Exciting Times

No time is better for a sports fan than pre-season. In pre-season, your team is undefeated, hope is rampant, and speculation is made with wild abandon.

I am a Detroit Lions fan. Have been since the late 1970s, when my father told me I had to pick a football team and root for them through thick and thin, good and bad. In that time, I have seen a lot of bad Lions teams and a few good ones. In that time, we have won only one playoff game. In that time, we had Barry Sanders to dazzle and an 0-16 season to shame us.

This pre-season, I'm trying to stay cautiously optimistic and not get too hopeful. I have been jilted before. But, for the first time in a long time, I can say that the Lions actually improved in pretty much every area that they needed to in order to become more successful. They picked up offensive line help, so maybe Stafford can stay on his feet and in the pocket long enough to connect on passes. They got what might be the perfect complimentary running back help so Stafford has someone to check down to and ease his record number of throwing attempts from last season in Reggie Bush. They solidified the DB position. The defensive line has come in hungry and angry -- just what you want from your D-line. Their linebackers look to be solid.

The Lions biggest issue has always been their division. Playing the Packers, Vikings, and Bears twice each means that each team beats up on the others. It is called the "black and blue" division for a reason as, even when one or more teams aren't very good, they play each other tough. It is relatively rare for a team to sweep the division. The Packers haven't always had great teams, but you always have to respect and fear their offense. The Bears haven't always had great teams, but you have to respect their defense. The Vikings haven't always had great teams, but they have alternated having strong offenses and defenses. The Lions haven't always had great teams, but they have usually had an offense you had to respect and a player you had to gameplan against.

This year's Lions team has a tough schedule. Most seasons they rank in the upper half or higher in Strength of Schedule (initial or adjusted). Not only do they play the Packers, Vikings, and Bears twice, but they get to play the AFC North this season, so get an always tough Steelers crew, the Super Bowl Champion Ravens, and much-improved Bengals and Browns teams. In addition, they compete against the NFC East this year, having to try to eke out wins against the Giants, Cowboys, Eagles, and Redskins. They round out their season playing the improved Cardinals and Buccaneers.

Trying to keep my fan hopes to a minimum, I can make an argument for somewhere between 7-9 and 9-7 this coming season. It is tough, because so many of the teams the Lions play are revamped; the Eagles have a new coach and a new system, the Cardinals have a new QB, the Steelers and Ravens have both had a lot of player turnover, the Redskins may or may not have their QB that early in the season, the Bucs made a huge pick-up (granting he is still the player he was prior to injury), and the Bengals have been making steady progress. Actually, many of those teams have new/young coaches -- will that bring turmoil or success?

Any number of wins above four will be a victory for the Lions. Last season, out of 12 losses, the Lions lost nine of those by one score (<=8 pts) games and four of them were by three points or fewer. So they were right in most games. They were a play or a stop away in most games from being an 8-8 team or better. I'm hopeful that this year's team will be able to make those plays, offensively or defensively, and win those close ones like they did in 2011.

What can I say, I'm a fan... and hope springs eternal!

Jaundice

With my health situation, one of my biggest fears is having someone, most likely my wife, tell me I look jaundiced and having to head to the ER only to discover my liver has stopped working. The chances of that happening are low, as I take my medications, I get 3-4 blood tests a year, and I meet with my doctors fairly regularly (not as regularly as when I lived in America, and not so often with my GE doctor, but still fairly often).

I woke this morning to a post on Facebook by my cousin's wife. She said that my cousin is in the ER because he got sick and became jaundiced. Everything is pointing toward gallbladder stones that may also be affecting his liver. He may need to have his gallbladder removed, he's having tests on his liver and liver function, and they are doing surgery today to figure out what has happened.

This is pretty much my worst nightmare come to life. He had no indications of anything wrong except falling ill during the San Diego Comic Convention, so chances are this is something treatable that had a sudden onset. But still; my connection to liver illness gives me a unique perspective and greater fear for him than maybe the average person. As long as he has no cirrhosis (which destroys the liver cells) his liver should heal and he should recover.

My thoughts are with him and his wife today and over the next few days (at least) as he hopefully recovers from successful surgery. Here's to hoping that it winds up being something simple and treatable!

More Game Design

I have previously talked about game design changes I would make to games I enjoy playing. Another thought struck me recently: penalizing the player. By this I mean that the player is penalized in multiple ways for using his character/avatar's abilities.

Your character has an Energy bar that is used to cast his abilities and each ability has an energy usage amount. So, for example, a power may "cost" 10 energy to cast and your character may have 100 energy total. If you do not have enough energy to cast the ability, you cannot cast it. The higher the power (or more powerful it is), the higher the energy cost to cast it. There is usually a method by which your character regenerates those used energy points, either over time or via some sort of "energy potion" concept.

In addition, each of the abilities usually has a "cool down" timer. This means that, when you cast it, you have to wait that period of time before the ability is usable again. More powerful abilities typically have higher cool down times, so can be used less frequently.

Next, many games use a system whereby a power is only useable in certain circumstances. For example, only after a previous power is used or only when a certain game circumstance occurs.

Lastly, a fairly common practice is to create enemies that have powers that take away your energy, impede your use of your abilities, are immune to some or all of your abilities, or render your character completely unusable for a space of time.

So, to sum up: powers have a cost to use AND they also have a timer for how often they can be used regardless of cost AND you are limited by the amount of energy you have and how fast you can restore it AND some powers can only be used in specific circumstances, plus enemies are often designed to make it difficult to impossible for you to use your character's powers. This seems like multiple penalties all to one game system.

I have a few suggestions to resolve these issues:

• Pick either the Energy bar/Energy cost OR the cool down timer concept and eliminate it. Both do essentially the same task: they limit how often you can cast the ability in question. If you don't want the player to use the ability very often, then remove the energy cost/bar and keep the timer. If you want the player to have the choice of how quickly he uses the ability, remove the timer and keep the energy bar/cost. 
• In scenario 1, you remove the bar/cost. You keep the timer. So, in LOTRO, my Runekeeper would still have a low-damage ability I can cast every second, but higher power abilities can only be cast every 5, 10, 15, 30, and 60 seconds. It doesn't matter how much they cost because I'm limited by time to how often I can use them, regardless.
• In scenario 2, I have no timer on anything. The player must manage the resource and the resource costs of the powers. Knowing I have 100 energy points total, do I deem this combat worthy of using the 50 power cost ability, or should I use ten uses of my 10-point ability? How quickly do I regenerate my power? It all comes down to resource management.
• Depending on your choice in the previous step, you may want to eliminate having abilities that only enable if/when another power or circumstance comes up.
• As a player, it is no fun to have abilities that either suddenly pop up and you have (typically) a short period of time in which to click them to make them work, or they only enable after a certain sequence of powers have been selected first. Either make these abilities available all the time (but limited by power cost or a long cool down timer), or make the abilities of the power an upgrade to an existing power, making the timer longer or cost of the power higher to compensate for the added ability.

At this point, you have resolved the issues from the player's side. Either the player has a resource he needs to manage (a power bar and power costs) and he can choose to attack ruthlessly and run out of power fast or efficiently and be available for the long haul, or the player has to time his attacks based on their timers and availability to make "attack chains."

The last point, enemies that somehow make your character unable to use his abilities, either through taking away some/all of his power, increasing the timers on the character's powers, or by "mezzing" (mesmerizing) the character so they cannot contribute at, should be handled delicately. Early on in City of Heroes, for example, the high-end game was not fun because it seemed like every high-end enemy type had one or more energy robbers or mezzers in the group. You either had no energy to use your super-hero abilities, your character was unable to do anything due to being mesmerized, or the enemies turned off your "always on" abilities, making you much more vulnerable. In LOTRO they do the same thing primarily with mezzes; you suddenly find your character completely unable to do anything and very vulnerable to attack. Often, these attacks stack so you are down for 20 seconds, then another hits you just as you come out of it so you are essentially useless for 30, 40, 60 seconds at a time.

Players don't mind when a mob uses good tactics and has powerful hits that take chunks of  their character's "health" (hit points, endurance, etc.) points away and defeat them. But players get upset when they cannot play their character and have no choice in the defeat; the enemy did something that mezzes them and then defeats them, the enemy drains their energy bar to nothing, making them useless and unable to do anything; etc. Game designers need to keep these types of enemy forces reserved for special situations and climactic boss enemies.

In the end, most games I play restrict or penalize players multiple times when they use their abilities. I think a better system would be one that allows the players to make the choice of what and how quickly they will use the player's abilities over one with artificial restrictions. 

Heavy

In the past, I bowled, rode my bike nearly year round, and played softball. As my health grew worse, I slowly gave up on these activities due to the stress and pain they caused me. What I didn't realize was that when I was still doing at least one of them regularly, it was enough exercise often enough to counterbalance the appetite stimulation (caused by the medications I take) and my caloric intake. However, I have been primarily sedentary with little exercise for the last five years, while still having the appetite stimulation from the meds, and my weight has crept up. A sedentary life plus constant appetite stimulation has turned out to be a bad combination!

