God Lifts UP, its People who Drag You Down.

It’s been a while since I posted anything faith based in a blog, but a situation arose for a friend of mine that I think bears addressing.  I won’t get into all of her story, if you know her then you probably already know the basics, but her story is just that, her story.  You want to know, let her tell you if she deems you so worthy.

There was one particular comment during the whole thing that caught my attention and it addressed sexuality and sin and, indirectly the concept of shame and it got me thinking: What kind of being did God initially intend us to be?

To better understand that, we need to look at what affects occurred after the fall from grace.  Going to Genesis 3: 7-10 “7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”

10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.””

We get from this passage that the immediate negative effects of disobey God is the introduction of sin into the world and with it death.  God didn’t intend for us to die, that wasn’t in the blueprints, but it’s a result of the corruption that sin brings.  But death is a pretty far off concept for Adam and Eve at this point, who live for several hundred years past this event.  No, the immediate result of this action is the feeling of shame.

Shame is a very useful tool of evil minded people and entities.  Shame, guilt, regret are all things that weigh us down as people, and if you are weighed down you can’t soar to the heights God has prepared for you.  Think about it.  Don’t you feel heavier when you are replaying your most embarrassing moment in your head, when you think about all the problems you’ve caused, all the strife going on in your life?  You do, there is an almost tangible weight holding your heart down, like…chains.

The chains of guilt, shame, and regret are very real, but they can be shed.  This is one of the points of Christ coming to Earth and walking among us, and why his actions are still being talked about two thousand years later.  His actions are an embodiment of what God wants his relationship to be with us.  To understand that, you need to look at who Christ was among the most.  He hung out with the…sinners.  The people who society shackled with…wait for it…shame, guilt, and regret.  He did that to shed them of these chains, to bring them to the heights God wants them to ascend to.

At absolutely no point in the Bible does Christ expect his followers to be perfect.  In fact, its their imperfections that he appreciates, because with your own issues comes and understanding, an empathy with people who are dealing with similar issues.  You know who make the best counselors?  The people who have walked through the same fires as you.  God knows you are a work in progress, because He’s the one doing the work.  He’s bringing you to a point where He needs you to be and its faith in Him that allows us to let Him do His work.

Regardless of what you have done or what you are going through, He’s always with you and he wants you to shed those chains of shame and guilt and regret.  Does that mean you’re going to suddenly be this perfect being?  Absolutely not.  You are going to stumble, and there will be opportunity for shame, guilt, and regret to come back.  That’s life.  But you have to make a conscious choice to let that weigh you down.  When the world looks at you and says “I’m going to spread your dirty laundry all over the place.” You look back at it and say “Okay.” Because God already loves you for who you are, and nothing the world says is going to change that, regardless of your sin.

And let me cover one other thing before I close this off:  What exactly constitutes a major sin?  Did you break up a marriage?  Did you cause someone to turn away from God?  Did you kill someone?  I don’t mean metaphorically, I mean actually directly kill someone.  Because I hear a lot of people talking about how certain types of sexuality are sins and, frankly Christ was remarkably quiet about that.  Yes the Old Testament talked a lot about how men should lay only with women and so forth but that’s when Israel was a very small nation and you got more Israelites by making babies.  Back then homosexuality was basically treason.  By the time Christ came around, this was not a problem and his ultimate silence on the matter makes me believe that was probably no longer an issue.  He wasn't exactly subtle by saying "Love is the most important thing." 

I think, as long as you aren’t violating someone’s human rights or causing deep psychological (or physical) scars you’re probably ok.

Anyway, hope that helps.

God bless.

Jim Gordon is Bad at his Job…

 

It’s right there in the title, and I mean it.  Jim Gordon is not a good policeman.  Let’s jump off with the series that chronicles his eventual rise to police commissioner, “Gotham”.  This is a detective that isn’t very effective.  Sure he starts with that white-knight thing going, the one incorruptible cop in all of Gotham, and he has a really good start, but then cracks start appearing in his veneer.  As the cases escalate in craziness, he starts going more and more to the local criminal element for help.  On more than one occasion he sought out aide from Fish Mooney and Cobblepot.  His relationship with Cobblepot has been, without a doubt, the worst for his credibility, but to make matters worse, he double-crosses Penguin.

Regardless of what I’ve said in the past about Batman’s tactics, there is one indelible truth to the man.  He doesn’t double cross.  Even when he’s had to team with his own villains, he never does it at a compromise to his own integrity, and he never lies to them about the terms of their “cease-fire”. 

