What's Smart Mean?

    

    What is smart?  Might sound like a silly question to some of you, but honestly think about it.  What is, smart?   Is it the ability to retain large amounts of information?  How about the ability to problem solve?  The ability to come up with new ideas?  Truth is as a culture we're all mixed up on what exactly this word means.

   Einstien gave my all time favorite quote on the subject.  "Everyone is born a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree it's going to spend it's life thinking it's retarded."  To me this speaks to the many facets of intelligence.  To the fact that there isn't just one form of "smart."  For instance I have always been good a math.  To me it's easy.  Because of this I have been judged as "the smart kid" in many situations.  But if you asked me which two colors go together in an outfit I would stare at you blankly.  Smoke would come out of my ears.  I'd start to shut down.  Hell, if it weren't for my wife I would think all colors are just light and dark versions of the primary ones.

      Your sitting there saying, but writer-guy (in my head you're a surfer...I have no idea why) you like totally can't say that color differentiation is the same-like thing as like math, dude. (yeah I'm sorry for that)  Well...yes, and no.  Math is a high abstraction task.  It requires the ability to think about things as concepts instead of as realities.  Colors on the other hand are real, and right there in front of you.  Let me ask you this stranded on a deserted island which is more useful the ability to calculate how tall the hill is with trigonometry, or the ability to tell which berries are ripe enough to eat without getting sick?  You said the berries right?  I'm concerned about you if you didn't.

   

    



    So let's say you have a guy who recently wrote a piece on, oh I don't know...quantum mechanics.  Does this make him smart?  Nope.  It makes him good at science, smart in science.  Or at least it allows him to appear as such.  We have all been conditioned to see the skinny nerd as the symbol of smart.  You know the type: sits in the corner with books, talks incessantly about math, or science, or computers (or anime...the list goes on).  I'm here to tell you though, that's only one type of smart.  That nerdy guy in the corner reading probably isn't that good at social situations (hence the alone time with books).  The meathead at the gym, probably knows more about muscular metabolism than some doctors.  The carpenter knows wood, like things you wouldn't think someone could know about wood (fun fact: carpenters are the reason trees don't run for political office).  My point is that people are all smart in individual ways, and not to let yourself fall into the trap of thinking there is only one kind of smart because that severely limits you.  And as a society, we really can't afford to have people setting limits on themselves.

Change and how it works

credit ecampusnews.com

How does change happen?  Some people would answer that it's sudden, and violent.  Others would say that it's a gradual process, but peaceful.  Then of course you would get the occasional shrug, and "dunno"  that seems all too common sometimes.  Now I'm sure you're wondering which is the right answer, or at least which is the right answer according to me.  Well like any other self respecting writer, I'm not going to tell you, not yet.  No instead I'm going to talk to you about trade offs.

    You see we all want to know what the right answer is, but more often than not there isn't one.  Instead there are just two (or more) options that are opposites.  In woodworking there's a saying "Measure twice, cut once."  Which I always felt translated to "You can do it fast, or you can do it right."  Another example of this is when the United States was first struggling with the idea of electricity.  We had two options: AC, and DC.  DC was relatively safe, but would require power plants on almost every block of New York City just to power the city.  AC on the other hand, could travel miles down a power line without needing a boost, but touch it, and you're probably dead.  Ultimately we chose AC power.

credit youtube.com

    Wait, you say, what does all that have to do with change?  Well imaginary reader I just invented, for one wouldn't you say that adding electricity was a rather large change at the time.  And for two it's called foreshadowing you uncultured bafoon.  Wait, where are you going?  No, I didn't mean it, come back.  Okay that's better, but still.  Read, then ask questions like that.

