Darwin and God vs. the Humans

Darwin and his Theory of Evolution have often been pitted against God and Creationism. Each camp coming up with some pretty absurd arguments. (Yes, BOTH of them.) And to me, both have drifted from the moorings of their original intent. Darwin never meant to say life spontaneously occurred in the primordial soup, he simply wanted to explain some of his observations about the variety of life on this planet. And I'm sure God didn't have some of the nutty ideas about the creation that I've seen proposed. The fact is, evolution is not incompatible with the creation and vice versa. The real enemy to both of them is the human race.

Let's break it down.  Darwin's theory rests on "Natural Selection" or what we colloquially refer to as survival of the fittest.  Those possessing traits that help a species survive are passed on to their offspring, thereby shaping the species.  Those that do not posses those traits die, and thereby cease to pass on those traits.  It's a fairly simple concept and one that has permeated every level of modern thought.  Humans, however, not only defy this theory but seem to actively work against it. 

Take eyesight for example.  In the animal world, poor eyesight is a problem.  Animals with poor eyesight can't see predators as well and get eaten.  Humans, however, have used their only natural weapon - intelligence - and created glasses, contact lenses, LASIC surgery, microscopes, telescopes, night vision goggles, and all manner of visual aids to help those with poor sight compensate and ensure that those weak eye genes get passed on. 

But we're even more perverse than that.  Those that are successful in this world and possess in abundance the traits that put man on top are producing fewer offspring while those on the bottom rungs are producing more.  Of course, success can be described many ways, but if you describe it socioeconomically there are several studies that support this assertion.  Rich people have fewer children than poor people.  (And the children aren't the reason they are poor/rich).  For a brilliant dissection of this phenomenon, watch "Idiocracy" - a wonderful satirical commentary on where we are headed as a species.  Be warned - it may contain hard to watch scenes of completely stupid truth.

And what about God?  Well, mankind has been working against Him since time began.  As our morality and values sink ever lower, I'm sure he's contemplating a plague or calamity to wipe us out and start over.

Personally, I think Darwin is sitting next to God watching history unfold.  And every time we think we can solve our problems, they both roll their eyes and shake their heads.

The Forgiveness of the Mel

Mel Gibson the subject of many a personal rant.  His high profile fall from grace has been the stone on which haters and hero killers have been grinding the edge of their headsman's axes.  People are upset that he slurred the Jewish people.  Fact - he was drunk and if we start holding everyone to what they say when they're drunk, we are going to have a lot of people eating non-food items.  What nobody seems to be upset with is that he was driving!  A public menace!  But what are we worried about - a drunken insult?

But I digress.  Several celebrities have stepped up to bat for Mel.  The latest being Robert Downey, Jr. - a man whose descent into drugs cost him time in prison.  But we forgave him.  Maybe because he didn't have an ethnic high. In any case, he recently made a plea to a gathering of power players in Hollywood for forgiveness.  A rabbi from the Simon Wiesenthal Center responded that if Mel wants forgiveness he needs to ask for it himself.  Sounds common sensical, doesn't it?

But wait!  Lets talk about forgiveness.  This isn't something that the dear rabbi can give and it certainly isn't something one can demand.  Forgiveness comes from God.  Perhaps that is a crucial difference between the belief systems of the Jewish faith and Christianity.  "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors."  Of course we've seen many Christians mess this one up as well.  I'm looking at you, Reverend Jackson.  I'm not sure where these people think they get their power to speak for God and their respective races/creeds/religions/sexual orientation/whatever.  They take offense at any perceived slight and hold the offender's public reputation hostage until they are placated.  For you and me that probably doesn't mean too much, but for Mel and other public figures, that could mean the end of their careers.  They are essentially blackballed from their professions.  Anybody remember Fatty Arbuckle?

But the purpose of forgiveness is for the forgiver as much as it is for the forgivee.  Not only does it qualify one for their own forgiveness, but it softens their hearts and cleanses them of hate.  And isn't getting rid of hate what this is all about?

