neurotypical

Having a teenage son on the autism spectrum has given me pause to re-evaluate a lot of interactions that I've had with other people throughout my life. One example is someone I worked with for a month who I blogged about years ago who didn't understand who would be interested in a certain type of movie.

I remember a specific person who frequently visited someone in my dorm in college who I now believe was on the spectrum was generally kind, but also made me uncomfortable because of some of the very black and white statements and positions he took. I prefer nuance, and this individual did not.

As a parent who is neurotypical I feel like I'm equipped to parent a neurodiverse child, but that all of my instincts are wrong for parenting a neurodiverse child, and soon young adult. His logic frequently runs counter to mine, and we're frequently blind to what's important to the other or what the other is trying to communicate.

While things are definitely better now, our problems communicating and managing new hormones had us in a bad spot a year ago. We had almost daily meltdowns--true meltdowns--and it took a lot of time and effort to get to where that doesn't happen so regularly. That experience has really driven home to me how much I don't understand about the neurodiverse brain.

So much of what I learn now about people who were considered eclectic makes more sense now, and what drove things like the popularity of electroshock therapy and lobotomies in the past.

We've been working with therapists for a while, and they have always been optimistic about the future. However, the most frustrating thing is that we don't know what a realistic future for us and for NJ holds, and so it's hard to put together a plan to meet specific goals.

There really isn't a way to wrap this post up because we're in a very open-ended state at the moment. I'm hoping for the best, though.

genetic testing

I just rewatched Gattaca for the first time since the 90s last night.  For those unaware, the premise is that in the near future children who are not genetically engineered are discriminated as such, and cannot get the same opportunities as those who are genetically engineered.

This calls to mind a concern I have had, and how it affects some minor decisions.  If given the opportunity I probably would not have genetic testing done, and I probably wouldn't get screening for diseases which lack a cure, such as Alzheimers.  The reason is not because I am morally or intellectually opposed to such testing.  The reason is that I think it will eventually mess up my insurance.

In Gattaca, the protagonist experiences discrimination in his desired profession of astronaut because his health makes him a risk to a mission.  He is instead only able to get a job cleaning offices.  The plot of the movie involves how he gets around the system in his attempt to get into the space program.

I don't fear my genetics or the results of a test would eliminate me from jobs like the main character in this movie, though I am already medically eliminated from a few. I am alert to the possibility that one day such a test could cause me to be unable to get health insurance or life insurance, however.

Right now in the U.S. it is not legal for health insurance companies to refuse to sell insurance to someone based on pre-existing conditions.  That may or may not be reversed in the future, as there is a lawsuit going through the federal court system which may do just that.  This is something that I always need to keep in mind when getting tested.

Furthermore, the pre-existing condition limitation also does not apply to companies who sell life insurance.  If I were to have a test done that showed I had a mutation that made me a bit more likely to have a stroke or get Alzheimers, I would be obligated to share this information with a company I was planning to by life insurance from, and potentially get myself priced out of the life insurance market as a result, in the case that I decided to get additional life insurance to what I currently have.

Some would jump to the insurance company's defense and say that their job is just to provide a service that sets a price based upon a calculated risk.  I am not casting blame, however.  I am just saying that in the current environment, there is a potential motivation to not know everything about your health and genetics.

Policy makers should keep in mind that systems which allow for filtering on pre-existing conditions or genetic conditions motivate some people like me to simply avoid pursuing that data.  There has to be a better way, so that willful ignorance isn't a winning strategy.

february christmas lights

Over the last couple of weeks I noticed a handful of houses around my neighborhood and some of the areas I drive regularly finally take down their Christmas lights.  This wasn't a situation where the lights were up but not on.  The lights were turned on every evening like it was Christmas season.

I have also noticed that an office in my building has a Christmas tree up in a meeting room visible from a public hallway.  I haven't seen it lit in a few weeks, but it is still prominently displayed.

Part of me is irrationally irritated at this.  However, my irritation doesn't make sense.  If someone wants to leave lights up it isn't my business, and really Christmas displays are attractive.  It's just that seeing Christmas displays feels incongruous with the season.