My wife has turned me on to a site called "My Fitness Pal" online. It allows you to track your calories and exercise per day to help you realize your intake and output so you can manage your weight loss goals. You can feed the results to your Facebook and Twitter, if you wish, and you can have friends on the site who get posted your results for the day (ostensibly so they can encourage or admonish you to stay on target).

While I want to lose weight, I started using it primarily to get a rough idea of how many calories I take in during the day. So I've been tracking my normal intake without concern for how it will affect any weight loss goals I have. As it turns out, I am almost always under a 2000 calorie intake for the day, and often I am under/around 1500 calories due to my natural ebbs and flows in eating.

For the weight loss goal I entered, My Fitness Pal recommended a 1500 calories per day -- which, as I said, is already right in line with my usual consumption habits, but I have done nothing but gain weight. So it is obviously going to take more than simply lowering caloric intake in order to lose the weight. My wife and I have turned to a "paleo-like" diet, where we are trying to increase the "real foods" we eat, sticking with fruits, vegetables, and unprocessed meats, and lowering our intake of overly-processed foods. We have also cut down on eating out and have started a weekly meal planner system.

In addition, I have been weaning myself off of colas for the last six months or so. I have achieved the point where brown sodas (Pepsi, Coke, etc.) don't taste very good. I am now tackling the other sodas in an attempt to wean myself off of them, too. I am down to having the occasional soda once or twice a week, rather than per day, and those are slowly starting to taste bad to me also.

However, this has increased my milk consumption manifold. While not empty calories, per se, and imbued with many vitamins and minerals and a good dose of protein, milk still has a bunch of sugar in it unless you can stomach it straight from the cow. I drink the 2% milkfat version, but that still is about 180 calories per 12 ounce drink. Which, actually, is more calories per 12 ounces than drinking the sodas (about 150 per 12 ounces)!

At this point, most people I speak with say, "Just drink water." The problem is, and many people simply cannot fathom this, I HATE water. I don't like the flavor of it (and, yes, there IS a flavor to water). Water never quenches my thirst, even on a hot day or after exercise. Water never even tries to make me feel full or even "less empty." I am trying to increase my water intake with the hopes that, just like I have stopped liking the flavor of sodas, I will gradually come to at least be neutral toward water, but so far no luck.

I am tackling my sedentary life through the purchase and use of an exercise bike. I also have a real bike for when/if I can get my level of exercise high enough that I can actually ride the thing on the road without dying. Right now, my stamina is so bad that I can barely ride the stationary bike for more than 15 minutes at a moderate pace, but I am improving. My goal right now is to get to 20 minutes three times a week. My long-term goal is to get back to being able to ride around at least the neighborhood (which is pretty hilly) without difficulty.

The My Fitness Pal site is a great tool for tracking both your exercise and your caloric intake. It has been extremely educational to enter the calories for the foods I eat regularly and see just how much that PBJ, that glass of milk, that handful of chips actually is, and how it adds up through the day. With diligence, this tool may help me to lose some of the weight and prompt me toward my exercise goals. We'll see.

Congress Must Go!

"... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...".

I think it is just about time for us to abolish Congress, both House and Senate, and start over. We need to enact laws that limit the amount of money these positions can accrue while in office, make sure existing laws apply to Congress equally, and to limit the amount of time that one can spend in Congress.

Currently, Congress refuses to work together or with other parts of the executive branch (i.e., the office of the President); refuses to take a pay cut during one of the most dire economic hardships our country has faced; and refuses to hold themselves accountable to themselves or to the American people who, through their votes, have issued directives on what direction and what policies they want to see enacted. It is time for a new revolution where we evict these people from office and, through careful consideration, replace them with people who will put America and Americans first, rather than their own political power and gain.

It is nearly impossible to remove a Congressman from office once they are elected. Congressmen themselves are supposed to monitor each other and evict those who are failing to do their duty. Yet we have a number of Congressmen who rarely show up for votes, often use insider information to accrue wealth and power, and pervert the laws of this great land to their own political, personal, and religious ends. In any other aspect of American life, if you do not do your job, you illegally use your knowledge to profit, and you go against the precepts of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, you are held accountable and removed from your position and put in jail. Congress should not be above these laws. We need new rules and laws that allow outside forces to begin the process of expulsion from Congress, as who can trust Congress to govern themselves?

We need to hold Congress accountable for enacting legislation, too. We need to limit the riders and extraneous information that can be added to a law (or give the President back the power of line-item veto so that the extraneous riders and such can be removed and the original bill can be passed). And we need to restrict the amount of time that a Congressman is in office so that they must leave politics and live by the laws they have established.

I have detailed my suggestions for Congressional Reform in previous posts. I am open to debate, but think these five rules are a good first step in reforming politics in general and Congress in particular. I might add a rule that Congressional salaries and/or jobs are tied to passing and having a balanced Federal budget; no Federal budget, no job (or, at least, no money). From here, we can get the government moving once more toward respecting America and Americans.

It is time for a new revolution.

Working the Bell Curve

At my previous job, our company was bought out. We went from a smaller company that believed in hiring the best and the brightest, training them appropriately, and giving them what they needed to succeed, to a small part of a larger corporate structure. Part of the large corporate structure was the institution of a bell curve for worker reviews.

In case you don't know how this works, basically it says that each manager selects 10% of his/her workforce and designates them as "stars," 80% are marked as "adequate," and another 10% as "failures" or "needs improvement." Some companies break the 80% up into sub-categories, but essentially you still wind up with the majority getting the equivalent of a "C" in school, a few getting an "A" grade, and the rest getting the equivalent of a "D" or an "F" grade.

The problem with this way of doing reviews is this: why would  you hire people that are going to fail or will need a lot of improvement? And, if the same person gets the needs improvement grade enough times, they will either quit or be fired. This doesn't sound bad, at first, until you realize that you are left with "C" and "A" people who, on the next review cycle, must now be dropped down.

For example, let's say you are a manager of a company with this policy. You have ten employees. This bell curve style of reviews means that you can only select one person as a star, eight people who are generally adequate and do their work in a competent fashion, and one person who "needs improvement." Companies are often fine if you don't select anyone for the star level but they usually insist on you selecting someone for the lowest level each review cycle. Many companies have two review cycles a year, a non-monetary review and a monetary review.

If you like your employees, you either have to cycle through each person (and keep track of them) so that everyone gets to be a star and everyone gets to be inadequate or, after two bad reviews in a row (sometimes more, but companies are usually pretty strict), you fire a person for not being adequate or they leave due to frustration. To keep the bell curve working, though, you now have nine employees and one of the "adequate" employees has to be moved into the inadequate category and the cycle starts again. After two bad reviews, that guy leaves/is fired and you are down to eight employees. Rinse, repeat.

Again, during the hiring process, you are seeking out individuals who have strengths where you need them and who you think will fit into the corporate structure (or, at least, the structure you have created and workers you have already hired). You generally are seeking long-term solutions to whatever issue you have that is causing you to hire people. Therefore, your expectation is that everyone will be at least "adequate" and you hope to hire as many "stars" as you can, so your little part of the company works as smoothly, efficiently, and profitably as possible.

Let's give another example with the same setup. You are the manager of 10 people in, let's say, a sales department. Over the last six months (your company has biannual reviews), all ten of your employees have met the sales quotas you have given them. A few exceeded them by a large margin but most came in around or slightly over the figure you gave them. When review time comes, even though you had, let's say, three people double the sales quota, you can only pick one person to be the star due to the bell curve. That means, in essence, you are telling two other people that doubling the sales quota isn't enough to be a star and to get the perks. At the same time, even though, let's say, three people barely achieved the quote -- but did make it -- you have to select one of them (minimum) to say, "You did everything I asked you to, but it still isn't enough and you need to improve."

The end result of this scenario is that you have now negatively motivated three people (or 30% of your work force) into doing less work. The two who strove hard, did well, and did not get praised for it are now demotivated to work that hard for the next six months (and probably irritated at the one guy who did the same amount of work they did but did get the positive praise for it) and the person who worked his ass off, made every quota, and did as much as you told him to is now not motivated to work any harder and is probably seeking employment elsewhere. You may have also demotivated the one you picked as a star, because now he has two employees angry with him and he doesn't want to be singled out again because he knows they were just as deserving. You have also, possibly, scared and demotivated the two other people who barely made quota. So, now 60% of your work force is demotivated, working scared or angry, and possibly looking for work elsewhere, for a job where they will be praised for their hard work and making quota.

Now let's look at the same scenario without a bell curve. You now have seven employees who were adequate and did exactly what you wanted and what you hired them for. They get the praise they deserve, which motivates them to continue to do the job requested (at least). You give star status to the three people who greatly exceeded your expectations. All three feel the praise and are motivated to continue to work as hard going forward. The other seven see that praise (and, presumably, the rewards that go with it) and work harder to be a star, too. And, as manager, you motivate the three at the bottom by saying, "Because everyone met or exceeded my quotas this term, we're going to increase the quotas a bit and see if we can't do even better in Sales this next term! Go team!" This is a subtle, but positive, way to motivate the three at the bottom who barely made the quota that they are going to have to work harder, smarter, or better.

