So my facebook newsfeed has erupted recently with comments from all corners about A&E firing Phil Robertson, the patriarch on the reality show Duck Dynasty. I for one have never seen the show (nor do I really have any desire to), but the controversy piqued my interest enough to read through Robertson's interview with GQ (available here). After reading it's clear to me that this is a very stupid controversy. Let me explain:
Robertson's comments on homosexuality are not intelligent. They do not adequately or clearly explain a Christian perspective on homosexuality. He makes no argument that would convince someone that his worldview is an informed one. His comments are those of the stereotypical bible-thumping backwoods hillbilly with a lack of compassion for his fellow man and a lack of delicacy on what is a very delicate issue.
Let me be clear: I believe that homosexual acts are immoral. While I will not go into an in-depth discussion here, I will say that my belief is formed by scripture and my Catholic faith. Homosexuality is an extremely delicate topic to talk about and require a lot of nuance that isn't quite covered by the typically-used phrase "hate the sin, love the sinner."
Regardless of what you believe about homosexuality, it is clear that Robertson's comments do nothing to help understand the issue. His comments sound very unintelligent, though I was previously under the impression that he had to be a (at least somewhat) intelligent man to successfully create his business empire (or is that his son's? I really don't know). Conservatives who defend his comments are hurting their credibility in the homosexuality discussion.
The cry I hear everyone making now is "But he has a Constitutional right to free speech!" Certainly he does! He was well within his rights as an American to make those comments. The thing with free speech though is you still have to deal with the consequences of your speech. A&E is well within their rights to fire Robertson if they don't want to be associated with his comments. They are under no obligation to continue to employ him (I'm sure there are contract stipulations that allow them to terminate the business relationship if he says something that will hurt their image).
Now, do I think A&E should have fired him? From a business standpoint, possibly. The outcry of those obsessed with political correctness makes him a liability to the company, but at the same time his show is insanely popular. Also, his show is popular exactly because they are bible-thumping backwoods good ol' boys. This interview actually helps his branding more than hurting it. A&E seems to have made the decision that the liability outweighed the benefits of continuing to have him on the show. It's entirely conceivable that whenever their contract allows them to do so the family will jump ship to another network, and that is also their right to do so.
Bottom line is: there is nothing morally or constitutionally wrong with A&E firing Phil Robertson. He made comments, they reacted to them. They are not firing him for being a Christian, they are firing him for making public statements that they want to distance themselves from.
There is a bigger lesson here. Reality TV is popular because it is an escape from our lives into other people's lives. Often these people are larger than life characters who start to become like family to their viewers. I'm not talking about game shows, talent competitions, cooking shows, talk shows, or home improvement shows. I'm talking about the Here Comes Honey Boo Boos of the entertainment world. People find entertainment by feeling empathetic with these people, mocking these people, or just escaping into their world. There is very little redeeming value here when considering the opportunity cost. You could spend the time you would normally spend watching Duck Dynasty with your family or friends, reading a book, or watching a fictional show. Finding entertainment in watching other people's families is unhealthy and slightly perverse. You have real people in your life. You have fictional characters that can lead you to a much better understanding of people than the half-real people on the reality shows who only show you the parts of their lives that they (or the network) want you to see.
Reality TV gains viewership by appealing to the voyeurism that is within everyone to some degree. Fight back - don't watch it.
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Friday, December 13, 2013
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug review
Well, it's 3:20 Friday morning and I just got back from the midnight release of The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. Seems like a good time to write a review!
There are no real spoilers in the following review, though my opinion may certainly influence your perception of the movie. Personally I feel that it is better to watch movies without reading reviews as they can unduly affect your enjoyment of the movie. If you agree with me, I'll just let you know my overall rating and you can skip the rest: 2 out of 5.
In a nutshell: I was very disappointed. The second Hobbit film does not live up to the promise of the first one. The number one complaint I had was that it was too absurd. The combat scenes in particular were just ludicrously unrealistic. With only two minor exceptions that I can think of, everything goes exactly right for the good guys. One of them can toss a weapon a few yards to one of the others who will then kill someone and toss it back in enough time for the first guy to kill someone else with it. Honestly, the orcs would have to be TRYING to be that bad at fighting. I know orcs are supposed to be numerous rather than skillful, but there's no way they're that bad (and there's no way the good guys are that good).
Another major complaint is that the characters are no longer likable. Even Bilbo, the hobbit we all know and love, is subject to corruption and shades of darkness. This is a fantastical story that requires a hero for us to be invested in. Due to both the absurdity of much of the movie and losing my interest in Bilbo I found myself not being immersed in the film.
The thing about the Hobbit is that (unlike The Lord of the Rings) the story actually already works pretty well for a movie. It's a hero's quest story with a linear narrative and a clear character arc for Bilbo. Peter Jackson destroyed the linear narrative and took away from Bilbo's story by adding characters and plots that are entirely unnecessary. The romantic subplot is particularly egregious in its absurdity.
There are a few things that I enjoyed in the movie. Smaug is quite good, as is the Master of Laketown (honestly, has Stephen Fry ever done anything that hasn't been excellent?). The Dwarven culture continues to be treated fairly well, but its treatment is balanced out by Jackson's elves, which are even worse than the elves in The Lord of the Rings.
By changing the story and adding superfluous story lines, the movie winds up losing the charm of the book. Jackson's hubris is shameful: it is clear that he thinks he can improve upon the masterful story telling of J.R.R. Tolkien. 2 out of 5 stars.
There are no real spoilers in the following review, though my opinion may certainly influence your perception of the movie. Personally I feel that it is better to watch movies without reading reviews as they can unduly affect your enjoyment of the movie. If you agree with me, I'll just let you know my overall rating and you can skip the rest: 2 out of 5.
