Of the myriad of movies that our kids like, Despicable Me 2 is near the top of almost everyone in our family's list of enjoyable films. Seriously, it's worth watching, whether you have kids or not. If you haven't seen it, stick it in your Netflix queue, or plan on renting it, or whatever you do to see older movies. It is that good.
Having acknowledged how entertaining and brilliant the movie is there is one glaring issue I have with it, and I have embedded a clip that illustrates the problem below.
I apologize that this is going to be fairly dark considering the source material, but it is what bugs me every time this scene comes up. I genuinely cannot enjoy this scene, and this might ruin it for you too. If you don't want this scene ruined skip the rest of this article. I'm serious on that.
I want you to imagine for a moment you are that horrible woman on the date with Gru. You're sitting at a table dining with your date when you decide to humiliate him in a heartless fashion. You reach for his toupee then everything goes black. You regain consciousness the next morning in your own bed, you are sore and bruised, and you have no recollection of anything that happened after the beginning of your meal. What would you assume had happened the night before?
If I were that woman I would assume that Gru had slipped a roofie into my drink. Even though the woman was not mistreated in the way she would probably assume, there very few scenarios where what this turn of events will not scar her. It's played for laughs because we assume the woman deserves to feel a
little bruised the next day, and the physical damage can be written off with cartoon physics and all, but the emotional damage that she will
experience in this situation would likely far outweigh any physical pain she'd experience. This is a serious issue even before considering the real possibility that Gru would loose his girls and wind up in prison based on strong circumstantial evidence that he is a loner with psychological issues who must have badly mistreated his far-more-attractive date on that night.
If you read through that, I am sorry to spoil that part of the movie for you. The rest of this film is entertaining, though this scene is unfortunately key in establishing why Gru should care about Lucy, so it can't be easily skipped. It's just one of those scenes that I'll just always have to grit my teeth through. Now, maybe it will be for you as well.
Saturday, May 16, 2015
Saturday, May 09, 2015
foreign policy
I am thirty-five now, and I will be thirty-six later this year, so I cannot use age as an excuse any more as to why I haven't become president of the United States yet. The only excuses I have left are simply not wanting it enough and not having a strong enough get-out-the-vote machine built up in the swing states.
On a more serious note, this is the sort of thinking I actually had in my middle elementary years. I remember as a kid thinking that maybe I would some day run for president. In third grade my teacher asked the class who wanted to be president some day. I was surprised when I was one of only four or five in a class of twenty-five who raised their hands.
I remember ticking off the requirements as a kid. I was born in Arizona, so I met the most obvious requirement. I knew I'd be an ancient thirty-five some day, so I'd meet that requirement one day. Everything necessary to become president checked out. Well, everything checked out except money and the depth of my ambition.
Now, at my current age, I wonder why anyone would possibly want to be president for one very important reason—foreign policy. Domestic policy is polarizing and a political tightrope walk, but it is far more comparatively easy. Foreign policy is a loser's game now matter how it's played. In foreign policy the choice is rarely between the good and bad option, but rather a selection of whatever horrid option is the least so.
How bad are the options? Most significant decisions will result in people dying or being badly injured. Everyone seems to have opinions about what the obvious solution is to certain issues, and they are almost always stupid, because sometimes there aren't any good options. It is frequently difficult to tell the difference between a mistake, a tactical decision, and treason. The nation-states you are dealing with are largely run by the most intelligently psychopathic people on earth. Decisions have to be made based on incomplete or inaccurate intelligence. Success usually depends on implementation details that are completely out of your control. Every decision is a gamble, and every decision is a gamble with huge consequences for failure. What's not to love?
I cannot fathom wanting to be the person who has to decide whether to deploy a nuke. I cannot fathom wanting to be the person who has to decide what level of existential threat necessitates torture. I cannot fathom wanting to be the person who has to decide whether to embroil the nation in a military quagmire to stop an impending genocide. I cannot fathom constantly dealing with hostage situations with terrorist groups. Why would you wish that on yourself? What sort of person thinks that is something worth pursuing? Losing a presidential election must be such a gift in disguise.
On a more serious note, this is the sort of thinking I actually had in my middle elementary years. I remember as a kid thinking that maybe I would some day run for president. In third grade my teacher asked the class who wanted to be president some day. I was surprised when I was one of only four or five in a class of twenty-five who raised their hands.
I remember ticking off the requirements as a kid. I was born in Arizona, so I met the most obvious requirement. I knew I'd be an ancient thirty-five some day, so I'd meet that requirement one day. Everything necessary to become president checked out. Well, everything checked out except money and the depth of my ambition.
Now, at my current age, I wonder why anyone would possibly want to be president for one very important reason—foreign policy. Domestic policy is polarizing and a political tightrope walk, but it is far more comparatively easy. Foreign policy is a loser's game now matter how it's played. In foreign policy the choice is rarely between the good and bad option, but rather a selection of whatever horrid option is the least so.
