Monthy Archive: December 2005
« November 2005 | Main | January 2006 »

If you read this blog, PLEASE sign in to my guest book on frappr. No personally identifying information is needed, so this is risk-free. Just provide a name (even a nickname), your zip code, and any statement you want to make ("hi" is sufficient).

If you want to know more about me, click here.

December 01, 2005

Life : Format matters

Ormond Otvos noted in my guest book (if you are reading this and haven't signed in, please do) that I needed to "narrow the columns" on this page. I assume the issue is that the two side columns are wide enough that on small screens, the center column (where the important stuff is) gets squeezed too much. A fair suggestion.

I actually have other reasons to go back and hack the templates for this blog, so I'll see what I can do about that - I may just move the right column to my "about" page and remove it from here entirely.

However, before I start, I was wondering if anyone else had any requests/suggestions for improving the structure (as opposed to content) of this blog. Please comment if you have any ideas.

Posted by Steven at 06:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

December 16, 2005

Movies : Syriana

Americans today have been raised on a steady diet of episodic television in which any problem, no matter how complex, can be solved in 30 or 60 minutes. They have been trained by politicians that the solution to any problem can be expressed in a single memorable phrase. They have been prepared by the news media to expect a clear division between "the good guys" and "the bad guys".

Therefore I can say with great confidence that while the movie Syriana is an excellent film that deserves all of the critical praise it is getting, it will almost certainly be a commercial flop because the movie represents everything Americans don't want to hear – that there are problems that defy explanation, must less solution; and that the goodness and badness of real people and real governments tend to be more of a matter of degree than an absolute.

The movie itself is complex – presented as a sequence of puzzle pieces that only partially fit together by the end; and it is left to the audience to decide what the final picture is. The few negative reviews I have read all come back to the critic not understanding the movie. It is a movie that begs to be seen with a friend, with a cup of coffee planned afterwards to discuss what it meant. I would certainly encourage anyone who is willing to engage their brain while watching a movie to see Syriana.

Oh, and what do I think the movie means to say? That would be telling…..

Posted by Steven at 07:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

December 17, 2005

TV : Best New TV Show of the Season

Well, as all of the network programs go into their winter hiatus, and before the counter-programmed shows start up, now is a good time to look back at the fall season's new shows and make some summary judgments. Out of the eleven new shows that I tried at the start of the season, there are actually only two that I am still watching – Surface, because of the interesting story telling techniques, and Bones, because of the characterizations. Between the two, Bones is by far the superior show.

For those unfamiliar with the show, Bones is (on face value at least) a police procedural, in the mold of the original CSI. The main character is Dr. Temperance Brennan, a forensic anthropologist, specializing in identifying human remains and what happened to them, who is occasionally brought in as a consultant by law enforcement authorities. The show is based on a series of books written by Dr. Kathy Reichs, who is … a forensic anthropologist, specializing in identifying human remains and what happened to them, who is regularly works as a consultant by law enforcement authorities (Dr. Reichs is actually only one of a handful of forensic anthropologists authorized by the FBI to handle evidence in criminal cases.) She also writes for the TV series and consults with the other writers. At that level, the show is very much like the first season of CSI.

What sets it apart (and eventually above CSI in my opinion) are the characters, and the dynamics between them. Dr. Brennan is a flawed individual who carries with her a whole lot of baggage from her childhood (her parents disappeared when she was a child and she ended up in foster care). She has retreated to the lab and to pure logic as a defense against the feelings she can't handle. In many respects, she is a more "human" (i.e. realistic) version of the Spock character from Star Trek. She knows her science; but has very little ability to deal with people. She is paired with Special Agent Seeley Booth of the FBI who is an emotional, intuitive character who has his own baggage of having served as a sniper in the military – think Dr. McCoy with guns and a badge. What works is that the conflict between the two is not just played for humor, but is used to express the virtues and vices of each point of view, not just on the job; but in life in general. Neither side is shown as being right, and both are shown to have limitations.

As the series has progressed, they have also started to flesh out some of the other characters in the ensemble, each adding to the debate other points of view on how life should be approached. It is this subtext of dueling philosophies which keeps me coming back each week.

Bones had already reached the top of my list of new shows; but this week's Christmas episode secured the position without contention. Now just about every TV series eventually does a Christmas episode (some try multiple times to get it right, and fail). The problem is that this ground has become too well trod. We all know the standard tropes, we know "the true meaning of Christmas" and the half-dozen ways writers have discovered to bring their characters to realize it, again and again, show after show. It has been a very long time since I have seen any TV show do anything new on the subject.

