America Reacts to the 2016 Election Results

Upon hearing the news that Donald Trump will be the next President of the United States, half of the country is reacting like this:



The other half:





(Here's the video I used to make the first GIF in this post. Worth your time to watch the full video. Enjoy!)

Come on YouTube, Time for an Update

Here is the letter I wrote for our class assignment:

April 6, 2016

YouTube, LLC
901 Cherry Ave.
San Bruno, CA 94066

Dear Content Review Staff,

I am writing to request that a feature be added to your flagging tools.

A few months ago I was watching a video on YouTube with my family, including my 9 year-old brother and 8 year-old sister. That particular video used vulgar language which took us all by surprise. None of us had viewed the video before that time and there was no warning of any kind. My parents and I have admittedly become rather desensitized to profanity over the years, which I believe is partially a result of the way profanity is portrayed in popular media. However, that does not mean we condone its use.

In an effort to protect my younger siblings, I generally view any given form of media before sharing it with my family so I am fully aware of the content they might be exposed to. This gives me the ability to skip objectionable content or suggest a particular video not be viewed at all. I do not yet have children of my own, but when that time comes I am concerned about their potential exposure to profanity in the YouTube community as well. I know some YouTube channels go the effort of bleeping out profane language, but in my experience they are few in number.

“Vulgar language” is listed as a category taken into consideration when evaluating content as appropriate for all ages in the YouTube Help Center under “Policies, safety, and reporting” > “Reporting Center” > “Age-restricted content”. This page further states, “Some videos don't violate our policies, but may not be appropriate for all audiences. In these cases our review team may place an age restriction when we're notified of the content.” The section labeled “Flagging content” (also found under “Reporting Center”) says, “We rely on YouTube community members to flag content that they find inappropriate.”

As a member of the YouTube community, I would welcome the opportunity to flag vulgar language as inappropriate when I observe its use, but this option does not currently exist. Language is not listed as one of the options under the “Report” tool on any given video. No option for “Other” issues exists either, so I am unable to flag any videos for the use of profanity.

I hope you will seriously consider this issue and provide users such as myself with the ability to help contribute to making the YouTube community safer for viewers of all ages.

Sincerely,

Jason Eldredge

Batman v Superman: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

I went to see Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice this week and I wish I could say "It was the best superhero movies of all-time!" but then I would have to add, "April Fools" at the end of that. This was unfortunately just another one of those movies where I say, "Seen it. Now time to move on with my life".

Over the weekend before I went to see it, I had read/watched a few reviews which lowered my expectations for the movie. With that being said, I went into it really wanting to find something to love about the movie, but I can't think of anything that really stands out as a positive highlight. I feel like a better title for the movie might have been "Batman sort of fights Superman: Bring on the Controversy". In my opinion (and I recognize this is just my opinion), the movie was mediocre at best and left me feeling underwhelmed. To summarize my thoughts on the movie, I appreciated the film for what it is, but I did not like it because I found it too clumsy and sloppy. 

Here's my breakdown of "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" (SPOILER WARNING! I'm not going to hold anything back!):

The Good:

• I did enjoy Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne/Batman. He certainly did a much better job than most people thought he would when it was first announced that he had been cast. 
• The Metropolis prologue, where we see the ending to Man of Steel from Bruce Wayne's perspective, was a good way to set up Batman's motivation that drives his actions through the movie.
• The movie is pretty and good-looking, I will give it that. The fight between Batman and Superman (which took 1.5 hours to finally get to by the way) looked great. I just wish the story/character motivations' (see below) would have been strong enough to match the visuals because I would have enjoyed it a whole lot more. I'll also note here that I was let down by the fight since it only last about 7-8 minutes. I expected the sequence to be longer.
• I read something about Zack Snyder wanting to include Wonder Woman in the film because he dreamed of seeing the DC Trinity (i.e. Batman, Superman & Wonder Woman) on the big screen together. I admit it was visually pleasing to see them together on screen, but the movie did a poor job of building up to the moment where they all come together.
• I give DC/Warner Bros. a lot of credit for making the decision to kill Superman. I feel like that was a very bold move and I applaud them for doing so.

