Friends,
Happy Easter! I hope you've had a great weekend with friends or family and have taken the opportunity to ponder the mystery of resurrection and the passionate love that would cause the God of the universe to sacrificially die in your place.
Unfortunately, along with these profound spiritual mysteries, I also pondered something else this weekend. I came to absolutely no solid conclusion on the matter, and so I turn to you, O readers, for some answers.
The Enigma
Like almost every weekend, at some point in the past couple days I was driving. Like almost every weekend in Pittsburgh, there was a great deal of rain falling from the sky. And so, like most weekends, at some point this weekend I was using my windshield wipers.
Thus, like over half my weekends, at some point in the last 36 hours, I frowned and thought, "Why are the speed settings for my windshield wipers so pathetically inadequate?!" Seriously, almost every instance of rain I've come across (with a few torrential exceptions) has been too much for my slow setting but not enough for my fast one.
But, unlike any weekend I've ever had before, this time I decided to measure the time intervals of my windshield wiper settings to prove how terrible they are. So now I present to you the three windshield wiper settings for "my" Honda CR-V:
Setting Similar animal Period of wiping Useful for...
1 Snail 6.89 seconds Someone spitting on car
2 Cheetah 1.89 seconds Extremely hard rain
3 None; lightning bolt 1.29 seconds Driving on ocean floor
Help me understand
I need serious help understanding this. Why in the world is there such a huge gap between settings 1 and 2?? How could someone designing a car think that the appropriate wiper intervals are 7s, 2s, and 1.3s? Am I the only one who sees how close 1.3 and 1.9 are? And how far apart 2 and 7 are!?
Where are the settings that would have my wipers swooshing every 3, 4, or 5 seconds?! These are clearly the settings I would always use, since setting 1 is too slow and setting 2 is too fast. Setting 3 is like a joke that you only feel comfortable telling when you're driving through a hurricane.
If you have the answers to any of these questions, please enlighten me.
Also, let me know of any other automobile frustrations you have.
Jon
Friends,
I'm sorry it's been so long! I've been kept from blogging by a crazy combination of family events, sinus infection, a new roommate, and Final Fantasy IX. Due to the antepenultimate item on that list (some of you were perhaps wondering if and when I would work old ante' into a post... it just happened), I don't think I can offer you a well-developed, thorough post today.
What I can do is bring to your attention a couple crazy questions/ideas about memory and time.
1. Superior Autobiographical Memory
I first heard about this [phenomenon; condition; ability; syndrome] on an awesome episode of 60 Minutes. People with SAM -- and there are only 8 known cases in the world! -- can remember every day of their lives. The easiest way for me to explain it to you is this:
Think about your memories of two days ago. What you did, what you were wearing, what you had for lunch, etc. Your amount of recall of that day is seemingly the amount of recall a SAM person has for every day of their lives. If you give them a date, literally any arbitrary date from any year in their adult life, they mentally "flip" to that date in a mental calendar system and rattle off a bunch of random facts.
I offer no questions, analysis, or offshoot tangents. This phenomenon is so crazy that it stands alone. Like the cheese in "The Farmer in the Dell."
2. Age and the perception of time
Several years ago it occurred to me that age might affect our perception of time intervals. For instance, a few months ago I celebrated the completion of my 26th year of life. That year was to me, at the time of that celebration, 1/26 (or 3.8%) of all my time spent on the earth. To a ten-year-old, a year is 10% of shis life; to an old person, maybe around 1.4%.
So I began to wonder, does a year still feel like the same length of time regardless of one's age? Lengths of time that are equal often feel different -- the one minute it takes to wait for something to download or the thing in the microwave to heat up feels much longer than the first minute of basically any positive experience.
[Those examples are somewhat non sequitur, since the change in perception is due to emotional state rather than age. I was just trying to show that, in principle, not all equal lengths of time feel equal.]
There are all kinds of questions that stem from this. To a 2,000-year-old person, would a day seem more like an hour? To an old person, do birthdays just seem to keep happening? When I was a kid, did I think days were long and years were almost endless?
Well, that's all folks
As soon as I kick this illness, I will try to compose something thoughtful and/or eloquent for you.
Please share any thoughts on the above, or anything related to memory, age, or time.
Jon
A lot of us have never been parents. Including myself. As a non-parent, I accept certain ideas without scrutiny, or really even a moment's hesitation. For instance, in general I have faith in Disney to provide children with harmless and generally positive messages.
But when you become a parent (many thanks to my friend Corey for becoming a parent and then inspiring this entire blog post), you have to watch very closely what everything in culture is actually saying, because you are responsible for your children. And so you develop the skill and discipline of watching things critically -- a skill and discipline we all should have and be exercising.
As I recently thought about this (with Corey's help), kid's movies and TV shows send all kinds of mixed messages, many of them bad. As an example, let's closely examine two cherished classics.
Case 1: The Little Mermaid
I'll admit up front that I haven't watched either of these in a long time. But -- and this is all the more reason to watch things critically -- the plots seem to stay with us forever. And so, here's at least the gist of the plot:
- Ariel is a mermaid princess. As such, she is relegated to the sea and has certain royal responsibilities.
- Ariel becomes fascinated with human culture and longs to be a part of that world.
- Her father realizes this and forbids her from interacting with humans or investigating human things.
- Ariel makes a bargain (for her soul) to the most disturbing Disney villain ever, in which she gains human legs for a time.
- Ariel falls in love with a human pirate (jk, he was probably a prince) and they get married.
- Ariel's father repents of his... decision?... and blesses the marriage.
