The Man Behind the Curtain

I find it fascinating how often we allow our philosophies to drive our acceptance of various interpretations of data.

That sentence sounds kind of strange, so let me explain.

Scientific data that lends itself to multiple interpretations. Social norms and conventions that seem to have sprung from anthropological evolution. These sorts of things are interpreted through the framework of our own philosophies. And it's amazing how infrequently we consider the little things that break many of our personal ideas or else fail to recognize the far-reaching implications of our attempts to explain these things.

For instance, let's examine a complaint that I hear quite frequently that lead one Charles Templeton to the explicit rejection of the notion of God in general and Christianity in particular. Templeton's chief complaint is that the universe is too broken and imperfect a place to have been created by any sort of loving God. It's an ancient argument that says God cannot be all-powerful and all-good because of the state of the world. Given that the world is screwed up, many people assume that God either doesn't care that it is (making him by no means good) or else he is incapable of fixing it (making him less than all-powerful, and as such, not God).

This is a pretty haughty stance to take.

When we look at the world and state "the world is screwed up," then by what standard are we making this judgment? To make ANY qualitative statement is to beg the question of a standard of judgment. Atheists frequently say "the universe is a savage and broken place, and that's just the way it is". If that's so, then how is it you say it's broken? If this were "just the way it is" then we have no room to proclaim this universe as being anything more or less than that. However, those who do not believe in God will often be those to most quickly point out the savagery of mankind and the atrocities committed in this world.

This is like rejecting a ruler because another ruler measures 12 inches to be slightly longer or shorter than the one being rejected. We've unconsciously selected a standard and rejected another.

If there is no right or wrong, then the universe could not be anymore imperfect than anything else, and as such, the non-existence of God would be acceptable in relation to the current state of affairs. But this isn't the case. We human beings recognize a universal right and wrong. We understand that there are standards by which we ought to behave and ought to live our lives.

The existence of that standard, something beyond Nature and the implications of the materialist view, is what one might call the cardinal difficulty of the atheist. Morality is in and of itself a powerful argument for the existence of something more than this universe, as it acts in contradistinction to instinct and unlike natural laws, allows for man to choose whether or not to obey.

There's tons more to say on the subject, but this is just what's been floating through my mind lately.

Mutual Respect

This post is likely going to offend some people. Frankly, I don't care. No, I don't have a clue how in the world I ended up thinking about this, or why it seems to be a relative non-issue to me (despite my particular stance on the subject) while everyone else who adheres to the same stance seems to be so militant and belligerent about it all. Throughout this post, I'll examine MY thoughts and beliefs on the subject. If you disagree, that's great, you're free to do so.

So, what in the world could I be talking about? What could a Christian blogger feel a bit odd about discussing on the web for fear of some tremendous backlash?

Yeah . . . that. Homosexuality.

I'll preface this by saying that if you came here expecting Fred Phelps-esque ire and offensive comments like "God hates [insert gay slur here]" then you came to the wrong place. I've grown up with friends who are gay (male and female), and while that doesn't give me any sort of authority or the right to make inappropriate comments, it does give me something of an experience base with members of the community about which I'm speaking.

I'm sick of the attitudes on both sides of this ridiculous argument.

Christians, let's get something straight - we're all sinners. Get off your high horse and recognize this. As Lewis said, "Unless Christianity is wholly false, the perception of ourselves which we have in moments of shame must be the only true one." We are fallen and despicable creatures and we really need to get over ourselves. Sinfulness is not a matter of degree, but a question of perfection versus imperfection.

We're none of us perfect.

That being said, gays, let's get something straight (no pun intended . . . God, that was BAD). Demanding that a Christian who views homosexuality as a sin (there are those who turn a blind eye to it, which is inconsistent with scripture) change his/her mind and accept it as not only your choice (which they should) but as equally valid on a moral/spiritual spectrum is akin to a Christian demanding of an atheist that he/she accept the existence of God and the role of Christ as savior as being a universal truth. You want to be treated as equals - I get that, and am behind it. I personally believe that legality shouldn't be influenced by a specific doctrine. While historically, the freedom of religion granted in the Bill of Rights applied more to governmental control over the practice of a specific religion, I do believe that if we as a nation are going to grow in a sense of mutual respect, then we need to keep religion out of politics, but be allowed to act from within the moral framework of our beliefs.

Basically, don't get pissy at a politician who says he isn't gay or doesn't support you 100%. Why should he any more than you should support heterosexuality? Now, the moment he makes something illegal on the grounds that his religion states it, then we might have some problems. Do religion and legality jive most of the time? Yeah, because morality is an absolute, but LAWS should stem from the natural evolution of a society - if it's theocratic (like the Jewish culture described in the Old Testament) then it should come from a religious base; if it's democratic, then it should stem from the will of the people.

I'm getting a little off topic though.

The fact of the matter is - we're both pushing to have our own opinion be accepted as fact by the other party specifically because we accept it as universal truth ourselves, and we're being petty.

Why is it we can't seem to accept that different people maintain different ideals? The acceptance of this does not imply that all ideals are equal or even correct, but the recognition of this fact it paramount to striking a decent compromise. Not "tolerance" inasmuch as "tolerance" tends to imply an acceptance of a differing ideal as being equally valid, but compromise and respect.

So where do we stand? Why are we getting our collective knickers in a knot? Any ideas?

On the same subject - let's get something worked out right now. It's a choice. Sexual attraction is deeply biological and (yes, I'll say it) even determined genetically. You ARE born with a specific attraction to males, females, or both. Attraction, however, is not sexual orientation. Sexuality is an active choice that incorporates emotion, reason, and biology. There ARE animals who are born with a tendency to attempt to mate with the same gender.

You know what happens to them though? They die out. Natural selection does occur, and an orientation that prohibits the passing of genetic material is NOT considered a beneficial genetic trait.

Because we human beings have the capacity to control our mating habits through reason, we can pass this on. Sorry evolutionists, I'm not on your side beyond the idea that beneficial traits get passed on.

Because we maintain the capacity for reason, we have the ability to countermand the genetic factors that lead to same/opposite sex attraction. A man who is attracted to other men and spends the entirety of his life leading a heterosexual lifestyle is in fact, heterosexual. The opposite is true.

Gays, it's not that you're "born gay" it's that your genetics make being gay the path of least resistance. One you might call "natural". Christians, while it IS a choice, don't get all high and mighty about it - how many Christian men cheat on their wives? How many of us make mistakes and decisions that are due to the influence of our carnal natures?

We need to accept this - it's ideological AND biological. It's nature and nurture. It's complex, and the attempt by both sides to boil it down to any sort of simple platitude is absurd.