The Bad:

• I mentioned above that Ben Affleck was good. In fact he really makes this movie. However, I felt like I needed to see more of him as Bruce Wayne and as Batman to decide how he compares to previous iterations. I know some people say he is their new favorite, but I still prefer Christian Bale's performance.
• Going along with the previous bullet point,where was all the action? For being an "Action & Adventure/Superhero" movie, I expected a bit more. Maybe it's just the fact that most of the action was saved until the 2nd half of the movie. The first big action scene I can remember is the "Knightmare" sequence (at least that's the nickname I have seen for it online). While the action in this scene is awesome, I wish there would have been other scenes sprinkled throughout the first hour to show Batman being Batman. The scene in the warehouse (as featured in the final trailer) is easily one of the best Batman action sequences in any Batman movie, but unfortunately by that point I didn't care enough about the movie/story to enjoy it too much.
• The bathtub scene: Why does Clark Kent (Henry Cavill) jump into the tub fully clothed while Lois Lane (Amy Adams) is completely naked?! It really makes no sense to me. Though I understand how this scene adds to the character development of Clark Kent/Superman (one of only a few, more on that later), was it 100% necessary for Lois to be naked and taking a bath? The scene could have easily been rewritten to take place in their living room and they could still make out on the couch after they discuss the same issues.
• I was not a fan of Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. He didn't ruin the movie for me, but I felt like he was too psychotic and goofy. His character seemed too much like a mad scientist rather than the charismatic and subtly menacing Lex Luthor that I am familiar with from other storylines (such as Kevin Spacey's portrayal of the character in Superman Returns from 2006).
• I was not very impressed by Gal Gadot as Diana Prince/Wonder Woman. I also had a really hard time understanding her dialogue. This may be a result of audio levels being off for some reason, but I feel like this is something they need to fix in Justice League and Wonder Woman films (either by adjusting the audio composition, bringing on a dialect coach, or both). 

The Ugly:

• The story seemed really scattered and disjointed, which I think was a result of my two main complaints with the movie: the writing and the editing.
• 1) Screenplay/Story
• They should have stuck with one main protagonist. I could never really tell if the movie was supposed to be 1) a Batman movie that includes Superman, 2) a Man of Steel sequel that has a substantial Batman presence or, 3) a Lex Luthor movie that was really poorly written because other characters get more screen time than the protagonist.
• I don't usually pick up on bad writing, continuity errors or plot holes in movies, but the use of plot devices in this movie was so obvious and "in your face" that I couldn't help but notice.
• The character of Lois Lane was completely unnecessary in this movie. 90% of the time she is only in a scene to be the damsel in distress so that Superman will have something to do in the story by coming to her rescue.
• The resolution of the Batman v Superman showdown was extremely disappointing. First of all, the story fell so flat along the way that by the time we got to the fight I didn't even care about them fighting. After having thought about this scene for the past few days I have come to terms with the idea that Superman crying out "Save Martha!" catches Batman off guard. However, I see no reason why the fact their mothers' have the same first name should resolve the tension between them and cause them to set aside their differences for good. The scene could have been so much better even with some minor adjustments such as Batman saying something to the effect of, "I will help you save your mom, but this isn't over between us."
• Bruce Wayne's motivations could have been greatly improved. The prologue set up his story really well, but it took too long to pay off. Confrontations between Batman & Superman along the way (such as the "Do you bleed?" scene, which I thought was one of the better moments in the movie) could have fueled his anger and strengthened his resolve to defeat Superman when they finally have their big showdown. By the time the movie finally gets to that point, there wasn't really any tension to make me care about them fighting.
• At one point during the showdown sequence Superman called Batman "Bruce", but the movie never explained how he learned/knew that Batman was Bruce Wayne. When that happened, I remember specifically thinking, "Wait a minute, did he just call him Bruce?" I know some people might argue that an audience doesn't need to be spoon-fed the answers to every question in a plot, but this is one of those questions where I would have liked a better explanation.
• Returning to the death of Superman, so what? We all know he won't stay dead for long because we already know he is going to be a part of the Justice League. By that point in the movie I didn't care enough about Clark Kent/Superman as a character to have any emotional reaction to him dying anyway. I was also very disappointed at the end of the movie, when the dirt started to rise. DC/Warner Bros. should have committed to the idea of Superman being dead, rather than so obviously telling the audience that he is going to come back from the dead in the future.
• Overall, I thought Clark Kent/Superman was very poorly handled. For supposedly being a sequel to Man of Steel, he did not feel like he had a large presence in this movie. His motivations for confronting and fighting Batman were also really weak. I still can't believe that Lex Luthor kidnapping his mother is what leads to the big fight.
• 2) Editing
• Sure it looked great, but the Batman origin scene at the beginning was unnecessary. Honestly I felt like the only reason they included it was for the plot device and to set up the call back to "Martha" later on during the Batman v Superman fight. I think the film would have started out on a much better note if it began with Bruce Wayne landing in Metropolis.
• The scene about halfway through with Kevin Costner was odd and detracted from everything else going on at that point in the story.
• The Justice League intros were extremely out of place.
• Don't get me wrong, each of the teases looked cool, but the whole scene killed what little momentum the main story had finally started to build. I don't think this scene necessarily needed to be cut from the film altogether it just needed to be placed somewhere else.
• It also didn't make much sense to me to have Diana/Wonder Woman click on the videos. The audience could have watched the videos with Bruce Wayne when he first finds them and it would have fit so much better with the rest of the story. He could have opened Wonder Woman's file last to finish the scene with the big surprise of her photo revealing that she hasn't aged in almost 100 years.
• The logos for each of the characters were also really silly and convenient. Obviously the people involved in the production process don't care about overt foreshadowing.
• Although the Batman/Lex Luthor confrontation at the end of the movie was well filmed and looked cool, this scene was also really out of place. I was actually really pleased with the ending and liked the contrast between the Superman funeral versus Clark Kent's funeral. But just as I thought the movie was wrapping up fairly well the scene cut abruptly to the prison sequence, only to then return to the cemetery for the last minute or two. Some minor rearranging of scenes could have made this movie so much better.

Concluding thoughts:

• I was disappointed from the start. I got bored very early on. About 10 minutes into the movie I had the thought, "Oh shoot, I forgot send that text to members of my group" come to mind. There should have been no reason for me to even get distracted that easily! If I had been hooked and engaged right from the start I would not have thought twice about forgetting to send the text. Since I wasn't yet hooked (and I don't know if the movie ever really hooked me unfortunately), I pulled out my phone, turned the brightness down as low as I could and sent the text!
• If Zack Snyder is still going to direct Justice League, I hope they involve a co-director. Otherwise I don't know if DC will ever get me excited about their cinematic universe.
• Ben Affleck said in an interview that this movie was not made for critics, but made for the fans. I consider myself a fan of comic book movies and I didn't really care for it. Maybe it was made for the fans who are avid readers of DC comics, in which case I am not the kind of fan he was referring to, but I feel like this movie should have at least been enjoyable for the average movie-goer.
• I thought the the movie took too long to end after the battle with Doomsday. It seemed like the last 5-10 minutes were 3 different subplots randomly thrown together.
• If nothing was added or removed from the movie, but it was reedited so that many of the scenes were in a different order, I think I would have liked it a whole lot more overall than I did. I am not a filmmaker, but I feel like I could have done a better editing job, and it saddens me to think that.
• I consider The Dark Knight to be one of the darkest, most macabre superhero movies ever made. Yet I still found that movie entertaining and enjoyable. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is sadly too dreary and simply put: joyless. My one main expectation going into the movie was that it would at least entertain me, but it didn't even manage to do that.