In this scenario, you have 100% who have received praise and are encouraged to keep working hard. Only 30% have any negative associations to the review (the bottom three, who barely made quota this term but know the quota is now higher for the next term), and the remaining 70% have positives to look at and to work toward (becoming a star employee and getting the rewards inherent in that position).

This second scenario also creates a natural bell curve as you keep raising the bar for all of your employees until you find who can hack at and who can't. Then, you can start giving those at the bottom the "needs improvement" treatment... but the remaining employees don't feel the same pressures as those of our first scenario. And, if any of those at the bottom quit or are fired, you have a new set of expectations with which to interview and hire replacement employees: you have the work ethic and attitudes of the stars to use as traits to look for in the new hires, you have your new sales goals to use as a barometer, and you have the team dynamic (which is much more positive) to consider when determining if the new hire will succeed with your team.

Now, I will grant that sometimes a new hire (or even an old hat at the job) is not properly prepared or able to do the job for which he/she was hired. They lied on their resume, a life event occurs that affects their job performance, or maybe you stretched to get someone who fits in one aspect and you hoped to "train them up" on the other aspects and it doesn't go as planned. Whatever the case, only when a person truly is doing an inadequate job, is not meeting your job expectation, can't make his/her deadlines, etc. should you give them a bad review. The bell curve should happen naturally/organically; there is no need to force one on what is otherwise a group of good to great employees, as all that does is demotivate your entire group.

Man of Steel

Note: Mild Spoilers ahead. You've been warned.

My wife and I like to pay attention to critical reviews for movies, but we make up our own minds. Some movies, however, we are going to go see regardless. I am a huge Superman fan, so Man of Steel was one of those "must see" movies. Reading the reviews via RottenTomato.com and Metacritic, review compilation sites, the movie was getting a just barely "rotten" rating and many critics complained that it had no heart or charm. The critical consensus seems to be summed up with, "It's just not the Christopher Reeve Superman."

In general, I respect critics and I am informed by what they say. But, in this case, I wonder where they came up with those responses. The movie I watched had a lot of heart and charm and soul. The first half of the movie is predicated on showing that Clark Kent was a picked on boy, confused by the emergence of his powers, with strong guidance from his Earth-born parents. Even through all of that, he wanders the world anonymously helping people and saving lives. Here's a guy who can lift mountains and survive virtually anything staying humble and trying to fit in with humanity without doing them any harm. The lessons he learns from his adopted parents are rich and give meaning to his life and direction to his wandering.

Once Clark puts on the red and blue, after "meeting" his biological father and learning of his origin and history, he immediately starts to question his place in a sudden conflict between the suddenly-appearing Kryptonians and the natives of planet Earth. He sides with the Earthlings and places himself between them and the god-like beings who want to terraform the planet and make a new Krypton. This leads to a global battle between Superman and the eight or so surviving Kryptonians under the rule of General Zod. With the help of a very spunky and smart Lois Lane, Superman hatches a plan to remove the Kryptonian threat. He single-handedly destroys one terraforming unit, and then helps the humans in the Army to destroy the other, sending all but Zod back into the Phantom Zone and away from Earth.

Zod remains and is still a threat, as his abilities are slowly rising to the level of Superman's during his time on Earth and under Earth's yellow sun. Zod is a multifaceted villain. He actually thinks of himself as the hero of the story, as he was genetically engineered to be a leader and a warrior and to protect Krypton against any threat. His goal is simply to enable the resurrection of Krypton; he doesn't care that this will destroy the human beings native to planet Earth. His villainy comes from being willing to sacrifice the 7 billion inhabitants to resurrect his lost civilization... under his control, of course. Superman, meanwhile, has sided with the human beings, which confuses Zod. Zod simply cannot understand why a Kryptonian would ally with anyone against him, another Kryptonian. The fact that Superman and the pesky humans have all but destroyed his Utopian plans drives Zod to threaten the Earth and Superman that he will personally kill all the humans Superman so cherishes. Superman cannot allow that, so a final, epic battle ensues between the two.

It is here that the charm, heart, and moral underpinnings get a bit muddled. Superman allows the epic battle with Zod to remain in a highly-populated place (the remains of Metropolis). Every punch, every blast of heat vision, every super-speed flight/jump at each other produces greater and greater destruction in the city, and, presumably, more loss of life. Finally, Zod forces Superman to make the ultimate decision between the Kryptonians and human beings.

This movie has a very solid story and incredible acting. I thought each and every person in the cast did an incredible job, but especially Henry Cavill as Superman. The world created and the mythology changes the writers made all work and make sense. Zod is a fascinating and multilayered villain. The action scenes are very well done.

I have a few main complaints about the movie:

1. Shaky-cam. Zack Snyder, whom I know from his work on 300, Watchmen, Sucker Punch, and Dawn of the Dead (remake), knows how to direct an action movie. Yet he chose to use a single-camera, shaky-cam approach to every scene in the movie. Everyone in my group who watched the movie with me agreed that, had we seen the 3D version, we likely would have been nauseated by the constant, never-ending use of the shaky-cam. And I know that Warner Bros could afford to give Snyder at least one more camera to use during filming. His goal, I presume, is to make you feel like you are "there" during each scene. The problem is, you (the audience member) CAN'T be there for a lot of it, as the audience cannot fly at Mach speeds, nor go into space, or survive buildings collapsing all around them. And quiet scenes where two people are simply talking especially don't need shaky-cam. Even in 2D, I felt like I was on a roller coaster and got a bit nauseated. Shaky-cam, once again, took me out of my immersion in the film and the world within and negatively hurt my overall impression of the movie. Many people have no problem with shaky-cam, so this is not a strong negative to those audience members.
2. Flashbacks. I am not a big believer in the flashback. In nearly every instance (there are exceptions!), I find that a movie would be better served simply starting with the flashback scenes and running in chronological order. I think that having most of Superman's youth and moral guidance sequences told in flashback is what primarily makes many reviewers complain that the movie has no heart. Had the movie simply provided the flashback scenes as the start to the movie, and shown Clark as a child, a youth, a teen, and then an adult, the audience would see his growth and maturity into the man he is today and more of the heart and charm would be readily apparent. Again, many people do not have this issue and don't mind having the narrative broken up and rearranged, so isn't a strong negative.
3. Too much action? This seems like an odd negative in an action movie, but the final battle scenes may be overwhelming for some audience members. They are so action-packed that my wife and I felt tired after watching the movie. The last 30 minutes or so of the film you barely are allowed to take a breath as Superman hurdles from one conflict to the next trying to save the planet. There is a reason that so many action movies put a moment or two of levity or show the hero resting between set pieces in their action sequences -- the audience needs it, maybe more than the hero does. We were on the edge of our seats, watching this roller coaster of action for so long that it simply wore us out. That's a good problem to have, but one that should have been considered.
4. Length. As with pretty much every single move we have seen recently, this movie is too long. I'd guesstimate that the 2:23 running time could be cut down to a solid two hours fairly easily by removing and shortening a few of the action sequences at the end and cutting a few of the slightly repetitive sequences from the opening. Rearranging the story order (per item 2) would also help the flow of the movie and for it to not feel as long.

All in all, this was an excellent genre movie with a stellar cast and great new mythology. I felt like the challenges were suitably world-threatening. The villain was layered and persuasive. The effects and action sequences were very well done. My complaints are primarily technical and concern how the movie was constructed and some of the decisions the director made in the making of it. This movie deserves to be mentioned in the same stratosphere with Marvel's The Avengers, Iron Man 1 and 3, The Dark Knight, Spider-Man, and similarly well-received genre movies.

And, if you're a Superman fan, it is a must-see movie.

Addendum (Major Spoilers)

There are quite a few negative reviews that are primarily negative because of Superman breaking Zod's neck in the third act. While this act was a serious negative for me, as well, I thought it fit into the story this movie was telling even if it didn't fit into my preconceived notions of Superman from over 30 years of being a fan, watching the TV shows, serials, cartoons, and reading comics of the character. But it fit with THIS story. Stories are coming out now that show that Christopher Nolan was against that action, too, but was talked into it by Goyer and Snyder. It has also been reported that the plan was to show this as a "true" origin story; i.e., Superman is not the "big blue boy scout" we all know and love, but rather a new hero trying to find his way and do what he thinks is right. He makes a decision that may have a lasting effect on him, and will be shown in a future sequel where he is more fully-formed as the Superman we all know. I can accept that.

For example: http://www.hitfix.com/news/man-of-steel-christopher-nolan-initially-resisted-that-controversial-ending

That being said, I still think that this movie should have shown at least a dawning realization that his combat was destroying Smallville and Metropolis and that people were getting hurt. I think they should have shown more scenes of him saving someone and then getting hurt because of it (they did have a few scenes like this in the Smallville battle, where he saves some townspeople and army men, but Faora and "Nod" catch him and beat on him some more, but those scenes were mostly absent from the Metropolis battle). Had the Metropolis fight with Zod had more of these types of instance, especially if they actually showed Zod killing humans on purpose, the scene with Superman trying to stop Zod and then, finally, deciding to break his neck would make so much more sense and would show more the inevitability of Zod forcing him to make said decision.