And it’s not just in the series “Gotham” where this is evident.  Throughout the various incarnations (with the exception of the 1960’s where it’s apparently acceptable to have a masked vigilante do your crime fighting) the very fact that he associates with Batman and allows him to operate within the city compromises his integrity.  Batman as a vigilante cannot affect an arrest regardless of the circumstances.  Any time he stops a purse snatcher or a jay walker, never mind anything higher, that case cannot be admissible in a court of law.  In order for these cases to stick, some serious blurring of facts has to happen.  Gordon didn’t eliminate the corruption of the police force, he just tweaked it.

In the Nolan Trilogy, Gordon is aware of the ethical challenges in associating with a caped lunatic, however this is taken a step further in “The Dark Knight” when he covers up the facts surrounding the death of Harvey Dent and allows Batman to take the heat for Two-Face’s crimes.  This was at least addressed in “The Dark Knight Rises”, but the failure in that instance is that Gordon is still unethical.  He may have been unethical for the right reasons, but if he’s supposed to be the last ethical man in Gotham, he’s failed in that effort.

In the Tim Burton films he ends the first film allying himself with Batman, and the second film basically endorsing violent crime every time the Bat-Signal is lit.  I won’t address the Joel Schumacher films because, as I said in a previous blog, they are just 1966 Batman with a modern spin.

In the famous animated series, he again has to compromise himself in order to work with Batman and condone Batman’s methods.  Other police officers are seen as heels or bad because they look down on this relationship, but as law ENFORCEMENT personnel, they should look down on it.  It’s a violation of public trust to say that these crimes are bad but this crime is okay.  His hand-shaking with Batman make Bruce Way the most successful violent criminal in Gotham’s history.

Well, that’s all I’ve got.

Have a great day.

 

1997's Batman and Robin: A Second Look...

Hello I’m back!  After a devastatingly long hiatus, I’ve returned to give my totally unsolicited opinion about something nobody is really talking about any more.  As ya do on the internet.

But given that we are but a stone’s throw from Batman returning to the big screen via “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”, I thought I’d take a minute to talk about one of the less than reputable moments from the Caped Crusader’s movie career.  That’s right, a film so polarizing you either love it or…well you probably hate it.  1997’s “Batman and Robin”.

Taking place in what we are to assume is the same cinematic universe as Tim Burton’s films, this particular film stars none other than George Clooney and Chris O’Donnel as the respective dynamic duo.  Giving them an assist is Alicia Silverstone as Batgirl and filling in the roles of villains are Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy, Arnold (get-to-da-choppah) Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze, and Robert Swensen as Bane.

There is a lot wrong with this movie, and you don’t even have to be a fan of the comics to find it.  The acting was phoned in at its best, a crime since all of these actors are actually really talented, and the characters were dumbed down from literally every other incarnation.

Well, hang on…ANY other incarnation?

Part of what irked fans of the franchise, myself included, was that we remembered quite fondly the Michael Keaton films, and even gave a pass to “Batman Forever”.  Watching the Val Kilmer/Jim Carrey film again, one can see the signs of where the franchise was going, but hind sight is 20/20 after all.  Yet somehow we were expected to swallow this neon/black light circus as being part of the same “reality” that had a man electrocuted down to a charred skeleton and an umbrella twirling nightmare trying to kill children.

But that’s if you are trying to link all four films together, which you probably shouldn’t.  How it makes sense in my head is that “Batman” and “Batman Returns” is an adaptation of the comics of the 1980’s whereas the Joel Schumacher films are in fact re-imagining of the Batman series of the 1960’s.

If you take these two specific films away from the context of the franchise as a whole, and put them alongside the 1960’s television series, they match up remarkably well.  Suddenly you see that George Clooney isn’t playing Bruce Wayne/Batman, he’s playing Adam West playing Bruce Wayne/Batman.  Uma Thurman’s Poison Ivy would have worked perfectly with Julie Newmar or Burgess Meredith, but not the Catwoman and Penguin of the film franchise.

I think if you give the latter two of the films another shot in that light, you might find that…they honestly won’t be any better, but they will make a lot more sense.

Even if you can’t find it in your heart to accept them as they are or in this new light, look on this bright side:  It came out along with “Steel” and “Spawn”, forming the unholy trinity that effectively killed comic book films and forced Hollywood to actually put some thought and effort into these properties.  This wouldn’t be rectified until 1998 when “Blade” came to theaters and reminded audiences that films based on comics could be awesome.

Steven Universe's True Power

The titular character of the increasingly popular hit show on Cartoon Network, Steven Universe has a multitude of powers.  These include the ability to form a protective bubble around him and anyone in his particular vicinity, the ability to summon a personal shield, he can alter his physical appearance to however old he happens to be “feeling”, and he has healing spit.  It’s a thing.