Gays, straights, Christians, atheists, everyone - we're more alike than we give ourselves credit for, and we need to learn to live together even though we disagree.

Influencing Your Environment

I'm a teacher. At the moment, more on paper than in practice (hooray for a crummy economy), but a teacher none the less. As an educator one of the greatest hurdles I have to face from day to day is classroom management. Ask any student participating in a post-baccalaureate certification program what one portion of instruction seems to be immensely lacking, and they'll likely tell you the same thing: classroom management. It's one of the few areas in this career that is essentially taught 100% on the job.

I was somewhat fortunate, and had a fantastic cooperating teacher during my state-mandated student teaching time (and 2 years in-class experience prior to it).

Others are not so fortunate, and have to jump into something feet first with nothing more than the curricular indoctrination of their education professors. Full disclosure: I had some fantastic professors during my graduate work, and I had some less than fantastic ones as well. My frustration lies with those who were not only less than astounding, but also so full of themselves that they can't see beyond the method that worked for them when they were in a specific classroom at a specific time. Short-sightedness is infuriating, to be sure, but even more so when future educators are evaluated by the criteria of lousy foresight.

One of my courses in particular focused on instructional theory.

This is an extremely varied field of study, and for the life of me, I wish we had been able to investigate it further. Unfortunately, the professor I had subscribed to a specific theory whose foundations were firmly laid in the studies of socio-economic pressures and societal influences. This particular professor had a history in the classroom in a lower socio-economic status area of San Francisco and dealt with very specific ethnic and social problems within the context of the classroom. By approaching most of the lessons from this perspective, she was able to do some amazing work with these students.

I'm not trying to denigrate her accomplishments, by any means. But frankly, what's appropriate in the mid 1980s in San Francisco isn't necessarily going to be effective in Texas in the year 2010. God forbid that you mention that, though. Anyone who wrote a paper with the audacity to question the validity of these methods in this particular setting was struck down with a failing grade and the instruction to rewrite the paper. If you fell into lockstep with her ideals . . . guess what?

Yeah, right there, I became somewhat disillusioned with this professor.

One of the theories that we were supposed to investigate, though, was that of behaviorism. My wife could probably tell you more about it than I could, as she's the one with a degree in psychology, but I'll do my best to sum up. The behaviorist model of education was primarily developed by psychologist B.F. Skinner. For those who have some background in psychology, yes, that is the Skinner whose experiments focused on the conditioning of rats.

Rats. Kids. Same difference.

Skinner's ideas stem from a few basic assumptions, only one of which I want to look at right now. Simply put, it states: "Environment influences behavior".

Do I take issue with this claim? No. Do I think that we are often influenced by our environment? Yes. Of course. Violence in a home typically begets further violence, abuse begets abuse, and so on. However, what bothers me is the strictest application of this theory in the classroom. Teachers are taught a concept called the "locus of control" wherein the responsibility for a student's successes and failures is placed on either the student or the teacher. Teachers who maintain an internal locus of control seek to adjust their behavior and teaching in order to insure student success. Teachers without this specific locus like to place blame on their students (three guesses which one would cause a teacher to grade a paper down for disagreeing with a specific theory).

My personal take on it is that teaching and learning is a contractual obligation that both student and teacher enter into - a professional relationship, if you will. But that's a post for another day.

The real question is this: how does locus of control apply to classroom management, which is itself primarily influenced by student behavior? If Skinner is to be believed, then the environment (which is primarily under the control of the teacher) is the greatest influence on behavior. I respectfully disagree.

Teachers definitely have a responsibility to provide the safest and most productive environment possible for the student. However, for me, that environment is developed through respect and an adherence to an action-consequence model. Every action has a consequence, and every consequence is a logical extension of the action taken.

How does this compare to Skinner's idea? One could argue that this is the environment influencing the students' behavior, but I believe that is an unfair generalization. Environment and behavior should influence one another in a fluid (albeit well established) way. By establishing an environment in which consequence follows action, the student is now granted a modicum of power to influence his/her own environment.

I like to call this a duplication of loci. The teacher maintains the locus of control by establishing the rules (some teachers may seek to involve the students in this process, and I don't disagree), and the students are given a locus of their own by being handed the power to affect their environment. In my classroom, a student is the primary influence on his environment within the constructs of the rules. You want life to be easy? You want to have fun? You can.

How often do you suppose this can be specifically applied outside of the classroom? If we as a people were to take control of our responses, how might it alter our environment?

Movie Review: Inception

Given the nature of this film and the fact that the trailers have done an awesome job of not divulging the plot, this review is RIFE with SPOILERS. You have been warned.

I . . . uh . . . wow.

It's difficult with a film like this to know where to start. I'm tempted to comment on things that I've seen other reviewers mention, while at the same time wishing to jump into a deconstruction of the plot and an analysis of the imagery and film-making. Being thus tempted, I choose instead to start with a little bit of disclosure.

I'm a big fan of science fiction. Not the schlock and drivel that passes for science fiction these days (I'm looking at you, Roland Emmerich) but rather the cerebral, well written, labyrinthine passages of authors such as Asimov, Herbert, Clarke, and Card. I'm still looking forward to the day that the film Ender's Game actually gets made. For me, science fiction is often best realized through the format of the epic - a depth of story and wealth of information that rivals the most comprehensive set of encyclopedias. Typically, this sort of development requires the setting of a novel, or at the very least a film that pushes the limits of the average moviegoer's attention span.

Because of this, I'm pretty critical of the world of science fiction film - I trend toward films based on a more cerebral concept or else that are deep explorations of a more basic plot. Does this make me something of a pretentious fan? Yeah, probably so.

It also means that I'm also likely one of the specific target demographic of this film.

This film has brains . . . in great supply. And because of that, I love it. Absolutely, unabashedly LOVE it. This is the kind of film that a lot of people will probably walk out of scratching their heads in confusion; however, don't let that deter you. Moviegoers were pretty blown away by The Matrix when it first released, and I suspect that as time goes on, this will become another film that helps in defining the "new" boundaries of the genre. While highly complicated and complex, Inception is not difficult to understand. It's a relatively simple idea taken to some incredible extremes.

This being said, the film definitely doesn't look to make it easy on the viewer. I've gone over it time and again in my head, and frankly, I'm STILL going back and forth between multiple theories that I've developed, and I'm nowhere nearer to a conclusion. The film throws you into the middle of a wild concept and expects you to keep up.

So here's a quick rundown of the plot: Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) works for the highest bidder to perform corporate espionage. However, instead of breaking into buildings and cracking open safes and computer systems, the theft is accomplished by entering the mind of the target, designing a dream for the target to populate with his/her subconscious (including their secrets), and then literally stealing the representation of that secret (for instance, in the opening sequence, Cobb opens a safe and reads a document marked "confidential").

