Whoah, Noah

Last night I finally made it to see the film Noah. It bothers me that we, Americans, don't enjoy 3D films and this movie wasn't released in 3D format in the States. The rest of the world gets to enjoy the movie in 3D because they seem to enjoy the technology. However, it isn't worth it for the makers of the film, Paramount Pictures, to show Noah in 3D based on the results of other worldwide features in the last several years. 

I'm used to this experience of life taking place from the minority perspective. It has its positives and negatives. One of the negatives is it appears I'm in the minority of Americans that enjoy modern 3D films and because of that I don't get to watch as many of them as I would like. When they're done right, there is nothing more amazing to me in a movie experience. They are nothing like the 3D movies of my childhood with the gratuitous objects being flung toward the camera that reminded me, the goofy looking viewer that was sitting in front of the screen in cardboard blue and red glasses, I was watching 3D. Today's 3D is much more than that. Anyway, I can't help but wonder why any time Europe likes something (universal healthcare, investing in science, high speed rail, 3D movies) and I like the same thing then I end up going without. 

Some of the positives that come along with viewing reality from the minority perspective is my take on the film Noah. Russell Crowe and Anthony Hopkins weren't star power enough to get me interested in this movie. That's not to say I'm not a huge fan of both of those guys. I am. But, it was Darren Aronofsky that made we want to take in this movie. 

Every good director has their own style. I like Scorsese movies for different reasons than I like Tarantino movies. And, I like Aronofsky films because of his unique style he brings to the art. Aronofsky is known for getting up close, really close, and personal with the main character(s) of his films. Whatever the subject matter - struggling to be a ballet dancer, trying to find the Fountain of Youth, or even trying to figure out the meaning of the universe through a math formula - Aronofsky is magnificent at making the viewer share the pain and torment of the character on the screen. Requiem for a Dream is an amazing example of how Aronofsky presents his dramas to the audience, but it isn't that far of a leap to take drugs and addiction and over indulgence and show how much pain and chaos they can create. This is why I found myself fascinated with the idea of Aronofsky taking on the story of Noah. 

The story is a biblical one and has different meanings to different people. I could care less about all of that. I simply entered the theater with the hopes of seeing Aronofsky do what he does best: sharing the pain. When I first watched the movie Clash of the Titans when I was a lot younger, I didn't get caught up on whether or not the writer of the movie was giving an accurate and historical presentation of the mythology. The same is true now, at my older age, for the movie Noah. The plot line was one I was familiar with and this is nothing new when it comes to watching movies. I knew what happened to the Titanic but I was interested to see how James Cameron wanted me to view it. 

We all know the tale of Noah and how he built an ark and collected all of the animals and was tasked with repopulating the planet. The part of the tale that Aronofsky wanted us to experience was the anguish and guilt and suffering that came along with the task presented to Noah. It's easy to joke about how hard it must have been to collect two of every animal on the planet and then fit them on a boat and have them not devour one another. Aronofsky doesn't seem concerned about any of that. In essence, he is basically asking us to simply accept the story at face value and then go from there. I was totally cool with that. Where he was taking us was the human experience. I was totally cool with that too.

One thing I that I found surprising was how conflicted I was when it came to figuring out which character I was pulling for in the story. All involved parties make pretty good arguments for whatever their agenda happens to be concerning their envisioned future. Towards the end I couldn't help but wonder if I was in some random sample that was getting to view an alternate ending. I wasn't sure how it was all going to wrap itself up and still be the Noah tale I was familiar with, where everything works out in the end. Russell Crowe was fantastic in his portrayal of a very tormented man that was guided by a tremendous sense of faith, hope, and, the greatest of all (I'm quoting God here), love. 

In the end, love is what it all comes down to in this particular tale. All isn't well in the new world. All isn't perfect. But, love is the only possible way to partake in the journey. Noah learned that lesson thousands of years ago according to Aronofsky's latest work. This is why I find it strangely peculiar that so many "Christians" were up in arms about this film. It seems these are the people that miss the message the most because they get offended at some of the bells and whistles that are designed to get one's attention in order to deliver a message. 