How bad are the options? Most significant decisions will result in people dying or being badly injured. Everyone seems to have opinions about what the obvious solution is to certain issues, and they are almost always stupid, because sometimes there aren't any good options. It is frequently difficult to tell the difference between a mistake, a tactical decision, and treason. The nation-states you are dealing with are largely run by the most intelligently psychopathic people on earth. Decisions have to be made based on incomplete or inaccurate intelligence. Success usually depends on implementation details that are completely out of your control. Every decision is a gamble, and every decision is a gamble with huge consequences for failure. What's not to love?
I cannot fathom wanting to be the person who has to decide whether to deploy a nuke. I cannot fathom wanting to be the person who has to decide what level of existential threat necessitates torture. I cannot fathom wanting to be the person who has to decide whether to embroil the nation in a military quagmire to stop an impending genocide. I cannot fathom constantly dealing with hostage situations with terrorist groups. Why would you wish that on yourself? What sort of person thinks that is something worth pursuing? Losing a presidential election must be such a gift in disguise.
Saturday, May 02, 2015
automated bathrooms
A couple of months back I was in a store or restaurant bathroom with NJ and he stuck his hands under the sink expecting it to automatically come on. He knows how manual sinks work—our house bathroom sink is a typical manual one—but he is accustomed enough to automated sinks in businesses that it makes sense to him to expect one. In related news, I am feeling old.
This has to be something that all parents face with some regularity, but it is always odd to realize how different things are for my kids' generation compared to mine. This is not in the interest of viewing one generation as superior, or spoiled, or disadvantaged. This is just in the interest of comparing experiences.
There are more obvious differences as well. My kids will grow up with different music than I did, with different TV shows than I did, and with the Internet. For whatever reason, the ready availability of automated sinks in store bathrooms throughout their lifetime is what strikes a chord with me.
This has to be something that all parents face with some regularity, but it is always odd to realize how different things are for my kids' generation compared to mine. This is not in the interest of viewing one generation as superior, or spoiled, or disadvantaged. This is just in the interest of comparing experiences.
There are more obvious differences as well. My kids will grow up with different music than I did, with different TV shows than I did, and with the Internet. For whatever reason, the ready availability of automated sinks in store bathrooms throughout their lifetime is what strikes a chord with me.
Saturday, April 25, 2015
the great war
Recently, there has been quite a bit of news regarding the one-hundred-year anniversary of Ottoman destruction of the Armenian people during World War I. This got me to thinking about something that has been on my mind some over the past few years. Why does World War II hold a significant place in American memory and consideration, but World War I does not?
I figured for a long while that the reason for World War II's place in the American heart when compared to other wars was due to the fact that it came into being when film-making was in a bit of a golden age. There is a lot of reasonable-quality film of everything from the battles over the Pacific to D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge to the dropping of the atomic bombs, so this was the first opportunity people had to really experience the war. I now think it is something different.
When it comes to war people like to know that they are on the right and noble side. They like to know that the sacrifices that are being made are virtuous stands against a grievous evil, and that there is no question that what is being done is necessary. Unlike most conflicts, World War II has this in spades. Between the genocide committed by the Nazis and the atrocities of the Japanese, it is easy to see the Allies as the white knight against the obvious Axis evil. I believe this is also why so many movies have been created using World War II as a setting. The story teller doesn't have to waste any effort at all establishing who the good and the bad guys are. It is also a nice shortcut to positive feelings of patriotism.
World War I was completely different, though. Countries were dragged into war, not because of some overwhelming moral imperative, but rather because they had treaties allying them with other countries that had already declared war. The United States was only drawn in when its trading interests to the United Kingdom were threatened by Germany, so the primary purposes of entering the war were economic (and revenge for the sinking of the Lusitania). To an objective observer there was no honorable side. Looking from the outside, there were only sides who sent millions of soldiers off to die horrible deaths in order to protect their political and economic interests.
Had I understood this about the Great War I think I would have been more interested in it. The complexity of the politics leading up to the war, and the ludicrous inability of nations to take appropriate steps to avoid their own destruction is fascinating. The fact that World War II can be blamed on the economic fallout that followed World War I indicates that the one only happened due to the other. The entirety of history and everything that has happened in the world in the last hundred years has been a direct result of the poor decisions that were made in the lead-up to World War I.
It is simply astounding that the shape of the world today can be directly tied to decisions a few world leaders and diplomats made over one hundred years ago. You never know how far-reaching one decision or series of decisions will be.