I think this part of me is a little hypocritical as well.  I have believed and continue to believe that certain fashion rules are made to be broken.  This shouldn't be any different, right?  Is a lit Christmas display in February the equivalent of an all-white outfit in November?

resolutions

It's a new year, and so a lot of people are making resolutions.  I have mentioned at least twice already (time 1, time 2) that I don't like New Year's resolutions.  I've been a little embarrassed this year by how irritated I am by people making resolutions in the new year specifically.  It shouldn't matter to me whether others make or brake resolutions.  It's none of my business.  However, when I hear someone making a resolution it just bugs me.  I've finally figured out why.

I actually have a great deal of respect for people who make resolutions and stick to them.  I know that making fundamental changes to one's lifestyle for the long term is something that requires planning, determination, and sacrifice.  Therefore, rather than me disliking resolutions because I don't like people resolving to do things, the real reason I dislike New Year's resolutions is that deep down I think that there are some people who make resolutions without counting the cost ahead of time, and doing so besmirches something which is sacred.

Everyone has things that they need to improve about themselves.  They could improve their health, or they could improve their relationships with others, or they could improve their educational or career prospects, et al.  I know that I have a plethora of flaws I could focus attention to.  Furthermore, we all embark on self-improvement projects that we later learn are more involved than we originally realized, even when we planned and actually did put in the effort.  Everyone who consistently tries at least occasionally sees failure.  I'm not judging these sorts of failures.

What bothers me is that there is a human tendency to get excited about starting things, often without a true intention of seeing them through.  If someone loudly announces that they're doing x, y, or z in the new year and by the middle of February it's but a distant memory, it makes me think that this person likes taking credit for things without working for them.  It makes me not trust them.

I am realizing as I get older that the two qualities I most admire in others is trustworthiness and an objective view of the world, because if those qualities exist in another person I know I can trust to get a fair shake from that person even if we butt heads.

In this situation, I don't trust people who give their word that they're going to change something, then give up early in the process.  If they gave up early on something that they claimed mattered to them, then what else have they given their word on that they're going to go back on when the going is tough?  I will view all commitments made by that person as matters of convenience rather than true commitments to follow through.

Also, seeing someone make a resolution without counting the true cost makes me wonder if I can trust that person's judgment on other things.  If a person says, "I'm not going to each sugar in the new year," without thinking through all of the times they're going to have to turn down a cookie, a slice of cake, or a piece of chocolate, it makes me think that I can't trust their understanding of reality.  It makes me think that they live in their own world with its own subjective rules.

If I'm being fair, I should judge myself on this last standard.  I made an unrealistic resolution years back about being less neurotic.  I have gradually done so, but not due to a resolution, or even a concrete plan that I put together.  So, I did not objectively assess that resolution before announcing it on this blog.

Finally, I do want to clarify that I am not demanding that people bend to my will on this.  This is about soul-searching that I have done about my revulsion of most New Year's resolutions.  Ultimately, my opinion doesn't matter for how anyone else decides to improve themselves.  I'm just working through why I react in the way that I do to these things.

Update (Jan 4, 2019):

I contemplated this further last night and have tweaked my view a bit.  I think the issue is less with individual people making resolutions than with the societal pressure some people feel to make a resolution in a way that leads to failure.  So, rather than taking such a judgmental tone, I should be taking a more sympathetic tone.

I apologize regarding the tone.  Again, I'm working through why I think like I do here.

There are better ways to achieve goals than to announce a resolution to friends with minimal planning.  The following has worked for me.  I'm sure there are other ways as well, but I can only speak to what works for me.

1. Set two goals: One modest and easily achievable, and one aggressive.  Target the modest one, but keep the aggressive one in your back pocket in case the modest one turns out to be too modest.
2. Research how other people have been successful achieving similar goals. Use this to develop a strategy for how to achieve your modest goal.
3. Break down the steps necessary to achieve the modest goal in the long term.  Baby steps are best.
4. Determine what you're willing and capable of committing to the effort.
5. Enact your plan, taking all of this into account.
6. Be flexible and adjust the plan based on the lessons learned through the process.

it can't happen here

Sorry, heavy topic alert.