Are we so shallow that the story that is leading to the moral is actually more important than the moral? With less than ten minutes to go I watched a couple get up and walk out. There could certainly be various reasons that made them leave the movie at that moment. Perhaps, they had previously sneaked in to the movie right at the tail end and this time, when they reached the moment where they began watching it last time, they walked out. It's possible. Maybe there was an emergency (they walked out pretty calm though) of some type at home. My guess is, because of the very moving and troubling stuff that was taking place on the screen, they weren't happy with their investment in the entertainment. 

We're all different and this is America, the land of the free. If you're not happy with your movie experience then you definitely have the right to get up and walk out. I'm different, I suppose. I've never walked out on a movie, no matter how much I wasn't enjoying it. The closest I've even been to leaving a movie early was Fight Club. I know that's going to piss some of you off but I didn't enjoy it. The idea was great and the actors were cool but when you start doing stuff like that (people being the same people and not real people) and messing with time travel (not that Fight Club did that, just speaking in general terms about other movies) then you better at least make it somewhat believable to me. Even though the movie pained me and I was anxiously waiting for it to be over, I stuck it out. I'm no quitter. Once, unintentionally, I fell asleep during a Wesley Snipes movie. 

If that couple didn't like Aronofsky's style then they certainly would have figured it out with only ten minutes left in the film. What, most likely, they didn't like was the story. I'm not going to give anything away and this isn't even a movie critique (that was the hook - the bells and whistles) but I did already mention it does get a little complicated and troubling toward the end. That's just the story this guy decided to tell. If nothing else, it makes you examine the entire Noah tale from a different perspective. For that, I am thankful. But, the moral of the story - LOVE - is untouched from the original. Isn't that what matters the most in this message? How could this message be any better? In 3d, that's how. 

Fort Hood, Part III

Any time a mass shooting of some kind occurs several things usually happen. Those that believe in more or a different kind of regulation on guns, let's call them the left for the sake of convenience, usually take the opportunity to bring forth their agenda. Those that believe heavily in the Second Amendment, let's call them the right, usually come forward and pronounce whatever mass shooting had occurred probably wouldn't have been as bad if more people had guns on them. Those that don't want to be bothered by the entire conversation usually claim "it's too soon" as their stance on the issue. 

The latest mass shooting at Fort Hood seems the perfect time to address some of the real issues about our gun culture that we usually don't get to talk about because of all of the other programmed responses we typically have to endure during a time like this. There are some dynamics at play in this shooting that make it possible to negate some of the normal gibberish and address some of the more sensible approaches we should take moving forward. I'm not even talking about legislation or regulation; moreover, it's simply about a mindset.

Because this incident took place at a military "fort", basically a decent sized city, we can all accept the fact the "right" amount of guns were in play. Those on the left would be hard pressed to say we should somehow reduce the amount of guns at this location. The people that live in this city probably have more guns per capita than 99 to 100 percent of any other city in this country. And, that seems alright considering the type of city that it happens to be. For the most part, it seems like the people that own these guns in this city are the right type of people to be owning them. They are highly trained and very knowledgeable about their weapons. Often times they are a necessity for performing their particular type of work. This entire dynamic takes away the normal talking point about restricting gun rights. These people have to have guns in this city. No one with a reasonable opinion wants to restrict these people from having guns. 

It would also be hard to argue from the right and say more guns were needed in this particular incident. I'm fairly confident there were just the right amount of guns present during this shooting; this compound wouldn't allow any less than that. No one with a reasonable opinion wants to suggest the military doesn't know how many guns should be in circulation at their own compound. 

An additional dynamic that allows for a different angle on this topic is the fact it occurred at a location where another mass shooting had taken place less than five years ago. The people of this community have to have the confidence their community is "safe" going forward. I'm sure they addressed some major concerns the last time this happened, but now that it has happened again there will most certainly be more they will want to address. Mainly, they will just want to feel some type of assurance that the "wrong" people won't be the ones with the guns in the future. It won't be about the Second Amendment or regulations for the people of this particular community. It will simply be about having faith in their employer, a branch of the US military, to make sure they are doing everything they can to make sure people that shouldn't have guns don't have them. 