This process is called "Extraction", and is apparently commonplace enough that corporate heavyweights are trained in subconscious security.

After an extraction that goes somewhat awry, Cobb is approached by Saito (Ken Watanabe) his target and offered a chance to turn his life around - avoiding indictment for past crimes (it will be explained, I promise) and his current role in these extractions. Saito wants Cobb to attempt the reverse of "extraction". As opposed to pulling information out, Saito wishes for Cobb to implant an idea into a rival - a process known as "Inception".

This is the plot in its simplest form, and it's explored to incredible depth - including the difficulties inherent in the concept of introducing a subconscious thought from an external source, and the influence of said external source on the dreamer. The majority of the action of the film occurs in the mind of Cobb's new target, as he attempts the inception, with few "B" stories or subplots, and frankly this is one of the films greatest strengths. Christopher Nolan knows what story he wishes to tell, how bizarre and complex it will be, how much he can pull out of it, and how it would fall to pieces if anything more were introduced to the mix.

Visually, this film is a roller coaster ride. There were multiple times throughout the film (specifically the second tier of a 4-tiered dream sequence focusing on the endeavors of Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character Arthur in a retro hotel setting) where I almost literally had to pick my jaw up off the floor. The cinematography is astounding, drawing on style and design from multiple genres to convey the different settings to the audience on a subtle (even subconscious - wink, wink) level.

While I could probably spend multiple pages ranting and raving about how much I loved this film, let me attempt to be more concise: the editing is fantastic (that a 10 second sequence can create half an hour's worth of suspense still amazes me), and the acting is superb (I've grown to respect DiCaprio more and more ever since The Departed and the depth and subtlety in this film are astounding).

Go see this movie. It's AMAZING.

Rough Day

Today was a difficult day. Despite sleeping well last night, I found myself just about ready to collapse at lunch time. So I went home, had a bite to eat, and promptly fell asleep on the couch until about 6 o'clock this evening - effectively ruining my day.

I'm not explaining this to gripe, but rather, to take a bit of time to try and allow some people into my own personal head-space.

Cancer is a tricky thing, and cancer treatment doubly so. I was very frustrated early on in this process to discover that almost every book focused on the subject at a local bookstore was aimed toward the caregiver/loved one and that they were almost all centered around dealing with loss/grief. Am I the only one who feels this is a little less than encouraging? There I was, suffering from the disease, looking for someone to relate to, and all I can find is the collective authorial assumption that I'm a goner and my loved ones needed to start coping.

Wow.

Fact of the matter is, treatment itself is a highly individualistic process. It's different for everyone. The frustrating and demeaning part of a lot of it is having to deal with friends who no longer feel they know how to approach you. I understand that it's a difficult thing to comprehend and cope with, and I don't hold that against my friends - they've done a fantastic job of being there for me. What I want to do is list a few of the general feelings and frustrations that you as an average reader may not be aware of when it comes to the emotional roller coaster that is chemotherapy.

Mortality - Come to grips with it. Please. Much of the frustration that a lot of cancer patients (most of whom are NOT terminal, mind you) experience stems from the fact that our circle of friends hasn't yet quite accepted that there could be someone among us that drops dead at any given moment. I accepted years before this mess that I have an expiration date. I know that my time on this earth is finite, and I don't weep or bemoan that fact, because I believe there is something better. Does that mean I ignore this experience in lieu of the more desirable one? No. I still enjoy every moment I have, and frankly, you should too. STOP looking at me like I'm the ghost of Christmas yet to come pointing at your own headstone.

I'm not made of glass - While weakness and fatigue are a fairly universal issue when it comes to chemotherapy, it's a good idea to recognize that I'm not going to shatter like a porcelain doll and that you don't have to walk as though on eggshells when you're around me. I take precautions of my own to protect myself, and I will ask for help when I need it. One of the first things that cancer and chemo break down is any sense of pride. I always considered myself to be a strong person, but the first time I woke up and found myself unable to move due to a lack of strength, I was reminded how feeble my human existence really is - and as such, I don't hesitate to ask for assistance.

Use the "C" word already - Say it with me: "cancer." Thank you. Avoiding the word makes me feel like the elephant in the room.

I don't feel normal - This is a big one. At no point once you start this process (and frequently before) do you feel normal. The best I've managed to achieve is about 70% of normal. Don't coddle me, but understand that I need extra time to adjust to the world around me, as my body is too busy fighting itself to be bothered with everything else going on.

These are the biggest ones, and I guarantee I could fill a book with other little complaints and such, but these are some good ones to understand and keep in mind when dealing with people who are going through this.

Power vs Authority

This morning as I climbed out of my truck, I noticed a little hitchhiker on my mirror. A small, translucent green spider sat there attempting to spin a web. How the little arachnid managed to hang on for dear life on a 4 mile trip down the freeway . . . I have no idea. However, as I contemplated squishing it for a moment, I was struck by something that's been floating around in my head for a while.

No, I didn't squish him - I did, however, evict him from my mirror and relocate him into the bushes.

To be honest, I don't know why the idea of squishing the spider made me think of what I did, but it fit well enough with the theme of exploring God and his nature over this week, that I decided to run with it for today's post.

One of the chief complaints I hear from intellectual dissenters to the Christian mindset is that God cannot be all-loving, all-powerful, and all-good and STILL allow the suffering that occurs in this world. This is a massive and overarching problem that is, in my opinion, best examined in C.S. Lewis's work The Problem of Pain and Peter Kreeft's Making Sense of Suffering. Pick them up if you've never read them, they're totally worth it.

The specific issue that I wanted to look at it the right of God as a creator over his creation. Philosophically, this is going to require that we beg several questions (I'm sorry, but to build this case properly, I'd likely have to write an entire book, and I have no intention of doing so on this blog) specifically that God IS the creator, and that his nature (personal, exists outside of space/time, etc) is that as defined by the Christian theology.

Have I made enough of you angry yet?

If I were to create an elaborate computer program, even going so far as to develop artificial intelligence. As the architect of this program, what rights do I have over it? Can I give it commands? Let's assume for a moment that I've also decided to take the idea of "playing God" a little further and grant the program free will - for the sake of avoiding confusion, I'm going to call the program "Bob". If Bob does something I don't like, can I alter his programming?

Yes. I have that right.