Another aspect I notice is that most/many of these reviews basically like 2/3 or more of the movie. It is this decision and the constant, seemingly uncaring "battle porn" that threatens so many lives where these negative reviews focus. It makes Superman seem "cold" and "heartless" to those reviewers. I get that. And I somewhat agree with it. However, much of this is because of bringing multiple years of experience, understanding, knowledge, and preconceived ideas about the character of Superman to the movie and not allowing the writers to present something new. I was willing to give the filmmakers the benefit of the doubt and look to the movie as the first act of a larger arc (similar to Batman Begins). If those audience members cannot do that, or are unwilling to because the act of killing is too far removed from the Superman character they know and love, then I can respect it while not agreeing with it.

It is my opinion that the filmmakers took a subtle approach and tried to let the audience come to these conclusions on their own. I think Pa Kent responding to a young Clark asking if he should have let his classmates die with "Maybe... I don't know" was a key moment. Many viewers key on the "maybe" and completely ignore the "I don't know" part. I think that it is important, and very much a part of Clark's growth, that Pa Kent is the "hero" during the tornado scene, but silently asks Clark not to save him... for fear of what those around Clark in the underpass will see and think. Once he lets humanity know of his existence, however, that rule no longer applies, and he is willing to do what it takes to keep humanity from harm. Is it shown well? No. Could it be clearer and could they have shown his desire to save humanity in a more concrete way? Definitely. I also think that one of the subtle messages the filmmakers were showing is that Superman is one guy. One fantastically powerful guy, but even with his speed and powers he cannot save everyone. So they show him occasionally saving individuals and small groups, but needing to focus on the larger threat. He also insists on humanity helping to save themselves, by allowing the humans to take the bomb to the second ship and detonate it. He trusts them to figure it out while he is busy doing what they cannot-- fly to the other side of the world and take out the other device single-handed. 

So, in the end, I can see why these reviews are negative. I even agree with a lot of or even all of what they are saying. I was able to take the stance that this is part of a larger narrative and will have meaning and repercussions for the character down the road, while many of these reviewers do not or cannot. I also was able to divorce myself enough from it that it didn't ruin an otherwise well-done movie, while many of these people cannot or will not.

Alfred Hitchcock Presents...

Just finished watching first Psycho and then To Catch a Thief. I have watched Psycho before, but realized I hadn't seen it in a while and that I wasn't remembering much of it. I hadn't seen To Catch a Thief before, so it was new to me. It's fun to go back and watch older movies, as you see and learn so much from them.

Note: Minor spoilers ahead. However, if you haven't seen Psycho or To Catch a Thief yet... well, watch them first and then come back here. My blog will keep.

A few things struck me while viewing these old classics:

• Acting, by and large, has gotten much better today. Or, at least, we expect more nuance and craft in what we watch today, no matter how frivolous or small the role may be. In Hitchcock's time, actors were simply a cog in the entire clockwork of a movie, and it didn't matter if some of the smaller roles were wooden or without nuance, as long as they drove the movie forward.

In Psycho, for example, the actor who played Sam was a bit wooden and had little range. The cop who follows Marion before she arrives at the Bates Motel was, at best, one-note and without character. Today, directors wouldn't stand for that. Even though what Hitchcock presented was enough to move the story along, today's audiences generally laugh and do not take seriously such one-note performances. Hitch thought nothing of completely redubbing all of one actor's lines in To Catch a Thief, because he spoke no English and his voice wasn't right (you can really hear the difference between when the character speaks French and when the re-dubbed voice speaks English).

• How few chances that it seems like Hitchcock took in his movies.

This problem is really one of perspective. These moves were made in the 1950s and 1960s, and the fact that the angles and shots that Hitch set up were avant garde for the time is obscured by the fact that every director today has the freedom to use such shots and to spice up their work with interesting camera angles and lighting. And, frankly, many directors rip off... I mean, "pay homage to" ... Hitchcock whenever they can, as he was a master of his craft.

• The "twist" movie has been around for much longer than M. Night Shyamalan.

Many of Hitch's movies are based on some sort of twist or surprise, like Norman Bates being caught wearing his mother's clothing at the end of Psycho or the "nice" girl winding up being the real thief in To Catch a Thief. But they simply don't have the same impact for today's audiences, that have twists thrown at them on TV, in video games, and in movies all the time. For example, although I hadn't seen it before, the very first scene that introduces the young girl, Danielle, left me saying, "Oh, well, she's the real thief." Low and behold, she was! This is not because Hitch did something wrong or that there was too much information given, it is simply that I'm a product of my time and that it is rare that any movie or TV show surprises me in a whodunnit.

• Hitchcock didn't need to use "shaky-cam" to give his audiences a sense of action and intensity.

Any long-time reader of this blog knows that I HATE shaky-cam with a passion. It adds NOTHING to a movie except a sense of nausea and confusion about what is going on. Learn from the masters and put your damn camera on a stabilizer, tripod, or, if digital, ensure that picture stabilization is turned "on," please! If your action scene is so poorly conceived and directed that the only way you can save it is to add shaky-cam, stop and reconsider the scene in its entirety. If Hitchcock (and Spielberg, Scorsese, et al) do not need it, YOU DON'T NEED IT EITHER!

Watching these old movies is a great way to entertain and teach younger audience members about the craft of film making. Watching the humble beginnings of things helps new filmmakers to learn and grow their own style, while be cognizant of what has come before and the restraints under which so many directors used to work.

And, frankly, it is a heck of a lot of fun, too!

A Life Lesson

[Had video here, went missing from Youtube and I can't find it to re-link to it]

Pretty funny how our assumptions can come back and bite us on the ass. The video reminded me of something that happened in my college years.

The college I attended had a very strong black population. One day, walking from the dormitories to the building that housed my class, I crossed the main quad and stumbled my way into some sort of rally that the black students were having. As I walked across the quad, I became aware of someone shouting over the speaker, "Your people enslaved our people!" and I noticed that the black students around me were staring at me. I stopped and looked around and saw a middle-aged black man with a microphone staring and pointing at me.

"Excuse me?" I semi-shouted back. I was about two-thirds away from the 'podium' area from which he was speaking.

He reiterated, "Your people enslaved us!"

"Nope, didn't happen," I responded and began walking toward my class again.

The speaker made some derogatory comment about white people not accepting responsibility for the slavery of the black people.

Not being one who is able to keep quiet when I feel the truth is being mangled, I shouted out to him, "On both sides of my family, my immigrant great-grandfathers and grandmothers arrived just about the turn of the 20th century. My mother's side moved all the way to Santa Barbara. My father's side got stuck in the coal mines of the Pennsylvania area, which, if any of you know your history, was pretty harsh labor and akin to indentured servitude. He was one of the few who worked his way free and he resettled in Michigan. Neither side of my family owned slaves as it had been abolished a generation before they arrived in this country."

Also, seeing a ripe opportunity at making a shot back at the guy, I concluded, "You should really know your facts before you accuse someone based solely on the color of their skin."

I then proceeded to walk across the quad while a bunch of the black students around me smiled and clapped and the guy with the microphone blustered and 'um'ed' and 'ah'ed' his way back onto his hate-filled, anti-white person speech. But he had lost a lot of momentum. And I found I had a lot more black friends and acquaintances from that day forward.

Good Fences

Robert Frost wrote "Mending Wall" about two men rebuilding a rock wall that separates their properties. The narrator questions the need for the wall, as he believes "something there is that doesn't love a wall." But, contrary to the narrator's whimsical assertions and questioning nature, the neighbor just steadfastly keeps building up the broken down wall and says, "Good fences make good neighbors."

In today's society, we are losing many of our old walls. Public conversations and private lives are available for all to see and hear. You cannot walk through the grocery store, a mall, anywhere any more, without hearing someone's private life discussed in public. Our television and the Internet fills us with sights and sounds of people doing the things they used to do privately. "Reality" TV is everywhere you look, and everyone is on it; in any given day you are photographed by 100 different cameras, from traffic cams, to store security, to ATM cameras, and people's cell phones.

The Internet is often a very hurtful and negative place. You cannot have a disagreement without it turning into something more than it should be. People hide behind the perceived anonymity of the World Wide Web and think they can do as they want and say whatever they please. Facebook, Instagram, Tumblr, and other sites allow people to put their entire lives online for all to see, and then they are shocked when criminals use that knowledge against them. The vitriol and venom found spewing forth from people online is staggering.

On rare occasion, the lack of walls can be a comfort and a balm. After a tragedy, people can come together and crowd-fund a response, release an outpouring of support for some cause or dire need, or work together to heal those affected. We occasionally use this openness to express our anger to change things and right wrongs en masse. But these acts of kindness and benevolence seem so few and so, so far between the venom and the vitriol.