I figured for a long while that the reason for World War II's place in the American heart when compared to other wars was due to the fact that it came into being when film-making was in a bit of a golden age. There is a lot of reasonable-quality film of everything from the battles over the Pacific to D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge to the dropping of the atomic bombs, so this was the first opportunity people had to really experience the war. I now think it is something different.
When it comes to war people like to know that they are on the right and noble side. They like to know that the sacrifices that are being made are virtuous stands against a grievous evil, and that there is no question that what is being done is necessary. Unlike most conflicts, World War II has this in spades. Between the genocide committed by the Nazis and the atrocities of the Japanese, it is easy to see the Allies as the white knight against the obvious Axis evil. I believe this is also why so many movies have been created using World War II as a setting. The story teller doesn't have to waste any effort at all establishing who the good and the bad guys are. It is also a nice shortcut to positive feelings of patriotism.
World War I was completely different, though. Countries were dragged into war, not because of some overwhelming moral imperative, but rather because they had treaties allying them with other countries that had already declared war. The United States was only drawn in when its trading interests to the United Kingdom were threatened by Germany, so the primary purposes of entering the war were economic (and revenge for the sinking of the Lusitania). To an objective observer there was no honorable side. Looking from the outside, there were only sides who sent millions of soldiers off to die horrible deaths in order to protect their political and economic interests.
Had I understood this about the Great War I think I would have been more interested in it. The complexity of the politics leading up to the war, and the ludicrous inability of nations to take appropriate steps to avoid their own destruction is fascinating. The fact that World War II can be blamed on the economic fallout that followed World War I indicates that the one only happened due to the other. The entirety of history and everything that has happened in the world in the last hundred years has been a direct result of the poor decisions that were made in the lead-up to World War I.
It is simply astounding that the shape of the world today can be directly tied to decisions a few world leaders and diplomats made over one hundred years ago. You never know how far-reaching one decision or series of decisions will be.
Sunday, April 19, 2015
ten years
A couple of weeks ago was the ten year anniversary for this blog. When I look at life as it was for me then and now I don't know if I am more surprised by the things that have changed or the things that have stayed the same.
Most of the good friends with whom I created these blogs have moved, though I believe that some of those plans were already in the works when the blogs were started. We lost our good friend Forrest along the way, as well as my co-worker at the time, T-Bop. We aren't guaranteed tomorrow, and I did not properly understand that ten years ago.
The things I am the most embarrassed about from my former days are the issues I was apparently working through and the fact that I had a far lesser grasp on essential doctrines than I thought I did.
Regarding issues, everyone has them but they're more obvious for some than others. I have made significant improvements over the last ten years, and I'm sure that's partially just part of the process of aging. There are more things I'm confident that I understand, I care somewhat less what people think, and I have a better grasp on my own personal quirks than I did before. Life can be a positive journey in that respect. I still need to mellow out quite a bit, though.
Regarding doctrine, I'll just say I'm a bit mortified. Ten years ago I was as well-read in the Bible as a twenty-five-year-old can be, but I lacked a depth of understanding. With every discovery I make in study I gain new embarrassment regarding things I used to say. Some positions I have held in my doctrinal journey have been borderline heretical, and so I have had to correct and repent of some erroneous positions. You live and learn, but this is serious stuff.
I have always been the sort to stick around in one place, so I still work in the same job but at a higher title. This time ten years ago I was in the process of deciding if that was really the path I wanted to take. When I committed to getting my MBA ten years ago, that was a commitment to stay in this job for a long while because I was getting tuition assistance. I will confess that I had some serious questions about the wisdom of that path ten years ago, though I believe I took the best route forward. That, of course, comes from someone who values consistency, so staying at the same place for ten years naturally feels best.
The biggest difference in my life from ten years ago, though, are that Golden and I now have NJ and CH in our lives. I cannot fathom too many things that changes the nature and priorities of your life as having kids, and there's plenty of positive and negative that can be said about it. We love ours, though, and are so proud of the progress they have made in school, church, and elsewhere.
Finally, this year Golden and I celebrate our fifteenth anniversary. When I started the blog we were looking at five years together, and that seemed impossibly long. It doesn't feel like fifteen is remotely possible. Part of that is because I still feel like we are learning more about each other each day. She is aging far, far better than I am, and I am fortunate to have her. One thing that you get out of fifteen years of marriage is perspective on the things that make a good or bad spouse. I have a good wife.
I hope to be able to keep this up for another ten years. Obviously, I do not post like I used to. Life responsibilities guarantee that. That does not mean that I do not appreciate having this outlet, though. I hope all who still read this get some enjoyment out of it.
Most of the good friends with whom I created these blogs have moved, though I believe that some of those plans were already in the works when the blogs were started. We lost our good friend Forrest along the way, as well as my co-worker at the time, T-Bop. We aren't guaranteed tomorrow, and I did not properly understand that ten years ago.