    But if you insist on me talking about change.  The first way to make large changes is through force.  That said certain criteria must be met to use this method.  For one you must either be a large majority in the region you're trying to change, or you must be exceptionally smart.  Before you say it, if you think you're that smart, you most certainly aren't.  That option is so rare it's not even funny.  Seriously, I'm trying to laugh at it and I can't.  Further you have to be ruthless.  When I say ruthless, understand I do mean ruthless, like raze it all to the ground kind of ruthless.  Like the Soviets burning their own land in World War Two, ruthless.  If you're not ruthless enough you will do nothing but create enemies.  However should you manage to pound the opposition into the dirt hard enough, congratulations you made the change you wanted.  Just ignore the pile of bodies you just created.  Man they're really starting to stink though.  What?  You recognize some of them?  Well, duh.  Some of your people will die too if you use the force method.  So in other words make sure the change you want is worth it.

credit ibtimes.co.uk

    The other method is the polar opposite of the first.  Where the first is fast, this is slow.  Where the first is satisfying on a primal level, this one is intensely frustrating.  We can call this one the peace method.  This one requires those that want change to be beyond reproach, all...the...time.  Perhaps more frustrating still, it requires the idea to be objectively right.  What do I mean by beyond reproach?  I mean that when protesting, and getting sworn at by whatever the opposition may be, all members must remain calm, and polite.  When asked to leave, they must leave, but return the next day.  None can spout hate, or anger.  Who the hell has done this you ask? Well, there's Dr. Martin Luther King jr. Ghandi, and Women's suffrage to name a few.  They weren't perfect, but they were close for this method.  All three of those movements advocated for themselves without allowing aggressive or hateful rhetoric.  They stood above the violent tactics in favor of stating their message so all could hear.  All three said "this isn't fair."  And all three were objectively right.  They didn't even result to the name calling (at least not as a movement) that we all seem to do.  Because they did that, they had people criticize them, call they're ideas stupid, violently oppose them, but ultimately they were accepted.  In other words, no getting mad and yelling names, or chanting phrases (I'm looking at you Social Justice Warriors, and angry Trump supporters) let it all roll off you like water on a duck's back.  Be your idea correct, change will, happen.

credit metrospirit.com

Background for Captain America: Civil War

 

credit movieweb.com

    Marvel's latest cash cow Captain America: Civil War has set the internet ablaze with keyboard warriors arguing who was right.  Now I'm not one to write a spoiler free article, but I think there are some things that need looking into before we can start saying who's right and who's wrong.   Though both teams are made up of factions of the super team that is The Avengers, the real fight comes down to a "Billionaire Playboy Philanthropist" and the literal personification of 1940's America (Honestly the only way he could be more America is if he was riding a bald eagle whilst firing an M1 Garand in the air, and cold clocking Hitler...oh he did that last one?  Yeah there you go).  Truthfully we need to look at the experiences of our trust fund baby, and our anthropomorphic America, before we can pass any judgment on who's right.

    Right then, let's get started.  First up is Tony Stark, a man so rich he can blow up his mansion several times and still not worry about his finances.  You see Tony grew up with a genius inventor for a dad, and a mom that doesn't get mentioned much in the cinematic universe.  Before this movie we get to see some of what Howard Stark is like as a young man in Captain America: The First Avenger.  He's an eccentric man, not without pragmatism, and patriotism.  Unlike Tony who one could say was one hit of ecstasy away from being the literal embodiment of a rave.  So what happened to cause Tony to veer off so far from his father's footsteps?  Well Howard Stark died of course.  To Tony's memory x Stark died in a car accident (Spoiler Alert: It totally wasn't a car accident).  Even though this isn't the most tragic Stark death in our collective memory, I think we can all agree that loosing his father at that young an age could seriously mess a guy up.  Combine that with enough money to buy Colorado, outright, the whole state, and you have a recipe for snorting blow of hooker's asses (though that may have just been the money too...).  Of course Tony grows up in the first film, and presumably stops his hooker-ass-blow-parties, but that doesn't relieve him of the gilt he has from all that partying...and illegal arms sales.  Then over the course of five movies we watch Tony's character develop, and in each movie he seems to make colossal screw ups that bite him (and everybody else) in the ass all the time.  To summarize: Iron Man 1 he sells arms to terrorists/builds a super-suit that gets copied; Iron Man 2 he pisses off a Russian physicist by not giving credit for the idea he used/angered a ruthless competitor; The  Avengers he almost kills himself trying to save the world; Iron Man 3 still reeling from his own mortality he tries to fight crime with automated suits, and has to fight yet another scientist he pissed off; The Avengers Age of Ultron he creates a homicidal killing machine bent on saving the world by killing it.  With all these failures it makes sense that Tony would feel that he needs somebody to watch him.  In the end Tony is really just a boy that misses his dad, and wants someone...anyone to watch over him, and tell him he's doing the right thing.