We also build false new walls where none previously existed. Instead of unplugging and being with those we call our friends or our family, we put a new wall of technology up and we pay more attention to it than to real people. It is more imperative to post what we are doing and where we are going to the unknown masses than it is to be there, in the moment and with the people we hold most dear, and experiencing it. Rather than turn off the phone and have a night in, we allow the outside world to intrude at its insistence rather than with our permission. But these walls are illusory; our lives are still up there, in public, for all to see, while we ignore the important people right in front of us.

When I was young, I agreed so firmly with the narrator in Frost's poem. I saw no need for walls or limitations. I liked the idea of the elves and the gremlins tearing down the walls when we weren't looking. I wanted to be free and run where I wished to and to do what I wanted. Now, with age and wisdom, I lean toward the neighbor; I want my walls. Right now, I do not want them so large I cannot see over them, and I do not want them so long that I cannot walk around them, and I do not want them so thick that there is no hope of tearing them down. I want a nice little wall that says, "This is mine." I want those around me to know that there are limits. Their rights end where mine begin. I want others to know that I have worked hard for what I have attained and they have no right to just traipse across it, take it as though it is theirs, use what is mine up, and leave me with nothing.

So, I grasp another stone in my sore, tired hands and I raise it up. When my neighbor suggests his many reasons for not repairing the wall, I simply shrug my aching shoulders, place my rock in its spot on the wall, and say, "Good fences make good neighbors."

A Test

I have a test for you: write down your current, general feeling about America on a 3x5 card and place it in a desk drawer. Now, starting tomorrow morning, do not read a newspaper, do not watch the news on TV, and do not click on any news web sites for one full week. At the end of the week, write down your thoughts about America based only on what you saw, what you did, and what you experienced for that week without news. Then get the original card out and compare the two. My guess is that the week without news will be more positive and hopeful.

Without the news ravaging you with hyperbole and sensationalism, I'm willing to bet your opinion of people, places, and things will generally improve during that week. I bet that you will focus more on the people you meet and interact with, how things are for you (personally), and the economy of your personal area over the vast threats that Fox and MSNBC news are insisting you listen to.

Without having the Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermmans of the world whispering in your ear what you should think, feel, and fear, your life will seem more pleasant and your problems, should you have any, will seem easier to manage and more personally yours rather than some part of some deeper tragedy. Without having CNN and others instilling you with dread and stress over terrorism, climate change, the economy and other issues that are, frankly, too big for any one person to solve, your personal stress levels will decrease and your ability to act in your own life will increase. I think you will feel generally more positive and generally happier.

Once upon a time, not so very long ago, the news was a boring but sensible way to get the facts. News organizations had policies and procedures to verify those facts before they could print, speak, or show them. The news was not entertainment. And, I think, in that far away time and place, people were generally happier with their personal lives and more committed to their neighbors, their communities, and their families.

I think that a week without news will teach people that things aren't as bad as we are told they are, that people aren't as wicked as we are taught they are, and that you are much happier in your life than you have been lead to believe you are.

Let me know how it goes.

Update:

Slate agrees with me.

Cherry Picking

When I write a blog, I try hard not to cherry-pick my statistics or my sources. I try to present both sides, or what I find to be the most prevailing attitude or opinion on a subject, and then express my opinion about that (whether I agree or disagree). You can argue how successful I am at doing that.

Facebook (FB) is an incredibly useful tool for getting in touch with people I used to know and finding connections that have been broken. I'm back in touch with a number of my extended family members as well as high school chums that I lost contact with over the years. Some of my good friends who went off to live their lives I have gotten back in contact with and have found out what has been going on.

However, one of the worst parts of Facebook is that people can post just about anything... and they do. The worst thing is that people post "factoids" from people, companies, and activists without vetting the information first. I see a ton of repostings that are simply bad information, outright lies, or misinformation. Most of these posts are fairly harmless, when someone posts that setting a certain setting in FB will help them be more anonymous online (no, it usually won't), or by posting something they might win a prize (in most cases, no), or one of the many urban myths (like Coke causes worms in meat if poured over it). These are mostly harmless and fairly easily to ignore.

However, some people repost information that is simply wrong. A friend recently reposted something that indicated that the Dairy industry is duping the world because most people (the origin information suggested 75%) in the world are lactose intolerant. The group posting it is anti-big business, pro-little guy, and often uses over-inflated data. I thought that number looked high so I did a quick search and found that the world-wide number is actually closer to 33%. The only groups that are in the range of 75% are blacks and middle-eastern people. I don't blame the friend for reposting this-- it is a way to get people to look at their choices and re-evaluate what they purchase, but I do blame the originators of the post for using scare tactics and categorically incorrect information to get their point across.

I see similar things posted concerning government, businesses, and high-profile individuals, as well. During the election, people posted many of the completely proven false lies about President Obama in an attempt to influence people's voting (like his citizenship). I see celebrities being bashed and abused similarly, by having certain comments or pictures cherry-picked and used against them.

A new trend is to take pictures that people have made public and use them in posts. Recently, a woman had one of her daughter's pictures copied. The copiers then added a sob story about how the girl, whom they had renamed at least, had a disease and didn't think she was beautiful. They wanted people to 'Like' the picture so the girl could see how many people thought she was beautiful. However, it turns out that it was a grab for Likes so that those who started it could sell the FB names of everyone who liked it to a company. So, not only did they steal a child's photo and use it for nefarious ends, everyone who Liked it is now on a company's list and getting spammed. Similarly you get people posting the "Name a state with no 'a' in it..." or the "Only a small percentage of people can read this..." type of posts that are also Like grabs by people who just want to create lists and sell them to companies (or worse).

People don't think for themselves any more. If they did, they would see that so many of these posts are simply lies and they probably wouldn't repost them. For awhile, I took it upon myself to link to the real information and to disprove these statements so that the posts would die (at least among those I know and am connected to via FB). But I'm tired of (seemingly) being the only one who is doing any thinking or questioning of these posts. I'm not doing it any more.

I'm tired of the spread of misinformation, I'm tired of the constant push and pull of high-technology, and I'm tired of Facebook. If you want me, email me. Or call. Or write a letter.

Congressional Term Limits

Why does it seem like the Right is moving farther right and the Left is moving farther left? Yet Presidential elections always and consistently show that the most moderate person gets nominated for their party and the person who appeals best to both sides (and is, therefore, the most moderate appearing of the two candidates) is the one who gets elected. It used to be true in Congressional elections as well, but now seems to be the person who talks the loudest or has some sort of name recognition gets elected.

I firmly believe that America has about 10-15% radical Right people, 10-15% radical Left people, and between 70-80% of the people are moderate. They may be moderately Right/Conservative or moderately Left/Liberal, but each side has some things they can agree with from the "other side" and this vast majority of mostly moderate people can calmly sit down at a table together and come up with compromises and solutions. Yet the rhetoric in Congress between the parties, as well as between the Legislative and Executive branches of the government is venomous and full of rancor, and it is only getting worse.

Have you noticed, however, that every time you hear of a filibuster in Congress, or an impasse between Congressmen or Senators, or problems between the Legislative and Executive branches, it is always the same few people each time? Out of the 535 people in Congress, I consistently see the same 10-15 from both sides arguing, filibustering, on TV, and making the rounds on talk shows. It seems like they have been in  office so long that they have risen to positions of power and now rule the roost like it is an oligarchy.

Originally, for the first 100 to 150 years of our nation, most of the lawmakers served one term. Few served two and it was exceptionally rare to serve more than that. Only two people served for 30 or more years prior to the early 1900s. Since the 1950s, the number of people serving for 30+ years has grown by leaps and bounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_longevity_of_service

People should not spend 30 years in public office, let alone 40 or 50 years!

There are many web sites that are pushing for Congressional term limits. There are many polls that show that people want term limits. Many state and local legislatures have or are introducing term limits. There are many similar suggestions on the "We the People" portion of WhiteHouse.gov.

I've already suggested my solutions to this problem. By creating more turn-over in these important offices, we can get more varied viewpoints and we force the lawmakers to live under the laws they make. We also minimize some of the damage that PACs and lobbyists can do, as they can't build up long-term relationships with people by supplementing their (already too high) Congressional war-chests or salaries.

In the end, I think that term limits can effectively build a better Congress, can cut down on corruption, and will help the country reach consensus and compromise on many important issues that, today, are at a complete stand-still.

#revolution

UPS

In general, I like UPS. They are an efficient model business that moves millions of parcels around the entire world on a daily basis with few screw-ups. However, I have to share my current issue.

My wife and I ordered a replacement TiVo drive from Weaknees.com, a company I have dealt with and is a good resource for people using the TiVo DVR. However, it turned out that the problem was not our hard drive and whatever the problem was caused the hard drive to become corrupt. So we needed to return the product. I got the RMA information from them and followed it. We found a drop-off location in Calais, ME and took it there.