In a nutshell: I was very disappointed. The second Hobbit film does not live up to the promise of the first one. The number one complaint I had was that it was too absurd. The combat scenes in particular were just ludicrously unrealistic. With only two minor exceptions that I can think of, everything goes exactly right for the good guys. One of them can toss a weapon a few yards to one of the others who will then kill someone and toss it back in enough time for the first guy to kill someone else with it. Honestly, the orcs would have to be TRYING to be that bad at fighting. I know orcs are supposed to be numerous rather than skillful, but there's no way they're that bad (and there's no way the good guys are that good).
Another major complaint is that the characters are no longer likable. Even Bilbo, the hobbit we all know and love, is subject to corruption and shades of darkness. This is a fantastical story that requires a hero for us to be invested in. Due to both the absurdity of much of the movie and losing my interest in Bilbo I found myself not being immersed in the film.
The thing about the Hobbit is that (unlike The Lord of the Rings) the story actually already works pretty well for a movie. It's a hero's quest story with a linear narrative and a clear character arc for Bilbo. Peter Jackson destroyed the linear narrative and took away from Bilbo's story by adding characters and plots that are entirely unnecessary. The romantic subplot is particularly egregious in its absurdity.
There are a few things that I enjoyed in the movie. Smaug is quite good, as is the Master of Laketown (honestly, has Stephen Fry ever done anything that hasn't been excellent?). The Dwarven culture continues to be treated fairly well, but its treatment is balanced out by Jackson's elves, which are even worse than the elves in The Lord of the Rings.
By changing the story and adding superfluous story lines, the movie winds up losing the charm of the book. Jackson's hubris is shameful: it is clear that he thinks he can improve upon the masterful story telling of J.R.R. Tolkien. 2 out of 5 stars.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
I'm back!
Well loyal readers, it's been... wait. Do I have loyal readers? Interesting question. If so, I should start each blog post with "Well loyal readers...". Anyway readers, regardless of your loyalty, it's been about three weeks since my last blog post. Coincidentally, I started studying for the LSAT about three weeks ago. That ended last Saturday when I finally took it, so now I'm trying to get back into the swing of things blogging-wise.
The LSAT was interesting. I actually rather enjoyed studying for it, though I didn't study nearly enough. At the same time, I don't know if studying more would have helped. The LSAT really does test your ability to reason, so it's rather difficult to boost that. I think I did well. It's hard to tell for certain, and I won't know my score until the beginning of January. One thing that was interesting is that they're very strict as to what you can bring into the testing center (no phones, everything in a zip lock, no mechanical pencils, etc.), but they didn't actually have any kind of security checkpoint or anything to check what people were bringing in. They did have a proctor sitting at the back of the room looking at everyone, so I guess they would've caught it had someone been using something like that.
I managed to finish each section in time. The logic games section I actually struggled with when it came to one problem just because I was trying to go fast and missed the fact that there were only seven people involved, not eight. I skipped past it because it was giving me so much trouble, but came back after finishing the other sections and figured it out with five seconds to spare! On all the other sections I had enough time to go back through all of the questions I marked as being a little unsure on, so that was good. They also have a writing sample section which is not part of the graded score. It's mildly entertaining to me that I believe I'll get a very good score and then someone will look at my writing sample with my extremely childish printing. I can type relatively fast but I was just never very good at writing. I think I was just so stubborn that I insisted on making the letters the way I thought was best. For example, I write my "O"s by starting at the bottom.
I felt rather old taking the test. There were probably about one hundred and fifty of us spread throughout maybe ten classrooms, but it seemed like everyone was in their early twenties.. It made me realize that if I do go to law school I'd probably be one of the oldest people in my classes. Interesting. I suppose it would be different if I go part-time, which is more likely if I do wind up going. It would be very difficult to go to school full-time and just live on the wife's salary.
During the past three weeks the wife and I have come to a decision regarding our infertility. We currently will not be trying to improve our fertility medically. Our emotional wellness was suffering from constantly being reminded of our infertility and having our hopes continually dashed. The cost of tests, medication, and diet foods was also getting prohibitively high. In the end it doesn't make sense for us to spend so much time, energy, and money trying for something that has a miniscule chance of occurring. Maybe some day in the future we will try again, or start the adoption process. Right now we're going to spend more time and energy working towards future jobs and such.
Also in the past few weeks we had a very nice Thanksgiving with my family, work has gotten crazy, and we've been looking at houses in Pittsburgh. I intend to resume posting regularly. If you have any topics you'd like to hear my opinion on, by all means let me know! Thanks for reading!
The LSAT was interesting. I actually rather enjoyed studying for it, though I didn't study nearly enough. At the same time, I don't know if studying more would have helped. The LSAT really does test your ability to reason, so it's rather difficult to boost that. I think I did well. It's hard to tell for certain, and I won't know my score until the beginning of January. One thing that was interesting is that they're very strict as to what you can bring into the testing center (no phones, everything in a zip lock, no mechanical pencils, etc.), but they didn't actually have any kind of security checkpoint or anything to check what people were bringing in. They did have a proctor sitting at the back of the room looking at everyone, so I guess they would've caught it had someone been using something like that.
I managed to finish each section in time. The logic games section I actually struggled with when it came to one problem just because I was trying to go fast and missed the fact that there were only seven people involved, not eight. I skipped past it because it was giving me so much trouble, but came back after finishing the other sections and figured it out with five seconds to spare! On all the other sections I had enough time to go back through all of the questions I marked as being a little unsure on, so that was good. They also have a writing sample section which is not part of the graded score. It's mildly entertaining to me that I believe I'll get a very good score and then someone will look at my writing sample with my extremely childish printing. I can type relatively fast but I was just never very good at writing. I think I was just so stubborn that I insisted on making the letters the way I thought was best. For example, I write my "O"s by starting at the bottom.