My advice to the rabbi: publicly forgive Mel.  If he truly is an anti-semite (which I doubt), it will show the world who is the better man and Mel will deserve his shame.  If not, then he deserves the forgiveness that you think you can withhold.  Ultimately, however, it is God who will forgive.  I realize these are Christian tenets, but Gandhi, a Hindu, realized that an eye for eye makes the whole world blind.  (It was Gandhi, wasn't it?)  Let's heal the wounds that have plagued us for centuries, real or imaginary, and cross the divide.  Live and let live.  And let Mel be.  If we can forgive a wanted child rapist and give him an Oscar (I realize some, including the US government, have not forgiven Roman Polanski, but his victim has), why can't we forgive Mel?

Harry Skywalker

This is another previous work that was published briefly, but I like it so much that I just had to share it.  If you know your geek trivia, you will realize that the following is true.

 

For some time now the world has been enthralled with the delightful tales of J.K. Rowling and her adventures of Harry Potter.  And to be forthright, I have found myself wrapped up in their ingenuity, until I began thinking about it in the shower (where all good ideas come from), and suddenly realized that I’ve heard this story before…in a time long ago in a galaxy far, far away.  What follows is a comparison of Luke Skywalker and Harry Potter:

Harry Potter	Luke Skywalker
Syllables in name = 4	Syllables in name = 4
Name ends in “er”	Name ends in “er”
Hidden for safety with extended family	Hidden for safety with extended family
Extended family doesn’t want him to discover hidden powers.	Extended family doesn’t want him to discover hidden powers
Evil nemesis kills family.	Evil nemesis kills family (in one version of the story)
Mother gives life for child	Mother gives life for child (well, children)
Evil nemesis is once left near death.	Evil nemesis is once left near death.
Evil nemesis name begins with V = Voldemort (can I say that?)	Evil nemesis begins with V = Vader
Evil nemesis changed name	Evil nemesis changed name
Evil nemesis is master of “Dark Arts”	Evil nemesis is master of “Dark Side”
Fights with special implement that has connection to evil nemesis. (wand)	Fights with special implement that has connection to evil nemesis. (lightsaber)
Seeks training from old master (Dumbledore)	Seeks training from old master (Yoda)
Best friend = Ron	Best friend = Han
Is a flying ace with a broom.	Is a flying ace with an X-wing.
Is the subject of a prophecy.	Is the subject of a prophecy.

I’m sure I could go on, but do you really need more proof than this.  Lets face it…Harry Potter is Luke Skywalker.  "…and there is no new thing under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9)

Had a shocking realization that left a scar on your forehead?  Or took your hand off?  Tell me about it in the comments.

The Souper Salad Incident

Ladies and Gentlemen, I wish to weep openly.

Today I took my sweetheart and my two little sweeties to Souper Salad.  It's kinda like Golden Corral -Lite.  All you can eat salad must have been the idea of an American with a guilty conscience about his/her caloric intake.  In any case, my sweetheart had never been there so I decided it would be a good opportunity to build her an "Ultimate Salad" (tm)*  She liked the place and for 6 bucks/person, it was a good deal.  But this isn't the cause for my aforementioned lament.

As we were eating, we were serenaded with light music from past decades.  My heart sank into deep despair when I realized the music was Led Zeppelin's "Black Dog".  Not some jazz/easy-listening/muzak version-the real thing.  I was still a babe when this was released, so it is technically old to me, but this is hard rockin' music.  I blared this music from my stereo in youthful defiance of convention as a young man in college when I had my musical awakening.  It's suggestive lyrics, electric guitars, and funky groove were a great companion to my days of wild abandon.  And to sit there chewing spinach leaves while it played unnoticed in the background broke my heart.  Was I in the wrong place?  Was the song in the wrong place?  This song would have probably caused a riot of complaints to the manager 20 years ago.  And now nobody even noticed it.

Nobody but me.  I don't weep for my lost youth.  We all pass through life at the same speed and I got the same time as everyone else to enjoy.  I spent it well.  I weep for everyone else who can't hear the music and feel the stirrings in them.  All those poor people in Souper Salad today were chewing their cuds, too busy to notice the rock anthem playing.  I hope I never lose that spark.

Maybe they were dead inside...

* Not really a Trademark.  Just my personal claim.  And if someone starts making money on the "Ultimate Salad", I want a piece of that action...

Life-Time

I’m a little bummed about life.  Life is great, don’t get me wrong.  But I’m bummed that I only get to do this once.  The Hindus believe that you get to go through life many times, each time improving your state until finally you reach perfection and no longer have to be reincarnated.  At least that is my understanding not being Hindu myself.  The problem is that you don’t remember what happened last time.  I don’t subscribe to that philosophy, but I wish I could go through life just one more time with what I know now.  I’m sure I would make some of the same mistakes, but it would be great to have a blank slate and avoid some of the same pitfalls.