On Friday (April 5) I noticed that the person entering the address had miss-keyed it. The address we were sending to had four nines in it (9999) but they had only keyed three (999). So, on Friday, I first called our UPS drop-off location to see if they could do anything about that from their end. The nice lady tried, but she could not change the address. I then went to UPS.com and tried myself. I could see that the package had left Rhode Island at 3:39 am ET on Wednesday, heading for California. This was Friday, yet there was no update or new arrival information. The link to update the address on the web site was a loop: it would say click here to change the destination, ask me to log in, then say click here to change the destination. I broke the loop and looked up the UPS phone number.

(Aside: The UPS web site "helpfully" looked at my computer's IP address and gave me Canadian phone numbers and information. I wound up having to call the Canadian phone number, explain the problem, tell them where I shipped it from (USA) and have their customer support give me the correct phone number for US domestic customer support. Many web sites think they are being helpful by reading your IP and giving you country-/location-specific information. I find it is rarely true, rarely helpful, and often makes it very difficult to get what you want.)

I called the UPS line and spoke with a woman named Mike. She said that, because the package had not reached a destination yet and was considered "in transit" she could not update the address. She said to call back the next day, as it should arrive at the Los Angeles distribution hub by then and they could update the package's address. Saturday the package still was listed as in transit, but I called anyway. Same deal from the UPS customer service representative (male, don't remember his name): call back tomorrow, it should arrive by then.

On Sunday I called back and spoke to Nate. It is still listed as in transit. But then, when I explained what the other two had said, Nate explained how the package was on a physical truck, was being driven across the country going from distribution center to distribution center dropping off packages and that was why it was still "in transit." I don't necessarily believe that, as it seems like a very inefficient way of moving a package the company knows is destined for CA from the east coast, but whatever. He also said what the other two said, that he could not update the address until it showed as arrived at a distribution center. He then said the thing that irritated me: that it was going by ground and that the package would definitely not arrive prior to Monday in Los Angeles because trucks don't make stops during the weekend, so there was "no way" it would arrive until Monday. Really? Didn't you a) just tell me that the truck was stopping at distribution centers along the way as it drove across country, and that was why it was taking it so long to reach CA and b) why didn't the other two people explain this to me? I asked him about the latter, and he told me they should have known that and not told me to call back during the weekend.

Now, I'm getting a little angry. Nate is saying that I have been both lied to by other UPS personnel and wasting my time trying to track this package and call about the address update. He says what he's told me is common policy and that the others should definitely know this and have shared this with me. This does not help me much and irritates me further; not only have I been lied to, but I have been lied to by people who are either improperly trained in UPS "common policy," are incredibly forgetful, or are idiots. Twice.

This morning, I see that the package did, indeed, finally arrive first in Vernon and then in Los Angeles, CA, which lends credence to what Nate told me. I now must wait for 8 am PT in order to call the LA distribution center and get the address updated so it goes to the right location. This better go smoothly or whomever I speak with will get an earful from me. I do not like being given the run-around or wasting my time like this. Hopefully four times is the charm.

Compassionate Lives

I am much more willing to entertain changes to my life when I view someone living theirs in a way that seems compassionate and interesting on a day to day basis. When I see someone only paying lip service to something they purport to believe in, however, I am completely turned off. For me, it comes down to the actual actions versus the reality of those who claim to be religious.

Honestly, I am not an overly religious person. While I have beliefs, and some of them correspond with teachings of some churches and faiths, I do not go to church and I do not claim association to any of the formal religions. I have studied and attended a number of religions and religious services of various sorts throughout my life. I try to keep an open mind to spiritual things, but I also believe firmly that any faith that asks me to stop thinking and questioning is not a good fit for me.

Too often, I am disappointed in those I know who claim to be religious. They do not act in accordance with their religion's belief system, they are not practicing their religion's tenets, and they do not come across as overly faithful or spiritual people. It seems that the more traditional the religion, the less likely they are to follow the precepts and tenets. Yet, I know many who say they are only spiritual, or who follow a less conservative or traditional religion, and they often have the most faith, the most happiness, and the best lives (in whole or part).

When I first moved to where I live now, I met someone who claimed to be a Buddhist. Yet, his actions indicated otherwise as he consistently didn't actually follow any of the Buddhist teachings I was aware of and seemed to constantly ignore some of the foundational tenets of the belief system. I have known a number of Christians who seem incapable of following even the Golden Rule let alone any of the Ten Commandments. I have personally been harmed by people bearing false witness against me or those I know (9), and I frequently see Christians coveting (10), taking the Lord's name in vain (3), dishonoring their elders (5), and committing adultery (7). The only two that many Christians seem to find easy to follow are not stealing and not killing. But those are the easiest for a reason. I have known Muslims who had sex out of marriage, who consorted with those not of the faith, and who did not pray five times a day. I have known Jews who didn't follow many of the tenets of the faith, including the prescriptions against certain foods, ignored the commandment to keep peace within the family, to do good acts, to make the world a better place, etc. I know atheists that do more preaching and sermonizing on the topic than any Sunday religious leader and who espouse science in such a way that it is synonymous with "God." Do not get me wrong, I also know people who follow traditional religions and are upstanding people who follow their beliefs. I'm disappointed at those people seeming to be the exceptions instead of the rules.

On the other hand, I have known Wiccans who faithfully celebrated the Solstices and the seasons, who lived happy, outward-centric lives, and made the world around them a better place. Most of the Mormons I have known seem to be happy, healthy people who want to make the world better for everyone. If you don't agree with them, they are happy (usually) to let you believe differently and they will continue to strive to be the best they can be. I have known atheists and agnostics who followed more of the Ten Commandments than many of the Christians I know, but they do so because the rules are solid and make it easier for people to get along and be good neighbors not because some external force compels or suggests they should. I have even met people who follow philosophies from books and movies and lead more positive, caring lives than many of those who profess to be religious.

It all comes down to the actions you perform, not the lip service you provide.

You read about people like Mother Teresa, who questioned her faith and her religion on a daily basis, but still went out there and strived to make her world and herself better. Day in and day out her actions showed her to live a compassionate life and she tried to build up those around her. On the other hand, you also read about religious leaders lying and covering up abuse scandals, or performing them. Their actions are those of the faithless and immoral, yet they pay lip service to the religion every Sunday morning during services. I know which one I find better and which one I want to strive to be more like.

In the end, I am left thinking that all religions, philosophies, and belief systems have something to offer anyone. The point is to find the one that helps you to be a better person, to make yourself and those around you happy, and to be a good citizen of the world around you. I don't care if you are an atheist who follows the Boy Scout creed, a Roman Catholic, or a Jedi, as long as you believe fully, live compassionately, and adhere to that belief and try to make yourself and the world better. The point is to believe it and then to live it, honestly and faithfully.

An amusing Addendum to the above, just found:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion

Paul Ryan is an Idiot

Paul Ryan is the Republican's "best and brightest" budgetary thinker. However, his last few budget proposals have a number of errors in thinking that show that he is, apparently, an abject idiot -- or, if we use the definition of 'doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result,' insane. You be the judge as to which applies.

Mr. Ryan just released his latest budget proposal and it, too, has a number of flaws. One that he consistently and egregiously makes is using an "infinite horizon" philosophy when discussing Medicare and Social Security without also applying the philosophy to the rest of the budget. He used it throughout the election cycle, even after, literally, dozens of economists and politicos pointed out this mistake. He also doesn't seem to understand how Social Security actual works (or that it is funded well into the future) or that rising medical costs are the reasons why Medicare is floundering.

I finally found an article that summed up all of the mistakes. It points out his many factual errors, some of which I mention above. I also stopped researching "entitlement" program errors when I found that the same author conveniently summed up all of those errors that Mr. Ryan, and Republican leadership in general, keep promoting to the general population.

(Aside: The word "entitlement" has two meanings, and the Republican leadership always takes the wrong one when discussing these programs. The actual meaning of entitlement for these programs is: You paid into SS and Medicare and, when you reach the appropriate age or retire, you are entitled to the benefits/money you paid for. Why can't Mr. Ryan figure that out?)

Another LA Times article also managed to sum up something about Mr. Ryan's philosophy, and Republican leadership in general, that I simply don't understand:

As the GOP's top budget thinker and its 2012 vice presidential nominee, Ryan acknowledged that he and Mitt Romney lost the election after running on these principles.

But Republicans believe Americans are ready for the GOP's tough-love approach to reining in deficits.

"The election didn't go our way. Believe me, I know what that feels like," said Ryan, surrounded by more than a dozen Republican colleagues. "That means we surrender our principles? That means we stop believing in what we believe in?"

While the vote doesn't explicitly state that Republicans should surrender their principles, it does indicate, as do the plethora of polls since the election concerning the fiscal situation, that the American people are not buying into and do not want what Republican leadership is selling. They want a balanced approach that includes stimulating the economy, cuts, closing of taxation loopholes, and tax increases on the wealthy. Since we live in a Democratic Republic, that means our elected officials are supposed to listen to the public they were elected to serve and do what the majority has requested. Instead, the Republican leadership keeps proposing the same things they have that a) got us into this mess and b) ignores what the majority is requesting. They keep fighting when Independents, Democrats, and even some of the more moderate Republicans bring this up or make proposals that are in line with the majority opinion.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, the budget cannot be balanced on cuts and closing loopholes alone. The numbers are simply too big. Taxation and stimulus is absolutely necessary, yet Republican leadership refuses to commit to those and fights them every step of the way. If Mr. Ryan is, in fact, the Republican party's best and brightest budget guy, he should know this!