I felt rather old taking the test. There were probably about one hundred and fifty of us spread throughout maybe ten classrooms, but it seemed like everyone was in their early twenties.. It made me realize that if I do go to law school I'd probably be one of the oldest people in my classes. Interesting. I suppose it would be different if I go part-time, which is more likely if I do wind up going. It would be very difficult to go to school full-time and just live on the wife's salary.
During the past three weeks the wife and I have come to a decision regarding our infertility. We currently will not be trying to improve our fertility medically. Our emotional wellness was suffering from constantly being reminded of our infertility and having our hopes continually dashed. The cost of tests, medication, and diet foods was also getting prohibitively high. In the end it doesn't make sense for us to spend so much time, energy, and money trying for something that has a miniscule chance of occurring. Maybe some day in the future we will try again, or start the adoption process. Right now we're going to spend more time and energy working towards future jobs and such.
Also in the past few weeks we had a very nice Thanksgiving with my family, work has gotten crazy, and we've been looking at houses in Pittsburgh. I intend to resume posting regularly. If you have any topics you'd like to hear my opinion on, by all means let me know! Thanks for reading!
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Law school?
It's been an interesting few days.
On Friday I took a practice LSAT. I have toyed around with the idea of law school before but never really thought about it seriously. In a meeting a couple of weeks ago with Career Services here on campus I talked with the director about my interest in working in Human Resources. She mentioned that a lot of people who work in the higher jobs in Human Resources have law degrees. We then talked about the possibility of law school and she told me that the library here on campus has a couple of practice LSATs on their website.
Friday rolled around and I was planning on getting some new tires for my car. As the afternoon wore on I realized that I had absolutely no desire to go get new tires, so I decided to take the practice LSAT. I had never studied for the LSAT before, the most I knew about the questions was having looked at two in my friend's study book about four months before.
I rocked the test.
It really wasn't that surprising to me, test taking comes naturally to me. I did very well on the ACT and SAT back in high school. The LSAT has three main topics: reading comprehension, logical reasoning, and logic games. Reading comprehension is very easy to me. I didn't miss a question there and I didn't really find any of them difficult. The logic games section on the LSAT is similar to logic games I used to do for fun when I was growing up in a book my mom had. The logical reasoning sections are a little more difficult for me, but still were mostly fairly easy.
After taking the test I went back home, talked to the wife about it, and did some research online. The practice test didn't give me an exact score that I would've gotten on the LSAT, but it gave me a range of scores typical for someone who did as well as I did. The lowest score in that range is generally enough to get a full ride to many law schools.
I did a little more research about both the LSAT and law school. I looked at a bunch of the ways to do better on the LSAT and people talking about how they improved their score by 12 points by just doing such-and-such and that kind of thing. I came to the conclusion that there is a chance that I can get a perfect 180 on the LSAT.
I went to the library and skimmed some books about the test and about law school. I wound up borrowing "Advanced LSAT Practice" to have some questions to study up on. I then went back home and got back online to research more.
At 8:05 PM or so I looked into registering for the LSAT in December and found that the deadline was that night at 9 PM. Seemed like a sign to me, so I went for it. I will be taking the actual test on December 7th at the University of Pittsburgh. For the next three weeks until then I will be studying the questions. I basically already know most of the methods, I'll probably still research some but I don't really expect to learn anything new method-wise.
After registering I did some more research on law school. It seems that everyone hates law school (or at least everyone who is there or has been there recently). By far the most common advice regarding law school is "DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL." The reasoning seems to boil down to three things: the cost, the stress, and job prospects. Regarding the cost, I don't believe I would be interested in going to law school if I had to pay for it. If I get the scores on the LSAT I think I will, I most likely would not have to pay for law school. Regarding the stress, when it comes down to it if I can't handle the stress I would quit. If I am getting a full ride then quitting isn't as big of a deal, so I would still have that out.
Regarding job prospects, that is a very real concern. Law school are churning out graduates at a much higher rate than there are jobs for new lawyers. The difficulty of finding a job after graduation is certainly a very real concern. I do have a couple things in my favor over your average law school graduate. One is that I will have (very shortly) an MBA. The other, which is far more important, is that I have six years of professional job experience. Still, the statistics regarding recent graduates of law school are concerning.
It's been an interesting weekend of planning for the future. Feel free to leave a comment if you have any thoughts, I've already heard from some of my lawyer and law school friends, but thoughts are welcome from all sides.
On Friday I took a practice LSAT. I have toyed around with the idea of law school before but never really thought about it seriously. In a meeting a couple of weeks ago with Career Services here on campus I talked with the director about my interest in working in Human Resources. She mentioned that a lot of people who work in the higher jobs in Human Resources have law degrees. We then talked about the possibility of law school and she told me that the library here on campus has a couple of practice LSATs on their website.
Friday rolled around and I was planning on getting some new tires for my car. As the afternoon wore on I realized that I had absolutely no desire to go get new tires, so I decided to take the practice LSAT. I had never studied for the LSAT before, the most I knew about the questions was having looked at two in my friend's study book about four months before.
I rocked the test.
It really wasn't that surprising to me, test taking comes naturally to me. I did very well on the ACT and SAT back in high school. The LSAT has three main topics: reading comprehension, logical reasoning, and logic games. Reading comprehension is very easy to me. I didn't miss a question there and I didn't really find any of them difficult. The logic games section on the LSAT is similar to logic games I used to do for fun when I was growing up in a book my mom had. The logical reasoning sections are a little more difficult for me, but still were mostly fairly easy.