The question of whether or not I will/should is one that depends on my nature. Having granted Bob free will, my alteration of his program would be a direct contradiction of my nature as a benevolent creator (remember, we're taking the whole "playing God" thing to an extreme - I'm assuming that with my knowledge of the limited construct of Bob's world, I could fit the bill as all-knowing and all-powerful. My Christian perspective inclines me to pursue the "benevolent" part of that).

So if I, being a benevolent creator who has granted Bob with free will, refuse to alter his nature simply because of his actions as an extension of a right that I granted him, then why is it so odd to some people that God himself doesn't do the same?

It drives me nuts when people say that if God was all-powerful, He could just reprogram our DNA to select out the harmful aspects of our nature.

I take two primary issues with that statement - first, it presumes that we are purely physical creatures designed and controlled through DNA only. And secondly, it presumes an amoral God. God is nothing of the sort. He is perfectly moral, and just. The question of morality then falls into the realm hinted at by the title of this post - Power vs Authority.

Morality/immorality can be loosely defined as the enactment of power by one entity over another within the construct of authority. Is it immoral for a police officer to handcuff a criminal and place him/her in the backseat of a car? Is it immoral for a criminal to do the same to the police officer? The question boils down to that of authority.

Why don't we see more murders than we do? Individuals generally have the power/ability to take a life. We don't see it as often because we lack the authority/right to do so. This authority is granted through legal and social methods, but the concept extends to a universal platform.

There is a certain authority/right that God maintains that we as his creation do not. Imagine that I give Bob a friend (we'll call him Frank), and explicitly state that one of my rules is "no murder" and that if anyone breaks this rule there will be consequences. Now assume that Bob chooses (through the free will I've granted him) to ignore my rule and murders Frank.

Bob, how could you?

As stated earlier, it's not right for me to enact an internal change to Bob's nature to avoid him breaking my rules. However, do I have to right to erase Bob, or even more drastically, to erase his world? I believe so. I built it, and consequences were explicitly warned against. I have the power to do anything I want to within the construct of the world, but due to the nature of the relationship between me and Bob, I don't have the right to alter Bob's nature - precisely because I gave him that nature.

This feels a little incongruous, I'll admit, but it also demonstrates the respect and love that God shows toward us, that he will not go back on his word. I promised Bob free will, and ALL that it entailed.

Now, many people would claim that I'm not fulfilling my role as benevolent if I were to destroy Bob in this scenario. And they would be right, because in this scenario there is only Bob (there was Frank, but Bob screwed that up). Examining the broader reaching implications of such actions; however, tends to create a moral event horizon wherein the destruction of a smaller group is necessary for the ultimate good of as many as possible.

In a system where free will is allowed to grow, optimization does not mean that all things will work out for the best of each individual, but rather for the whole. We, being unable to perceive the whole (something that can only be done outside of the constraints of time) often find ourselves in the part of the system that suffers at the demands of ultimate optimization.

So, yeah, next time you think life sucks and you wouldn't have to suffer like this if God REALLY loved you, remember that perhaps your suffering is necessary for the salvation of multiple people. Puts a whole new spin on the question of selflessness, doesn't it?

Being an Effective Target

Earlier today, my wife and I were flipping around TV and as we passed the Turner Classic Movies (TCM) channel, she mentioned that they had an iPhone app and asked me if I had it. In fact, I don't. And in the next minute or so as I thought about grabbing it, I came to a specific realization - I shouldn't.

Why not?

Because frankly, I'm not a member of the target consumer group. I'm assuming that the app is more closely related to the specials that TCM runs from week to week and month to month. If I want to know what golden era movie star is going to be focused on in the month of Auguest, then yes, the iPhone app is a fantastic tool. This type of information, specific to the community of TCM fans, if targeted specifically to them. Assuming the iPhone app is free, then TCM is likely not receiving any revenue, and my lack of download doesn't hurt them.

Being a wise consumer eliminates a lot of waste, and a lack of waste can aid in the development of a strong economy. This is vital, especially given the current economic climate in the United States (I speak to the U.S. specifically because, frankly, that's where I live). Let's use an illustration to further investigate this - and understand, I'm a mathematician, not an economist. This simply makes sense to me, and I'm sure there are complications and things I'm not considering.

Assume for a moment that a company fabricates a product that it then sells. I suspect this works for middle-man type companies, but for the sake of simplicity, let's keep both production and sales in house. Maybe they make parts for mechanics working for cars, maybe they make adult-themed birthday cakes - it doesn't really matter. Assume also that we have a group of patrons who are not wise consumers (let's call them group A). These people do not recognize whether or not they are members of the target demographic. When they are shown a new product that represents a test market, every member of this group thinks the new item is amazing and fantastic and purchases one.

Oh, group A. You foolish, foolish people.

The company takes this data, and generates sales projections and production schedules from it. Given that group A have purchased the product in excess to their actual need, what exactly do you suppose will happen? Waste. Group A purchases this adult-themed spark plug (wait, I'm mixing something up . . . maybe it was a carburetor-themed ice cream cake) and 50% of them set it on a workbench, forget about it, and NEVER experience the need to purchase another one. This means that the company is going to produce twice as many of these things as it needs to in order to support true demand. This is great for the people who actually need the 4-cylinder home-install stripper pole (wait, what?), because an excess of supply and a lack of demand drive prices down . . . on that item. The problem then is that in order to recoup losses from the excess production, every other item in the store will jump, even if by only a few cents.

Do this a few hundred times, though, and eventually we effectively have in-store inflation. If you avoid all the "reduced items" you're going to discover that your dollar stretches a lesser and lesser distance. This leads to customer dissatisfaction and a potential loss in revenue.

Flip this around though, and look at a group of consumers that recognize whether or not they are a part of a target demographic (group B). Group B takes one look at that internal-combustion cupcake (note from the parenthetical commentator to the author: dude . . . you're weird) and those who need it know they do, and those who don't need it simply don't purchase it. The numbers lead to a production effort that allows for supply to more closely match demand. Now, yes, this does tend to keep prices from what we would call "bargains" but it also prevents the increase of price across the board that we saw with group A. Additionally, the company now doesn't have to deal with an over-investment in production as a factor in overhead costs.

Am I the only one who thinks that this would lead to a more stable economic model?

I've worked in sales, and one thing I've learned to do (and do relatively well) is to manufacture a need. By explaining to a consumer why they needed this new diesel-powered (whoa, hold it RIGHT THERE. I don't want to hear what twisted thing you're going to come up with next. I quit) . . . okay, then . . . this new item, I am able to generate a purchasing trend that more closely resembles that of group A than that of group B. This will not happen as frequently in locally owned and operated businesses who operate specifically to fill a need within the community - as a company, they are seeking to meet demand, not increase it unreasonably. National chains have an end-goal of increasing the wealth of the upper echelons of management, and don't seek to be a part of the solution.

