness is learning how to work and getting gainful employment. I'm not planning to comment on this assertion one way or the other. Gingrich apparently made some other comments that could be read to be agreeing with what I have to say below at some other point, so what I have to say doesn't really address what he meant in context. It did bring me back to the earlier post I had made about the unalienable rights listed in the Declaration of Independence, though.
That a focus of debate popular enough to elicit a standing ovation in what I should expect to be one of the most God-fearing electorates in the world (South Carolina Republicans) is regarding the details of pursuing happiness is disheartening. The concept is not Biblical at all, and it's one of those arenas of knowledge where research fairly conclusively backs up the Biblical viewpoint. The following video exemplifies this to a degree. If one group of people attempts to be happy and another group of people attempts to be meaningful, the "meaningful" group will always be happier than the "happy" group.
I see this same concept embedded throughout the entirety of Scripture. It's summarized by the psalmist in Psalms 37:4, in that we receive the desires of our heart only after we have delighted in (and, by implication, sought our meaning in) God. There is almost no other purpose for Ecclesiastes other than to make this point, and the point that our only meaning is found in God. It's found in the fruits of peace, patience, joy, et al that God grants us as we grow in Him. It's found in the hope that we are supposed to have in Christ that should cause others to notice.
The warnings against pursuing happiness are many, though they generally take the form of warning not to fall prey to specific sins. What is sin other than a misguided pursuit of happiness that bypasses meaning? Greed is a good example. Paul said that it was the same as idolatry (Col 3:5). Whether you are greedy is not necessarily tied to how much you make, but it is certainly tied to your awareness of what others make. I would expect that it would also be negatively correlated with a drive to find true meaning. I have noted in the past that people who attempt to climb up the social ladder beyond their level of wealth in the pursuit of happiness will almost certainly make themselves unhappy. Chasing happiness for most people is an exercise in futility.
In summary Scripture is pro-pursuing meaning and anti-pursuing happiness. While it appears at a glance that this is an anti-fun/anti-happiness buzzkill position for God to take, it is obvious that those who explicitly try to seek happiness fail where those who seek and find meaning succeed.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
sexism in commercials
I have been considering a post on feminism, reactions to feminism, and it's impacts on men and women in the church world and the culture at large at some point in the future. My thinking is that people's views on gender impact their impressions of just about everything. I think that most contentious issues owe some contentiousness on some level to conflicting gender views, even if the contentious issue does not appear at first glance to be a gender-sensitive issue. That is something that I will probably put together in a few months though, and I only mention that because I was reminded that I had been thinking about it recently when I saw some of the commercials during the Super Bowl.
To this point I have heard more than one observation that some of the commercials during this past Super Bowl were sexist. Interestingly, I heard people complain both directions that the commercials were either slanted against men or women. I thought I would share a few of the commercials and my opinions of them in regard to how they portray the genders.
Also, something that I would like to note is that I am analyzing these things to death. I am not really offended by any of the commercials mentioned below, but I am very interested by the reactions some of them draw, and I get quite a bit of pleasure working through whether I agree with those reactions.
Since it seems to be the most prevalent type of commercial, I have to note the commercials that imply that men only have one thing on their minds. I am in the camp that thinks this type of commercial is mildly sexist as it pushes a specific stereotype on men. Since many men have found ways to benefit from this sexism, I think I am in the minority who are irritated by it. The Megan Fox commercial and the GoDaddy commercials define this category. Instead of posting them below, though, I decided to go with the more subtle and funny Doritos commercial that only implies that one specific man has less than honorable intentions.
Next, there were two commercials that I saw as remarkably similar. They are the Dove and Charger ads below. I actually really appreciated the ads, though I didn't find them overly funny. The dove one is probably the less controversial of the two as it just goes through the things that pressure men through life, but that also establish his manhood in our culture, so that he does not have to feel feminine for using Dove body wash. Of course, an easier strategy for Dove could have been to re-brand the body wash to a more masculine name, but that's just me.
I understand why someone might think that the following ad has a tinge of sexism against women because the commercial implies that the man's role in a relationship is a chore, so that is why he should be able to purchase a Charger for himself. At the worst, this is only mildly sexist, though, and it really is a good strategy to sell a very masculine car that is anything but practical.
The Bridgestone commercial was certainly mildly sexist, but it is also a joke that has been done to death. Seriously, this is basically the equivalent of the, "Take my wife... please," joke that is as cliched a cliche as I have ever seen.
The commercial that always seems to get mentioned in regard to sexism against women is the following one. No doubt, this is a dysfunctional relationship being portrayed. While I am on the fence about how I feel about this, I am leaning toward the position that it is anti-relationship enough to be a problem. I do see how this would appeal to a lot of men and sell a lot of FloTVs, though.
I have saved the best for last. The following E*Trade commercial again shows a dysfunctional relationship and implies that men can't be trusted. It is still rather funny, though.
In short, I understand how some of the commercials can be viewed as having sexist implications, but at the same time most of them are relatively mild. I see more of attacks on relationships in general in these than attacks on one specific gender, though that is not necessarily any better.
So, what do you think? Were the Super Bowl commercials sexist in some way or were they more benign?