credit screenrant.com

    Now onto Steve Rodgers a.k.a Captain America.  The first thing anyone should ever say about Cap'n Rodgers is that he is a man out of his time...literally.  I'm sure we all know that Cap here was originally from the 1940's, and that's the most important thing to remember.  Let's all take a little trip in my time machine back to 1940.  The world is raging in World War Two.  The Axis powers have taken over France, and are bombing the proverbial hell out of the United Kingdom.  Where's the United States you ask?  Well You see we're still at home.  Despite how badly beaten our allies are at this time the majority of the United States is against getting into the war.  We saw that as Europe's problem, and we we're just concerned with America problems.  That is until the Japanese made the mistake of trying to bomb our Navy out of existence (and failed mind you).  This is the America Steve Rodgers grew up in, an isolationist America.  An America that just wants to be left alone to deal with it's own problems.  An America that doesn't believe in large coalitions since that's what started World War One in the first place.  What's that angry Tony Stark fan?  Steve Rodgers was all about entering the war effort?  Well yeah, that was the patriotic thing to do at the time.  Confused?  You see old Uncle Sam was all about isolationism, but when he did go into the war, he went all in.  Add that in with what the Cap has seen up till now (S.H.I.E.L.D. being hydra, Ultron killing people faster than the world could react, and Hydra forming out of the Nazi's) and it's a small wonder that he disagrees with too much regulation.  But all that is secondary to the fact that Cap is a man that stands by his friends.  You see Good ol' Steve had one true friend in the world growing up, and that was Bucky Barns.  Bucky as we all know became the winter soldier after falling from a train car.  Steve gets thawed out into a world where he's the only one from his time still alive and young, or so he thinks.  Then he finds out Bucky is still alive.  Now I want you put on  your imagination scarf and try this for me: imagine that you go to a foreign country, and are told you can never return.  Then you see an old friend from home there with you.  Tell me would do what was in your power to keep that little piece of home with you.  Of course you would.  That's what's going on with Cap'n Bald Eagle, and metal arm.



    While I'm on the subject of the Winter Soldier, let me just say that while none of the things that he's done are by any means excusable, he's also not at fault.  Oh man, listen to that chorus of imaginary voices yell at me.  You called Elsa a villain even though she didn't really mean to do all those things.  How can the Winter Soldier be different!  Well imaginary people who vastly outnumber my actual readers, that's simple: Elsa had free will.  See the thing to remember about my pal righty-the-soviet-death-machine is that he was brain washed.  Not like kinda brain washed like normal POW's get either, he was Scientology level brain washed.  You can see in the new movie that there is a combination of words that if used together will cause him to become a literal slave.  Okay, but Elsa didn't have a choice either, her powers would just go off when she didn't mean for them to.  Not to mention she has an anxiety disorder. Well first off I'm not so accepting of a diagnosis of anxiety disorder since you're imaginary, and I didn't go to medical school, so that's out.  Second yes, I get it she didn't intend on doing the things she did, but it was her negligence that made her more of a villain.  The Winter Soldier literally can't undo what he's done, and even still he's not running from it.  Does that mean he turns himself in...No.  That means he grieves for, and feels the gilt of, his past actions.

    So now that all that has been said you should be able to have a clear understanding of the two sides, and where they're each coming from.  Is Steve Rodgers perfect, no.  Tony Stark, also no.  Do they both have the best intentions at heart?  Yes, yes, a thousand times yes!  It's my sincerest hope that now that you have read this you will be prevented from writing anything silly like, oh I don't know saying Cap is Un-American, or saying that Tony is just pure evil.