This is where consumer responsibility comes in. While national chains are less likely to attempt to meet demand as opposed to inflate demand, they DO respond to purchasing trends. We as consumers should seek to recognize our roles as either belonging to a specific demographic or not. Who knows? Maybe we could help stabilize some of this economic shakiness.

Mr. President, how does that sound? Economic support sans government spending . . . almost sounds like a pipe dream.

(The commentator would like to apologize for some of the goofiness and/or tastelessness of the humor in this post. The author underwent chemotherapy today and is feeling a little off-kilter.)

The author would like to take state that if you get offended at the idea of an adult-themed anything that has more to do with your definition of "adult-themed" and your own imagination than it does my sense of humor.

(Touche)

Almost There

I'm sitting in the infusion area at the local cancer center, receiving my final round of chemotherapy.

About time.

No big long ranting post today. This week will probably be sporadic at best.

The Nature of God

I was originally going to post on something completely different, but an interesting discussion arose at work regarding the nature of God and the universe and so off I go on another philosophical rabbit trail.

To set the stage, one of my coworkers is currently involved in a discussion with various people online about the validity of atheism vs theism, and some very thought provoking comments have been made. So I wanted to consider some of these things and investigate them through my own understanding.

This post is not an attempt to necessarily sway anyone's thinking - but rather, an explanation of how I personally frame my belief structure. If you wish to contribute and comment, feel free and I will gladly respond. If you wish to start arguing and slinging mud and calling me names, I will promptly ignore you.

What is the nature of God? One of the first comments someone made was this: "You cannot in one breath claim that the universe has a cause and that God does not." My response (and that of my coworker) was simply: "Why not?"

To explore that further, the statement that we cannot make these two claims presumes a few things about the nature of God, life, the universe, and everything (the nerd in me cannot write that phrase without the obligatory: "42"). Joking and Douglas Adams aside, the fundamental assumption is that BOTH God and the universe REQUIRE a cause. Why can't one? If the divine is unlimited and exists outside the construct of time as an eternal being, why is it necessary that He (I use "he" because the patriarchal tradition of the writers of the scriptures compelled them to identify him as such - any feminists/people who take offense at my use of the male pronoun when referencing God, check the end of this post for a point to consider) be created?

To demand that something have been created cedes the existence of a beginning and a limitation on the eternality of its nature. But God is (in the Christian tradition) eternal. How is this a contradiction to claim that something with a definite beginning requires a cause whereas something without a beginning does not?

Simply put, it's not.

Okay, so the universe was created. Does that necessitate the existence of God? I believe so, and so does renowned Christian philosopher William Lane Craig. I love Craig's arguments because they're relatively accessible to the average reader. If you get the chance, pick up one of his books and give it a shot. The argument for the existence of God (in this case, defined as: "the initial cause of the universe". Nothing more. Nothing less.) that Craig outlines is called the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It goes like this:

1. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause

Anyone with even the remotest background in logic will be jumping up and down screaming at me right now. And rightly so. Point number 2 MUST be proven before being made as an assertion. Right now, you would be hard pressed to find many scientists who believe that the universe is infinite on hard scientific grounds. There are plenty who believe this on the basis of philosophical beliefs, but scientifically and mathematically, the creation point of the universe has been fairly well established. That being the case, why not establish the finite nature of the universe philosophically?

Being a mathematician, I have a slightly easier time grasping the difficulty of an infinite number of actual things than some people do. They write it off to "it's too big for me to grasp, but it's possible". This bothers me greatly, because I've had to deal with infinity within the construct of a system of equations, mathematical models, and various other systems that completely and utterly collapse when one attempts to actualize the concept of infinity. So to set the stage for this, here's an example of the difficulty of having an infinite number of anything.

This model works with units of time as well, but I'm going to use marbles. People seem to have an easy time picturing this sort of thing with marbles. Don't ask me why. Assume for a moment that I have an infinite number of marbles. I decide that I want to give you an infinite number of marbles. To do so, I have multiple options.

If I give you every other marble, you would have an infinite number of marbles. You would have all of the even numbered marbles and I would have all of the odd numbered marbles. Since you and I both have an infinite number of marbles, we've arrived at an arithmetical expression - specifically, that infinity minus infinity equals infinity.

This isn't something we haven't seen before. 0 - 0 = 0, so it's entirely possible that the same could hold true for infinity. But what if I choose a different method to give you an infinite number of marbles? Let's say I decide to give you ALL of my marbles. You now have an infinite number, but the remainder that was previously in my possession is nowhere to be found. We have arrived at another arithmetical expression - infinity minus infinity equals zero.

This too isn't all that difficult to understand, as we know from first grade math that x - x = 0. The difficulty rears its ugly head when we try to reconcile these two arithmetic expressions and then expand the hypothetical marble problem. The only way that these two expressions can be reconciled is if the value of infinity is zero. Unfortunately, the concept of infinity is specifically qualified as non-zero. Either the subtraction of infinity from itself results in a complete loss of numerical value or else no loss of numerical value. As it is a non-zero by definition, both actions cannot occur.

Now let's expand our example a little bit. My ultimate goal is to give you an infinite number of marbles, so I decide to keep two and give you the rest. You now have an infinite number of marbles and I have two. Yet ANOTHER arithmetical expression is uncovered: infinity minus infinity equals two. Or three. Or four. Or whatever you wish it to be. The fact of the matter is that infinity is something that cannot be manipulated through additive processes due to the arbitrary nature of how we tend to define it. Infinity is not subject to arithmetic.

Mathematicians have this beaten into them (typically during the second year of college when someone attempts to break this rule). The rest of the population . . . not so much. So now that we recognize this, let's continue looking at the Kalam Argument.

Remember, I said that this can be done with units of time in addition to marbles? This is where this all comes into play. In order to prove that the universe must have begun to exist, we must consider that the universe exists within the constraints of time. The passage of time is marked through an additive process, each year adds to the next to create a cumulative quantification of how much time has passed.

Infinity is not subject to arithmetic, and an additive process is arithmetical by nature.

1. The series of events in time is a collection formed by adding one number after another.
2. A collection of events formed through an additive process cannot be actually infinite.
3. Therefore, the series of events in time cannot be infinite.

Keeping this in mind, consider what would happen if we had a universe with no beginning. With an infinite amount of time, an infinite series of events will have occurred, as the passage of time is measured through a collection of events.

1. An actually infinite number of things cannot exist (we've established this through our marble illustration).
2. A series of events in time without a beginning entails an actually infinite number of things.
3. Therefore, a beginning-less series of events in time cannot exist.