To this point I have heard more than one observation that some of the commercials during this past Super Bowl were sexist. Interestingly, I heard people complain both directions that the commercials were either slanted against men or women. I thought I would share a few of the commercials and my opinions of them in regard to how they portray the genders.
Also, something that I would like to note is that I am analyzing these things to death. I am not really offended by any of the commercials mentioned below, but I am very interested by the reactions some of them draw, and I get quite a bit of pleasure working through whether I agree with those reactions.
Since it seems to be the most prevalent type of commercial, I have to note the commercials that imply that men only have one thing on their minds. I am in the camp that thinks this type of commercial is mildly sexist as it pushes a specific stereotype on men. Since many men have found ways to benefit from this sexism, I think I am in the minority who are irritated by it. The Megan Fox commercial and the GoDaddy commercials define this category. Instead of posting them below, though, I decided to go with the more subtle and funny Doritos commercial that only implies that one specific man has less than honorable intentions.
Next, there were two commercials that I saw as remarkably similar. They are the Dove and Charger ads below. I actually really appreciated the ads, though I didn't find them overly funny. The dove one is probably the less controversial of the two as it just goes through the things that pressure men through life, but that also establish his manhood in our culture, so that he does not have to feel feminine for using Dove body wash. Of course, an easier strategy for Dove could have been to re-brand the body wash to a more masculine name, but that's just me.
I understand why someone might think that the following ad has a tinge of sexism against women because the commercial implies that the man's role in a relationship is a chore, so that is why he should be able to purchase a Charger for himself. At the worst, this is only mildly sexist, though, and it really is a good strategy to sell a very masculine car that is anything but practical.
The Bridgestone commercial was certainly mildly sexist, but it is also a joke that has been done to death. Seriously, this is basically the equivalent of the, "Take my wife... please," joke that is as cliched a cliche as I have ever seen.
The commercial that always seems to get mentioned in regard to sexism against women is the following one. No doubt, this is a dysfunctional relationship being portrayed. While I am on the fence about how I feel about this, I am leaning toward the position that it is anti-relationship enough to be a problem. I do see how this would appeal to a lot of men and sell a lot of FloTVs, though.
I have saved the best for last. The following E*Trade commercial again shows a dysfunctional relationship and implies that men can't be trusted. It is still rather funny, though.
In short, I understand how some of the commercials can be viewed as having sexist implications, but at the same time most of them are relatively mild. I see more of attacks on relationships in general in these than attacks on one specific gender, though that is not necessarily any better.
So, what do you think? Were the Super Bowl commercials sexist in some way or were they more benign?
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
this should terrify you
I gave a presentation last night for my Information Security class on protecting data from the actions of malicious or absent-minded employees. As a part of my research, I found the video below and used it as a source. Given that this could describe the disposal habits of anyone's bank this should be just a little terrifying. Since buying and using a $30 shredder is so easy, this illustrates how horribly lax security can be even when personal and financial data is involved. It also illustrates the value of finding out what your bank's document disposal procedures are.
This video was originally posted here.
This video was originally posted here.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
to hurt or not to hurt
Everyone probably remembers the above commercial from the Super Bowl. It was one of the more funny commercials, though I don't think it was in the running for the funniest. Something else stuck out about it to me, though.
Many years ago when I was in high school a friend who was a girl asserted to me that women have a greater tolerance for pain than men. Her argument was that women deal with pain that men couldn't even imagine, therefore women are more capable of handling pain. I never really accepted her argument because this would be very difficult to prove (How can you really know how much pain someone else is experiencing?). Since then, I have always noticed when the issue of pain and one of the sexes becomes a topic of discussion.
It is my guess that there were probably a lot of women who saw the commercial above who laughed at the idea of men being able to deal with pain. In looking around, I did find an article that notes that women tend to respond more sensitively to pain, as if it is more acute. The problem is this says nothing of who copes with pain better.
There is a good chance that I am not someone who copes well with pain. The things that I have gone through in my life that were painful are not things that I have much stomach to go through again, and when I am sick or in pain I am incredibly impatient to get past whatever the issue is. That probably describes most people to some degree, though, so this again illustrates the difficulty in knowing who is best at dealing with pain.
The long and short of it is, if something like the above happens to me I will probably say that I'm good to appear tough. I might whine about the pain a little if I think I can get away with it as well, though.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
birth rate
A common theme in movies that depict the future is that the population on the earth reached a tipping point and that the earth could not sustain as much life as it had. While that is not an unrealistic situation, I think the opposite situation is more likely in the near term. I think that in the next one hundred years that most countries that currently have extremely low birth rates and extremely restrictive immigration policies, which are mostly the rich industrialized nations, will buckle under the weight of their aging populations.
Among industrialized nations the United States is actually near the top of the list in regard to birth rates, so all is not lost. I have read some explanations regarding this, largely concerning lower rates of abortions in the United States than in other countries. I think abortions probably do have something to do with it, but I also think that the large numbers of people who belong to religions that discourage other forms of birth control (Catholicism and Mormonism spring to mind) also have a significant impact. Whatever the reason the United States has a birth rate that allows for the population to stay constant. Since more people immigrate to the United States than emigrate away from it, this is what accounts for U.S. population growth. For this reason, I am actually largely in favor of decreasing barriers to legal immigration.