And enjoy what I was too silly to enjoy last time.  Now that I know what it is like to be an adult, I want to truly enjoy my childhood and the innocent joys of being young.  I want to experience the thrills of having a fully functional body as a teenager.  I don’t think I ever pushed my limits and now that I have more and they seem to be closing in on me, I long for the days of not knowing my physical boundaries.  You never know what you’ve got till it’s gone.

It was great falling in love as a kid.  The delirious heights were wonderful.  The lows were a sweet melancholy which was easily filled with music. It would be great to have the energy and fun of being young with the perspective and restraint of years.  Impulsive mistakes would be curbed and a few wise words that cost a lifetime to learn would make the difference between a train wreck and a bruise.  Experience that cost me dearly but never had a practical application in my lifetime would finally be worth the price I paid to acquire it.

People are creatures of habit, however.  It is likely that once we start enjoying our youth again, we would make most of the same mistakes.  Or worse – some of the greatest joys in my life have come from the greatest pain.  I might mistakenly avoid the pain and deny myself the joy – for example: my children.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter.  The fact is that I don’t get a mulligan in life.  This is the only one.  I enjoy childhood through the fog of memory.  But I am blessed with children who are going through their first and only time and I enjoy it with them.  Hopefully they will listen to my wisdom when they need it unlike the wisdom I disregarded in my youth.  Sorry, Dad.  I understand now…..

Zombies

This is another repost of previous material.  I'm working on some new stuff, but I thought this would be fun.  It's a little tongue-in-cheek, but it made me chuckle writing it.

Elementary Deductions from Zombies

For those of you wondering, this idea didn’t come from the shower. My morning bliss from which has sprung a wealth of ideas is currently divided among a larger population which leaves little time for me to do much other than lather, rinse, and repeat. Hence this topic:

Zombies. Love or hate ‘em, they are here to stay. I was at work (which has more zombies per capita than a George Romero film) when I began to think about these misunderstood reanimatia. I’d like to share with you my observations.

Zombies eat brains. This is fact. Those of you who have seen the first person accounts shown in “Dawn of the Dead” or any of a zillion other real-life incidents captured by documentary filmakers also know that zombies travel in packs. But has it every occurred to anyone why they only seek out living human brains? After all, the zombies are surrounded by other human brains in the heads of other zombies. Why do they need to be fresh and how can they tell a live human from a fellow zombie? After all, they don’t seem to be too bright.

We can deduce from the fact that zombies don’t eat each other that they must either have a way of telling themselves from living humans. At first I thought it might be some non-visual cues. The smell of decomposition might be one way, but I’ve smelled that on some of my roommates who did, to my relief, did not try to eat my brain. We have learned from “Shaun of the Dead” and “The Mummy” (yes the one with Brendan Frasier. I include it only because it supports “Shaun”) that impersonating a zombie can confuse them and they will ignore you. This is only temporary though; much like tapping randomly might sound like Morse code for a while, but will eventually be discovered to be gibberish. It is my belief that it is the odd, lopsided gait that gives a true zombie away. It may look like a haphazard walk, but it is a very precisely timed symphony that says “Hey, I’m one of you guys. Stay away from my brain.”

As for the brain eating, zombies may actually consume all sorts of different living tissue. The important factor is that this tissue is alive. Zombies no longer have the ability to regenerate tissue and so live tissue replaces that dead tissue in zombies. Although some zombies have tried tissue from other animals, it just doesn’t work like the real thing in much the same way we couldn’t get a blood transfusion from a cat. Besides, most living animals are much too smart than to board themselves up in a house with no hope of escape. They simply walk away. The brains, it turns out, provide zombies with one of the greatest sources of new nerve fibers and are also the tastiest.