I've been thinking about the Holocaust a bit lately because I recently listened to the audio version of Anne Frank's Diary, and also because I recently did some reading about Kristallnacht in memory of its eightieth anniversary.  I used to be confused about how Nazism took hold, how Hitler was able to come into power, and how people could rationalize supporting a government that sent people to concentration camps.  I've thought many times that it couldn't happen here.  While it would be much harder for something like that to happen in the United States with the separated powers we enjoy in this country, in the last few years I've come to the conclusion that it can happen here.  People are people, and they're prone to demonizing others if doing so supports their preconceived worldview.

That Internet conversations and debates frequently devolve into one side comparing the other to Hitler or the Nazis is so well established that it has its own informal law. The real shame of this tendency is that comparing everyone to Hitler and the Nazis makes it so that few really take it seriously when someone actually does things like Hitler would.  If a real Hitler appears, anyone pointing it out would be seen as a crazy person triggering Godwin's Law.

My views on identifying nascent Nazism have changed some over the years.  I used to think of it as a workers movement because this is the vibe that the Nazi propaganda film Triumph of the Will gives, and I in turn thought that was what I needed to be wary of.  However, workers movements elsewhere haven't had that same destructive tinge.  Certainly, some have.  The destructive ones are noteworthy because they're the exceptions, though.  Most have not.  Therefore, it has to be something deeper.

It could be that the key is that Nazism, like Fascism, was Nationalist.  I know that belief is getting airtime nowadays more than in the past.  It could also be that a deeper dig could reveal that this is unfair to some Nationalist movements which are not so destructive, if such movements exist.  I simply don't know at this time.

I'm not calling anyone on the world stage a Hitler today.  Even if I did, who would take it seriously?  These are now the sort of accusations crazy people make, and so they are a red flag to most that the speaker wants to decry everyone who disagrees with his as a Nazi.  I do see tendencies of what I do know about Hitler and Nazism in general in some modern political figures and movements that give me pause, though.  Some of those figures are in other countries and some are in the United States.  Since I'm no true expert, it would be unfair for me to call out someone as a Hitler based on a partial observation.  I have to believe though, that it would also be right for me to be cautious about their statements and actions, and refuse to support or endorse those individuals and movements, wittingly or otherwise.

It is easy to see how an individual with similarities to Hitler could take power, and how horrible things could be justified in the name of whatever that man portrayed as the ideal.  In 1930s Germany the ideal was a form of Eugenics supported by a host of conspiracy theories about Zionists.  I'm certain that a lot of Germans figured the Jews were simply being sent to a camp where they couldn't harm anyone else, and whatever happened to them they had coming.  Modern societies aren't immune to that sort of thinking.  Someone today can mix a weird political philosophy with conspiracy theories about some other group of people and do the same thing.  As long as a vocal minority (or even majority) believes the conspiracy theory, what's to stop them from doing horrible things?  Those people probably won't even ever realize the negative things they enabled.

History can be scary when you stop thinking that it can't happen here.

no news is good news

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

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

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

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

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

defensiveness and boundaries

One of my biggest weaknesses that I'm aware of is that I get defensive quickly and easily.  I think that most people have a threshold at which they get defensive, but mine is more sensitive than most others.  I've been working to correct this for years, but it has been slow going.

I think a big reason I get defensive is that I envision being held accountable for things beyond the bounds of what I should be held accountable for, and probably beyond the bounds of what I will be held accountable for.  Someone expresses displeasure in some way, and my gut reaction is to make that a problem I'm responsible for.  Sometimes it's not actually a problem that needs to be solved.  Sometimes it's a problem, but it's not my problem.  Sometimes the issue is less severe than my gut wants to make it.  In most cases, defensiveness is not called for, and I'm getting better at it--but slowly!

Part of what is hard about correcting defensiveness is knowing what the proper bounds of accountability are.  If the lines are blurry for what I'm responsible for, I'll assume that I'm responsible for everything in that grey area.  A lot of the time when I go above and beyond the call of duty or when I over-prepare for things it's because I'm not sure where that line is, and it's far safer, though more exhausting, to take more responsibility than not enough.