"Guilty" as Charged

Ever since we had the lecture on music (2 months ago now), I have been thinking about writing this post. The song "Guilty" by Newsboys came up in the playlist I was listening to on my iPod last night and with Easter Sunday this weekend I believe this to be the perfect time to write about this topic.

Christian Rock/Pop is my favorite music genre. Before I served my mission I was under the impression that this genre was really stigmatized, but maybe that is because I grew up in the "Mormon bubble" of Utah County. I never understood why it would have such a bad reputation and looking back I really wish I knew! I think the genre is awesome!

Most of the music I listened to in high school was whatever came on the pop radio stations, which turned out to be a lot of Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift, Nickelback, Ke$ha, Jason Derulo, Bruno Mars and OneRepublic (to name a handful). Not all of their music is terrible, but many of the artists I have listed here had hit songs that I would not exactly consider "wholesome". Unlike many of the songs that become so popular they are known by almost everyone, I have never heard a Christian rock/pop song that has ever caused me to second guess what I was listening to. I wish this uplifting music (which in my opinion can be just as catchy as "Poker Face", "Hot n Cold" or "Just The Way You Are") was as well known in popular culture!

When we were discussing music in class we talked about tone vs. lyrics. One of the studies we talked about in class found that lyrics had more of an effect than tone did, which I found intriguing. At that time I remember realizing why I like Christian music so much: The tone gets me pumped, grabs my attention and makes me want to listen to a song over and over, but when I really pay attention to the lyrics I often find them very inspiring.

At the end of that lecture we watched the music video for "Soldier" by Gavin DeGraw. I was captivated by the song immediately and bought it off iTunes as soon as I got home that afternoon! The beat (tone) caught my attention early, but the lyrics really touched me.

The first time I heard "Guilty" by Newsboys I had the opposite experience. When I heard the first line of the lyrics I was hooked! After listening to the song for a little longer, the tone hit the spot for me as well.

Verse 1 of the song goes as follows:

"When did it become breaking a rule,
To say Your name out loud in school?
When Your name's the only one that sets us free.

When did it become incorrect,
To speak the truth about life and death?
When Your life gave us all eternity."

All of my favorite Christian songs strengthen my testimony of the Savior and the Gospel every time I listen to them. In my honest opinion, many of these songs are as powerful as the LDS hymns. I love the message of "Guilty" for that reason. The overall message of the song, at least in my interpretation of it, is that our belief in Christ should defy anything that mortals may impose on us to restrict religion. Even though all the Christian artists I listen to are probably not LDS, I find great strength in the testimonies they express through their music and I can always find a line or theme that agrees with the teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I want to give a very special shout-out to my good friend John Kunz in New Jersey for being who I consider the person that introduced me to this wonderful genre of music. I am grateful for how this music has impacted my life in many positive ways and it makes up the majority of what I listen to on a regular basis now. Thank you John!

Happy Easter everyone! Jesus the Christ lives and truly set us free from the bonds of physical and spiritual death. I do not believe God will allow America to sink to so low a point that "serving [Him] is against the law of man", but if that day should ever come I hope to find myself among the "guilty".

I Love Donald Trump! (Though not for reasons you might expect)

Changing The World Starts With You
Jay Shetty explains why changing the world begins with us.
Posted by The Huffington Post on Friday, February 26, 2016

I never thought I would say this, but I actually learned to love Donald Trump tonight. And not because I love how crazy he is or because I found something he said extremely funny. The love I discovered for him tonight is Christlike love.

The video above sums up many of my of the thoughts I have had over the past few years really well. And it addresses one of the questions I believe the most difficult to answer: How do we change the world? The answer is: by starting with ourselves!