    One last thought before I go...I'm really sad they didn't do the registration act in this too.  It really lost some of the metaphor it once had.  For those of you scratching your heads right now: in the comics Tony is on the side of the Government when they want to impose an act that would force everyone with superpowers to register, get training, and be at the beck-and-call.   Obviously Cap don't like that too much, so he fights back.  In other words it was a metaphor for the gun control debate.  Would have added depth, but I guess it probably would have taken more than one movie.  Oh well....

The Two Villains of Frozen

I'm going to say it, there are two villains in Frozen, and neither of them are the Duke of Weaslton.  I know what you're thinking "Who is this guy and what's his obsession with a x year old movie?"  Well...I'm a father of a two, almost three year old girl, so I've been treated to more screenings of this movie than you can imagine.  It was around screening three or four that I started to question some of the assumptions the movie has you take, and around screening ten that I was really able to make my case.

    Everything that the Duke does is perfectly rational throughout the entire movie.  When he first arrives his dialog is written to show an amount of greediness, but that makes sense when you consider he is there to promote trade between his country and Arendel.  Next he questions Anna about the isolationist state that Arendel has been in for the last several years, and although he's a bit creepy when he asks, he immediately takes Anna at her word when she say's she doesn't know.  Further on in the party Elsa accidentally fires ice at him and various other guests.  When she runs away he follows.  Perhaps because he's curious, or maybe he's concerned, but either way the moment he makes it out the door Elsa fires more ice at him causing him, and his two companions to be knocked over.  It's then that the movie first attempts to make him seem like a villain, he calls Elsa a monster.  But then again she did just SHOOT ICE AT HIM!  If that isn't a reason to think someone is a monster I don't know what is.

credit disney.wikia.com

    I hear you, I hear you, "But Elsa didn't mean to shoot that ice at him, she was scared."  Well for one, he didn't know that, and for two, that's no excuse.  If I get scared in the middle of a crowded street and start busting off caps at random strangers that's illegal regardless of if I hit anyone.  Hell even if I accidently pulled the trigger (some how) I could still be charged with a crime.

    Anyway, moving on.  Later in the film while everyone is freezing in the sudden winter that Elsa has caused, and the Duke make a comment to the effect of "We should probably kill the ice-witch-monster-thing so we can take care of this eternal winter."  Hans responds by saying "Hey, guy, that's like totally treason, and junk."  Or something close to that.  Now this scene was obviously to show what a good guy Hans is, so that later you can be so very surprised that he's bad.  But let's once again step into the Duke's shoes.  Ice queen shot ice bolts at him, then ran away, and created a winter that has frozen everyone in, taking everyone hostage.  Now he likely has no idea how to clear up this eternal winter, but it's a good bet that killing crazy-scary-ice-demon will do the trick.  Furthermore when Elsa sets off the "Eternal Winter" she does so to a population in the middle of summer.  A population that in no way is ready to deal with winter.  They haven't had time to collect firewood, or store food.  So ending this winter is imperative, as hundreds may already have died, and thousands more could if nothing is done.

    This is where the movie really tries to make him out as the primary villain.  He sends his two men to "end this winter."   Note that he doesn't say "Kill Frosty-the-ice-witch."  So saying that he sent them specifically to kill her is a little hard, but still likely.  I'm going to harken back to my last point here, he thought she was holding them hostage, and killing off her own people.  What was that?  She didn't mean to?  Perhaps, but he had no reason to know that.  She ran away you say?  Sure, she ran away, freezing everything as she left, likely killing hundreds, and showing no sign of remorse.  How could anyone possibly think she was doing that on purpose.  Oh, that's exactly what anyone would think?  Oh, okay.