This is something that I don't think gets addressed enough.  People will frequently talk about the importance of setting boundaries, but many times those same people talk about how important it is to chip in and do your part.  Implicit in those statements is that the audience will understand where the boundaries are for what is my responsibility and what is not.  It's not a question of being unwilling to set boundaries, but rather a question of understanding where those boundaries should really be.

I hear a lot of people talk about the 80/20 rule (I've done it myself).  Maybe a better way of looking at the 80/20 rule is that the people in those two groups have different standards for where their boundaries should be, and perhaps both groups aren't entirely right.

christopher robin

A few weeks ago we saw Christopher Robin with Golden's family.  I'm torn about it.  It was a well-made movie, but it pushed a button that drives me nuts.  I get the sense that I'm overly sensitive about it since I've never heard anyone else sound off about it, but it does bug me.  I've sounded off about it before for other movies as well.

Christopher Robin is presented as someone who as an adult apparently cares too much about his career at the expense of his wife and daughter.  He's presented with an ultimatum that he has to work through the weekend when he has a trip planned with his family or he's informed that a large number of people are going to lose their jobs.  When he reports the situation to his wife and daughter individually they are each disappointed.  While the emotions and motivations in the situation are well-handled for a children's movie, he is presented as going down the wrong path for choosing to work through the weekend, and the story really kicks off from there.

There is more to the story, but in the same situation where other peoples' livelihoods hung in the balance, I would be hard-pressed to justify taking time off, even to spend it with my family.  In order to make the main character's choice difficult, I believe the movie overplayed its hand and presented a situation where the workaholic father and husband was actually justified in putting work ahead of other responsibilities.

With that being said, our kids loved the movie, and that is definitely not nothing.  There are quite a few well-loved movies they don't connect with.  This one had just the right laughs for them.

completed bucket list

I recently wrote about goals, and of my lack of a bucket list.  The real reason I would create such a list is to have goals to look forward to, and to create memories of rich experiences.  It occurred to me that, while I haven't created such a list, I can look back at my life and see hundreds of experiences that would qualify as bucket list worthy.

As examples, I can imagine putting on my bucket list in my twenties that I'd like to swim in both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.  I hadn't had that opportunity yet even ten years ago, as I hadn't been in any ocean water in my life at that time, but now I have.  I can imagine taking a tour through a cave being on my list, which I hadn't done yet seven years ago, but which I have done twice in that time.  I can imagine experiencing kids camp with my kids being on such a list, and that is something that happened just this summer.  I can imagine maintaining a target healthy weight on my bucket list as well, which is something I've only recently set about achieving.

Even if I don't ever create a bucket list with things that I want to do in the future, just consciously making choices to do things with family and to commit to self-improvement will guarantee bucket list-like experiences and achievements.  Perhaps one of the best ways to be thankful is to look at the experiences in life that I've already had that could have filled a bucket list I may have had ten or fifteen years ago.  I understand that not everyone has the same opportunities to have what appear on the outside to be rich experiences, but I suspect that most adults do have a large number of bucket list experiences and achievements of their own, even if their backgrounds or current situations are not as advantaged as others.

What are some of your bucket list experiences that you've already had or achievements you've already accomplished, even if you didn't put them on an actual list beforehand?

impostor 2

Years back, I posted here about feeling like an impostor, and I capped it off by misspelling the word "impostor" multiple times. I was heartened at the time that this is apparently a common feeling among men. I've had over a decade of experience since then, and I've come to the conclusion that this is a feeling that changes in nature, but it does not go away.

Something I that I don't know if I made clear or not is that this impostor syndrome has everything to to do with a man's belief that he can support a family. Deep down, I believe one day everyone will find out that it's something I'm not capable of doing.  That sounds like a deep confession, and something to be embarrassed about, but the more I talk with other men the more I agree that this is an almost universal feeling.  What's odd with this issue is that it is almost impossible to convince someone dealing with it (me, for example) that they're wrong, because all that means is that you are fooled by their charade rather than that there is no charade in the first place.