Bones managed to surprise me.

Instead of telling a story about someone discovering "the true meaning of Christmas", they managed to tell a story about how different people derive different meanings from Christmas, and presented those ideas without judging which one is "true" (beyond, perhaps, a common theme of "giving", loosely defined). They took the inherent differences in the characters and built a story about how each of those characters comes to Christmas with different needs, expectations, and desires. A job well done.

If they can maintain this balance between having an interesting crime drama while building on that drama a meaningful discussion on the different ways people approach life, they will continue to have my support and patronage.

Posted by Steven at 06:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

December 18, 2005

Life : I'm back

Well, obviously, the muses have returned. Unfortunately, I still have no idea where they went.

I've never tried to write on a regular, ongoing basis before this Blog. Previously, when I felt inspired to write something, I would. When I didn't feel so inspired, I had far too much else to do to bother wondering why not. Now I discover that there are these dead periods in my writing. It isn't depression. It does not appear to be how I normally experience writer's block (I have plenty of experience with that too; but this is different).

To be clear, the fact that I can't write for a few weeks at a time doesn’t bother me (I still have too much else I want to do to be concerned about that); but not understanding why can't write does. I like to think I have a reasonable understanding of myself – my moods, my triggers, my patterns. Finding something like this which doesn't fit into my existing self-knowledge is a bit unsettling.

Hopefully, as I continue to write this blog (or otherwise try and write on a regular basis), I'll start to see the pattern.

Posted by Steven at 09:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Life : Improved (?) blog templates

As you will also have noticed, I finally got around to hacking around with the templates for this blog. I got rid of the left column (making more room for the actual content), moving that information to my "about" page. I also added to all of the archive and individual entry pages links to all of the other archive pages, so it is easier to get around.

Let me know what you think, and if you discover any problems.

Posted by Steven at 09:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

December 20, 2005

Life : Trying to relax

I'm on vacation for the last two weeks of December this year, and I am currently still in the phase of trying to downshift into a state of relaxation (the fact that I had something specific I needed to do for several hours Monday didn't help). This usually lasts for 3-4 days before I'm finally chilled, so vacations that only last a week or less are fairly useless for me – long weekends I don't even bother.

Relaxation has always been an issue for me – just ask Anne, who had a hard time getting me to just lie in the sun for half-hour on our honeymoon. As has come up in this blog before, there has always been so much I want to do, that I don't feel comfortable unless I am making the most of my time, so relaxation doesn’t come easily to me.

My natural inclination is to plan my days off by trying to fit as much into it as I can. They become a kind of jigsaw puzzle – I can fit these two DVDs in before lunch, then I should have just enough time after lunch to write something for my blog before I go out to a movie. Then when I get home, I can clear those three TV shows off the Tivo before dinner, and so on. So while I may spend a fair about of time watching TV, movies, DVDs, which are physically restful; my attitude is not one of relaxation. Just ask Anne (again) about my old natural response when she used to try to insert something in the middle of my carefully planned day.

Fortunately, a side effect of cleaning out my life is that the pressure is coming off. I am planning my days less carefully, which means I am more amenable to Anne's additions to my day. Still, after more than forty years, relaxation is something which just doesn’t come naturally to me – I am having to learn how to do it.

For most of my life, there have really only been two activities which naturally get me to relax. The first is prayer and meditation. While it does usually take me 10-15 minutes to calm down; once I do, I can get into a very relaxed state while spending time with God. I don't know where I'd be spiritually if I hadn't learned at least that. Still, once I finish my prayer time, it doesn’t take long for my life to rush back into its normal hectic state.

The other activity which often (although not always) is relaxing for me is doing photography. I think it's because to take good pictures I have to slow down and really observe the environment around me to spot the shots. Normally, I am too focused on getting someplace to do the next thing to bother observing much about my environment; but with photography, the whole exercise is about observation. You can't plan the best shots, you have to discover them; and I often find that the more intensely I look, the harder they are to find. I have to get into a relaxed state and let the shots happen. It's almost like a form of meditation, although instead of communing with God, I am communing with my environment.

Well, back to trying to chill enough that I gets some real relaxation time this holiday.

Posted by Steven at 07:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

December 26, 2005

Movies : Munich

Score two for thought provoking films this season.

Munich is the latest film from Steven Spielberg (the side of Spielberg that made Amistad and Schindler, not the side that made ET and Indiana Jones). It, like Syriana, is a film that asks a lot of questions and only answers a few of them, and as such it is excellent fodder for both thought an conversation.