credit disney.wikia.com

    Fast forward, Elsa has been captured.  Anna is dying...alone...because Hans is a jackass...arguably so is Christoff.  The Duke is shown to not be on Elsa's side in all this.  Which is consistent with his actions thus far.  Then he disappears until the conclusion of the film where he's being forced out of the country by the Arendel guards.  Throughout this whole time it's very clear that he's been acting somewhat weasly, but not outright bad.  When he demands to see the, only recently reformed, queen he's told that she has decided to cease all trade with Weaslton.  For what?  Well because he tried to kill her, duh.  You mean he tried to kill her when she was a terror to her own people, likely killing many of them?  Well, yeah.  So that means that she is primarily concerned with what he attempted to do to her, not what he was trying to do for her people, and the hostages she took.  Yeah, she's going to be a great queen.

    By now you've probably asked the question "Clearly this guy doesn't see the Duke of Weaslton as a villain, but then who does he think is the other one?"  Well here's the Shamalan twist you probably have seen coming.  Elsa, is the other villain.  Cue shock, and suspense.  How could anyone see Elsa as the villain.  This is clearly a movie about her finding liberation, and freedom from her apparent anxiety, and possible depression.  The movie shows that family love concurs all, and blah, blah, blah.  Here's the point from the real world, Elsa was dangerous, out of control, and as I've said several times by know, likely a killer.  Oh but she didn't mean to do any of that, she just didn't have control of her powers.  Well going back to my gun metaphor from earlier, that doesn't really matter.

    Elsa didn't intend on any of that happening so she's not to blame.  Yeah, okay, she didn't intend harm.  Neither did any given genocidal maniac, they all thought they were doing what was right for their people.  Elsa's motivations aren't even that selfless, she literally does what she does only for herself.

    Elsa didn't know she set off the snowpocalypse.  That only really makes it worse.  She went to the tallest peak in the area.   Tall enough apparently to be snow capped year round.  She then goes on to create an ice palace for herself.  So on top of this tall mountain, in her ice palace, you're telling me that she never once looked down at her home?  She never checked to see if everyone was okay from the carnage she caused running away?  That's just irresponsible.  Listen man, Elsa has anxiety, and she is just now free for the first time in her life, you should be more happy for her.  Oh yeah, I mean she just caused chaos on an unprecedented scale, plunging a population that's not remotely ready for winter into a snowpocalypse, but at least she made a personal journey so all should be forgiven.  I mean honestly, how could anyone see that as okay.  To worsen matters she hits her sister in a way that she knows will kill her, and rather than be concerned, Elsa asks who Christoff is.  It's worth saying again here, Elsa was told when she was younger that if she hits someone with an ice blast to the heart, they are dunzo, dead, kaput.  When she hits her sister directly in the heart, she has every reason to know that will kill her, but is she worried for her sister's safety? No.  Does she show any remorse for accidently killing her sister? Nope.  But, maybe she didn't know what she'd done.  Fat chance, she clearly said "You're not safe here." to her sister before loosing the blast.  Not to mention she sees her sister clutching her heart after the blast.  But Anna said she was fine.  Man you're really clinging onto what ever you can to say Elsa isn't bad here huh?  I said it before, I'll say it again, she should have known better.  Not to mention he next idea is to create a homicidal ice golum to get rid of Anna and Christoff.

    Okay you say, fine she was kinda bad before, but everything's alright at the end so, all's well that ends well, right?  Nope.  Elsa does nothing to show remorse for her actions, nothing to stop the death storm she cast on her people, and nothing to show she isn't still a self centered ass.  Then instead of prison she goes back to being queen.  Injustice at it's finest everyone.  Not to mention the punishment she dealt out to the Duke of Weaslton, was unnecessary and self centered.



    One more thing to ruin your day before I leave you.  I don't care what the creators say, the king and queen couldn't possibly have been Tarzan's parents.  The technology they show in Frozen is behind the technology they show in Tarzan by at least a hundred years.  Watch the movie again and tell me how they could go from wooden schooners, crossbows, and candles, to steamboats, cartridge firearms, and lights in any less than a hundred years.  Elsa, and Anna's parents are dead.  Period.  End of story.