Zombies are slow. Except in extreme cases where zombification occurs due to man-made circumstances instead of the occult or lunar phenomena, zombies move faster than mold (another frightening menace) but slower than most children learning to walk. Why are they so slow? Even the fastest Olympic runner, when turned into a zombie won’t move faster than that funny smelling guy in the park. This is by design. Zombies are actually a prototypical socialist society! (Oooooh, the cosmic satire) Because zombies are in various states of decay, the fastest bodies would always win and thereby always be renewing themselves (see the above paragraph) while the bodies in poorer condition would slowly decay. Think of it as a type of zombie Darwinism. This doesn’t happen though. Instead of moving at their truly capable speeds which would lead to inequality in zombiedom, zombies rely on their large numbers to surround and corner their prey. Their slow movement lulls humans into a false sense of confidence. Humans think they can simply run away when they get close, but the zombies use this lax approach to actually surround them, cutting them off from escape. Then the zombies slowly move in and devour their prey.

Zombies spawn more zombies by biting live humans. Although this has at times been attributed to a mysterious virus or some other form of blood born contagion, true zombies don’t infect others this way. Actually, the bites are rather incidental. Zombies actually suck out the souls of their victims. Since this occurs through the mouth, the bite is necessary. Without a soul, a person's life energy slowly drains out of them and, if they still have an intact brain, they become a zombie.

Zombies seem to be super strong. I’ve seen them break though walls with their bare hands. This, however, is a bit of an illusion. Zombies are actually no stronger than the body of their formerly living self. What makes them seem strong is a combination of factors. First, zombies don’t experience pain. The inhibitions we have don’t seem to bother zombies. Second, is that when a human activates a muscle, not all the muscle cells fire at once. If they did it would likely rip the muscle from the bone. Zombies, without the previously mentioned inhibitions and a seriously physically comprised corpse for a body fire as many cells as they can, giving them what seems to amazing strength. After such display, however, the zombie has to “walk it off” before they can use their full strength again (which is an important survival tip for anyone facing a zombie who has just broken through a wall). The final reason for their apparent super strength is a lesson we could stand to learn from them – single-minded resolution. Zombies will stand and beat a broken limb against a wall for hours. When it finally breaks through, it may seem like a feat of great strength, but in fact it was slow and steady work that crumbled the wall. Similar to our sayings “Slow and steady wins the race” and “Overnight success takes 10 years”, part of the zombie credo is “Even a bloody stump can get into Fort Knox.”

I hope this has been educational for you. The more we understand about zombies and their habits and lifestyle (well deathstyle anyways) the more prepared we will be the next time some local witch unleashes a horde or brain-chomping, leg-dragging undead your way. Good luck. And watch out for your coworkers trying to bite you…..

Movies that need a remake

Every time I read that a movie is being remade, a little part of me dies.  Remakes, reboots, and re-envisioned movies abound and long have we lamented the bankruptcy of the Hollywood idea machine.  I have long posited that the reason movie critics are so enthusiastic about crappy, artsy movies is that at least they are different.  Spiderman was barely on basic cable when they decided it needed a reboot.  The last Batman hasn't even been made yet and already they are talking about rebooting.  Longtime readers (are there any?) that know of my appreciation for Christopher Nolan's work.  Do we need to bury it before it's even been born?  Especially when there are so many other movies that are just begging to be redone - ones that have greatness in them but were never realized for one reason or another.

So, Hollywood, if you're listening, here are some movies that are ripe for a remake:

1. Pete's Dragon.  I don't think Disney ever really retreads their movies.  They just produce mediocre straight-to-video sequels.  Pete's Dragon was limited by the technology of 1977, but I believe it could be redone so much better.  Perhaps even a sequel where Elliott helps some other child ala the rescuers.  We need to bring back Doc Terminus, however.  I'm sure Jim Dale would be happy to see his antic character reprised and I could think of no one better than Eric McCormack.  Whaddaya say, Disney?
2. Enemy Mine.  The effects look downright hokey by today's standard, but in this day of terrorist bad guys, wouldn't it be great to see enemies learning to understand each other and become friends.  Some slight tweaks to this one and it would be easy to update it for our day.  As it stands, you'd be lucky to find this one playing at 2AM on SyFy.  (If you're watching SyFy for SciFi movies, you need help.)
3. Ladyhawke.  I know that the original was quite a fun movie and it seems a Rutger Hauer, Michelle Pfeifer, and Matthew Broderick in his prime (which is pretty much anything before Godzilla).  The effects don't really need reworking, although some CG morphing back in 1985 would have been nice instead of the slight of hand they used.  The story was good and the action fun.  So why remake this gem?  Two reasons:  1.  Matthew Broderick - although I love his performance, a snarky American teen is quite out of place in this fantasy realm and even more important: 2. The Alan Parsons score.  Prog rock synthesizers are so out of place in this movie.  The may have seemed cool at the time, but today they sound more at home in Napoleon Dynamite - in a good way, sort of.  I know we could just replace the score and still have a great movie, but there are so many things we could explore with the dual nature of man and woman.  It's just begging to be remade.