The shooter in this latest incident was going through psychological therapy. He was possibly suffering from PDST from a tour in Iraq and had been diagnosed with depression and anxiety. 

I haven't offered any type of solution that can prevent this type of incident. I'm not sure there is one. It's always a little bit astonishing to me that things like this don't happen more often in a diverse population of 300 plus million people. But I am suggesting we take a little bit of time to observe what is going to take place from this moment on within the Fort Hood community. 

The military world doesn't really operate like the civilian world operates. The system and structure allows for the people with authority to wield that authority as they best see fit for the betterment of their system and, ultimately, the country at large. They won't need to go through Congress to enact policies to address this type of phenomena that has afflicted their community on two occasions. They will figure out, within their own military system, a strategy to provide themselves and their community better odds of not going through this type of ordeal yet again. I doubt whatever remedy they accept will be perfect, but I suspect it will evaluate exactly who it is that should NOT have a gun, regardless of their employment in the military. 

Isn't this the strategy we all want for the entire country? 

You Probably Think This Blog Is About You. Don't You?

Some of my Christian friends have accused me of "hating God" or "hating people that believe in God". Nothing is further from the truth. First, I honestly don't believe I hate anyone. If, however, I do and simply can't recall that person or small amount of people (it must be a small amount if I don't even know who the people are that I hate), I can assure you there is no group of people that I hate. 

You want to know what I do hate? Take a couple minutes and read this article by Larry O'Dell from The Associated Press:

FOREST, VA. — Eight-year-old Sunnie Kahle likes to keep her hair short, wear boys' clothes, collect hunting knives and shoot her BB gun

.

"She's a pure, 100 percent tomboy," said her great-grandfather Carroll Thompson, who along with his wife Doris adopted their granddaughter's child.

But to Timberlake Christian School administrators, the second-grader's boyish ways warranted an ultimatum: Start acting like a girl or find another school.

The Thompsons found another school, but they didn't go quietly. After being told by lawyers that they have no grounds for a lawsuit because Timberlake is a private school, the Thompsons have gone public with their complaints.

"I don't see nothing Christian about it," 66-year-old Carroll Thompson said in an interview at the family's house just outside Lynchburg, home of Liberty University, the Christian school founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell.

Doris Thompson, who's 69, said she was stunned when she received a letter last month saying the school can deny enrollment to applicants for condoning "sexual immorality," homosexuality or alternative gender identity.

Principal Becky Bowman wrote that "we believe that unless Sunnie as well as her family clearly understand that God has made her female and her dress and behavior need to follow suit with her God-ordained identity, that TCS is not the best place for her future education."

Doris Thompson said Sunnie knows she is a girl and has never, to her knowledge, wished she were a boy.

Other disputes over gender expression at school have made headlines recently, including a demand, later rescinded, that a 9-year-old North Carolina boy cease carrying a My Little Pony backpack to school. But that case and others involved public schools rather than private religious academies that are not subject to anti-discrimination laws.

After a television news report about the Thompsons created a social media frenzy, the school retained the legal arm of Liberty University to tell its side. Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, said there is more to the situation than the Thompsons are saying.

"This is not at all about how she is dressing or she is going through a phase," Staver said in a telephone interview.

However, he said confidentiality laws prevented him from being more specific and school officials would rather not try to rebut the Thompsons' allegations. Earl Prince, an administrator at the school, also declined to discuss what prompted Bowman's letter.

Doris Thompson said she is unaware of anything, other than Sunnie's appearance and tomboy ways, that would prompt the school's action. She said Sunnie made good grades, was well-behaved and got along with the other children. New classmates would sometimes ask if she were a boy or a girl, but she would answer and that would be the end of it, Thompson said.

Bowman acknowledged in her letter that the school's position doesn't stem from Sunnie's grades or "general cooperation with school rules."

Staver said school officials were dismayed that the Thompsons chose not to resolve the issue with them privately. He said school officials would like to have Sunnie back.

"The school has never called the girl immoral, has never evicted her and is willing to work with her," Staver said. "She is a precious little girl."

