Happy Valentine's Day

Valentine's Day is coming up. I know it's a little bit off topic...well lets be honest I may have some themes but I don't really have a topic exactly, so this is fine.

You know I love Valentine's Day, but I do have some problems with it. I like Valentine's Day as a celebration of love in all forms whether I'm single or not. When I'm not single (though I've been single for many VDays now) I even like the celebration of romance. What I don't like is the mass bastardization of what romance means. I don't want to be that person that rails against the commercialization, but in this instance I do think commercialization is the problem.

They're trying to sell something and the only way you can sell something to a large number of people is to make it so generic that it doesn't appeal to anyone specifically but to everyone generally.

What do I mean by that? Well, what would you expect would be really bad Valentine's Day gifts for a woman? Kitchen appliances? Tickets to sporting events? Home improvement products? And what would you think would be great Valentine's Day gifts for a woman? Jewelry perhaps? Maybe flowers? Well, I'm a woman and I would far prefer any of the former to the latter. I don't really wear jewelry and one of my cats likes to eat flowers even though they make her sick so I can't have them in my house.

I'm not going to make a case against consumerism really. I'm all for putting as much money as you can into the economy just spend it on the right things. Real romance is paying attention, knowing someone so well that you know the specific things that appeal to them and don't need to fall back on the generalizations that are being sold on every corner. I'm sure lots of women like jewelry and flowers but I'm also sure that many of them would prefer something else (if you're observant enough to figure out what it is).

Men, of course, are a mystery to me, but I would imagine that the same holds true for them.

Anonymity

I've discovered recently that if you mention Zachary Quinto on your blog many people will read it. The Sarmy is a force to be reckoned with. I've blogged about sports and entertainment both here and at my other blogs and never gotten the kind of traffic that I got when I wrote fan mail to Zachary Quinto.

I never really thought people would read my blogs. What I mean is not that I assumed I had any sort of privacy when I wrote about my personal life in intimate detail and posted it on the internet...it's just that I never really thought about it much. I have a meter and I look at it but it does count things like the google bot and doesn't count things like google reader so I never really paid much attention to the counts until the counter on one of my other blogs had a sudden jump (right after my fan letter to Zachary Quinto).

When I first started blogging (and this was my first) I thought a little about who might read my stuff (as I've mentioned) and specifically didn't tell my friends and family that I was doing it so that they wouldn't read it (strangers I was okay with though). I've gotten over that since and put the link to this and my other blog on facebook where people I actually know can find it, but I still have tried to maintain a sort of anonymity (never mentioning people by name, not having an e-mail address on my profile, etc). I'm giving up one more of those veils now. I put an e-mail address on my profile.

I'm still not sure anyone actually reads this stuff, but if you do and you want to contact me now there is a way to do that. If anything, I expect I will now be graced with e-mails pointing out my lax editing...maybe I should just go through the archives and correct a few spelling errors while I'm thinking of it.

Coincidence

One of my favorite things in the Conan finale (aside from his admonishment against cynicism, which made me cry) was the montage set to Cheap Trick's Surrender. It's one of my favorite songs and the subtext it provided for sending Conan off was perfect. The next day I got in my car and plugged in my Zune (set to shuffle, as usual) and that very same song was the first thing I heard.

An interesting coincidence (if you believe in coincidence).

That week I was reading Fear of Flying (by Erica Jong). I wasn't really enjoying it but as a lit nerd and a woman I felt like I needed to read it. There is a remarkably peripheral mention of Carl Jung in the book (peripheral given that the book is primarily about psychoanalysis), and how he is viewed, by some as antisemitic for taking over Freud's post when he was deported.

When I finished Fear of Flying I started reading Craig Ferguson's Between the Bridge and the River which is by far a better book in almost every respect. It features Carl Jung much more prominently and his theory of the collective unconscious.

Around this same time I found myself suddenly and somewhat inexplicably in a Zachary Qunito fan bubble. I mean, not completely inexplicably, I like Heroes and I loved Star Trek (and yes, Spock was my favorite character but that probably has a lot to do with my love of logic), and yes the juxtaposition of the two characters (Sylar and Spock) does highlight Quinto's range as an actor very well...so yes, I am a fan of his, and have been, but the recent...fixation is somewhat surprising.

I have a new blogging venture. It's my compromise on a dream. I had once dreamed to have a platform, possibly a magazine or TV show but preferably an NPR radio show, where I (and my collaborators whomever they might be) would interview people we are fans of and do articles on things we are fans of and then the people we interviewed would tell us what they are a fan of and we would research that and do an article on that as well (companion pieces). I decided to compromise and start blogging the fan mail instead.