Let's hear what movies you think need a remake.  I'll be adding to this post as more ideas come to me.

I remember when....

We're all prone to nostalgia.  It's an ailment common to the human condition.  Right about the time we hit 30 years old, something happens.  Music on the radio just isn't as fun anymore.  And you know you have a problem when all your favorite songs are on a "Classic Hits" station or worse yet - it is playing in the McDonald's lobby.  Not the watered down muzak version, but the original.  This was the music that we used to annoy our parents and it's playing in the background like Kenny G and Yanni.

I suppose it was inevitable.  It happened to our parents and it will probably happen to our children.  But that isn't what sparked my little rant.  I happened across a small collection of music videos from the '80's and watched a few, one of which was by Phil Collins who recently announced he was done with the music business and I can see why he'd want out.  25 years ago when videos were still in their adolescence, there was more humor and story to them.  Sometimes it was a bit absurdist, but they were generally enjoyable to watch.  That's probably why MTV could exist playing them...because people would watch them and be entertained for hours.  MTV, as many before have lamented, no longer plays music videos.  They have gone the way of the dodo.  Those that do exist are mostly just rock stars posing, lip syncing, and mooching for the camera.  There are some exceptions (Muse - Knights of Cydonia!), but for the most part music videos have lost their fearless style.

All that just to say I miss Phil Collins' impish grin.

If you have a favorite video (nostalgic or current), tell me about it in the comments.

(I don't know why I say this because nobody ever does...)

First Love

Note: This is written from a male point of view.  Because I am one.

As anyone can tell from a cursory glance, I love the cinema.  Not the vulgar "movies", although I often refer to them as such, but cinema as an art form.  I not into paintings or symphonies, although I do have niches in both that I indulge in from time to time.  Cinema is for people that eat before they go into movie so they aren't distracted by popcorn and candy wrappers.  Cinema is for people that see a trailer as more than just an advertisement, but as it's own sweet art form.  Cinema is for people that stay after and look at every movie poster in the theater and imagine how they might look in one's cave.  Needless to say, none of my friends will play "Scene It?" with me anymore.

As a cinephile, you would think that I would have seen all the classics, but I am often surprised at the gaping holes in my film pedigree.  I've never seen "Gone With The Wind" or "The Godfather".  I do know enough trivia about each, however, to have a conversation about both.  I do go through phases where I scoop up all the notable films in a certain genre or by an artist.  Just recently I went through a Cary Grant phase where I watched "His Girl Friday", "Arsenic and Old Lace", and "Father Goose" and a 70's Realist phase where I watched "Chinatown", "The French Connection", and "Serpico".  I know there are more in both of those categories worth watching, but I try to limit it to three so I don't burn out.

It has taken me two paragraphs of introduction to get to my point.  Somewhere an English teacher is weeping.

You would think with my love of (classic) cinema that I would have already seen "Cinema Paradiso" before, but despite having it recommended to me on numerous occasions by like-minded friends, I only finished it last night - the director's cut, of course.  It's a hard story not to love, and although post-WWII rural Italy is nothing like my own childhood, I could easily relate to the struggles of growing up.  You can't help but reflect on your own life and your own first love, which is what I really want to talk about.

Love is a whimsical thing.  Of course we have to split being "in love" from "loving" someone.  I love my wife.  She is my rock and my support.  Without her, my life would tailspin out of control.  But I don't feel the same way about her as when we were courting.  My hands don't get sweaty around her.  My heart doesn't beat faster.  My mind doesn't fill with elaborate machinations about how to win her over.  At least not very often.  And, although being in love is lots of fun, loving someone is much deeper and stronger.  So many people jettison their marriage once the spark is gone assuming that love is gone with it.  They simply haven't learned that true love is not the searing flame of nearsighted desire, but the warm glow of acceptance and trust.  People who swing from relationship to relationship like Tarzan on a vine are seeking that thrilling rush of being "in love".  You might say (and actually could clinically diagnose it since it's all about hormones and brain chemistry) that they are addicted to love, although only to the easy fun part.