The basis of the story is that after the massacre of the 1972 Israeli Olympic team in Munich, the Mossad (Israel's secret service) formed a special covert team with the mission to find and kill eleven people who were identified as responsible for planning and organizing the kidnapping. To ensure that their actions could not be traced back to Israel, the team was not formed with regular trained agents; but rather non-field-agent specialists with the skills that would be needed. The film follows the team through the process of successful and unsuccessful attacks, showing the toll on the individuals and the repercussions of their actions.

The film was attacked, even before release, for showing an "equivalence" between the Israeli agents and the Palestinian terrorists. Having seen the film, I think that is an unfair attack. The film is in fact careful to acknowledge the differences between the terrorists and the Mossad agents – for instance showing the agent's effort to ensure that there is no collateral damage (an effort that is not always successful) vs. the news reports of whole airplanes bombed by terrorists. However, what the film dares to ask (and not answer) is – do those acknowledged differences in methodology make a difference from a moral perspective? I think people who already have strong opinions on the subject in either direction can find all of the ammunition they require in the film, and those who have a more open mind can find plenty to consider.

The other theme of the film is the price and value of revenge – regardless of whether vengeance is morally justified; does it actually provide enough benefit to justify the costs? On this question the film provides a clear opinion – vengeance leads only to more vengeance, and the personal cost of exacting revenge is too high given the non-existent benefits. Regardless of the politics of the film, at a personal level the message is that "an eye for an eye" is a policy that will tend to leave the whole world blind.

There's another aspect of the film to consider – its relevance to 9/11. There is certainly no doubt that the United States has teams of operatives working now to track down and "bring to justice" those who were responsible for that attack. Whether you assume that these teams have as their first goal the capture of the individuals involved so the individuals can stand trial may depend on your personal politics; but I would be surprised if anyone doubted that such teams are authorized to use "deadly force" if such capture is resisted (which it almost certainly will be). So film goers who find themselves with strong reactions to this film should also consider if their reactions are consistent with their reactions to how the United States is conducting its own war on terror.

As with my review of Syriana, I will withhold my own opinions on these questions and merely encourage others to see the film for themselves.

Posted by Steven at 06:50 PM | Permalink

December 28, 2005

Faith : Rituals and Relationships

Wedding rituals are wonderful things: the exchange of vows before witnesses, giving of rings, cutting the cake, and so on. Plus there are the legal processes like getting a marriage license and signing the marriage certificate. However, we all know that such rituals say nothing about the relationship involved. We even have common phrases for "loveless marriages" and "marriages of convenience". Such couples have the ritual; but not the relationship. On the other side, it is more and more common to see couples who are absolutely committed to each other, who have a relationship that is obvious to everyone; but who have "never gotten around to getting married”. They have the relationship; but not the ritual. Some states even provide legal recognition of such relationships under the doctrine of "common law marriage".

The ideal, of course, is to have both the ritual and the relationship; but in those cases where there is only one - who is more "married"? Is it the couple who has gone through the ritual but have no relationship; or the couple who have the relationship but not the ritual? Obviously the answer is affected by exactly why the one couple has chosen to not participate in the rituals of marriage – some reasons may well indicate that the relationship is not as real as it may appear; but assume for the moment that the relationship is very real, what then? I think most people would answer that having the relationship is what really makes the marriage (that is the principle on which common law marriage is based).

In the New Testament, one of the three main metaphors used for the relationship between Jesus and his church is that of marriage – that the church is the bride of Christ (the other two being that the church is the body of Christ or is the building of Christ, both of which are equally intimate; but focus on other aspects of the relationship). The bottom line is that God is looking to build an intimate, loving relationship with each of us – the kind that should exist between a husband and a wife; and he is looking to express that relationship to the world through rituals – baptism, the ritual meal of bread and wine ("communion", "The Lord's Supper", whatever you may call it), weekly meetings in his name, etc.

Unfortunately, just as with human marriages, I think there are a great many "marriages of convenience" that exist among those who think of themselves as Christians – people who follow the rituals and forms of the church in order to gain "salvation"; but who never develop a personal relationship with God. Such people have no real love for God, only for themselves and what they can gain by entering into such a marriage. They tend to be sticklers for the forms of Christianity – wanting to be sure everything is done "just right" – because such external forms are all they have. They never feel God's warm embrace, or know what it is like to cuddle up to him and feel his love. I don't want to consider here the question of whether such a marriage is real (are such people actually "saved"?); or, to follow the metaphor, if they have never actually consummated the relationship and therefore may find the marriage annulled at the end of the age. I merely want to point out the sad hollowness of such a Christian experience.