The greatest debate in America right now is easily the presidential race, and the majority of the comments I hear/read on the topic are about how terrible Donald Trump is as an individual, businessman, and/or potential president. Before I say anything else, let me be clear that in no way am I intending to express support for Donald Trump as president by this post. However, as much as I may disagree with some (OK, a lot) of the things he says, Donald Trump is not a perfect human being (and neither are any of the other remaining candidates for that matter).

Have we all forgotten what the ONLY PERFECT INDIVIDUAL to walk this earth taught us? In Matthew 7:1-5 (as well as 3 Nephi 14:1-5), the Savior of mankind taught us that we are all hypocrites when we judge others. Believe it or not, the Son of God sacrificed Himself for Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders just as much as He did for you. As soon as I realized the undeniable truthfulness of this fact, I felt the love of Christ for each of these individuals in a powerful way which certainly surprised me! 

So next time you feel the urge to bash on one of them, please remember this post and "first cast out the beam out of thine own eye" (Matthew 7:3; see also 3 Nephi 14:3). You may be surprised what happens...

Media as a Tool in the LDS Church

Like many others, I watched the Face2Face event with Elder Holland this past Tuesday. It only took me a few minutes to realize that I should definitely take notes and write down thoughts that came to mind. I really enjoyed watching it and greatly appreciated the advice and wisdom shared by Elder Holland, Elder Hallstrom and Sister Stephens!

After it ended, I found myself reflecting on the use of media involved with the event. Technology truly is incredible and it affords us so many great opportunities! I am grateful that the Brethren are so in touch with modern technology and that they utilize it so effectively. I have no doubt that technology advances (such as the ability to broadcast internationally via satellites and the Internet) develop for the benefit of the Church and to further its purposes. The prospect of how the media will be used in the Church in the future excites me, especially when thinking of the idea that people all over the world will have opportunities (in more ways than are currently available) to communicate so personally with Apostles of the Lord.

Back in My Day...

Technology changes so quickly that it becomes really easy to take it for granted. Over the past week I have been reflecting on how media has evolved over time, especially over the past 10-15 years. More specifically I have been thinking about the amazing advances we have experienced in "the Internet age".

Long gone are the days of dial-up Internet. (For a trip down memory lane, click here) And don't get me wrong, I'm glad they're gone! Remember what a pain it was when you were online and someone needed to make a phone call? Not only has the way we access the Internet changed (Thank you Google Fiber!), but the Internet really has revolutionized the world and the way we live our lives.

A few months ago I was talking to my younger brother (age 9) about "the world before YouTube". He loves to go on YouTube and watch videos uploaded by YouTubers of themselves playing Minecraft. Studio C sketches are also among his favorite videos to watch. The conversation went something like this:

"You don't even know how spoiled you are to have shows and videos available whenever you want. When I was your age, if we wanted to watch a show any time we felt like it, we first had to record it. We had to make sure the Satellite box was set to record the show at the right time, that the VCR was set up properly so it would record, and that a VHS tape was in the VCR. We also had to make sure the tape was set to the right spot so we didn't record over something that was already on there."

My sister (now age 19) and I used to record a number of the shows that were on Nickelodeon, Disney Channel, and Cartoon Network in the late 90s and early 2000s (e.g., Jimmy Neutron, Rugrats, Even Stevens, Recess, Doug, Dexter's Laboratory, Ed, Edd & Eddy, etc.). We still have a few of these tapes, but they do little more than collect dust now. A quick search for any of these shows on YouTube will bring up thousands upon thousands of results! Plenty of clips are available on there, but even full episodes are available in some cases. Nowadays, if my younger siblings want to watch a show that currently airs on one of these channels they can open the channel's app on a tablet and have access to full episodes of a dozen different shows.

Earlier this week I looked up the Republican debates on YouTube since I have not watched any of the more recent ones. Later in the week I remembered the conversation I had with my brother about recording shows back in the day. I realized how I had taken for granted the fact that any of the debates I wanted to watch would be available online, and so easily accessible. Twenty years ago if I had missed the debate when it originally aired and did not record it I would have been out of luck. We really do live in an incredible time!