Most of us have had several loves in our lives until we found the one we thought was strong enough to go the distance.  Most of them fade away and blend together in the fog of distant memory.  But there is one that always somehow seems bright - our first love.  You remember the time you suddenly realized that you didn't care if girls had cooties.  Perhaps you acted out to get their attention.  Or perhaps you secretly spied on them.  Or maybe even both.  You remember her name.  You remember what she looked like.  You've wondered on more than one occasion what ever happened to her.

For me, it happened in 4th grade.  She was almost a year older than me and taller, of course.  For four years I secretly carried a torch for her.  Anyone watching from the outside could tell how I felt, though.  I made her cookies without prompting when she was sick, although I very rarely went over to her house (don't want people to get suspicious).  I went roller skating with her at the local fair grounds.  I have a shoebox full of memories of her.  And when we finally moved away, I told her how I felt in a letter.  Yes...I was a grand coward, but I was only 12 so I might be forgiven.  We held hands one time and I will never forget it.  The last time I saw her I was 14 and we came back to the old neighborhood for a visit.  Had I know then that I would never see her again, I probably would have taken a picture, but as it stands, I have none.  Just my memory.

I've often thought about getting in touch with her, but life has moved on and really, no good can come of it.  Somewhere deep inside me is a small flame which still burns.  I have no idea if I had the same effect on her as she had on me, but it doesn't really matter.  I have only one thing to say:  Thank you, Christine.

Required viewing:

• Little Manhattan
• Flipped
• Hearts in Atlantis
• and of course: Cinema Paradiso

The Love/Hate of Risk

I am not a businessman.  A truer statement could not be said. 

And yet I studied business.  After my undergraduate studying psychology and my early career in IT.  I gave up both of those pursuits (rather willingly I might add) to investigate the world of business - a study in contradiction if ever there was one.

Management is many things.  Some people say it is a counterpart to Leadership.  Others say they are the same.  Some people say it is technical.  Others say it is personal.  The only thing most people can agree on is that Business Management is about making good decisions with incomplete information.  We cannot know the future with our human faculties and so we make the best informed decision we can.

Which introduces us to the idea of risk.  Risk, simply put, is the probability of failure.  Of course, in hind sight, we see the course that events have run and the past has only one probability - that which actually happened.  And so we look to the past to see the future.  We run complex calculations and statistics on the past to come up with probable scenarios.  We see how often our predictions hold true and we refine our predictive method.  Of course, we are often wrong, but we try to minimize that by betting on the surest things.  And so we play it safe.  We quantify Risk with things like interest rates and volatility indexes.  Business is, by nature, risk averse.

Then why, in every class I took with little exception, did every professor encourage us to take chances, be bold, and push the envelope?  Business people say they want "out-of-the-box" thinking.  Clearly out of the box thinking carries with it more inherent risk.  So why on earth would they want it?  You would think they would want a room full of actuaries, statisticians, and financial analysts.  In point of fact, they do surround themselves with these people.  They want round pegs for round holes because they know they fit.

So why the platitudes about going out on a limb.  Perhaps they like to see people fail because it makes them feel better about their own failures.  Or perhaps the casino mentality drives them to wish for "bet big, win big" scenarios.  All I know is they aren't really looking for people who are different.  People who might have a different point of view.  People that act different.  Not that they are looking for "yes" men, but that they are looking for like-minded thinkers.  People that solve problems the same way.  People that treat risk the same way.

And breaking into that club if you're an outsider can be almost impossible.  They love the idea of risk, but hate risking anything.

Cowards.

Great Movies Come From Great Villains

We root for the underdog and we root for the home team.  We cheer on the hero.  But, as M. Night Shyamalan noted in his sleeping ode to comics, Unbreakable, the heroes are nothing without the villains.  Without a hero, you almost don't have a show.  But without a perfect foil for the hero, one with purpose and true lethality not only to the body of the hero, but to the mind and soul, a movie falls flat. 