After taking the test I went back home, talked to the wife about it, and did some research online. The practice test didn't give me an exact score that I would've gotten on the LSAT, but it gave me a range of scores typical for someone who did as well as I did. The lowest score in that range is generally enough to get a full ride to many law schools.
I did a little more research about both the LSAT and law school. I looked at a bunch of the ways to do better on the LSAT and people talking about how they improved their score by 12 points by just doing such-and-such and that kind of thing. I came to the conclusion that there is a chance that I can get a perfect 180 on the LSAT.
I went to the library and skimmed some books about the test and about law school. I wound up borrowing "Advanced LSAT Practice" to have some questions to study up on. I then went back home and got back online to research more.
At 8:05 PM or so I looked into registering for the LSAT in December and found that the deadline was that night at 9 PM. Seemed like a sign to me, so I went for it. I will be taking the actual test on December 7th at the University of Pittsburgh. For the next three weeks until then I will be studying the questions. I basically already know most of the methods, I'll probably still research some but I don't really expect to learn anything new method-wise.
After registering I did some more research on law school. It seems that everyone hates law school (or at least everyone who is there or has been there recently). By far the most common advice regarding law school is "DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL." The reasoning seems to boil down to three things: the cost, the stress, and job prospects. Regarding the cost, I don't believe I would be interested in going to law school if I had to pay for it. If I get the scores on the LSAT I think I will, I most likely would not have to pay for law school. Regarding the stress, when it comes down to it if I can't handle the stress I would quit. If I am getting a full ride then quitting isn't as big of a deal, so I would still have that out.
Regarding job prospects, that is a very real concern. Law school are churning out graduates at a much higher rate than there are jobs for new lawyers. The difficulty of finding a job after graduation is certainly a very real concern. I do have a couple things in my favor over your average law school graduate. One is that I will have (very shortly) an MBA. The other, which is far more important, is that I have six years of professional job experience. Still, the statistics regarding recent graduates of law school are concerning.
It's been an interesting weekend of planning for the future. Feel free to leave a comment if you have any thoughts, I've already heard from some of my lawyer and law school friends, but thoughts are welcome from all sides.
Friday, November 15, 2013
Living the (Unintentionally) Child-free Life - [a guestpost from Aimee]
There have been a lot of posts going around in the Catholic internetosphere: fecundophobia, child-free living, fertility crises as women age and put careers ahead of family. I'm sure that some people, when they see Kyle and I, assume that because we've been married for more than a year and are still childless, we obviously must be contracepting. While it's true that we live a "child-free life", it's unintentional in the worst way possible.
So right now we're trying to work on our health to see if we can improve our chances at all -- maybe giving it another year of intense medical treatment before we reevaluate our odds and decide whether to continue. Fertility treatments are not cheap. And because we're faithful to the Catholic Church's teachings on fertility and conception, we won't go down the road of IVF -- which would probably (because of our particular medical diagnoses) give us higher chances of conception and pregnancy than natural means. So we're spending money on natural (and Church-approved) methods of treatment with a NaPro doctor, we're in the thousands by now and we have yet to reach the point of diagnostic surgery.
This is not what we expected when we said "I do." There were no indications prior to our wedding day that either of us had infertility issues. We had hoped and planned to have a large family -- we were honestly hoping for at least 5 children... I was dreaming of 10 little ones, to raise up "as little saints". We expected the hardships of raising children on a meager salary, the hardships of learning how to live with someone, the hardships of learning to be married and be parents at the same time. We didn't expect the cross of infertility.
But here we are, a year and a half in -- no more pregnant than the couch I am sitting on. With odds stacked against us. This was not the life we had planned. A child-free life was not what we wanted.
And I hear the sorts of attempts at consolations and trite phrases thrown about with no regard to the logical psychological reactions. "In God's good time/God has a special child planned for you in His own time" -- I hear that a lot. I think it's meant to comfort me in that people are saying that someday we will have children, according to His will and stuff. But what if it's not His will that we have children? "If you want God to laugh, tell Him your plans" -- Oh dear, I hear this one so so so often. Not necessarily directed at me, but I still hear it all the time. If God is laughing at the pain and suffering I endure and have endured because we are not able to fulfill what we saw as an integral part of our vocation (and truly, what is a righteous and holy good), then I do not want to be friends with this God. I have desired a family for as long as I can remember -- and this only seems some sort of cruel irony if He is laughing at our situation and our plans. "Just relax, stop worrying so much." If I had a dollar for every time I heard this... Infertility is a real medical problem. I have Poly-Cystic Ovarian Syndrome among other things. Kyle has his own set of male-factor IF issues as well. To be honest, sex has and does become tedious when you have to time things to perfectly and if you want to try again this month, you have this schedule of days to try on. I have clinical depression - I worry A LOT. But relaxing isn't going to solve my PCOS or Kyle's IF issues. "Just enjoy this time (while you get to sleep in/have lots of sex/don't have to worry about children)." I would gladly, in a heartbeat, trade in my sleeping in, scheduled sex, and lack of worrying about children (but instead worrying if my body is working right) for a passel of children. Infertility is not a mere inconvenience, it is a life-changing, plan-wrecking, soul-crushing cross. I have one final thing that pregnant women say sometimes that just needs to stop: "God has found us fit to bless us with a child"/"Children are an heritage of the Lord, offspring a reward from Him" (Psalm 127). God is not a vending machine whom you put prayers and pious life into and get children (or other blessings) back. God is not one to be bargained with, and this is not about what is "fair." If we wanted to, we could subvert God's Church and use IVF and get our own child. If we had a child, people would probably stop giving us funny stares like we're such an evil couple because we're "obviously contracepting"... but IVF is not the answer. Our piety, in the form of being obedient to the teachings of the Church, is not being rewarded with a child. Because that's not how it works. Children are gifts to be cherished and loved -- but they are not rewards for good behavior.