Other nations are not so fortunate. One example is Japan, which regularly rates among the lowest birth rates in the world. I came across the following story about one Japanese company, Canon, which is attempting to do its part to increase the birth rate in Japan. It is a drop in the bucket, but it's a start.
Among industrialized nations the United States is actually near the top of the list in regard to birth rates, so all is not lost. I have read some explanations regarding this, largely concerning lower rates of abortions in the United States than in other countries. I think abortions probably do have something to do with it, but I also think that the large numbers of people who belong to religions that discourage other forms of birth control (Catholicism and Mormonism spring to mind) also have a significant impact. Whatever the reason the United States has a birth rate that allows for the population to stay constant. Since more people immigrate to the United States than emigrate away from it, this is what accounts for U.S. population growth. For this reason, I am actually largely in favor of decreasing barriers to legal immigration.
Other nations are not so fortunate. One example is Japan, which regularly rates among the lowest birth rates in the world. I came across the following story about one Japanese company, Canon, which is attempting to do its part to increase the birth rate in Japan. It is a drop in the bucket, but it's a start.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
black friday
If you have kept up with the news recently you probably heard the unfortunate incident regarding a worker at a Wal-Mart in New York who was killed in the crush of people entering the store where he was working on the morning of Black Friday. I don't know many details beyond what is relayed in the video below. Some of the news reports that came out indicated that only his coworkers stopped to help and that almost everyone else more or less ignored him on the way to their sales.
My first reaction on hearing this was what I think most peoples' reaction was. How could so many people be so careless with another human life as to not even stop to see if he was okay or help him get out of the throng of people? Upon wondering how so many people walked past the man I started to contemplate an uncomfortable possibility. Would I have walked past the man? I don't think I would, but is that only because I don't want to think that I would?
I have read reactions from several people regarding this incident and the main thing almost everyone seems to have in common not necessarily a concern for the man's family or a question of what they would do in that situation. Most people's first priority is to react in outrage at the shoppers who were at the incident. I have already stated that this was my initial reaction as well. While I do not condone the shoppers' actions, there are a couple of reasons why I think this specific focus is unwise.
First and foremost, I am surprised that so many people assume that they would have stopped to help the man. It is a rare person who, when they are on a very tight schedule, will stop and check on someone who might be in need. When people get into a mob mentality, they are even less likely to help out. I believe that it is unlikely that most of the people who have expressed outrage would have stopped to help the man, either, had they been at that store that morning. I suspect that none of the shoppers who were there thought this man was seriously injured. I, perhaps naively, believe that more people would have stopped to help if they realized that this was actually a life and death situation. Regardless, it seems like a better use of energy to contemplate what I would do in that situation and resolve to be the rare person who will stop and help the person in need than to just get angry at the people involved in the incident.
Second, any outrage that I express about this is meaningless anyway. Why get angry in a way that benefits no one? If anything, it is detrimental because I get to pretend that I am better than the people I am outraged about. I wonder if that is why so many people like to get worked up about such unfortunate incidents. They can feel like saints compared to the people who instigated such horrible crimes.
By my calculation, the best things that I can do when I hear stories such as these are to express grief for the family and resolve to be a better person because of this incident. That is what I am going to try to do.
My first reaction on hearing this was what I think most peoples' reaction was. How could so many people be so careless with another human life as to not even stop to see if he was okay or help him get out of the throng of people? Upon wondering how so many people walked past the man I started to contemplate an uncomfortable possibility. Would I have walked past the man? I don't think I would, but is that only because I don't want to think that I would?
I have read reactions from several people regarding this incident and the main thing almost everyone seems to have in common not necessarily a concern for the man's family or a question of what they would do in that situation. Most people's first priority is to react in outrage at the shoppers who were at the incident. I have already stated that this was my initial reaction as well. While I do not condone the shoppers' actions, there are a couple of reasons why I think this specific focus is unwise.
First and foremost, I am surprised that so many people assume that they would have stopped to help the man. It is a rare person who, when they are on a very tight schedule, will stop and check on someone who might be in need. When people get into a mob mentality, they are even less likely to help out. I believe that it is unlikely that most of the people who have expressed outrage would have stopped to help the man, either, had they been at that store that morning. I suspect that none of the shoppers who were there thought this man was seriously injured. I, perhaps naively, believe that more people would have stopped to help if they realized that this was actually a life and death situation. Regardless, it seems like a better use of energy to contemplate what I would do in that situation and resolve to be the rare person who will stop and help the person in need than to just get angry at the people involved in the incident.
Second, any outrage that I express about this is meaningless anyway. Why get angry in a way that benefits no one? If anything, it is detrimental because I get to pretend that I am better than the people I am outraged about. I wonder if that is why so many people like to get worked up about such unfortunate incidents. They can feel like saints compared to the people who instigated such horrible crimes.
By my calculation, the best things that I can do when I hear stories such as these are to express grief for the family and resolve to be a better person because of this incident. That is what I am going to try to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