Anyway, I was watching a few episodes the other day, and then most recently watched “Nightmare Hospital” when I noticed an interesting trend, and a connection to Steven’s mother.

What we know of Connie’s mother is that she is very protective of her daughter.  She’s a mom, its part of who they are.  However she realizes at the end of “Nightmare Hospital” that Connie’s relationship with Steven will put her daughter directly in harm’s way, but she allows it to continue.  Why?  I’ll get to that.

Connie for that matter has a rather unusual obsession with Steven.  Its beyond friend, it’s beyond girlfriend; she learned sword fighting and was preparing to lay down her life for his protection. What?!

Roll back to “Joy Ride”.  The “cool kids” in town want to hang out with Steven.  These teenagers specifically seek out this 10-12 year old kid and actively want to spend time with him.  Why?  Wait for it…

Let’s look at the various times Lars and Sadie hang out with Steven, even allowing him a certain level of leeway when it comes to his antics, usually with Sadie taking the sympathetic lead.  Lars can be a douche, but he still follows Steven’s call.  Why?  Are you starting to see a pattern?

The family at Fish Stew Pizza, Peede and Rolando’s dad, even Mayor Dewy (the highest elected official in the town), they all will take cues from Steven who, as stated earlier is somewhere in the range of 10-12.  Now this could easily be chalked up to standard kid’s show story telling.  Obviously when you are appealing to a kid’s demographic, you want a kid to be your most important character, but if we turn a corner, we find something interesting.

Rose Quartz.  Pearl is so wrapped up in who Rose was she devoted her entire life to her.  Garnet left Homeworld to be by Rose’s side.  Amethyst, a gem grown on Earth hitched her wagon to Rose’s star even though she was probably being grown to be part of an army for Homeworld.

We find out a very small clue in Jail Break when Jasper says “Nothing is more important than Rose Quartz…”  We know through storytelling and exposition that the Gems have been on Earth for literally thousands of years, that entire time separated from Homeworld, but thousands of years later and still Rose Quartz is a priority.  Why?

Because of Rose, and by extension Steven’s true power; the power to inspire people.

I know that sounds very schlocky, but it’s a very real thing.  That power exists and it’s not within everyone.  Martin Luther King Jr had it.  Martin Luther, during the Catholic Reformation period had it, John F. Kennedy had it, kings and queens across the ages had it.  Ghandi and other holy men across history had it.  It’s a power to draw people to your side, to draw them to your cause, to make them feel like they are more important now than they ever have been and that everything in their lives have led up to this moment, to whatever this cause is.

Adolf Hitler had this power.  Osama Bin Laden had it, Charles Manson had it, David Koresh had it, and they, along with countless others across history had drawn masses to their agendas using this same power. 

That is why, after thousands of years of silence, the very idea that Rose Quartz could still be active sends chills up Homeworld’s spine.  That power, the power to inspire a revolution, is probably the most dangerous power of all.  And it all makes sense when you apply it to Steven.

Why do all these people believe in Steven when common sense and their eyes tell them they should probably get as far away from him as possible?  He’s a target, a trouble magnet, but they follow him into life threatening situation after life threatening situation because he inspires them.  By being next to him, by having him in their lives, they feel they are part of something greater.  To pull a line from Pearl about Rose Quartz, Steven makes them feel like they are “Everything…”

 

Thanks for reading.

What is Love to the Joker?

I recently stumbled on a question on the DC page, and I was going to comment on it, then found myself doing what I usually do, writing way too much for a casual comment.  So rather than do that, I thought I’d address this here.

Question: Do you think the Joker is gay?

At first this is a very “left field” question because just about everyone, even the most causal DC fan knows who Harley Quinn is.  The Joker has to be straight because she’s the Joker’s girlfriend.

Or is she?  In the cartoon it’s all but explicitly stated that the Joker uses Harley as a means to an end, and even when she’s trying to make overt sexual advances on him he pretty much keeps her at a distance.  His relationship towards her goes from playful banter, to neglect, to outright physical abuse at one point nearly killing her.  There’s no indication that they have any kind of relationship beyond that.  He spends at least one episode discussing the “relationship” he and Batman have, but never once addresses his “relationship” with Harley.

Now the problem with trying to pigeon hole the Joker’s concept of sexuality is he doesn’t necessary play by the same psychological rules as you and I do.  Most conventions dictate that for a human to be psychologically sound they need to have a secured source of food, a safe place to take shelter, and a means to let off sexual frustration.  This last part is because there is a huge mess of chemicals that swim through the brain when someone climaxes sexually.  Even the worse of living arrangements are deemed acceptable due to this flood of momentary ecstasy.  But the Joker doesn’t play by those rules necessarily.