Anyway, that's not the reason I started writing this post. I started writing this post because I have, after a long period of mourning, begun to find joy and purpose in this life. That doesn't mean I'm not still mourning, but it means that I have, in a way, turned the page with hope. I had so much hopelessness that our marriage would never be fruitful if we could not have children. So much of the Catholic blogosphere is focused on mommy blogs who devote their lives to their children... some to the point of calling out the childless in our modern culture for their enmity with God. Now, I'm sure they would not give me mean words if they knew our situation, but the general angst and meanness towards childless people is not the best way to evangelize, let me tell you. I do understand that the raising of little saints is the primary focus of your life and it should be -- but often these Catholics will denigrate the nature and purpose of work in the world as if it were to only exist for the sake of the children, the home. Perhaps, ultimately, that is so. But if I can never have children, I must know that our marriage is not pointless and fruitless if Kyle and I were to devote ourselves to working in the world and showing the love of God to others through doing whatever we are called to do.
I have a lot of angst about this -- I might never get to join you, Catholic mommy-bloggers, in your playdates and your book events. I might never get to participate in your mother's groups and mom's Bible studies. And somehow, I'm sure not intentionally, I was made to feel that by not being a mother, I was losing my worth. That my worth as wife, as a woman, as a person, was somehow cut drastically by my body's stupid inability to conceive.
Thankfully, I have a wonderful spiritual director who knows many things -- among them, especially, compassion and love for his spiritual wards. We've talked of spiritual motherhood, the value and fruitfulness of a faithful marriage, no matter how many children Kyle and I are able to have. And how the anger at God can be a raging prayer to lift up even in the darkness.
We talked about hope, and resignation all at the same time. We live with the expectation that we will never conceive... We live as though we will never have children. Yet we hope and pray for a miracle -- that someday, we will. Somehow, after so many months of feeling so hopeless and hopeful and despairing and wistful, I have come to a stability that is just a sort of meager peace and acceptance. I was living so long with the expectation that we would get pregnant -- it's why I didn't have a full-time job after we married. So I'm turning the page on that. I'm going to live with the practical expectation that we won't have children. And that starts now.
What does that mean? It means an unintentionally child-free life. Not the life we were hoping for, but the one that nature and God have allowed us. It means that I might start looking for full-time work in the pro-life movement --- or even better, I might try to get Life Matters Journal to the point where I can actually make some money doing what I love, but on a regular full-time schedule. It means that instead of looking for big houses in the country, we might be looking for smaller places in cities (so we can be close to people/interesting events/etc). It means that maybe we'll travel. And yes, it means that maybe at some point in the future (when my mental health is stable), we may start the adoption process if we can afford it. But honestly, I'm not holding out for it. I have a peace right now that I haven't had in more than a year, and I just want to take things a step at a time.
If you're the praying kind, please pray for us. You can pray for a miracle if you like -- but more than that, please pray for strength, endurance, perseverance, and faithfulness. We cannot walk this road alone.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Adventures in Eating
I had Pho today for the first time. I'd always heard of it (it's a Vietnamese soup) but never actually got it. Usually I'm a little skeptical of soup as a main course, but it was very filling and quite delicious.
Since going off to college I've been a fan of trying new food and new cuisines. When I was growing up I was a bit of a picky eater, not bad but not adventurous for the most part. During most of my childhood someone in my family was vegetarian. In my memory (which is probably flawed) it seems as though either my mother, my father, or my sister was vegetarian at any given time, but rarely all of them at the same time. When one member of the family is vegetarian generally the rest of the family eats that way (for simplicity of cooking), so growing up I didn't have much meat.
The meat I did have was almost always poultry. I don't remember having hamburger until I was in high school. In fact, I have a vivid memory of driving home from Youth Group or something at church and being a little hungry. I stopped at McDonald's and wondered what a burger would taste like, so I got one. I don't think I was too impressed at the time, might have had something to do with going to McDonald's. I'm also pretty certain I didn't have steak until college. I think the first time was at Applebees in Steubenville with my household, but I can't be certain. Now I definitely enjoy a good burger or steak.
That's the thing, once I was buying my own food I found that I was curious about lots of different foods. So many people are not interested in trying things they haven't had before. I have one friend who always orders something he's had before at a restaurant. The only time he really has to think about it is the first time he visits a restaurant. I have another friend who doesn't like "asian" food. That's the food that about half of the population of the world eats on a regular basis (maybe more, I'm not looking it up).
I understand, people have different tastes so I shouldn't judge. I myself have 3 things I don't like to eat: cucumbers, mushrooms, and raw tomatoes. But I can't imagine writing off an entire cuisine! There's just so much food out there to explore!
Something that occurs to me is that maybe people are putting too much stock in first impressions. When I was a kid I couldn't stand Chinese food, except Lo Mein. Every time my family got Chinese take-out I would get Lo Mein (or pizza sometimes if my parents were feeling indulgent). I remember going to a Chinese restaurant up in Cleveland and they didn't have Lo Mein, so I was forced to get something else. I ordered Moo Goo Gai Pan and ended up loving it. I think I had even tried Moo Goo Gai Pan before from the take-out place and didn't like it, but sometimes you need to try something again to determine if you really like it. The first time you might not like something just because it's not what you're expecting.