Since a beginning-less universe necessitates an infinite number of events, the universe MUST have had a beginning.

So there we have it - the universe must have a cosmological cause, and the existence of God (as we initially defined him) has been proven.

There are TONS of other things to investigate, but this post is already a bit too verbose. Expect further investigation into this sort of thing for the next few days.

Oh, and ladies/feminists/whoever - here's what I was going to say: I use the male pronoun "he/him" to refer to God because that is what was established in the writing of the scriptures, and I recognize that it's specifically due to a patriarchal society and mindset that was in place at the time. I use it because it's easy and almost universally accepted. Do I think God is male? No. I don't think God is female either. It's just as reflective of a limited mindset to refer to God as "she/her". God stated that mankind was to be created in his own image, and I believe that this sexual dimorphism is something that is contained within the nature of God. So there you have it - God contains and perfects both male and female qualities. God is both, and neither, at the same time.

This is why God said "I AM", not "I am he" or "I am she".

The next time you hear someone refer to God as "he", take a moment and breathe. Untwist your panties, and remember that just because someone mistakenly uses a specific pronoun, the nature of God doesn't change.

Anticipation

Which is better? The desire for something, or the possession of the thing itself. Personally, I'd be inclined to ask you to define "better", but that's beside the point. Think back and examine any point in your life when you had to wait for something you really wanted. I'm not talking about the kind of anticipation that kids experience on December 23rd - knowing that something good is coming but not sure what. I'm talking about when you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that something is en route. The sort of anticipation that could drive an impatient person to violence.

Yeah, that kind.

It could range from waiting for a mail ordered item to waiting on the results of a test to waiting to hear back from a potential employer. How often does reality fail to live up to our expectations? How frequently do we watch the mailbox intently waiting for something and then once we have it in our hands, we lose interest in it within a day or two? I wonder if this is an indication of our own selfish natures - that we will obsess and focus on our own preconception of something for weeks and promptly forget about the object of our obsession the moment we have it within our grasp.

Is this the nature of envy? And if so, someone tell me why anyone who's developed even the remotest shadow of cognition would choose to envy and desire something after the first experience.

This sort of thing is why I believe that man is not inherently good.

Although, to be fair, I'd probably demand you define "good". Within the context of that philosophical debate, most people define "good" as "decent"; yet, historically, the debate has been whether man is essentially pure/perfect at birth or not. Tabula rasa, and all that rot. As such, mankind's propensity toward morally neutral selfishness seems to be a massive bit of evidence against the argument that man is inherently good. Is man inherently decent? Sure. As C.S. Lewis might have put it, the echo of what we were intended to be recognizes the echo of what everyone other person was intended to be and acts out of respect for the Creator.

We are spiritual beings, and even though we've fallen from the perfection for which we were initially designed, we do recognize the echo of that perfection. We sense that perfection (or rather, the intended perfection) in each person and act accordingly. Why do you think it is that most people will agree with the concept of absolute truth and moral absolutes? If we're simply the product of our environment, then why has absolutism ever been allowed in the general mindset? The development of the Christian theology from social pressures is absurdly backward, and as such, begs the question: if it couldn't have rationally developed from anthropological origins, then where did this theology come from if not from God?

That's an argument/discussion for another day. For now, I find myself in this interesting position - having established the existence of absolutes, and having explained the existence of decency among human beings, I am left with the initial question: are we inherently perfect or not?

No. Definitely not. Perfection - true perfection - is not subject to entropy. And if you leave a child to his/her own devices, selfishness will become the motivating factor, leading to a breakdown in whatever moral code has been established in the child. Go hungry long enough, and almost anyone will kill for food.

Sorry if this is kind of a bleak post, but it's interesting to think about. I also believe that the reason for decency and goodness among an evil people (myself included) is due largely to the desire for the intended perfection that we sense in ourselves and in one another. We often rely on our own strength (thank secular humanism for that) to restore that sense of order. Spiritual entropy cannot be overcome by anyone within the system it affects, though.

In other words, the only way out is a perfect being unaffected by said entropy.

acdnt w4tng 2 hapn

We've all seen the news reports, the Oprah specials, and the massive media fear-mongering surrounding this incredibly dangerous and increasingly prevalent phenomenon. What could have inspired such a media campaign? Child endangerment? Kidnapping? Sexual predators?

Nope.

Now, it sounds like I'm supremely frustrated with all the attention that's been given to this dangerous act. Frankly, I'm not - I think attention should be given to it. I'm just a little irritated by the way that the modern media pushes paranoia. But that's a post for another day.

While attempting to turn onto a busy street this evening, I had to stop and wait for a Jaguar to pass me. No big deal, I expect that whatever self-important person is driving this ridiculously expensive vehicle is obviously too busy to be paying attention to the drivers around them. As they pass me, what do I see? A middle aged woman TEXTING.

For the love of all that is holy, I expect this sort of vapid, empty-headed, moronic, suicidal behavior from a teenager - but seriously? Lady, I'm going to say this as kindly as I can: you terrify me. You are the reason I dislike driving anywhere, and you will likely be the cause of at least your own demise if not that of someone else.

Aside from the fact that what you're doing is absurdly dangerous, tell me just what is so important that you feel the need to put yourself in mortal peril to read it?

Seriously, what is wrong with people these days? (Dear God, I feel so OLD asking that question. Note to any buddies reading this: if I start yelling about kids being on my lawn, just take me out somewhere and give me the Old Yeller treatment.) As ridiculous as I feel for asking that, I'd really love an answer. Or at least some hope that this isn't the new normal. Kids, please, put down the phone for a while. Stop texting and talk. Conversation and interaction will not cause you to break out in hives. In fact, it will help you develop skills in the fields of thought and debate - a lost art in these days where most debates take place on internet forums and unravel into the slinging of mud and racial slurs.

But I digress.

My question is this: are we so incredibly dependent on mobile technology that we can't go more than a short while before we're obsessively checking Facebook, texting someone about something that can wait, tweeting inanity, ad nauseum? I know this sounds kind of hypocritical coming from someone with a blog (and multiple posts in a single day), but let me say this: my posts are written from the comfort of my home or seated safely at my desk at work. I'm a technophile, but this pushes the limits of what I consider to be reasonable.

You know what? If my phone were to suddenly die, if my computers all crashed, if my TV was stolen, if all I had was a book . . . I'd be fine. How about you? I seriously doubt that most kids these days could go a couple of weeks without access to at least the ability to text without suffering from withdrawal symptoms. Frankly, that's pathetic. So my advice would be this:

PUT. DOWN. THE. PHONE.