If I were still a registered Republican, which I was for the first fourteen years of my voting life (I am registered "Declines to State" now, or Independent), I would be appalled, disappointed, and angry over my current Congressional leadership. I would be contacting them and telling them to stop the obstructionism, stop the filibustering, and stop the idiocy. If I were one of the silent majority of more moderate Republican Congressmen, I would be quietly talking with other Republicans and seeing about a vote of no-confidence and removing John Boehner and others from their leadership positions and getting people who want to work toward solutions in there (I also think the more moderate Democrats should be doing the same and getting rid of Nancy Pelosi, who is nearly as bad).

Why can't Republican leadership acknowledge what the American people want, work with Democratic leadership to come up with a compromise that gets spending cuts in many areas they want, closure of tax loopholes they originally proposed and Mr. Obama has agreed with, AND allows for stimulus and tax increases in areas that, while they may not like, are willing to stomach? Compromise is what the American system of government is founded on, but we have seen little of that for at least 12 years now. First it was the Republicans having both the Presidency and the House refusing to compromise and steam-rolling over the Democrats, then it was the Democrats having the House and then the Presidency and steamrolling over the Republicans, and now it is the Democrats having the Presidency (and Senate), and the Republicans having the House and no one can get anything done.

It is time for a revolution. We need to vote these people out of office, insist on changes to the rules of Congress, and we absolutely must have term limits!

#revolution

Addendum: Just saw this and thought it summed up what I was writing here very simply.

Congressional Reform

Every poll I can find says that a majority of Americans (depending on the poll, between 40 and 55%) agree with the President's proposals of cuts plus taxation to deal with the current fiscal issues. Those same polls show that Republican leadership is receiving between 20 and 30 percent (most of the more recent polls have this closer to 20 than 30). Of note is that Republicans are also giving Republican leadership the cold shoulder. These polls go on to show that the majority of Americans do/will blame the Republicans for any consequences resulting from this latest fiscal impasse.

So, a pretty significant number of Americans want a balanced approached to the fiscal issues, they want to keep programs in place and "close loopholes" as well as raising taxes, and they blame the Republicans for this stand-off. The majority has spoken...

And yet, John Boehner and his cronies refuse to believe this and continue to play brinkmanship with the President over this. I say, "Good!"

The only way to break this brinkmanship politics scenario is to get those idiots out of office! I think that, if this latest fiscal policy comes into play, the American people will demand accountability and will vote some of these career politicians out of office, most especially Mr. Boehner and his cronies. The public may even demand Congressional term limits finally, which is the only sane thing to do and one of the few ways to keep partisan politics from being a constant and ever-growing threat.

Here are my solutions to this problem:

1. No more than two terms. For the first 125 years or so of Congress, it was exceptionally rare for a Congressman to serve longer than two terms. They went home and had to live under the laws they had written. In the early/mid-1900s, Congress started passing laws that gave themselves higher salaries, fewer limits, lifetime healthcare, lifetime salaries, the ability to do insider trading legally, etc. Now that the money was rolling in, America started seeing career politicians and the divisiveness began.
2. Perks only while in office. As I mentioned above, Congress passed laws that allowed them to increase their own salaries, provide for those salaries for life, gave themselves lifetime health care, and other perks (like travel, housing, food allowances, etc.). If they had to leave all those perks behind when leaving office and go back to living under the laws they have written and passed during their time in office, they would care a great deal more about those laws and what they say.
3. Easier to get kicked out. Right now, the path for the public to kick a Senator or House member out is difficult and involves getting other Congressmen to perform the act. Well, gee, that seems self-serving. What Congressman wants to try to kick another Congressman out of office, knowing the bad blood he will be creating when doing so? If the Congressmen knew the public had a way (maybe by a majority vote or some sort of write-in campaign) to start this ball rolling, rather than the Congressmen policing themselves, they would sure try a lot harder to do the right thing by their constituents.
4. Lower salaries. Right now, the average Congressman is paid approximately $175,000 a year, with leadership roles at or slightly above approximately $200,000 a year. The average salary in America is approximately $50,000 a year. Let's change the Congressional salaries to be 10% above the mean salary in America, with leadership roles getting mean plus 20%. In this way, people who want to serve the people will go for offices, instead of people who want to make a career of politics for the money and perks.
5. All laws apply equally to all Americans, Congress included. It is completely legal for Congressmen to use their (inside) knowledge of laws and contracts while making stock purchases. It is illegal for anyone else in America to use insider information when making stock trades. Let's restrict Congress from making any stock trades at all while in office (on penalty of immediate, automatic expulsion). All current laws that give Congressmen perks and privileges that are not shared by all Americans will be repealed.

I think these five simple steps will ensure that Congress is working for the people, not for themselves. By putting term limits and reasonable limitations on Congress, you ensure that the people in office are there because they feel a need to serve the public. It is still a cushy job, just not one that you can go to and expect to stay in for dozens of years and make millions of dollars at. And, most importantly, you have to live and work under the laws you wrote and passed once you are out of office.

I doubt you will see the same sort of brinkmanship politics as has been evident for the last 15 years or so if, over that time, entirely new Congressmen had to be elected and work together. Knowing you had, at most, two terms to serve, I think most Congressmen would focus on the job and not the politics. I could be wrong, but I'm willing to pass these laws and see if I'm right. How about you?

Addendum (3/6/2013)

Isn't it interesting that Congress made sure not to include themselves in the budget cutbacks? Their salaries are completely safe from all budget cuts, even though we spend almost $100 million on those salaries each year. Seems like as good a place as any to start trimming the fat, to me.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

I was fairly excited to watch this movie; what a let-down. It is nowhere near as good as LotRs. It is bloated, uses too much CGI (even when real effects would suffice and be better), and is way, way, way too long (which sounds the same as bloated, but is different; see below).

It is bloated in that they took a simple adventure story and added a whole bunch of extra stuff from other books into it. And those parts were primarily to "add tension" where none was needed or to connect it further to the LotRs trilogy -- also not needed. Every scene with Radagast and the giant white Orc could have been cut (saving about an hour of running time) without interfering at all with the story. Actually, quite the contrary, it would have kept the story better-focused on the dwarfs tale and their adventure. Similarly, completely changing the Stone Giants scene to add action was needless, felt long, and had no real impact due to how early it comes in the film -- you know that none of the dwarfs (or Bilbo) is in danger this early.

Another issue is that the adventuring company rarely succeeds at anything on their own merit. Happenstance and outside forces just happen to/accidentally help the dwarfs out in most cases. Elrond just happens to be out hunting goblins and helps the dwarfs escape. Gandalf just happens to arrive in time to help Bilbo save the dwarfs at sunrise from the Trolls. The Stone Giant just happens to fall against the mountain such that the dwarfs can jump to safety. The bridges and wooden structures just happen to break to allow the dwarfs to escape the goblins in the mountain. It is more exciting to stay focused on the main characters and let them (like in the book) solve their own problems. The audience grows more attached to them when the heroes prove to be smart and effectual.

Many of the action scenes were needlessly full of CGI. The white Orc, if forced to leave him in, should have been someone in makeup (like the orcs and oruk-hai in LotR 1). In all but the huge group shots, the goblins should have been real people in makeup. Having so much CGI was distracting and unneeded, and caused the scenes to look more phony than they would have with live actors in makeup. When Gandalf is throwing "fire bombs," the fire did not look real and the wargs/orcs did not look real. Using makeup and real fire would have added a sense of presence and immediacy to the scene.

Both of these issues lead to the last: the movie is just too damn long by about an hour (maybe more). If you take all of the unneeded, overly long, and over-done scenes out, you are left with what could be a very good version of The Hobbit. As it is, you don't get far enough into the book to justify sitting there for nearly 3 hours.

One other issue I have with this movie is the unnecessary and overly blatant homages to scenes in the LotR trilogy. Gandalf splitting the rock to expose the sun and kill the trolls -- too similar to his "you shall not pass" scene. Gandalf talking to the butterfly to summon the eagles. The Stone Giants threatening the path on which the group travels up the mountain -- too similar to the snow scene trying to go through the pass before turning back and trying Moria. The homage shots of the group traveling in a line along the forest and the hills. This is a new movie, based on different text, and should be treated as such; you do not need to beat the audience over the head with these homage scenes.

Peter Jackson plans two more films to finish this one book. I can only assume they will be as bloated and ill-made as this one is, so I will not be seeing them in the theater. I imagine that many fewer people will be seeing the second one in the theater. The Hobbit was written and designed as a children's adventure story, and is a fairly simple, self-contained story. It does not need three movies, extra bloat, or to be tied too directly into the films that came before it. One good 3 hour movie, or, at most, two 2-hour movies would suffice to tell all that needs to be told. By having the same direction, sets, and actors, you would tie it as much as is needed to the LotR films.