Another story: I always detested guacamole and avocados when I was younger. I just couldn't understand how my mom could eat that stuff (and yes, I tried it). When I was a Senior in college I went on a mission trip to Mexico. All of our meals were homemade by this wonderful Mexican lady who was quite the cook. They had homemade guacamole there and I gave it a try based on people's recommendations. It was amazing. It completely cured me of my dislike for guacamole and avocados. Maybe it was just that I was trying it a second time, maybe it was due to very fresh ingredients, maybe she just had an amazing recipe. I've never had guacamole quite as good as that since, but I do enjoy it now.
An ex-girlfriend introduced me to Ethiopian food in college, and it's now one of my favorite cuisines. A guy I was living with the summer before my senior year invited me to go get Thai food and I now love Thai food (and Thai iced tea, which is basically heaven in a glass). I like Chinese food, Mexican food, Italian food, German food, Irish food, English food, and good ol' American food. I want to try some more Japanese food, but sushi makes me sick (literally). I have had tempura and that was delicious. The wife actually made it. She loves to experiment with cooking different types of food.
Another way I like trying different food is trying different meats. I've had alligator sausage, tried a frog leg once, eaten elk sausage, and had a bison burger. I'm always on the look-out for opportunities to eat animals I haven't. In a way I think that makes me sound a bit like a psychopath. Ah well. Meats I would be interested in trying: hare, squirrel, snake, and horse. There are probably others I would try as well, but that's what comes to mind.
The point, if you choose to take one away from this, is: eat lots of different things. Try new foods! Experiment with new recipes! As they say, variety is the spice of life. Eat something exciting!
Since going off to college I've been a fan of trying new food and new cuisines. When I was growing up I was a bit of a picky eater, not bad but not adventurous for the most part. During most of my childhood someone in my family was vegetarian. In my memory (which is probably flawed) it seems as though either my mother, my father, or my sister was vegetarian at any given time, but rarely all of them at the same time. When one member of the family is vegetarian generally the rest of the family eats that way (for simplicity of cooking), so growing up I didn't have much meat.
The meat I did have was almost always poultry. I don't remember having hamburger until I was in high school. In fact, I have a vivid memory of driving home from Youth Group or something at church and being a little hungry. I stopped at McDonald's and wondered what a burger would taste like, so I got one. I don't think I was too impressed at the time, might have had something to do with going to McDonald's. I'm also pretty certain I didn't have steak until college. I think the first time was at Applebees in Steubenville with my household, but I can't be certain. Now I definitely enjoy a good burger or steak.
That's the thing, once I was buying my own food I found that I was curious about lots of different foods. So many people are not interested in trying things they haven't had before. I have one friend who always orders something he's had before at a restaurant. The only time he really has to think about it is the first time he visits a restaurant. I have another friend who doesn't like "asian" food. That's the food that about half of the population of the world eats on a regular basis (maybe more, I'm not looking it up).
I understand, people have different tastes so I shouldn't judge. I myself have 3 things I don't like to eat: cucumbers, mushrooms, and raw tomatoes. But I can't imagine writing off an entire cuisine! There's just so much food out there to explore!
Something that occurs to me is that maybe people are putting too much stock in first impressions. When I was a kid I couldn't stand Chinese food, except Lo Mein. Every time my family got Chinese take-out I would get Lo Mein (or pizza sometimes if my parents were feeling indulgent). I remember going to a Chinese restaurant up in Cleveland and they didn't have Lo Mein, so I was forced to get something else. I ordered Moo Goo Gai Pan and ended up loving it. I think I had even tried Moo Goo Gai Pan before from the take-out place and didn't like it, but sometimes you need to try something again to determine if you really like it. The first time you might not like something just because it's not what you're expecting.
Another story: I always detested guacamole and avocados when I was younger. I just couldn't understand how my mom could eat that stuff (and yes, I tried it). When I was a Senior in college I went on a mission trip to Mexico. All of our meals were homemade by this wonderful Mexican lady who was quite the cook. They had homemade guacamole there and I gave it a try based on people's recommendations. It was amazing. It completely cured me of my dislike for guacamole and avocados. Maybe it was just that I was trying it a second time, maybe it was due to very fresh ingredients, maybe she just had an amazing recipe. I've never had guacamole quite as good as that since, but I do enjoy it now.
An ex-girlfriend introduced me to Ethiopian food in college, and it's now one of my favorite cuisines. A guy I was living with the summer before my senior year invited me to go get Thai food and I now love Thai food (and Thai iced tea, which is basically heaven in a glass). I like Chinese food, Mexican food, Italian food, German food, Irish food, English food, and good ol' American food. I want to try some more Japanese food, but sushi makes me sick (literally). I have had tempura and that was delicious. The wife actually made it. She loves to experiment with cooking different types of food.
Another way I like trying different food is trying different meats. I've had alligator sausage, tried a frog leg once, eaten elk sausage, and had a bison burger. I'm always on the look-out for opportunities to eat animals I haven't. In a way I think that makes me sound a bit like a psychopath. Ah well. Meats I would be interested in trying: hare, squirrel, snake, and horse. There are probably others I would try as well, but that's what comes to mind.
The point, if you choose to take one away from this, is: eat lots of different things. Try new foods! Experiment with new recipes! As they say, variety is the spice of life. Eat something exciting!
Sunday, November 10, 2013
The Marvel Cinematic Universe
I'm not a huge fan of comic books or anything, but I have occasionally enjoyed reading through some of them. Mostly the comics I've read have been from Marvel, most often the X-Men but some other stuff too. I never got much into DC, though I am a fan of Batman.
In recent years Marvel Studios (and various groups associated with them) have been releasing films as part of what they call the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The first film categorized in the Marvel Cinematic Universe was Iron Man back in 2008. Since then they've released seven other films, most recently Thor: The Dark World (which came out last weekend). I've been thoroughly impressed with the movies. I've enjoyed all of them at least reasonably, but what is more impressive is the way they are tying everything together into one universe.