The Joker takes shelter in seemingly random locations, usually abandoned factories or carnival locations.  These are not secure or safe.  We don’t really know about his source of food, but he doesn’t strike me as the kind of character to frequent grocery stores or restaurants, especially with a fluctuating income, so he probably doesn’t care about having a secured source of food.  Given that the first two of the trifecta aren’t being met the same way we meet them, chances are he’s given the same kind of attention to the third.

It’s possible that the way the Joker’s brain is wired; these conventions are awkward and uncomfortable to him.  People with Asperger’s or high functioning autism don’t function the same way socially that other people do.

*For the record I am in no way saying the Joker has Asperger’s or autism, it’s just an example.

Physical intimacy for some people is just uncomfortable.  The Joker just appears to have a ramped up version of this where all social conventions are uncomfortable.

We do know one thing that the Joker is always going to return to though, Batman.  He wants Batman’s full attention.  He competes with other criminals and even the Robins to keep Batman’s focus.  So what is a fundamental part of any sexual relationship?  Attention.

We want attention from our partners.  We want to be their entire focus.  Many new fathers go through a period of intense resentment towards newborns because their wives spend so much time focusing their attention towards the baby that the dad goes unattended.  Is this resentment deliberate?  No, it’s entirely subconscious, but it also states what we want on a very basic level.  We want to be our partner’s focus.  That’s what the Joker wants.

So does that mean the Joker is gay?  Not necessarily.  He wants Batman’s attention and it’s likely during the beat-downs, the violence that occurs during apprehension, that the same chemicals that go off in our brains during orgasm go off in the Joker’s brain.  Notice that he always ramps up his crimes, getting bigger and bigger, with a higher and higher destructive toll or body count.  That way the violence will be equal or greater to what he received the last time.  In a sense, the Joker’s crimes are his version of foreplay.  However the real question is, would this be the same if Batman was “Batwoman?”

I theorize yes.  If Bruce had been born Beatrice Wayne and she grew up to be the first Batwoman and delivered the same level of violence towards the Joker, he would have the same response. 

To ask if the Joker is gay is the same as asking if his brain works the same way ours do.  Clearly it doesn’t.  The entire base for his psychology is way off.  Also it’s not like any superhero could replace Batman for him.  It starts with Batman, which is why if Batman were Batwoman, she’d have to be the first hero he faced off against in order to establish that same connection.

Does that mean, since Joker received sexual pleasure from violence, that’s how he sees Harley and when he abuses her that’s his way of having sex with her?  No.  Joker has a clear understanding that violence is violence.  He knows that if he throws Harley or any of his henchmen into oncoming traffic, he’s not having sex with them; he’s trying to kill them.  He doesn’t have sex with violence; he has sex with violence from Batman.  Further in books like “Arkahm Asylum: A Serious House on a Serious Earth” and “The Killing Joke”, he has a clear understand of sexuality, and its corrupted forms such as rape.  He uses jokes and attacks to get a rise of out Batman in these stories, again to illicit the violence he craves.

Well, this certainly has been a dark one.

Thanks for reading.

A Day Worth Remembering, 9/11

Today is not a day of celebration.  Today is not a day of parades and fireworks.  Today is simply a day of remembrance.  I know at least Facebook has called for a moment of quiet reflection concerning today, but what is today…what is so important about today?

It’s September 11^th, 2015, fourteen years to the date of one of the worse acts of war time violence to befall our nation in over a hundred years.  September 11^th, 2001 hijackers affiliated with Middle Eastern terrorist forces came across U.S. borders and high jacked four airliners, each full of passengers.  Two struck the World Trade Center, the very hub of capitalism not just for the United States, but for most of the civilized world.  The third struck the Pentagon, the hub of national security for this nation.  The fourth saw the passengers overrun the highjackers and the plane crashed in a Pennsylvania field, killing all on board.  The total death toll was 2,997.  The number, in the grand scheme of things, doesn’t seem that large, however it was what it did psychologically to the United States that was really damaging.

Some people are just not going to "get it".  This was an act of war that took place in major cities in the United States.  At the time it scared the hell out of the nation, and it should still scare us.  Its evidence that we are not isolated in the world, that the problems that affect the world at large will cross over the ocean and come straight for us if they want to.  It was evidence that our borders are not secure.  It was the worst act of war seen on U.S. soil since the American Civil War.