Arguably the most interesting director these days is Christopher Nolan, and it isn't hard to see why.  His breakthrough film, Memento, gets a lot of props for it's inventive storytelling and twist ending.  But (spoiler alert) making the unwitting hero into the villain was a stroke of genius.  Then look at the Batman movies.  You can point to the villains, sure.  But the true villain is what can break him without touching him...crime and corruption themselves.  The villains are built on themes.  Fear in the case of the Scarecrow and Chaos in the cases of the Joker and later Two-Face.  They aren't just self-serving evil-doers.  Instead they are the embodiments of those primal elements, and that is what makes them so good to watch.  Excellent acting and direction help, but without those foundations deep in the human psyche, they wouldn't be nearly as interesting.

And then, of course, we have Inception.  Who is the real villain there?  Guilt.  A whole movie based around fighting guilt in a personified real form.  Again, another brilliant turn by Nolan.  If he continues this streak, I can't wait to see what he cooks up next.

But enough of singing his praises.  We need better villains.  We need people to write more intelligent bad guys.  Villains, not heroes, are what raise movies from B-rate action flicks, to memorable Oscar contenders.  Anyone can write a mob boss, a drug lord, or a terrorist as a villain.  And heck, we do need a few simple bad guys once in a while to sharpen our hero on, but the true nemesis will be the one able to break down a hero psychologically, emotionally, and philosophically.  They must have a real chance at destroying the hero or the plot isn't nearly as compelling. 

In the comments, lets hear about your favorite villains and why they were great.

Post your sci-fi ideas - or not

I dream.  As do most people.  I'm not talking aspirational dreams like world peace.  I'm talking funky talking marmoset as James Bond flying in a purple blimp dream.  You know the kind you have when you're asleep.  Often the make little sense when I'm awake, but in the early 30 seconds or so after I wake up, they seem to make perfect sense to me, and awesome ideas for movies.  Most of them would have to be some sort of science fiction because I'm pretty sure it is the only genre elastic enough to contain them.

I've had quite a few ideas for movies.  I even tried to write one down once.  I got two chapters in and was so bored, I canceled myself.  But that doesn't mean the premise of the plot was bad.  It just means that I should have taken more classes in creative writing.

Additionally, I've noticed that many movies are "based on an idea by" someone.  They take some crazy idea and build a whole movie around it.  And, given the fact that Hollywood may be out of ideas, I thought this could serve as a repository for great movie starts.  And we might get a few laughs jump starting our imaginations.

I'll go first with one I thought about today:

It's several centuries into the future.  Mankind has taken control of evolution by selecting the genetic traits it wants in its offspring and weeding out the genetic diseases and weakness.  We have engineered new genes that give us better advantages and fill in some of the genetic blank space in our DNA.  Only one problem...a disease attacks that mankind has evolved past and has not genetic code to resist.  Our only hope is to re-integrate with the luddites that resisted change and were persecuted almost into non-existence and genetically are almost another species.  Only they have the naturally evolved DNA to survive.  Themes of class struggle and trying to control nature could be explored.

If you're a movie exec or an author and would like to use my idea, get in touch and we'll do lunch.  (really, a nice lunch is probably all I need to sign over the rights.  That and maybe a good movie).

Post your own ideas in the comments. (although given the sparse comments so far, I'm not holding my breath)

P.S.  - rights belong to the commenter.  I won't steal your ideas.  I'm not sure how to steal an idea anyway.

What is it?

Some people just have it, but I'm not sure what it is.  Some people just ooze success and confidence.  They strike up conversations with people and put them at ease with natural smiles.  They are not supermodel beautiful, and as a matter of fact, some of them are very...um...homely.  But they have what it takes to understand people and make relationships easily.

What is it?  And why don't I have it?  I went to school with them and I made the mistake of linking to many of them on LinkedIn, which sends me regular postcards about their accomplishments and success.  My sisters seem to have it, too.

I'm not dumb.  I'd like to think that my intelligence is above average (having actually taken an IQ test once, I will only state that I'm almost 2 sigma above average) which isn't bad.  But intelligence isn't enough.  As a matter of fact, it might be a problem if not used properly.  But I can't figure out how some people can just walk into a situation and control it.  I don't thaw out until I've been in a group for a while.  I have good ideas, but I'm often too shy to express them.  Or too slow.

Self-confidence and charm.  Those are the weapons that conquer the world.  Everything else is pointless without them.  It's what nerds wish they had.  It's why the jocks rule.  It's what the executives that know jack have and why the brilliant peons toil.  You can't fake those, at least not for long.