So, when my Zachary Quinto fixation arose a couple weeks ago I started reading everything I could about him (research you might say, for my fan mail, though I didn't use any of it really). I found this interview (from Playboy which, by the way, does often have pretty great articles and interviews) in which Zachary Quinto says that he is a fan of Carl Jung.

Also, as a result of my ZQ fixation, I started re-watching Heroes from the beginning. As I write this I am watching Season 3 Episode 4 in which Parkman is marooned somewhere in Africa with another guy who can paint the future. The future painter tells him he needs to look inside himself and find his "totem, a spirit guide that attaches itself to your subconscious". When Parkman asks him about if that's "some sort of African mystical mojo thing", he responds that it's from Carl Jung's theory of analytical psychology.

I don't think Carl Jung believed in coincidence, though I could be wrong since it's been over a decade since I studied about Jung (during my brief flirtation with majoring in Psychology). I believe that some things are pure coincidence but that many things which appear coincidental are something much larger. I think it's unlikely that I would stumble across four references to Carl Jung in two weeks by pure coincidence. It seems to me like something larger than coincidence but at this point I'm not entirely sure what. I guess I need to look into my subconscious for my totem to give me the answer. Or maybe I should pray about it. Or maybe prayer and analytic psychology are one and the same, maybe God and the Collective Unconscious are one and the same....

Faith

I have a great URL, so great that I feel a little guilty not using it a) more and b) to discuss matters of faith. So, faith is the subject of the day.

I was raised mostly without religion. There were remnants of it. My mother had been raised Catholic but her entire family lapsed and later in life found out that they were part Jewish so we've adopted some of the traditions and ritual of both but not the daily practice of either religion. And my father wasn't really raised in any specific religion at all. So, as a child my only contact with religion was my friends. I used to go to church, Mormon church, with my friends families sometimes and I really liked it. I liked it for a lot of reasons, mostly because I had an abundance of faith and no other outlet for it, but there's something more specific I want to talk about now.

There were, of course, Sunday school classes at Mormon church, that involved among other things, reading and discussing a passage of either the bible or book of Mormon. I couldn't tell you anymore which passage this is (it's been years since I've read, much less studied, either the bible or book of Mormon), but I have a memory of one weekend when we discussed a passage about the concept of faith conquering fear. The gist being that if you find yourself being attacked by the forces of evil your faith will protect you. All you have to do is ask the Lord for help, for protection, and you will be protected. My seven year old brain didn't quite grasp that maybe the forces of evil weren't flesh and blood daemons but might be metaphorical and that the protection is for your soul not your body. I just liked the idea. I took it literally, and I liked the idea.

Later in life I came to a more broad understanding of that lesson. As with most things, there is a quote from Dawson's Creek that illustrates the jump I made from taking it all so literally to a more basic, general idea. [Yes, I do realize I'm writing about faith and religion and I'm about to quote Dawson's Creek to illustrate something but I couldn't quote the bible passage that illustrates the same concept. I'm okay with it]

"God. I've never really believed in God. In fact, I've spent a lot of time and energy trying to disprove that God exists. But I hope that you are able to believe in God, because the thing that I've come to realize, sweetheart... is that it just doesn't matter if God exists or not. The important thing is for you to believe in something, because I promise you that that belief will keep you warm at night, and I want you to feel safe always."

It's a wonderful thing thing to know that no matter what bad things might happen, they can't hurt you, not really. It actually comes full circle to the other primary principal of Faith. That's faith with a capital F because I think there are certain principals that cross over and belong to all faiths. One of those is forgiveness. If you keep holding on the the bad things that have happened to you then they are still hurting you, but if you let them go then you make it true that nothing can hurt you.

Those two things are the core of my faith, and I think all faith really. Be open, or in other words, don't live your life in fear of bad things, and if you should encounter bad things, let them go. I'm over simplifying, but...actually, maybe I'm not, maybe things just are that simple.

[Also, yes I am aware of the irony of my discussing letting things go on the first night of Chanukkah with the candles still burning in my window and I'm okay with that too. Chanukkah, not so much about letting go, but it does speak to the idea that bad things may happen but that with faith you can keep them from having the power to hurt you.]