When I stop and think about how technology has changed in my lifetime alone I can only imagine what it will be like for my own children. I remember asking my sister (now age 8) to put a VHS tape in the VCR (before they were all donated to Deseret Industries about a year ago), and though I can not recall what she asked at the time, I do remember that she had no clue how the VCR worked. This did not necessarily come as a surprise, but it was certainly a testament to just how much the times have changed!

Movie Hype in the 21st Century

Remember when you had to stand in line for 2 hours to get tickets for the next big blockbuster only to be sorely disappointed when you finally got to the window and learned that all showings had been sold out for the weekend? Yeah, me neither.

We are so spoiled when it comes to buying movie tickets these days! The scenario I described to open this post was inspired by the stories I have heard in documentaries about the initial release of Star Wars in 1977. I remember someone saying they saw the movie for the first time during opening weekend and immediately got back in line and waited 2 hours to buy tickets to see it a second time. When I was younger I recall standing in line to get tickets to a few movies here and there, but none of my experiences were anything like those of moviegoers when Star Wars first came out. Nowadays, we can order our tickets well in advance and even reserve the exact seats we will be in to enjoy the movie (rather than taking our chances in the "first come, first serve" battle for good seats). 

Fast forward to the year 2015 and chances are you knew about Star Wars: The Force Awakens long before it was released. Whether you knew a lot about it (i.e., the plot, names of the new characters, etc.), or only a little, you still knew it was coming. The hype that builds up before modern blockbusters is amazing to think about when you compare it to the hype that preceded older movies. Believe it or not, Star Wars (1977) was not very well known by the public at the time of its release. Its success was due in large part to word of mouth after the premiere. 

Unlike moviegoers who had to wait hours to see the original Star Wars, I purchased tickets for my family and I to see Star Wars: The Force Awakens on October 19th, 2015, almost a full 2 months before it was even released! I knew that if we waited any longer than opening weekend to see the movie that spoilers would be all over Facebook and YouTube, so I made it a point to get tickets as early as possible. The night I went to get tickets was the same night they were first made available. Even then, all the "good" seats for the showing we ended up going to were already claimed by the time I got to the theater. I had initially hoped to get tickets for the "Tightwad Tuesday" after release, but that particular showing was already sold out!

I have been interested in seeing Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice for some time now and the latest trailer got me fairly excited about it. Yesterday I was going to make the trip over to the Megaplex at Geneva to buy a ticket for a showing on the first "Tightwad Tuesday" after the movie is released. Before I left to go to the theater, I decided I should probably check the theater's website to see if tickets were available yet. When I saw that advanced tickets are scheduled to go on sale starting Monday, the 29th, I was actually disappointed. The movie will not even be released for another month! After feeling disappointed for a minute, I realized how silly it was for me to even think that way. This experience made me reflect on just how much the times have changed and how different the movie-going experience is now compared to what it was like for our parents and grandparents. 

So next time you go see a blockbuster movie with a pre-purchased ticket (and there will be a number of them this year alone), take a minute to think about how awesome it is that your seats were reserved so you did not have to sit up in the miserable front row, or how you were able to walk right in and not wait in line for an hour or 2. And as advantageous as technology has become in revolutionizing the theater industry and our experience as viewers, PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CELL PHONE! (Haha, just thought I would throw that out there.) Enjoy the movie!

#BeingThirteen

When Dr. Marion Underwood mentioned the CNN special report with Anderson Cooper, #BeingThirteen, I knew right then that I wanted to watch it and use it for a blog post. I found some of the information in the report to be a repeat of what she shared in her lecture at BYU the other night, but there were also a number of interesting points brought up during the special that she did not mention.