One observation I've had is that I have heard several retired men talk about dealing with this when they were responsible for a family, but looking back and feeling like this specific stress was silly in retrospect.  I would love to have that experience myself where I truly understand in retrospect that most of this is my own overactive neuroses.

My real greatest anxiety at this stage in my life is wondering how I spare my autistic son this stress when he is an adult, yet still teach him to be responsible. That is a real trusting God issue for me, because I don't have answers to how that's going to work. Without God, it probably won't.

fruits and vegetables

I know I have to be getting irritating to those around me all I talk about food nowadays, but the last year has represented a huge shift in how I think about food so it's frequently on my mind.  Believe it or not, this is keeping my thoughts on the matter short.

I have completely changed how I think about American healthcare system and the causes of disease and chronic health problems. When I talk about weight loss with other folks a lot of them comment about being hungry all of the time when they're on a diet. That was historically the primary thing that kept me from watching what I ate. I had that a little when I started watching what I eat, but once I started eating fruits and vegetables in significant quantities to where I was getting 30 to 40 grams of fiber a day that was rarely a problem. The only days that I get hungry are when I eat too much red meat, breads, or sweets and run out of calories by the end of the day.

Because of my experience, I'm realizing that one major factor that is driving health issues in the United States is simply access to fresh produce. When I visited a General Dollar near my in-laws a few months ago I was struck by two things. First, food there is very reasonably priced.  Second, there is very little produce. If that was my nearest shopping option and my transportation was limited I would have to go out of my way to get the amount of fiber that I now try to consume. I'd probably have to mostly eat beans. Without knowing any better, which I didn't until very recently, I am certain my health would be negatively affected, and I wouldn't really know why other that to blame myself for snacking too much or not exercising enough.

I don't know what the solution to this problem is. Some people say that national policy should be changed to encourage farmers to grow healthier crops, or focus less on red meat production, or whatever. There are a host of potential consequences from that, and there is debate as to how effective it would be anyway, so I don't know what to think at this time. I suspect that agriculture policy could be tweaked to improve people's health, though.

I have also noticed that some fast food places have made it easier than others to get a low calorie option from their menu than others.While healthy fast food is an oxymoron, I have noticed some fast food places providing reasonable alternatives to fries in their combo meals. However, if your primary local options are Burger King and KFC, it's going to be difficult to stay on a calorie budget with a combo meal.

I'll just conclude with the thought that I'm realizing how extremely fortunate I am. I have been able to adjust my diet in a reasonably affordable way because I have access to healthy foods. I also don't feel like I'm missing out on anything, and I've grown to really enjoy many of snack foods I now have available at home. There are a lot of people in food deserts who can't afford healthy, satisfying foods.

soft drinks

It's weird to me that, as I am shifting away from drinking soft drinks, I am seeing that I am not the only one doing so.

Growing up, my family drank some soft drinks, but limited our intake far more than other families around us.  I have a distinct memory of going to a restaurant, our whole family ordering milk, and the waitress commenting how we must be a health-nut family.  I was so embarrassed because I felt that drinking soft drinks was what normal or even cool people did.  At a younger age I understood that soft drinks were unhealthy, but I did not see any correlation between the people who drank soft drinks and their health.  The athletic kids didn't avoid sugary drinks so there was a disconnect between what I "knew" and what I saw.

Through college and early adulthood I didn't binge on soft drinks, but I didn't hold back either.  They were included in the lunch plan in the school cafeteria, they were a cheap treat at home, and I could get them free at work.  In the years after college I gained quite a bit of weight, but I started very skinny and my vitals on my doctor visits in my twenties were always fine.  So, why not get refills on my Coke or Pepsi when out to dinner?

I've already gone through a phase where I limited my soft drinks but still drank more than I should.  I also went through a phase where I drank Diet Pepsi for a while.  I never thought that I would be in my current state, though, where I might have a can of some soft drink every two weeks to a month.  We don't even buy soft drinks in our house any more unless we're having company, which an earlier version of myself would have found insane.