If I were to give this a grade, I'd give a D+. The wonderful cast saves it from an F and the scenes that show the actual story of The Hobbit were well-done. The rest... meh.

Talking Out of Both Sides

The Republicans talk out of both sides of their mouths, and they think the American public is too dumb to notice or too stupid to look up the facts. From one side of their mouths they say that they long for the days of Reagan's Republicans and conservative agenda. They point to history and say how Reagan led America out of an economic downturn and back to prosperity. They cite his great works and his Reagan-onomics.

From the other side of their mouths, they decry what Mr. Obama is doing as President and they dismiss his objectives. They call him a socialist (they should look up the term before wrongly using it). They claim that spending money and bigger government never solved any problems for the middle class. They claim that prosperity will somehow just magically appear if we take all the restriction and government away.

But the truth is, and I have mentioned this in multiple posts in the past, that Mr. Obama is following the Reagan playbook almost step-by-step. Reagan spent more to help the middle class, and it worked. He spent more to get people working on the infrastructure, and it worked. He made government bigger and put in place regulations in various areas that helped reign in a runaway economy and inflation, and then eased those restrictions in his second term. He taxed the richest among us to help the poorest and the middle. Does any of this sound familiar??

In Mr. Obama's speech last night, he mentioned that he wants to do some things that the Republicans, over the last 18 months or so, have strongly espoused, like closing the tax loopholes. Not every idea he presented was original to him, yet those that were first brought up by Republicans and strongly espoused by them during the debates and the election cycle, they refused to clap for, to stand for, and said would not work in their rebuttal. Er, what? The plans you pushed for for almost two years you now think is flawed? You can't have it both ways -- you can't simply say this is the way America will solve its debt crisis and help get middle-class Americans more money and then claim, when a Democrat uses the exact same idea and even gives you credit for it, that it is now flawed and without merit. Which is it? There are a number of areas where similar ideas were cherry-picked from the Republicans agenda that they are now claiming are flawed or bad.

If Ronald Reagan were alive today and espousing the exact same policies and procedures that today's Republicans keep pointing to as their guiding light, he would be considered a Democrat, and a fairly liberal one at that. Today's Republicans have moved so far to the conservative right that they do not even recognize one of their great leader's more moderate, bipartisan stances, nor do they see how he built bridges to the Democrats of the time to solve problems, something that these Republicans seem unwilling to do.

There are issues with some of what Mr. Obama has proposed. Much of it requires the Republicans to buy-in (not going to happen) and work with Democrats (equally unappealing to them) in order to get the balanced approach he discussed. Also, he doesn't actually write the policy. He sets the framework and the vision, and it is up to the Nancy Pelosi's of Congress to write the laws and try to get them passed. However, Ms. Pelosi has proven utterly incompetent at doing that, ignoring her President's directives to work with Republicans, not to raise taxes or spending (at least without offsetting it with cuts elsewhere), and pushing for bigger government and pork when her President expressly said not to. It is no wonder the Republican leadership doesn't want to help or work in a bipartisan fashion.

However, I have listened to every one of Mr. Obama's State of the Union speeches. In every single one of them he has asked for bipartisanship, he has asked for the Republicans to weigh-in on plans and make sure they have support. He has a weekly meeting with John Boehner and other Republican leaders. And, for most of his career as President, they have said one thing and then turned around and done either nothing or the opposite of what they have said. The President asks for their help and their buy-in, and then they poo-poo all over the idea and claim that the President doesn't want bipartisan help or Republican input.

I think Mr. Obama's win in the last election was a sign that the American people are tired of the lies. The Republicans can only get away with outright lying for so long before it all catches up to them. At some point, they will be left holding the bag and will be voted out of office. The last election was the start of that and, unless they wise up and start working for the good of the American people, more and more of them will find themselves looking for work in the next election cycle, too.

Scammin' Sam

Just had a call from "Sam," claiming to be from MasterCard and, due to my excellent credit rating and years as a customer, he can offer me a "low, low" interest rate on my MasterCard.

Conversation, as close as I can remember it (or understood it; his Indian accent was very thick and we didn't have the best of connections):

Me: Well, shoot, Sam, that is awesome news!
Him: Now, to be safe, I want to verify I'm talking to the right person. Are you John ****?
Me: Yes.
Him: Are you at postal code ****?
Me: Yes, I am.
Him: Great, great. Now I just need you to verify with me a few points about your account.
Me: Well, hold on a minute, Sam. You know, there are a lot of scammers out there. I don't want to get taken for a ride, if you know what I mean. Do you have my account information up?
Him: Yes, of course I do. But I can only do so much. My job is only to verify you are who you say you are. I need to transfer you to a secure account representative.
Me: I hear you, Sam. But if you have my account info up, we can quickly verify a couple of things and then I'm all yours. I can't wait to have that new low, low interest rate, Sam.
Him: Great, great... let me...
Me: So, Sam, can you just give me the last four digits of my CC number?
Him: I cannot do that, Mr. (butchers my last name).  I could lose my job for giving out that information.
Me: Oh, I'd hate for that to happen, Sam. But there are scammers, you know, and the CC company and the police are very insistent that we verify who we are talking with, Sam. Can you tell me the interest rate on that account?
Him: You have a very high 19.99 percent interest rate Mr. (butchered again). We can offer you a low, low rate of between 3.6 and 12.99 percent interest rate...
Me. Hunh. You know, Sam, not that I don't believe you, but it is odd that you have my information right in front of you and yet you have the wrong interest rate. It's kind of odd, Sam, don't you think?
Him: I'm looking right at the screen -- it says 19.99 percent!
Me: I want to make sure I'm looking at the right CC and we're on the same page, here, Sam, so why don't you verify the last two digits on the account. What can two digits hurt, Sam?
Him: I could be fired. The secure account representative can help you with that; my job is only to verify that I'm talking to the right person.
Me: I hear you, Sam. I understand. But there are scammers, you know? Maybe you could give me just the last digit, there, Sam? You've got a one in ten chance of being right, even if you guess.
Him: How can I be a scammer, Mr. (butchered again)? I know your name, I know your postal code, I know your phone number.
Me: Well, you see, Sam, all of that you could have gotten from a phone book or online. It's not that I don't trust you, but I just have to make sure, Sam. Scammers, you know?
Him: But I know your name, your postal code...
Me: And it is really strange that you say my postal code is ****, since my MasterCard isn't associated with my current address. It would have a different postal code. So, you see, Sam, I'm just having trouble believing you're looking at my data, Sam.
Him: But how could I know...
Me: I tell you what, Sam. I'm going to hang up with you and I'm going to call my bank and verify this deal of yours. If they released my data to you and agree I'm such a great customer, they should be able to tell me all about it and give me that sweet, sweet deal you've been telling me about.
Him: This deal is through Mastercard, not your bank. Your bank cannot match this offer, only we can provide it...
Me: Buh-bye, Sam.

The best part is that I kept him on the phone for quite a bit of time, so that's a few more people he couldn't call today. I hope he doesn't make his quota on phone calls and

900*

Another athlete used the word "gay" to refer to something recently. Another actor referred to something as "retarded" recently. Both of them had to publicly apologize for doing so. There is talk of rehab. At some point, I'd like someone in the 35+ age range who is "caught" saying one of these words to respond with something like:

"Yes, I used the term 'gay'/'retarded' in reference to something I didn't care for. When I was growing up, these terms were used as mild pejoratives and it has been ingrained in me for many years. While I apologize for those who are now offended by those words, it is tough for this old dog to learn this new trick. Language has changed a lot since the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, when political correctness was non-existent or in its infancy and people were free to use more language more colorfully. Because of this, I may slip up and use them, or other words that have since become passe or offensive, again. It is hard to overcome what you learn as a child and what you have said for most of a lifetime."

I would have so much more respect for someone who said this than I do for all the celebu-tards who "go to rehab" for how they speak. I have asked a couple of my gay friends who are in the same general age-range of 35+ if they are offended by the word gay used pejoratively. Those who had an opinion at all were mostly okay with it, as they were raised in the same social environment. Of course, they had a preference for it not being used, but they understand that it was common then and is only now being phased out.

Retarded is much the same. The PC word police have deemed this word as socially unacceptable now, but refuse to allow that many of us were raised in a time when it was okay, and that it may be ingrained. It takes more than them saying it is a bad word for us to stop using it -- that's what ingrained means, after all.

Language grows, changes, and mutates every year. Rules for grammar I learned in grade school have changed today. Words I learned and used as a child are now considered unacceptable. Things I was taught were unacceptable are now commonplace (like taking a phone call during any meal, speaking about private things in public, etc.). Things change and it is difficult, after a lifetime of doing it one way, to change with it. It is time we stop vilifying people for what they say and instead put things in context and judge them on their whole person. We might just find we don't mind certain words any more if we do.

* = This is my 900th post on this blog. It is somewhat hard to believe both how long I've been doing this and how many posts I've made. Now for 1,000! Note: I just looked up the date on my 800th post, and it was -- today, February 3, 2011. Interesting.