My apologies to the 80s

As someone who claims to be (or at least have been) a film buff there are a fair amount of holes in my film viewing history. For example, I have never seen Citizen Kane. It was on the syllabus for a film class I took but I missed that day. If only I could have been out sick the day we watched Zardoz instead (believe me I wish I could un-see that one), but alas it was Citizen Kane day that I missed.

I'm trying to make up for it now. I've been interspersing classics into my queue in between Entourage and Mad Men viewings at a rate of two per month. Last month it was Funny Face and A Star is Born (the original), this month Eight Men Out and The Natural...but I have a lot of catching up to do.

Some of these are of my own choosing, but many of them are recommendations from people. Someone will say, "You haven't seen _______! Oh my God, it's classic you have to see it" and so I will dutifully add it to my queue and watch it eventually (Yes, Goodfellas is still on there and I will get around to it some day).

For the most part, whether or not they were of my own choosing or recommendations, I've really liked all of the "classics" that have been part of my re-education in film. However, I have to admit, because it's on my mind (and on TV a lot in the run up to Halloween), and I know how unpopular this will be....I really didn't like The Goonies.

I know I should fit perfectly in to this film's demographic. I'm a child of the 80's and a fan of many of the cast members. I should love the The Goonies, but I just can't work up any enthusiasm for it. Maybe if I'd seen it as a kid (as most of my friends who've recommended it did) I'd feel differently, but I didn't. Maybe it just loses something in translation from kid to adult. I don't know, but I really didn't like it. Maybe it was just that it had been so hyped to me that it just couldn't live up to it, but I don't think so. It wasn't just that I didn't see what all the fuss was about, I actually disliked it.

So, my apologies to the 80's, I feel like I've betrayed you, but the heart wants what the heart wants, and mine does not want The Goonies.

Supreme Court

I feel like I have to justify myself before I make the argument I'm about to make, because as much as I fully believe in this argument the reason for the argument hurts my heart more than almost anything else ever has.

There is a case currently before the supreme court regarding animal cruelty and whether or not it is okay to produce and sell films depicting actual acts of animal cruelty (actual as in not simulated, as in would not and could not have that disclaimer at the end stating that no animals were harmed in the making of the film). More accurately the case is about whether or not it is okay to ban the production and distribution of films depicting actual acts of animal cruelty. Now, here comes my own disclaimer. I am an animal lover. I have volunteered at an animal shelter and given money to the ASPCA and North Shore Animal League. Animal cruelty makes me sick. Hearing about this case, talking about this case, breaks my heart. I can't even bring myself to describe, as I heard described, the acts depicted in the videos that resulted in this case. Hearing the description of these videos made me want to believe in Hell. If there is a Hell, like Dante described, the lowest level of it would be reserved for people who harm the defenseless.

The case is a first amendment issue. The producers of these films are claiming that it isn't constitutional to ban the production and distribution of them.

The opposition is saying that some speech is already banned, namely child pornography, and that these types of films are just as bad and should also be banned federally, or at least be allowed to be banned by state and municipal governments. They also reference snuff films (saying that if there were snuff films that we were aware of we would and should absolutely ban them). Basically they are saying, yes we have free speech, but some types of speech are bad enough that it's okay to ban them.

I basically agree that some things are so bad that it's okay to ban them even though it infringes on free speech. I mean, I don't agree, but if it were up to me to pursue a case against the government for banning something like child pornography or animal cruelty videos, I wouldn't do it simply because my belief in free speech isn't a strong as my belief that it's wrong to hurt animals and children.

Having said all of that, the case has been brought, and I have heard about it and I have to make an argument because I have a compulsion to make arguments and because I do believe in free speech.

Banning the videos is unconstitutional. More importantly (to me anyway, and to other animal lovers) it's unnecessary. Animal cruelty is already illegal. The same holds true for snuff films and child pornography. Molesting children is already illegal. Rape and murder are already illegal. Filming illegal acts doesn't need to be illegal because the acts themselves are illegal. Filming these acts and selling those films (or otherwise distributing them) is actually remarkably ill advised since documenting your criminal behavior, if anything, creates a trail that might make it easier for the authorities to catch you. Regardless, given the constitutional protection of free speech, the animal cruelty videos can't be banned. Animal cruelty itself, however, can be (and has been in most, if not all, states and municipalities in the US).