In our office we get drinks stocked by what people want and actually drink.  We used to fly through Coke, Pepsi, and root beer, but people in the office don't drink it in any volume any more.  As of late this means that we get a lot of Le Croix and Diet Mt. Dew.  I don't drink a lot of the La Croix and I don't even like regular Mt. Dew (let alone the diet version), however I have zero complaints about what is stocked because I wouldn't drink the regular soft drinks even if they were available.

These trends are occurring nationwide as well.  Coke and Pepsi are relying more on their diet soft drinks and other alternatives to their traditional soft drinks to drive profit.  This is odd to me because I grew up thinking of drinking soft drinks as the normal and cool thing to do, and now it's more cool to order flavored seltzer.

All of this is probably a good thing.  Seltzer has to be more healthy than cola.  I'm just struck by how things change for me and for society at large, over something as pervasive as what we regularly drink.

unthinkable

I'm frequently guarded about the standards I use to determine whether a movie is appropriate to watch or not.  Most things that make a movie appropriate or inappropriate are inherently subjective.  So, if I refuse to watch something that doesn't mean that I condemn others who watch it.  Likewise, I don't want others to condemn me for deeming something acceptable that they personally find inappropriate to watch.

On-screen violence is one issue that a lot of people find inappropriate.  This is difficult because while I genuinely dislike seeing violence in movies--I never watch a movie excited to see realistic violence--it is often necessary to make the point of the movie.  One oft-cited example is The Passion of the Christ.  Another example that I want to consider here today because it touches on a topic currently in the news is a movie called Unthinkable.

The reason for my lead-in to this is that I'm hesitant to acknowledge that I've watched Unthinkable or to recommend it to others because it's violent in a genuinely disturbing way.  Much like The Passion of the Christ, it is not enjoyable to watch, but it is important in the issue and questions it presents.  I have no desire to re-watch either of these movies, though I consider both to be extremely important works that have affected me in a positive way.

The protagonist in the movie is an FBI agent played by Carrie-Anne Moss, and she is told to oversee the work of an interrogator played by Samuel L. Jackson.  He's attempting to extract information from a terrorist who claims to have planted bombs in major cities.  We're meant to work through the moral trade-offs involved with enhanced interrogation through the decisions that Moss' character is forced to make.  Throughout the movie, she constantly has to decide whether to allow the torture we're witnessing to continue and escalate further or potentially allow thousands to millions to die in a nuclear incident.  Some of the questions forced on the audience follow.

• Is there a way to weigh the moral values of torture against the life that would be lost without it?
• Is a little bit of torture okay if it saves lives?
• Is more extreme torture okay if it saves lives?
• Is there ever a point where the actions necessary to save lives are so unthinkable (hence the movie's name) that it's preferable not to take them?
• *Spoiler (highlight to reveal)* Is it acceptable to torture an innocent if that could save lives? *Spoiler*

Based on the above bullets, suffice to say this isn't a date movie.

The reason I "like" (not enjoy) this movie is that I didn't believe it forced the audience to believe one way or the other on torture.  Where 24* or Zero Dark Thirty* may extol the effectiveness of torture, or where Rendition* may present it as something that will be abused, my take on Unthinkable was that the movie intended for audiences to simply understand the trade-off for taking either a pro- or anti-torture position**.  I didn't finish the movie believing that being for or against torture was an easy choice.  I finished the movie believing that every option in such situations is a bad option, and the real question is determine which the least bad option is***.

So, I'm sort of recommending the movie without recommending it in the same way I would do so with The Passion of the Christ.  If you're not up to watching a violent and disturbing movie don't watch this.  If you could stomach Mel Gibson's movie, though, and want to see a movie that handles the subject of torture against terrorism in an unflinching and honest light, it is worth a consideration.

* I actually have only watched a little bit of 24, and none of Zero Dark Thirty or Rendition.  You can discredit my opinion related to those movies if you like, since I'm only going off second-hand information.

** Full disclosure, I have been anti-torture for a few years now after having believed for a while that it was an acceptable trade-off to stopping acts of terrorism.  This being said, I am genuinely torn on some of the moral conundrums certain scenarios present.