This year, a girl mistook Sunnie for a boy in the girls' restroom and reported it to a teacher, and two boys tried to drag Sunnie into the boys' restroom. Sunnie said the boys got in trouble, but she did too "for yelling down the hallway."

Sunnie, eager to break away from an interview and ride her bike, said she liked Timberlake better than the public school she is now attending.

"I had a lot of friends there," she said of the school she attended since age 3.

Doris Thompson said Sunnie would grow her hair so she could return to Timberlake, but her husband said that's "out of the question."

Sunnie's troubles at Timberlake began in pre-kindergarten after she cut her hair to donate it to a program that provides wigs for cancer patients, Doris Thompson said. Around then, she started wanting boys' clothes.

"A teacher told me I was the parent and I needed to control her, and if she didn't obey I needed to take her in the bathroom and whip her butt," Thompson said.

Rather than just dismiss the teacher's concerns, she asked the family doctor for advice. "He said, 'Leave that child alone!'" she said.

Afterward, Thompson said the teacher told her: "You need to find a Christian doctor."

I'm not under the impression every single person that believes in God acts like the members of this "school". But, I am under the impression there are way too many people that do act like this and that's unsettling to me. 

Let's strip this story down to its most basic of truths. Throw out all of the religion and cultural nuance and simply observe the one and only thing we know is true. Do we not all agree a child is being abused? 

So many times I'm rebutted by, "What's the harm in believing?"

Do you see any harm in the above scenario? A young child, in this case biologically female, simply wants to be a young child and the adults in the room decide they know what is "better" for this kid and command the vanity to give her an ultimatum. I purposefully selected the word "vanity" so I could segue to the Ten Commandments. 

You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. 

This one sentence is all the proof I need that this particular God doesn't exist. What god would author this mess of instructions to people? Atrocious punctuation, abstract terminology, and a double negative is the work of a god that made an entire universe? He couldn't take a second or two and create a less fucked up sentence? 

Let's get to the meat and potatoes of this message to mankind. Don't make wrongful use of the name of God. I know we're so simplistic that we've come to believe this means don't mix up God in your curse words, but, is it really that difficult to understand? Don't use God's name wrongfully. 

As a person that doesn't necessarily believe in all of the magical components of Christianity, I'm not really opposed to the message. Love people. Even if that's not the only message in the Bible, why would anyone look for anything else? Love is mentioned over and over in the instruction manual. Warnings are listed for people that don't follow the instructions. The Lord will not hold him guiltless who fucks up the instructions. 

This is why it completely mindfucks me when I stumble upon the above newspaper article while reading The Fresno Bee. The people that claim they are the ones that are teaching the instructions from God are the ones most responsible for getting it all wrong. 

Here is what I found on Timberlake Christian School's own website:

TCS strives for academic excellence with a Christ-centered, discipleship focus. Students are grounded in the truths and implications of the Gospel through the preaching and teaching of our daily Bible classes, weekly chapels and accountability groups, as well as a curriculum consistently taught from a biblical worldview.  We provide a safe, loving, learning environment for our students. TCS is your partner in educating your children and training them to be genuine followers of Christ.

Now back to the Bible:

You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. 

When a group of people that happen to be in charge of the education of a child and claim they are "partnering" with the parents to bring up a child in this world kick that child out of school because she's not "behaving" like a girl then someone isn't guiltless in the matter. And every one that lives in this world, a world that allows this type of child abuse to go on, is not guiltless either. That should trouble all of us, believers or not.

Eleven Score and Eighteen Years Ago...

I finally got around to watching the movie Lincoln last night. I figured I would enjoy it and I did. I loved how the movie focused on Lincoln's battle to pass the Thirteenth Amendment. I think the default setting of our society believes the North was fighting for abolishing slavery and the South was fighting to keep it in place. No doubt, to some degree that is true. However, the war was ready to end and the issue of slavery wasn't even going to be addressed. Lincoln fought hard to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery, and the people that supported him loved him for it. 