One of the coolest things about comics in the DC or Marvel universes is how everything is connected and events that happen to one character or team can affect another character or team. That gives Marvel the ability to do overarching story lines. One good example that I loved in recent years was the Civil War story line which ran in Marvel comics from 2006-2007. I would love to see Marvel be able to do some sort of story line like that in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. In fact, the Civil War story line would be awesome in film! I actually have some hope after watching the trailer for Captain America 2 that they will be using a lot of the same themes.
As a side note, the X-Men are definitely my favorite team in the Marvel universe, but Marvel Studios does not have the rights to the X-Men. That being said, the X-Men movies are excellent as well (even X-3), though I haven't seen the Wolverine movie. I'm very much looking forward to X-Men: Days of Future Past as well, which is going to tie together the original trilogy with the recent X-Men: First Class.
Here are some of my thoughts on each of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films, in order of my least favorite to favorite. Some small spoilers may be present, nothing too big.
8. Captain America: The First Avenger
The Captain America movie was the last film before The Avengers, and it almost feels as if they were just making the movie so they didn't have to introduce Cap in The Avengers. Most of the movie is set in WWII, but they soon forget about the whole "World War" thing and focus on a small team that is set against a big baddie who one could call a NINO (Nazi in Name Only). I really think the movie would have made more sense had they kept the focus on the Nazis as the bad guys. Also, Captain America is not that interesting to me. The most interesting thing about him is the fact that he gets thrown into modern-day America after fighting a war in the '40s. The whole fish-out-of-water thing really works for him and I liked him a lot better in The Avengers when they could show that. Also, the trailer for Captain America: The Winter Soldier looks really excellent. It'll be the next Marvel Cinematic Universe film coming out, in April of next year.
7. The Incredible Hulk
Oh the Hulk. The problem with the Hulk is that he is not interesting. Bruce Banner is interesting! The Hulk... not so much. The Hulk is invincible. He cannot be killed except by some sort of semi-omnipotent being (or the many theories of launching him into the sun or something). Superheroes need weaknesses to be interesting. Also, superheroes need personality to be interesting. The Hulk does not have personality beyond a desire to smash things. Because of this, any movie about the Hulk is only interesting when he's not in Hulk form. The Incredible Hulk actually did a very nice job of making me care about Bruce Banner (played by Ed Norton in this film, not Mark Ruffalo). In the end though, you can't make a movie about someone trying not to get angry or excited. I actually do think the Hulk was handled better here than in The Avengers (where he consciously decided to become the Hulk at one point). In the end though, the Hulk doesn't work as a protagonist. I don't even think he works well as a member of an ensemble. Where the Hulk shines is as an antagonist. Maybe we could see that develop in later movies, we'll see.
6. Thor
Thor was a good movie, but not a great one. Thor isn't all that interesting of a character to me in general. I think he's interesting in Asgard (or one of the other realms except Midgard), he's just a little out of place on Earth. I know, that's the whole point, but it just feels a little off to me. The movie did a very good job of introduction with everyone, but the execution just wasn't that great. The sequence of events on Earth could've happened anywhere, it basically just happened to be on Earth. All in all, a nice set-up but a lackluster execution.
5. Iron Man 2
4. Iron Man
3. Iron Man 3
I feel like I should talk about all three of these at the same time. The first Iron Man was groundbreaking. At the time it was the best superhero movie ever made (eclipsed later that same year by The Dark Knight). See, Iron Man is interesting. He (as a hero) is defeatable. There are many different ways he can be beaten, but he can also use both intelligence and the physical power of his suit to overcome obstacles. As a man, Tony Stark is also very interesting. He is clearly flawed in many ways. Over the course of the three movies he goes through some very compelling character development. The third movie in particular has some very humanizing parts (in particular his anxiety attacks). That and the fact that it has the best villain of the three (and the best climax) gives it the edge over the other two.
The original Iron Man was an excellent origin story. The parts in the cave and the break-out are awesome, as is just the whole concept of Jarvis and developing the suit. The final showdown is a little standard, not bad but not great. It certainly does end with a great line that really sets Iron Man apart from many superheroes. Iron Man 2 was good, but it did too many things that they had already done in the first movie. The villain was just another guy in a suit, and they had already done that in the first one. There certainly were some interesting things (like the Expo), but it just isn't as good when compared to the other two movies.
2. Thor: The Dark World
Thor 2 was awesome. I realize it just came out so I won't spoil anything. I saw it last Thursday evening and it reminded me how awesome these Marvel movies are in general. In fact, that's what led the wife and I to borrow Iron Man 3 and watch it (since we somehow didn't go see it in theaters). Thor 2 was able to build very well on all the characters from the original. Not needing to do exposition on the characters and on Asgard itself left plenty of time for actual character development (not just introduction, which is most of what we saw in the first Thor). In addition, earth was actually important in this movie, and what the human characters did had meaning and repercussion! Great characters, good action, and great humor. Go see it if you haven't, though make sure you've seen Thor first (and The Avengers).
1. The Avengers
The Avengers is what the first five Marvel Cinematic Universe movies were leading up to, and man did they deliver. Again, because it wasn't an introduction of any characters (maybe Hawkeye a little, but he was in Thor briefly) they were able to go straight into the meat of the story. Character development just pours off of the screen when you have all of these larger-than-life characters interacting. The final battle is simply epic. Great characters, great drama (Agent Coulson for example), a great villain, great humor, and great action make this simply a great movie. This is the kind of thing that until this movie people would think could only be done in a comic book.