Focus on driving. Enjoy the sights. Listen to the radio. You might save someone's life, and who knows, maybe you'll rediscover the joys of human interaction and intelligent thought. Wut a nvl id3a.

Side note: I absolutely despise text-language. Internet acronyms, asinine abbreviations, and the replacement of letters with numbers make me twitch. (With the possible exception of their use when making a point, as above). If you write frequently, or even just post a semi-daily status on your favorite social networking site, do yourself and everyone else a favor and use proper grammar and spelling. Integrated spell-check has been around for quite a while, and that squiggly little red line is NOT there to say "Hey wow! This word is awesome!" It's mocking your inability to communicate.

The Blah Days

I wonder why it is that a normal day feels blah. I'm not talking about the days you're sick and spend the entire day on the couch watching bad daytime TV. No, those days are definitely sub-par. What I want to know is why we tend to look at an average day as being boring.

Very few people are enthused and excited by their job, and if you're one of the lucky ones who is, congratulations. For the rest of us, though, the prospect of getting up and going to work is often one that could be described as "less than appealing". Why is that? Why don't people take pride in their work anymore? Why don't we see people enjoying and being happy with an average day?

Is this an indication of the mindset of modern America? Think about it mathematically for a second. If the average day is an unhappy (or at best neutral) day, then can we genuinely and honestly answer "yes" to the question "are you a happy person?"

Well, wait. Right now? Or overall?

We justify and twist and turn and attempt to give the answer we think we should instead of just telling the truth. Why?

I find it remarkable that people will describe themselves as relatively happy at almost any given point in time (don't try asking at a funeral - that's just tasteless). However, if you ask them to qualify their day as a whole, then they're more likely to describe it as average or blah or typical or whatever other synonym for mediocre is floating through their mind at the moment.

So basically, we're happy almost every moment of the day, but when we take all those happy moments together as a whole, it's simply mediocre. Are we expected to have a mediocre day? Do our minds trick us into thinking we're happy from moment to moment? Or are we just so completely desensitized to the idea of being still and enjoying a day that unless we have 3 car chases and an explosion on the way to work we can't call ourselves truly happy?

It's something to think about.

Grace and Entitlement

We are an immensely spoiled people.

I'm serious. People today have far too great sense of entitlement, and it bothers me greatly. Have we become so utterly spoiled that we gripe and complain about the smallest thing imaginable? Nothing drives me up the wall faster than someone complaining to me that the slightest inconvenience is a major annoyance. So what if that Blu-Ray player is 20 dollars more than you expected?

Do you really need it?

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating a mass shift toward asceticism, but this is getting a little bit ridiculous. I own an iPhone. It's only a 3G, but it works (quite well, in fact) and I'm happy with it. When the iPhone 4G released, I could barely contain my irritation at people who owned PERFECTLY GOOD PHONES who simply HAD to upgrade. Am I the only one that feels that this is a waste of perfectly good money?

What really gets to me are the justifications that I've heard used. One in particular: "I'm worth it."

I believe that each and every human being is created in the image of God, and is valuable and worthy of love and compassion. I also believe that when someone uses the justification "I'm worth it" then they most certainly are not. I know that sounds cynical, but let me explain. None of us needs any of this extra fluff that life seems to center itself on these days. We don't need computers, HDTVs, cable, cell phones, video games, or flashy cars. Much of what we claim to need, we really don't. We're either ALL worth it, or none of us is. Since when has someone intrinsically been worth a luxury? So why do we claim to need it so badly?

Because we want it.

Desire is a powerful motivator, and somewhere down the line some parent forgot to respond to a toddler's whining of "I need it" with "No. You don't." Now we have teenagers (who are the worst of this lot, but by no means the ONLY subset who are guilty of this) and young adults who look at the world feeling that they need everything they desire.

You want to know what I need? Not much.

Don't for a minute presume that I think I'm better than these people simply because I haven't succumbed to the trap of mistaking want for need. I am most definitely NOT. I've simply had a bit louder of a wake-up call than most. Back in March of this year (2010), I was diagnosed with cancer.

Mr. Hayes, please pick up the red courtesy phone - I have reality on the line, and he'd like a word with you.

If you've never had a major health scare, then I have news for you. They strip you down to the core of who you are. A lot of who you pretend to be from day to day (don't give me that self-righteous attitude, we ALL do it) completely disappears. You are no longer what you want, simply what you need. And usually, what we need is extremely basic: food, shelter, comfort. I learned the hard way that all the stuff I enjoyed having - computers, video games, etc - are entirely unnecessary.

Usually, when confronted with the simplicity of what's actually necessary in life, people tend to break down. Whether the one inspires the other or vice versa, I'm not sure, but the two seem to coincide more often than not. I personally think this is a good thing. We humans are so self-centered that we neglect to call upon our Creator until we've reached the nadir of existence (or at least, what we consider to be our lowest point).

How sad.

The grace of God is so quickly tossed aside for the things we feel we deserve. Have we as a people reached the point where we not only assume we deserve His grace, but we take it entirely for granted? I pray that we haven't, but I suspect we have.

Living from day to day, with only your needs in mind is an incredible way to rediscover how much He loves us and cares for us. That we as a people are so blessed to enjoy luxuries and live on more than simply necessities (as a whole - I know there are those who don't) is an indication that God's plan and desire for us is a good one that includes our happiness and well being. This doesn't mean that we're guaranteed happiness, and it definitely doesn't mean we're not going to suffer. However, on the other side of suffering is usually reward.

I definitely don't feel worthy of or entitled to this sort of love. And therein lies the nature of grace. That He would extend this to me, when I don't deserve it, can only be described in one way:

Awesome.

Movie Review: Predators

Robert Rodriguez is my hero.

The man has developed more "geek-cred" in the past several years than many directors. He's given us Desperado, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, and Sin City. Now, his latest production effort explodes on the big screen in a showy display of reverence to John McTiernan's original 1987 film.

I know Rodriguez didn't direct this film (man, don't I wish he did) but he had a massive hand in bringing this project to life. Predators was original a concept of Rodriguez's back in 1994 and has been languishing in development hell since then.

Full disclosure: I hated AvP and AvP-R. Lots of people enjoyed them, and that's their prerogative, but I had problems with them. The Predator designs moved away from the sleek, svelte death dealing stealth machine and toward a bulky, brawling, beefy monster. I didn't mind the attempt to create a PG-13 movie out of two R-Rated franchises (historically, though, that is often an indication of decrease in quality) - what I took issue with was the quality of what audiences were presented with. They were poorly written, the cinematography was nothing outstanding, and the performances were "meh". All of this simply makes them frustrating and mediocre. I hated them because they represented a fundamental lack of understanding of the source material. AvP took an established crossover concept (thank you, Dark Horse Comics) and beat on it, assuming it was malleable enough to fit within the setting of modern day.