One hundred and fifty years later everyone loves Lincoln. However, as loved as he was by the people of his time, he was also hated by half of the country. No other President has reigned during a civil war. Not just a little spat either. More U.S. soldiers died in this war than any other in the history of our nation. Our country was fighting itself in a war for over four years. Hard to believe this would be on the resume of, arguably, one of our best leaders. 

My interest in politics isn't the politics. I'm fascinated by people and how they interact with one another, how they perceive reality, how they navigate the universe. It's an amazing thought to ponder that half of our country hated Lincoln and what he stood for so much that they literally went to war with him, coupled with the fact that every single person in our current time loves the man. 

Black people were free in the North prior to the Civil War. Surprisingly, there were many free black people in the South during the same time period. In fact, the U.S. Census bureau shows there were more free black people in the South than there were the North. The difference was the North was no longer practicing slavery. 

The most remarkable aspect of the Civil War, from a psychological perspective, is the mindset of the citizen of the North. It's easy to imagine the mindset of the Confederate. They were fighting for their "way of life" and to "protect" their livelihoods. One could argue the South even had more at stake in the war. What, then, was the North fighting for? They, too, were fighting for their "way of life". It was quite simply a culture war and slavery, as horrific as it was, was just a part of one of the cultures in the battle. 

Examining the equation, trying to figure out how this culture clash reached the point of war, is far more complicated than simply tying it all together with the notion of slavery. I'm going out on a limb and positing one key ingredient that was necessary was a sense by those of the North that they weren't going to be comfortable staying on the same course. Even though they were treating black people the way they thought they should be treated (and they still weren't treated all that great, but at least they respected them as humans enough to want them to be free), they weren't going to have a good conscience about allowing half of their country to still practice crimes against humanity. The citizen of the North did not want to be on the wrong side of history. 

It's that one ingredient, the fear of being frowned upon by future generations, that motivated the Union soldier to take up arms against his fellow American. I'm not talking about being looked down upon for things like muscle shirts or disco or CSI episodes or parachute pants or pebble tec in homes. I'm talking about being frowned upon for shameful things that we know will embarrass us in the future. We feel a duty to ourselves, as well as our future generations, to "do the right thing". 

We have always had political disagreements. There has not been one President that hasn't faced opposition from about half of the country during his term. That dates back to our country's origin. They do some things we like, they do some things we don't like and we all go about our business. We debate our philosophies and ideologies but we still go about our lives and little changes. But, every once in a while that key ingredient turns up that sparks a culture war. 

We may not be in a literal civil war today, but we might as well be. One positive of actual war is we could just get it over with and move on to the reconstruction. It's the construction we're fighting about anyway. So a war could destroy the status quo and the winner could reconstruct it. The issues of today, as controversial as they may seem, have already been decided in the future. We all know that. However, some people, it would seem about half our country, fear this reality and fight to change the history of the future. Gay rights, climate change, healthcare, and things like marijuana won't even exist as divides in the future. We will be frowned upon for not accepting the inevitable. And everything we did fighting over these issues detracted from real issues that our future generations would end up facing. They won't like us for that. Those of us that love our current President, despite all his faults, understand this idea. And even though it's hard to imagine this President as being loved by everyone in the future, I think that's just what the future holds. 

Right now (the present) it's easy to point out the flaws. They exist. Some are really obvious. But in the future our present (now) isn't that relevant. What will matter to our future Americans, our great-great-great grandchildren, is the fact he was the one that allowed the future to play out the way they wanted it to. They wanted their bad times, the times when they enslaved people, when they didn't care for their needy, when they discriminated based on sexuality, basically anytime they simply weren't treating people the way they should be treated, to be behind them. And if we truly care about our future generations then we owe it to them to put those times behind them, not ahead of them. That's why Obama is loved by those that support him. That's why he'll be loved by everyone in the future.

Abraham Lincoln's push to get the Thirteenth Amendment passed was a good step in the right direction. However, it wasn't the perfect fix. Many of the cultural changes Obama has pushed for are a step in the right direction. Just like it took the 14th, 15th, 19th, and 24th Amendments to address additional rights of equal voting, I think it will take a lot of tinkering to our current laws, very new ones, to get them in working order. But at least we're headed in the right direction.