*** I do also think I should acknowledge that one criticism I've seen of the movie is  that it may actually be slanted pro-torture. There is real dispute as to whether torture is effective in getting accurate information from individuals, and while this is somewhat addressed in the movie, the audience may still walk away thinking that torture is more effective than it is.

feel loved

When you think of the feeling of love between spouses, boyfriend/girlfriend, or whatever, how do you define it? What does it mean if a person feels loved? I believe that this is the most fundamental difference between men and women, and this discovery is a multi-year process that I am still walking through.

A long while back I wrote something about not needing to feel loved. Ultimately, I've determined that this is not true, but only because of the way the word is defined. Almost every time I have heard the phrase "feel loved" used it has been applied to some need I identified as feminine. I don't generally have the same needs as a woman, so that verbiage feels inaccurate.

I really did not think in terms of actually needing love until Golden and I read The 5 Love Languages together a few years ago, and that only because the author kept speaking in terms of "feeling loved."

However everyone has needs.  That's part of the human experience, and I'm certainly no different.  If those needs are or are not getting met I have not historically gauged it in terms of whether I, "feel loved," though. I have discovered over the years that the phrase, "feel loved," makes more sense to the women in my life (especially Golden) than other phrases that I might use.  While to me the words might be "respected/disrespected" or "important/insignificant," the words "loved/unloved" appear to communicate feelings better.

Now, when I think of whether I or anyone else feels loved I try to reinterpret, "feel loved," with, "feel like my needs are getting met." I know these aren't perfect apples-for-apples phrases, however this makes much more sense to me.  While we all have different needs, we are all alike in that we do have needs. So, this is how I am resolving this minefield of a phrase.

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.

• 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.

nine lives

A couple of years ago we got a cat, and CD fell in love with it.  Since then, a significant part of her identity has been one of a cat lover.  So, once she found out about the movie Nine Lives several months ago, about a man who is switched into a cat's body, she has waited in eager expectation

for when she would be able to see the movie.  So, we had to watch it this past weekend when it opened.

It is obvious from the trailer what sort of movie it is, so I fully anticipated not caring too much for it.  However, I did find it more tolerable than I expected.  The reason I was largely uninterested was the same reason I didn't care for Click or The Family Man.  It belongs to a specific genre of  movie where the central point is that a dad needs to learn to lessen his focus on work to focus on his family.  That point is not a bad point, but the point is typically made in a way that makes it look like it is less than ideal for a man to be committed to a job that supports his family.  So, imagine my surprise when a Nine Lives subplot almost went the opposite direction.

Certainly, the central theme of the movie is a man's discovery that he has not been there for his kids.  Not to spoil too much, but the protagonist cannot switch back to being a human until he learns that lesson (Surprise!).  This character being mind-bogglingly rich removed most concerns about the portrayal of a man who is just trying to support his family, and the secondary plot in the movie actually goes the other direction.

In this subplot this man's passion in life, to own the tallest building in North America and have his name on it, is ultimately presented as more of a positive than a negative.  This would go over the heads of most of the kids watching the movie, but the story is presented in a way that idealizes rather than demonizes a man who is willing to squander other peoples' investments for what amounts to a vanity project.  This is ultimately a minor quibble I have with the movie, but it was a surprise.

The movie itself was enjoyable enough for what it is--a kid's movie that is complex enough to entertain adults.  It isn't ridiculous enough that it would be embarrassing to watch without kids, but it isn't a movie I'd seek out if I didn't have kids. Now that I think about it, that describes almost everything I see in the theater these days.

conspiracy theory, take 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

kids and politics

With the upcoming presidential election we have had more discussions with the kids about politics in the past few months than ever before.  I'm not entirely comfortable with that.

While, as anyone who reads this page regularly knows, I am very interested in political issues, I also don't think that there is any ideal way to discuss most political issues with elementary-aged kids.  Kids are naturally inclined to think in very black and white terms and think of people as good or bad (This is different than the Christian view of good and bad where everyone is in the "bad" category.).  I believe that is a dangerous view to bring into politics, and so I am nervous about us introducing our kids to more than a surface level of politics.  Even going to far as to imply that one party is better or worse than another is concerning because that introduces an "Us versus Them" mentality that can lead to bad places.