It wasn't and it didn't.

The thrill of the AvP crossover franchise as presented in the video games and comic books was the setting. Pulling Xenomorphs (the stars of the Alien series) into modern day COMPLETELY broke the logical progression of plot in the entire Alien Quadrilogy. Throwing Charles Bishop Weyland into the mix only adds to the confusion and frustration. The whole point of Alien is that the Xenomorph is a life form never before encountered in the history of space travel. Given the sheer number of Colonial Marines that are eaten and/or eviscerated in the course of the AvP canon, the fact that even one of the human protagonists that encounter the titular alien species has enough time to say more than "Hey, I -- " is completely and utterly absurd to me.

Why do I talk about these films? Because frankly, they have almost been the death knell for both of the series that spawned them. An additional film could be either the reviving breath of fresh air or else the final nail in the coffin.

Breathe deep, fans, for this is INDEED refreshing.

SPOILER WARNING - I discuss elements of the plot and specific character developments/twists. Go see the film first.

Predators reads like a tender, carefully crafted love letter to the original film. This isn't to say that it's without its flaws (we'll get to those in a minute), but man was this a pleasant surprise. I purchased a popcorn JUST so I'd have something to throw at the screen in the very likely event that the movie took the first exit to Stupidville. Fortunately, I never had to resort to kernel-flinging.

The film opens on a shot of Adrien Brody's character falling through the atmosphere at terminal velocity. Explanations? Initial exposition? Forget that, we're not going to feed you a story, we're just going to throw you into the meat grinder.

See what I did there? Yeah, the film does that too. A LOT. (For those who are now completely lost, go rewatch the original Predator and see if my comment about meat grinders sounds familiar). In many films, any attempt to rework and rehash lines/music/etc into a sequel feels hackneyed and cliched; however, in this film it works. Not because I'm a big fan of the original film (I loved it, but I have no illusions about it being a perfect film - it's not), but because this one is well written.

Let's examine elements of the film individually:

Writing

This film, as stated above, is well written. It's not perfect, and the plot could use a bit of reworking in its minor details, but it's definitely a well crafted piece of work. In my opinion, the third act twist shouldn't have been reserved for the third act. Topher Grace's character is so absurdly out of place in this group of people that as an audience member, I spent much of the movie WAITING for the reveal that he was another Dr. Mengele. So much so that the twist held no power when it occurred. My response was one of "Oh, finally . . ." not "Oh snap! I didn't see that coming!"

My suggestion? Make his role as a serial killer known from the outset and use it as a source of constant tension. The audience will wonder when he's going to turn on his comrades simply because it's an addiction to him.

I had several other ideas, but I think that'll be another post.

Acting

The performances in this film are . . . well, I hesitate to use the word excellent, because they're not about to win any Oscars; however, every character is well defined (if not exactly well developed) and extremely believable (with the single exception of Topher Grace).

Look, let me break for a second and say this: Topher Grace has it in him to be an excellent actor. Unfortunately, he seems to be pulling on 7 years of That 70s Show (which I love and own) for EVERY ROLE he plays. I'm tired of watching Topher Grace as Eric Foreman as [insert character name here]. C'mon man! Give me a performance that WOWS me. Admittedly it takes a while, but it's not impossible.

That being said, he's NOT a huge frustration in this film, just a minor one.

Also, Adrien Brody frightens me. Seriously.

Effects/Cinematography

YES. Yes, yes, yes, dear heavenly Father, YES.

You know what feels hokey and ridiculous in this film? One shot. (Specifically, Laurence Fishburne's demise. I'm getting really tired of the "character explodes in a cloud of gore to reveal the silhouette of our antagonist" shots.) The CGI is realistic enough to not be distracting or effectively break your suspension of disbelief, and the predators themselves are well designed and well realized. This feels like the terrifying creature we saw in the first two films, not the pro-wrestler-esque abominations of the AvP movies. The initial encounter sequence where the group effectively wastes half of their ammo on what amounts to a pack of alien dogs gets your heart pumping.

Also, the final fight sequence is a fantastic nod to the original film's climactic battle and addresses one of my frustrations with the predator's technology - namely: WHY wouldn't a predator be able to sense breathing/heartbeat?!? Answer: he can. So much for mud.

Pacing

It's well paced. Very well paced. It throws you into the action immediately and then lets you stew while everything builds to the final confrontation. Nimrod Antal seems to get that what made the original monster so scary was the fact that you rarely saw it. This is what makes Ridley Scott's Alien terrifying, this is what makes John McTiernan's Predator terrifying, this is what made Hitchcock a LEGEND. What you don't see is far scarier than what you do see. As such, the fact that the predators themselves don't make more than a single appearance in the first two acts is one of the strongest elements in this film.

The movie stumbles a little bit transitioning between acts 2 and 3, but makes up for it with an awesome duel between a katana wielding Yakuza and one of the predators. It was a fantastic shout out to the death of Billy in the first film (complete with musical cue), but it was also its own moment.

In conclusion, it's a great action romp highly reminiscent of the original film. If you enjoyed Arnold's Predator you'll like this one.

Introduction

Thus begins the first post on yet another blog. I've done a few of these now, and too frequently lose interest or else just lose track of time and fail to update. With any luck, this one will be different.

So welcome to my outlet.

In answer to the first question that I would ask: No. There is no specific purpose for this blog beyond musings and thoughts. While this blog is far more casual than any I've done before, it's not going to be simply random and pointless thoughts. I'll include reviews and thoughts about films, music, and other goings on in the world. Feel free to jump in and make a comment - if you bring up an interesting point or get me thinking about something, who knows? You could end up being the subject of the next post.

Don't let that deter you though.

A bit of pre-knowledge for you. I'll explore a lot of different things, and it's only fair that you know a few things about me before I start in on this. I live in Texas, I dislike politics in general, I am a Christian, and I am married. Any comment I make is bound to come from that background. So in order to avoid someone getting their panties in a twist, I'd like to make a mention of one of these specifically.

I am a Christian. I believe that the Bible is the holy word of God and is complete in its veracity. That being said, I adhere to the type of Christianity you'll find in the works of C.S. Lewis - a reasonable faith (that is, a faith supported by reason), and as such, you will rarely hear me espouse a position that demands one support a tenant of theology simply "because the Bible tells me so." I believe in dialogue and respect above all else - everyone has the right to believe what he/she wants to, and I'm not going to snub you over a disagreement.

So, that being said, let's see where this goes!