On the flip side there are those who are passionate for their love of God and who desperately seek him in their lives. They act like young lovers who can't wait for the next opportunity to meet with God and to get to know him better. They want to touch God and be touched by him. Yet not all such individuals have followed through on all of the rituals of the faith. Now as above, one must ask why – does their non-participation signal some deep flaw in their relationship with God? In some cases it may, but not all.

So who is more of a Christian? Is it the person who follows all of the forms of Christianity; but has no actually relationship with God or the person who has a passionate relationship with God; but may not have followed all of the forms? From my understanding, the answer is clearly the later.

Posted by Steven at 06:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (8)

December 29, 2005

TV : In Praise of Buffy

There have been a number of television shows I have been a fan of over the years – some because they were entertaining, some because they broke new ground for the medium, some because they had something important to say. There are however only a very few which I would categorize as "great" – shows that provide such a combination of virtues that I think they will be to television what Shakespeare and Wilde's work are to plays, what Beethoven and Mozart compositions are to music, what Dickens' and Fitzgerald's writing are to novels. I would, for instance, include "The Twilight Zone" and "M*A*S*H" into that category.

I would also include "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" in my short list of the greatest TV shows of all time.

For those who have never really watched the show, this is probably a surprising claim. As I have mentioned in a previous post, I too originally dismissed the show as "teen fluff", only to discover its depth and many virtues later; so I appreciate my attribution of greatness is a fairly long limb to climb out on. It is however becoming a shorter limb each year. I base that statement on the ever increasing acceptance of Buffy by the academic community. After all, one reason Shakespeare and Dickens works are recognized as great is that academics have wanted to talk about them. Consider two observations:

First, in 2004, a year after the series was cancelled, an academic conference was held where 180 scholarly papers were presented on subjects related to Buffy. To be clear, this was not a fan convention. It was an academic conference attended by college professors from four continents and in fact was the largest such conference ever dedicated to a single TV show. Topics discussed included whether the character Faith exemplified Nietzsche's concept of the "over-man", how consequentialist vs. absolutist ethics are applied by various characters in the series, and the "feminization" of the character Spike. Such conferences continue to be held in the US, Australia, and Europe even though the show has long since ceased production.

Second, there are now twelve (12) academic books out on Buffy in English (more if you count other languages). These are not episode guides or other descriptions of the contents of the show; but rather books by academics talking about what the show means and how it communicates its themes. Most are intended to be used as part of college courses. They include: "Televised Morality: The Case of Buffy the Vampire Slayer", "Bite Me: Narrative Structures + Buffy the Vampire Slayer", "Sounds of the Slayer: Music and Silence in Buffy", and "Blood Relations: Chosen Families In Buffy The Vampire Slayer". I can not find any other TV show that comes even close to that.

I think there are several reasons for this popularity among academics:
- The show is rich with metaphors and symbolism that actually do mean something (unlike Twin Peaks)
- The show provides a context to discuss all sorts of philosophical and ethical issues
- The show demonstrates realistic consequences of character's actions and decisions over the course of the series (which makes it a very "moral" show in my book. Even though characters often do immoral things, those actions almost always are shown to have consequences in the long run).
- The show demonstrates realistic character growth and change over the course of the series
- The show uses a wide variety of story-telling styles and techniques
- The show has a definite arc for all of the major characters
- The show has interesting things to say about people, society, and relationships

Fortunately, the whole series is now available on DVD (for rental or purchase), which is by far the best way to see the show - the character and plot arcs that play out over many episodes are more visible that way. There is even a boxed set of the whole series for those who decide they like the show.

Posted by Steven at 08:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

December 30, 2005

Life : Ahhhh, books

I am an avid reader, usually going through 50-60 books in a year, sometimes more. I think my record is from the year I spent 3 hours commuting on a train every day when I managed to read almost 90 books (and very nearly emptied my "to be read" shelf in the process – I was down to only 3 books left!).

For a variety of reasons this has been a relatively light year – I haven't counted; but I doubt I will reach 30 books. That's OK, although I'll note that while I was vaguely conscious of not having spent as much time reading this year, I failed to change my purchasing habits, so at present my list of books to read is getting quick long.

So it was with great pleasure, as my vacation days dwindle down that I have been able to set a few days aside to just read. I have been running through book at a rate of about a book a day. The latest was Sean Astin's autobiography "There and Back Again", which I did not find very complimentary of the author.

Anyway, I hope to get through at least a couple more books before I have to head back to the office on Tuesday.

Posted by Steven at 09:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)