My belief is that politics, more than anything else, is proof positive that no matter what you believe, there are scoundrels who will try to win your vote by agreeing with you.  My experience is that there is little to no correlation between political viewpoint and integrity.  The liars and the selfishly ambitious reside in all levels of the political perspective, as do those who are principled and true to their beliefs.  I do not currently believe that people are good or bad (or dishonest or principled) based on whether they agree with me politically because I have years of life experience to tell me otherwise.  It's hard not to think that way as a kid, though.  I know because I remember thinking that way.  It's just a natural, human inclination.

Even explaining the political issues that drive our positions is precarious.  We recently had a difficult discussion with CD regarding abortion.  It would be easy for someone who against abortion (or for it) to simply paint those who disagree as being evil and leave things at that.  Alas, many do.  Few positions are more genuinely held than ones regarding abortion, though, so it is wrong not to acknowledge the reasoning of those who disagree.

I don't want CD or NJ to grow up without empathy for those who have to make difficult choices in life, even if we ultimately disagree to the point of being appalled with the results of those decisions.  This is especially because everyone has made appalling decisions at some point in their lives.  I also don't want to give them something to rebel against once they grow to understand that those who disagree with Mom and Dad often have reasons that seem reasonable and valid.  Change one or two assumptions about underlying truth, and right and wrong can change dramatically.

All of this just leads back to my original point.  I can't wait until this election is over and we can move on from discussing politics in this house.

stepping down

Just short of ten years ago I agreed to be an usher at our church. At the time it wasn't a big deal. I just had to pray for the offering every couple of weeks and manage the collection plate in my aisle.  In the time since the role morphed into more a position of greeting and directing people to empty seats.  This is not at all my forte, and since I'm otherwise very involved, I am backing out of this responsibility after this month.  That I have stayed in the role as long as I have is an example of why I am always hesitant to agree to commit to things, though.

Any time I am in a role of responsibility, even something as small as this, I don't feel the freedom to back out.  I am very well aware that in a lot of cases there will be no one else to step up, and few things make me feel more rotten than leaving someone else holding the bag.  Because of this, I usually view new commitments through a very long-term lens, and hem and haw before committing.

As I noted, I am not suited for the current ushering role in our church.  The job is not mentally difficult in the least, but the responsibilities are a serious chore for someone who is as introverted as I am.  It is not in my nature to approach people I don't know, get information about them, and ask others to make room for them in the row where they're sitting.  When I hear about the reasons visitors do not return to churches I wonder if it was because I was not outgoing enough for some folks to want to return.

Even so, the only reason I feel the freedom to step down from this specific role is that it has interfered with my other responsibilities.  Sometimes the kids are in service, but Golden has to be in the nursery and cannot watch them.  Sometimes someone wants to talk about the lesson after Sunday School and I have to rudely rush out.  There is always the specter of what to do when one of the kids is sick and I have to usher and Golden is on the schedule to help in the nursery.  Without those conflicts of interest I'd probably stay in the role out of a sense of duty or guilt, which is every bit as pathetic as it sounds.

So, I guess that means that it's time for someone a bit more extroverted than I am to step up.  I hope they do.

ten years ago...

Ten years ago today was my first day in my MBA program.  I'm at the age where I look back ten, fifteen, or twenty years a lot, and I'm struck by how those events feel both like yesterday and forever ago at the same time.  There were many times during my four-and-a-half years in the program that I questioned the wisdom of pursuing the degree, and ten years ago all of that work and all of those questions lay ahead of me.  It's just odd.

Another milestone I passed in the last year is the twenty-year anniversary of getting my first job in high school.  In fact, a couple of months ago I passed a the twenty-year milestone of my second job in high school, which I held concurrently with the first one until I went to college.

It used to be that any milestone I had like this only reached a few years back to when I was in high school and living with my parents, but those days are long past (about ten years past, to be precise).

I can't be the only person who does this.  Who else notes anniversaries of what was happening in your life one or two decades ago and asks where the time went?  Where did the time go?!