But of course we, as children of all sizes and ages, put ourselves in the place of the protagonist (nevermind that it's a female fish-girl hybrid). So what does LM say to and about me?
To me, it says my parents will sometimes make rules that I don't agree with. When this arises, I should see disobeying their rules in favor of following my own passions as a viable, if not outright best, option.
Was King Triton's rule unreasonable (not that that's even the point)? No. If humans were to actually find mermaids, it would mean unending torture for the mermaid race. But it doesn't matter how solid the parenting is -- it stands in the way of what Ariel wants. And so, disobey.
That's ultimately the flow of this movie -- passion; parental rule that prevents that passion; disobedience of that rule; ultimate happiness (and even the parent changing his mind, as if to say, "You were right all along, even considering the fact that you sold your soul to a ghoulish octopus-woman.")
Now maybe to some people this message doesn't seem bad, but from the Biblical perspective from which I see things, this plot is garbage. Children are commanded to obey and honor their parents. This doesn't involve judging every rule the parents give and choosing which ones are in line with your heart's desires. Additionally, as our heavenly Father, God gives us rules for our own good (e.g. "do not be sexually immoral"), and they at times conflict with passions we may feel.
Grade (on my subjective scale with no guidelines given): F
Case 2: The Lion King
- There is a king who has a son and a brother.
- The brother greedily wants the crown, so he kills the king and runs off the prince.
- The prince then grows up on the outskirts of the kingdom and learns a philosophy of laziness and self-indulgence.
- An old friend tracks him down and (amid lion sparks flying) convinces him to embrace his responsibility and right his uncle's wrongs.
- The prince returns, defeats the evil imposter king, and restores peace to the land.
How different is this message?! What this one suggests to me for my life is that it will always be easier to do nothing and just focus on pleasing myself. But, while harder, doing the right thing, being responsible, and challenging injustice are all worth it.
[Furthermore, these are not only things that God explains in the Bible that we should do, but they're also actions He takes throughout history.]
So when I'm playing Playstation, watching Netflix, eating ice cream, and humming "Hakuna Matata," in the absence of a female lion to snap me out of my senses, I can exhort myself to do something that matters. Thanks, LK.
Meaningless grade: A
Please chime in (graciously)
I know some of you probably love Disney princess movies. I'm sorry. That being said...
What do you think about the messages of kids' movies?
Do you agree with my grades?
For which other movies would you like to see a critical worldview analysis?
Jon
Sorry it's been a while, friends. Life has been a little crazy. Before we begin today's tangent, there are a couple housekeeping items. I need more topics! As you can see on the Interactive Pool of Topics page, there aren't too many left in the queue. Please give me your suggestions. Also, check out these alternate views of the blog.
Long ago, D-Rod suggested I blog about the typecasting of Ben Affleck. The main problem with this is that Ben directed the awesome movie Gone Baby Gone. This officially made me a "Ben Affleck fan," and as such I cannot publicly criticize any of his work. But the suggestion has made me think about typecasting. It's real. It's worth a tangent.
The most typecast actors
1. Matthew McConaughey
Without a doubt, to me, the actor most obviously pigeonholed into the same role is Matthew McConaughey.
Now, there are plenty of Matthew's movies I haven't seen (in addition to being a typecast actor, I think he's a bad actor). But in most of the ones I have seen, he's the same dude. For example:
How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days
Two for the Money
Failure to Launch
Ghost of Girlfriends Past
(I've never seen Fool's Gold, but obviously)
In each one of these movies, he plays some immature, womanizing, success-or-adventure-obsessed character who over the course of the movie grows a conscience and/or an appreciation for monogamy. Seriously, same character every time.
2. Jennifer Aniston
I know this might infuriate longtime Friends fans and Angelina-haters, but seriously. Anytime Jennifer Aniston appears on screen, she plays Rachel Green, which is probably to say (I don't actually know her), she plays herself. Can you think of any role she's played in which you weren't expecting her to cross the hall and meet up with Chandler and Joey? (For that matter, the whole cast of the show sort of permanently settled into their characters, I think. Though I liked Matthew Perry in Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip.)
3. Michael Cera
This would seem to violate the "don't publicly criticize a person of whom you're a fan" rule (catchy name, right?), except that I am officially no longer a Michael Cera fan. Don't get me wrong. I love Arrested Development. I love Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. But after seeing the atrocious Year One and the trailer for the atrocious-looking Youth in Revolt, I have ditched the fan status. And thus I'm free to say that Michael Cera plays the same role in everything he does.
4. Jason Statham
This guy plays awesome roles in awesome movies. But Handsome Rob, the Transporter, and all his other roles (though he's less suave and invincible in Snatch) are basically just one and the same awesome b.a. guy with a cool accent.
5. Seth Rogen
It's somewhat embarrassing to say, but I like Seth Rogen movies. I like his character in all of them. It reminds me of a stoned, somewhat idiotic version of myself.
Concluding remarks
This list isn't necessarily a knock on these people as actors. If I were an actor and people kept offering me jobs that just happened to all be pretty much the same the role, I'd keep taking them. Especially if it was the role of a brilliant but surprisingly approachable and charming dude who ends up saving the world and getting the girl.
But it is more impressive when an actor can take on a variety of vastly different roles. Some people who come to mind for this distinction -- Brad Pitt, Russell Crowe, Charlize Theron, Dustin Hoffman, and Matt Damon.
Other who could have made the typecast list -- Zooey Deschanel. That's all I got.
Add to the list(s)
Who else do you think are the most predictable or versatile actors?
Was I wrong about anyone above?
Jon