I was a records clerk working for the Corpus Christi Police Department in Texas some 2000 miles away from the event itself.  I was in the officer's briefing room picking up police reports that needed to be filed when I noticed it was oddly quiet.  There was no cop humor, no jokes, no giving fellow officers a hard time.  It was just quiet.  I looked up at the television situated in the room and saw the second plane hit the World Trade Center.  It was a live feed...I suddenly realized I was watching people die...and there was nothing anyone in that room could do.

We all identified with the brave officers and fire fighters who charged into a crumbling skyscraper to rescue complete strangers, even at the cost of their own lives.

But the difference is, I was old enough at the time to understand what was happening.  I was old enough to realize that the United States' sense of security had just been shattered.

As you go through your day, don't be too mad at people who don't get it, or who willfully make jokes about it...they don't understand what we lost that day.  Maybe they're too young, or maybe they just choose to buy into the pop culture that says everything is fine and that nothing really matters.  Kindly, and I mean that; kindly educate them about what that day meant.  Share your story of where you were when you first found out that freedom has a steep price.

I'm going to leave you with a quote from John Stewart who as host of the Daily Show based out of New York had a very personal connection to those events:

“The view from my apartment was the World Trade Center. And now it's gone. And they attacked it, this symbol of American ingenuity and strength and, and labor and imagination and commerce, and it is gone. But you know what the view is now? The Statue of Liberty. The view from the south of Manhattan is now the Statue of Liberty. You can't beat that."

If you don't get the metaphor, I'm sorry for you, because you've grown up in a very jaded age indeed.

 

Thank you for reading…and have a good day.

How Old is Steven Universe Suppose to Be?

I was thinking about this the other day and I kept looking around for all sorts of information because some things just never added up.  Just how old is Steven?

The common answer I get is “between 10 and 12” based on his physical size and behavior, but there’s a flaw in that logic.  It’s not a crippling flaw, but it is a flaw.  In the episode “So Many Birthdays” we discover that Steven can subconsciously alter his physical age and mental state by “thinking” of himself as being older.  This is likely tied into the Crystal Gem’s latent shape shifting abilities, but it pokes a hole in the theory that his age can be estimated by his physical appearance.

Now skip ahead to “Lion 3: Straight to Video” where we really get to see Rose and Greg together.  This is important; I’ll come back to it shortly.

In “Alone Together” we have a flashback where Greg tells Steven about the first time he witnessed Gem fusion.  In that sequence everything about the attire to the technology available screams “1980’s”.  Later in “Story for Steven” we see in a flashback Greg meet Rose and the Gems for the first time.  Given the limited view of the technology presented in the scene, and the attire adopted by the Gems, this looks to be about the mid to late 1980’s.  So we’ve now seen in flashback the blossoming of Rose and Greg’s relationship and given that there is little to no visual change between the events of “Story” and “Alone” we can assume this took place over a matter of months to less than a year.

Let’s go back to “Lion 3”.  Visually, Greg and Rose don’t look that different from how they are presented in “Story” and “Alone”, meaning little time has passed since those events.  Rose indicates that Steven will be born soon and she is leaving this message on a VHS tape which was the media of choice of the late 1980s to early 1990’s, which would place Steven’s birth right around 1991-1993.

That place’s Steven’s age somewhere in his early to mid 20’s.

Now the obvious question is: Wouldn’t someone in Beach City notice that Steven never ages?

No really.  He hangs out with the Crystal Gems most of the time, and there is no telling how long he was doing that before he ever tried to integrate into Beach City society.  This is however somewhat supported by Greg’s appearance.

Greg looks to be in his mid 20’s during the flashbacks, and probably about 45-50ish in the modern era, which leaves a huge gap.  It’s one thing for someone to change drastically on a physical level between 20-30, but it’s more reasonable for that much physical change to happen over two decades of life on a beach.

I’ll grant that this theory hinges on one major assumption: that time in the Steven Universe reality is concurrent with our own and that fashions and technology have changed and advanced in respect to their era for our time.

Rebecca Sugar strikes me as someone who never wastes space on the screen.  Background characters come to the forefront all the time and little details are put in set pieces for a reason.  So Steven could have lived the last ten years as a pre-teen, a veritable Peter Pan of the Crystal Gems, but looking at the whole, does that really matter?

Yes, I’ve let my mind buzz on the topic, but it really boils down to “How old is Steven?” as old as he feels.  It doesn’t matter if he’s 12 or 22 or if he lives to be 122 because he’s going to be the person he wants to be.  Let’s face it, if you could have lived out a few more years as a pre-teen, wouldn’t you?

Thanks for reading.