Rant Complete.  End Transmission.

Principles

Now I would like to turn my (and your) attention to the notion of a principle-centered life.  In order to do so, I must first define what I mean by “principle” and it’s simply this: a rule that governs my actions.  There are plenty of synonyms such as mores, laws, and traditions.  What I don’t mean are habits.  And I generally don’t include self-interest, although Gordon Gecko certainly makes a good argument to call it a principle. 

 

There are plenty of ways principles show up in our lives.  They are not the exclusive domain of religious people, either.  Joss Whedon, an avowed atheist, once said that atheists have an even greater imperative to live by principles since they don’t have their principles given to them (and I’m paraphrasing that).  While I don’t necessarily agree with him about the magnitude of principle-centered living that an atheist does vs. a religious person, it did give me food for thought.  What does it mean to live by a principle?

It should be noted that principles are slightly different than values.  Values are generally the basis for a principle.  For example, I value cleanliness, so I have a principle that I take a shower every day.  You can get into an argument about which causes which.  Do people salute the flag because the respect it, or do people respect the flag because they salute it?  I believe it can go both ways.  Things which we persist in doing can cause us to value those things, and things that we value can cause us to create a rule.

Principles help us make decisions.  You can think of them as shortcuts.  As with the above shower example, I take one whether or not I think I need one.  Perhaps I don’t need one because I didn’t get dirty, or perhaps I do because, although clean, I can’t sense my own body odor.  Regardless of what I might think about a situation, my principle cuts out the rationalization and I submit to a shower.

Principles are not always rational.  For example, my sister-in-law has a principle where she will not allow herself to touch another person’s wedding ring if they offer it to her directly.  (Apparently this is a common superstition where she is from.)  They must first put it down and she will pick it up.  The purpose here is the irrational idea that touching it directly will somehow cause the marriage to sour and cause a divorce.  The value is good (a sound marriage), but the principle itself is faulty.  (At least to me it is.)  Such is the way of most superstitions; they spring out of good intentions but have no logical connection.

Principles can also be good, but based on a less than noble value.  For example, my daughter learned how to go to the bathroom by being bribed with candy.  Her value of candy was greater than her value not to wet her pants.  If suddenly she were to devalue candy, what would happen to her principle?  It would become hollow and probably soon disappear.  Other times there are principles that have no value at all – just the skeletons of a forgotten value.  These often take the form of hollow tradition.  Take for example “knocking on wood”.  Society has largely forgotten why we do this: it is to make noise so the devil won’t hear what we’re planning and interfere.  But we keep on doing this.  I’m sure there are plenty of other principles you can think of that are based on little or no value.

Principles can also be bad.  Take racism for example.  It is a bad value based on faulty logic and a bad principle that builds out of it.  Most prejudice falls into this category.  They are rules that govern our behavior and eliminate decision making.  In this case, having principles may not be such a good thing.

Principles, as stated before, are not the domain of only the religious.  They are just as important to moral relativists.  They are stakes in the ground that we plant and say this is where I will build my character.  They form the basis of our moral compass.  The difference between atheists and theists is that the theists believe that their principles are established for them pointing north, while atheists are left alone to choose north for themselves.  I'll let the reader decide which is better.  It should be pointed out, however, that if a religious person doesn't examine their God-given principles and create an underlying value, they will whither away.  Where we don’t have principles, the ground is always shifting and each encounter is subject to either our thought process or our appetites.  In some cases, that may be a good thing, such as when we meet new people.  Instead of judging them out of our principles (read prejudice), we should judge them on their own merit.  However, the world is too complex for us to judge every situation and so some principles should be established to guide our actions in certain situations so that we can focus what free processing capacity we have on those issues that are too new or important to have a principle.  And on occasion, we should check our principles to see if they are in keeping with our values and having the desired effect.  We should reflect on whether they are based on real values or simply the remainder of something now past.

Personally, I am evaluating my values and seeing if they line up with my principles.  I see a lot of behavior that is simply be guided by my appetites, which are fickle and can lead to inconsistent behavior.  In those cases, I’m looking to see if it is significant and whether it violates some of my values.  And I’m looking at my behavior to see if new principles need to be established or re-emphasized to myself because I believe that a principle-centered life will lead me to less personal stress, more adherence to my values, and an easier overall existence.