The things I am the most embarrassed about from my former days are the issues I was apparently working through and the fact that I had a far lesser grasp on essential doctrines than I thought I did.
Regarding issues, everyone has them but they're more obvious for some than others. I have made significant improvements over the last ten years, and I'm sure that's partially just part of the process of aging. There are more things I'm confident that I understand, I care somewhat less what people think, and I have a better grasp on my own personal quirks than I did before. Life can be a positive journey in that respect. I still need to mellow out quite a bit, though.
Regarding doctrine, I'll just say I'm a bit mortified. Ten years ago I was as well-read in the Bible as a twenty-five-year-old can be, but I lacked a depth of understanding. With every discovery I make in study I gain new embarrassment regarding things I used to say. Some positions I have held in my doctrinal journey have been borderline heretical, and so I have had to correct and repent of some erroneous positions. You live and learn, but this is serious stuff.
I have always been the sort to stick around in one place, so I still work in the same job but at a higher title. This time ten years ago I was in the process of deciding if that was really the path I wanted to take. When I committed to getting my MBA ten years ago, that was a commitment to stay in this job for a long while because I was getting tuition assistance. I will confess that I had some serious questions about the wisdom of that path ten years ago, though I believe I took the best route forward. That, of course, comes from someone who values consistency, so staying at the same place for ten years naturally feels best.
The biggest difference in my life from ten years ago, though, are that Golden and I now have NJ and CH in our lives. I cannot fathom too many things that changes the nature and priorities of your life as having kids, and there's plenty of positive and negative that can be said about it. We love ours, though, and are so proud of the progress they have made in school, church, and elsewhere.
Finally, this year Golden and I celebrate our fifteenth anniversary. When I started the blog we were looking at five years together, and that seemed impossibly long. It doesn't feel like fifteen is remotely possible. Part of that is because I still feel like we are learning more about each other each day. She is aging far, far better than I am, and I am fortunate to have her. One thing that you get out of fifteen years of marriage is perspective on the things that make a good or bad spouse. I have a good wife.
I hope to be able to keep this up for another ten years. Obviously, I do not post like I used to. Life responsibilities guarantee that. That does not mean that I do not appreciate having this outlet, though. I hope all who still read this get some enjoyment out of it.
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.
Sunday, March 15, 2015
boring on the surface
The company I work for was acquired a couple of months ago. Much is change is probably afoot, and there certainly have been changes, but so far my work life has been business as usual.
One thing that did happen with the new company, though, was that I was randomly chosen to be a featured in a management meeting for the department I belong to in the new company. I received a questionnaire from which I could cherry pick questions about myself to answer, and I was also asked for a picture. This is actually a good idea, but I couldn't help wondering if I weren't a horrible candidate for a get-to-know-you blurb.
As I went through the questionnaire I noted how boring most of my honest answers were. As an example, I was asked the most interesting place I have been. I have been a lot of places, but few anyone would care to know about, and fewer still that I would consider interesting. I chose Lowell Observatory in Arizona where Pluto was discovered because I have Pluto on the brain, but most people visiting the observatory wouldn't classify it as particularly exciting. I visited the Grand Canyon on the same trip, but an old observatory it was.
My real problem is that I don't do the surface level stuff well. I can't give exciting surface-level answers because on that level I want my life to be boring.
I have long believed that if you sat just about any random person down in a room and asked them probing questions you would find that they have a rich life history and a nuance to what makes them tick. Deep down, I believe that most people are far more than they seem, and full of interesting motivations, thoughts, ideas, and apparent contradictions. I want to believe I am like most people in this respect. On the surface I'm as boring as boring can be, though.
One thing that did happen with the new company, though, was that I was randomly chosen to be a featured in a management meeting for the department I belong to in the new company. I received a questionnaire from which I could cherry pick questions about myself to answer, and I was also asked for a picture. This is actually a good idea, but I couldn't help wondering if I weren't a horrible candidate for a get-to-know-you blurb.
As I went through the questionnaire I noted how boring most of my honest answers were. As an example, I was asked the most interesting place I have been. I have been a lot of places, but few anyone would care to know about, and fewer still that I would consider interesting. I chose Lowell Observatory in Arizona where Pluto was discovered because I have Pluto on the brain, but most people visiting the observatory wouldn't classify it as particularly exciting. I visited the Grand Canyon on the same trip, but an old observatory it was.
My real problem is that I don't do the surface level stuff well. I can't give exciting surface-level answers because on that level I want my life to be boring.
I have long believed that if you sat just about any random person down in a room and asked them probing questions you would find that they have a rich life history and a nuance to what makes them tick. Deep down, I believe that most people are far more than they seem, and full of interesting motivations, thoughts, ideas, and apparent contradictions. I want to believe I am like most people in this respect. On the surface I'm as boring as boring can be, though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