Serendipity

They say that absence makes the heart grow fonder and while I hope that's true of my rabid though minuscule fan base here at faith versus fear I suspect my absence has barely been noticed. I've wanted to write I simply haven't had anything to say. I know, I know, there have been primary elections locally, national political debate about health care, nearly the entire cycling and baseball seasons have past...normally all things that I would have something to say about, why not this year? It was the question. You may recall (and if you don't that's what archives are for) that in one of my last posts I spoke of my decision to go to law school and of a friend who asked me if I was happy with that to which my answer was mostly.

So, after much shock that this person knew me so well, I turned my highly honed debating sense on myself. Mostly happy meant partly unhappy and I had to ask myself why. That's what I've been doing and I'm not sure I have all the answers yet, nor am I at all sure that anyone cares to hear about my internal debate about what to do with my life (even if the original title of this blog was "we'll die with our options open").

If I haven't returned to write self-reflective posts, then why have I ended my hiatus? What prompted me to return to writing?

It was language, and a John Cusack movie (as is to be expected from me I suppose). Last night I got home from work, exhausted, for no good reason...okay a couple of good reasons (beer and whiskey are one, Happy Birthday again my perceptive friend if your reading this, and then staying up too late trying to work out wireless network issues)...the point remains that I was tired, too tired to be bothered even with surfing the channels looking for something good to watch on television. As luck would have it I turned on the TV and something decent happened to be on the channel it was already on.

Serendipity. Not Cusack's best film, sure, but one worth watching. So I did and I enjoyed, as always, the Piven/Cusack dynamic. I'm continually fascinated by these two actors as actors and people. They are, or so it is said, lifelong friends which I think is amazing, perhaps because I don't have many people I can count as lifelong friends. I have a couple (though I don't keep in touch with them as well as I should) and I have at least two that I've only met in the last few years but that I suspect will be lifelong friends, but Piven and Cusack have that history and I'm intrigued by it. Also, they grew up in the same Chicago suburb as my mother, a place that despite the infrequency of my visits to it has always seemed like a second home to me. In any event I'm captivated by them and they fact that they appear together in a film is really enough reason for me to watch it.

At the end of Serendipity Piven's character (Dean), an obit writer for the NY Times, gives Cusack's (Jonathan) the obituary that he wrote for him claiming he'd had writers block trying to come up with a best man speech for Jonathan's now canceled wedding. The mention of writer's block was the first thing that made me think maybe it was time for me to start writing again, but then (in voice over) Dean reads the obit and finally I had something to say.

The last line of that obit is, "Ultimately Jonathan concluded that if we are to live life in harmony with the universe, we must all possess a powerful faith in what the ancients used to call 'fatum', what we currently refer to as destiny". My first thought was that what the ancients called "fatum" and what we refer to as destiny are not the same concept, and my second thought was that it was a fitting topic for me to write about given the faith required to believe in either.

I realize the distinction is subtle but fate and destiny are not the same thing. Of course, being the language nerd I am I looked up both the definitions and the etymologies to confirm my theory and found that in reality (at least from a definition stand point) I am absolutely wrong, but I'm going to make my case anyway because a) I think the etymology backs me up and b) I think you'll agree I'm right.

The word "fate" does indeed come from the ancient Greek "fatum" which meant spoken (by the Gods) whereas the word "destiny" comes from Old French "destinée" meaning, to make firm or establish. I suppose whether or not you accept my argument will depend on whether or not you believe in free will. You might make the claim that it doesn't matter whether or not you or I believe in free will but whether or not the ancient Greeks did (but that's a whole other argument about etymology in general that I won't get into). If you do believe in free will then just because something is spoken by God (or the Gods) doesn't necessarily mean it will happen, it maybe means it should happen, that it probably will happen, but the ultimate outcome is dependent on the choices you make. In other words if something is fated to happen it is not made firm or established, but something that is destined to happen is established.

So, I say fate and destiny are two separate concepts and likely if you believe in one you don't believe in the other. Or rather, if you do believe in free will you might or might not believe in fate but you couldn't believe in destiny. There are probably a few people out there who believe that we have free will just not all the time, they believe in an interventionist God who lets us be as long as we don't stray too far from His plan, but I think they're a minority. Generally either you believe everything is determined already and, like actors in a play, we're just saying our lines, or you believe that we're improvising (to stick with the metaphor).

So, do I "posses a powerful faith"? In somethings for sure, but not in destiny. I think we are making it up as we go along and if God (or the Gods) has/have a plan it's a flexible one. Of course, I don't really posses a powerful faith in that either, I'm more than willing to accept that I might be wrong. He/They could be up there (wherever that is) laughing at me right now for living out their plan to the letter all the while thinking it was my own idea.