Another on going back and changing things

by Newnameelizabeth

In 11-23-63 Jake goes back in time to prevent a man from murdering most of his family and maming the only survivor. At first he tries to stop him at the scene of the crime. When this is only partially successful, he goes back again and seeks to take him out well before the fateful day. He had said he believed he could kill during a hot moment, but wondered if he could when things were calm. It does make all the difference. I wonder if guns are the easy, lazy, cowardly way out. But if someone is hell-bent on their course and is not seeking repentence, only manipulation and control, then why waste your time and resources trying to convince or control them? But deciding that when things are calm, before the deed is committed, and to off someone is a step I don’t think I could take. He found out that there had been a previous offence, so maybe he should have tried to stick him on that with the authorities instead. It’s sad if vigilantism is all you have left.

This reminds me of Judge Roy Bean, “the law west of the Pecos”. Wow, he was shadier than I expected.

Efficiency quandries and louis ck

by Newnameelizabeth

oka first world problems

1. Is it a failure of technology when there are still soap bubbles on the sideview mirror after a carwash, and you use the free vacuum hose to suck them off?

2. Have we made too many work-saving machines when you also resort to a machine to work out?

3. Have we created too much time on our hands if we can research, satirize, or read reports on the origin of the term, “first world problems“?

The above exerpts Louis C.K. which reminds me of his season ending “controversial” monologue on SNL a couple of weeks ago. Controversial because no one in authority wants to really say if it crossed the line in trying to understand child molesters’ motivation. I’ve been monitoring the feedback and all the major media says is ‘some say it did and some say it didn’t’. I ususally don’t make it through the monologues or even any of the skits I happen to channel flip onto anymore. They’re all about desensitizing people to shocking sexual behavior. Why didn’t anyone complain earlier in the year when a skit lady said “it sounds like a baby having sex”? Today everything is justified by how good things feel. Except when someone else feels bad, then the way to fix that is to desensitize them and seduce them into feeling good.

But I think there is a discussion to be had in understanding criminals while we’re still calling them that. How do people get to the point of taking pleasure in bad things? It’s probably too late because nowadays we can’t even agree on what is a bad thing. But even for the conservative evangelicals who are sure what badness is, there are some perspective deficiencies (see Josh Duggar discussions).

Being molested as a child, and I bet many molesters were, destroys your innocence and makes you too focused on sex, not only then but throughout your life. Childhood is a time to think about other things instead. It turns sex into the elephant in every room when there are other ways of relating that molested children have no clue about. It can become your relationship language that others can seem to read even if you don’t know you’re speaking it. Since it has formed you, disengaging from it either makes you mute or makes you have to adopt a foreign way of acting that never feels comfortable or genuine. How would you have acted if it had never happened? The answer lies behind a closed door that maybe death will unlock.

Dark Knight Rises

by Newnameelizabeth

Some are saying that Dark Knight Rises is the best movie ever made. I think it was a very good movie. Was it the best movie ever? The first obstacle to that place in cinematic attribution could be a critique of the premise that carries through the trilogy of the original villain, Ra’s Al Ghul. He believes that when a certain level of corruption infests a region, the people must be killed en masse.
I cannot say that this isn’t plausible because it has happened in history where an idealistic person rises and seeks to blot out entire groups of people based on some sort of prejudice and feeling of superiority. My problem with that is that I don’t find such people relatable. But prejudice, even based on supposed sinfulness, is widespread. Perhaps justification for it is based on the belief that God will wipe out huge groups of people who don’t measure up, in hell.
I have accepted the Old Testament stories of entire cities being purged, including men women and children, even when such stories are criticized by people who do not believe a loving God would act in such a way. I think they have a different expectation towards relating to God. I don’t necessarily believe that God needs to act in a way that I would. There are too many differences between us, and there are too many other good and merciful things that he does that out-weigh his wrathful side in my estimation.
When a human decides to act in a self-righteous manner by punishing large groups of people that he does not know, I am doubtful of his ability to discern the justification of his actions more than I am of God’s.
The movie V for Vendetta puts the shoe on the other foot. In it the terroristic perjurer is the good guy. I guess it depends on your idea of what corruption is like, and whose fault it is. Commissioner Gordon and Batman believe in a more surgical method, where obvious bad guys are detained, but not killed. I suppose bad guys for them are those who break the law, but let’s not discuss how the laws came to be.
Gordon engenders trust by coming across as a humble street sweeper, not as a Messiah. For that he needs Batman. Batman is held in check at first by Rachel, and also by Alfred and Fox. By the way, I thought Alfred was a little out of character in this last movie and my suspension of disbelief was suspended by that turn in the relationship. Similarly I wasn’t able to stay with the Rachel and Batman relationship. I thought she was too mean and critical of him. Her judgment of him sounds kind of like Ra’s Al Ghul’s judgment of Gotham. But at least she knew him personally.
I believe stories are people’s way of working out what their relationship with God. Perhaps Rachel is the corrective side of God. Her judgments did have a basis, but the storytelling makes you more sympathetic to Batman than she was. Our sympathies can be easily manipulated. Lord have mercy.