In recent years Marvel Studios (and various groups associated with them) have been releasing films as part of what they call the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The first film categorized in the Marvel Cinematic Universe was Iron Man back in 2008. Since then they've released seven other films, most recently Thor: The Dark World (which came out last weekend). I've been thoroughly impressed with the movies. I've enjoyed all of them at least reasonably, but what is more impressive is the way they are tying everything together into one universe.
One of the coolest things about comics in the DC or Marvel universes is how everything is connected and events that happen to one character or team can affect another character or team. That gives Marvel the ability to do overarching story lines. One good example that I loved in recent years was the Civil War story line which ran in Marvel comics from 2006-2007. I would love to see Marvel be able to do some sort of story line like that in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. In fact, the Civil War story line would be awesome in film! I actually have some hope after watching the trailer for Captain America 2 that they will be using a lot of the same themes.
As a side note, the X-Men are definitely my favorite team in the Marvel universe, but Marvel Studios does not have the rights to the X-Men. That being said, the X-Men movies are excellent as well (even X-3), though I haven't seen the Wolverine movie. I'm very much looking forward to X-Men: Days of Future Past as well, which is going to tie together the original trilogy with the recent X-Men: First Class.
Here are some of my thoughts on each of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films, in order of my least favorite to favorite. Some small spoilers may be present, nothing too big.
8. Captain America: The First Avenger
The Captain America movie was the last film before The Avengers, and it almost feels as if they were just making the movie so they didn't have to introduce Cap in The Avengers. Most of the movie is set in WWII, but they soon forget about the whole "World War" thing and focus on a small team that is set against a big baddie who one could call a NINO (Nazi in Name Only). I really think the movie would have made more sense had they kept the focus on the Nazis as the bad guys. Also, Captain America is not that interesting to me. The most interesting thing about him is the fact that he gets thrown into modern-day America after fighting a war in the '40s. The whole fish-out-of-water thing really works for him and I liked him a lot better in The Avengers when they could show that. Also, the trailer for Captain America: The Winter Soldier looks really excellent. It'll be the next Marvel Cinematic Universe film coming out, in April of next year.
7. The Incredible Hulk
Oh the Hulk. The problem with the Hulk is that he is not interesting. Bruce Banner is interesting! The Hulk... not so much. The Hulk is invincible. He cannot be killed except by some sort of semi-omnipotent being (or the many theories of launching him into the sun or something). Superheroes need weaknesses to be interesting. Also, superheroes need personality to be interesting. The Hulk does not have personality beyond a desire to smash things. Because of this, any movie about the Hulk is only interesting when he's not in Hulk form. The Incredible Hulk actually did a very nice job of making me care about Bruce Banner (played by Ed Norton in this film, not Mark Ruffalo). In the end though, you can't make a movie about someone trying not to get angry or excited. I actually do think the Hulk was handled better here than in The Avengers (where he consciously decided to become the Hulk at one point). In the end though, the Hulk doesn't work as a protagonist. I don't even think he works well as a member of an ensemble. Where the Hulk shines is as an antagonist. Maybe we could see that develop in later movies, we'll see.
6. Thor
Thor was a good movie, but not a great one. Thor isn't all that interesting of a character to me in general. I think he's interesting in Asgard (or one of the other realms except Midgard), he's just a little out of place on Earth. I know, that's the whole point, but it just feels a little off to me. The movie did a very good job of introduction with everyone, but the execution just wasn't that great. The sequence of events on Earth could've happened anywhere, it basically just happened to be on Earth. All in all, a nice set-up but a lackluster execution.
5. Iron Man 2
4. Iron Man
3. Iron Man 3
I feel like I should talk about all three of these at the same time. The first Iron Man was groundbreaking. At the time it was the best superhero movie ever made (eclipsed later that same year by The Dark Knight). See, Iron Man is interesting. He (as a hero) is defeatable. There are many different ways he can be beaten, but he can also use both intelligence and the physical power of his suit to overcome obstacles. As a man, Tony Stark is also very interesting. He is clearly flawed in many ways. Over the course of the three movies he goes through some very compelling character development. The third movie in particular has some very humanizing parts (in particular his anxiety attacks). That and the fact that it has the best villain of the three (and the best climax) gives it the edge over the other two.
The original Iron Man was an excellent origin story. The parts in the cave and the break-out are awesome, as is just the whole concept of Jarvis and developing the suit. The final showdown is a little standard, not bad but not great. It certainly does end with a great line that really sets Iron Man apart from many superheroes. Iron Man 2 was good, but it did too many things that they had already done in the first movie. The villain was just another guy in a suit, and they had already done that in the first one. There certainly were some interesting things (like the Expo), but it just isn't as good when compared to the other two movies.
2. Thor: The Dark World
Thor 2 was awesome. I realize it just came out so I won't spoil anything. I saw it last Thursday evening and it reminded me how awesome these Marvel movies are in general. In fact, that's what led the wife and I to borrow Iron Man 3 and watch it (since we somehow didn't go see it in theaters). Thor 2 was able to build very well on all the characters from the original. Not needing to do exposition on the characters and on Asgard itself left plenty of time for actual character development (not just introduction, which is most of what we saw in the first Thor). In addition, earth was actually important in this movie, and what the human characters did had meaning and repercussion! Great characters, good action, and great humor. Go see it if you haven't, though make sure you've seen Thor first (and The Avengers).
1. The Avengers
The Avengers is what the first five Marvel Cinematic Universe movies were leading up to, and man did they deliver. Again, because it wasn't an introduction of any characters (maybe Hawkeye a little, but he was in Thor briefly) they were able to go straight into the meat of the story. Character development just pours off of the screen when you have all of these larger-than-life characters interacting. The final battle is simply epic. Great characters, great drama (Agent Coulson for example), a great villain, great humor, and great action make this simply a great movie. This is the kind of thing that until this movie people would think could only be done in a comic book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)