Here's my breakdown of the points that intrigued me:

• One girl said, "I don't like dealing with things face to face because it's really easy to hide behind your phone. [And in] face to face you have to deal with the other person. I don't like dealing with people that cry, or get really mad, and they say something mean back to me, and I'll lose, and I don't like losing." 
• Though I can completely understand why this girl would feel this way, I find this somewhat alarming. This quote makes me think of all the talk surrounding the issue of "losing touch with reality" and how personal communication/interactions have suffered because of digital media.
• When discussing cyberbullying: "Their biggest source of pain is from those closest to them."
• Cyberbullying is certainly becoming a bigger issue as time goes on, and if left unchecked I see no reason for it to slow down anytime soon.
• "57% of kids in this study said they'd rather be grounded than lose their phone, meaning if they had to choose they'd rather be cut off from the real world than the cyberworld."
• Are individuals (especially teens and young adults) becoming compulsive/heavily dependent on social media? Food for thought.
• Dr. Underwood emphasized a great distinction toward the end of the report about addiction when she discussed that she does not believe children are addicted to their phones/social media ("not the screens, not the devices"). However, many do seem to become addicted to the access that social media gives them (whether that results in positive or negative experiences) with their peers.
• Anderson at one point said, "Parents were way out of touch with what their kids were feeling. About 60% underestimated how lonely, worried and depressed their kids were." Later, Dr. Robert Faris (who was the other primary researcher involved in this study) said, "The other thing that's going on is that kids, by and large, don't talk about the kinds of conflicts they're experiencing because they feel like adults can't help."
• Though "way out of touch" might be exaggerating the point, I do think this should be a red flag for parents. I strongly believe that most parents never get to a point of communicating with their children too much, especially during adolescence.
• When parents at least make an effort to monitor what their kids are doing online it can really help to mitigate the conflicts their children experience online with their peers.
• The report spent some time discussing the idea of kids adopting a different persona online compared with who they are in real life, which granted was due to the nature of the study. However, I think this issue goes well beyond 13 year-olds and adolescents. Many people seem to do this on social media, and I think it begs the question how it affects society in general.
• Anderson gathered a number of parents in the studio and asked them about their children's use of social media. When he asked them, "Does it drive you all nuts how much they use the phone?" and "Do you think your kids are addicted?" all of the parents responded with a unanimous "Yes!"
• When a couple of the parents were shown some of the specific posts and videos from their own children, it was very interesting to see each one of them raise their eyebrows in surprise at what their own children were saying online.
• Bright spot amid this issue: At one point, Dr. Underwood said, "Nothing about the technology means it has to be bad." 
• Over the course of the study, thousands of positive/prosocial posts were recorded, which is a great finding. Social media can really be a great tool when it is used in positive ways.

Social media is a phenomenon that I definitely find intriguing. I have often thought that I grew up just ahead of the "social media boom". Facebook was big when I was in high school, but Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Tinder, and countless others did not really become as big as they are now until I was on my mission. Since I came home I have never really bothered to get involved with any of the newer platforms and just stick with Facebook. 

I hope the findings from this study spread and really catch the attention of the public eye. It will certainly be interesting to see how social media continues to evolve over time. Towards the very end of the report, Dr. Underwood shared what I believe to be the most important take-away: "I think parents can help kids remember that it's possible to have fun in other ways, that there are other things that are important and interesting." Well said.

Next Star Wars Movie to be Rated R?

RUMOR WARNING: This post contains rumors! Almost any article that discusses something about a movie that has not been released yet seems to contain a spoiler warning. Isn't it about time that rumor warnings became a thing too? Anyway, consider yourself warned.

Now that the Force has awakened, most, if not all, sites featuring production news and rumors for upcoming Star Wars movies have shifted their attention to Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, which is scheduled to be released in theaters December 16th, 2016. (If you thought this post was going to be about Episode VIII, sorry to disappoint.)

I opened Facebook on my phone the other day to check the details of an activity and at the top of my feed was an article titled, "Darth Vader's Scenes in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, Described As Brutal". My curiosity was piqued so I decided to see what it had to say. (Click here to read the article for yourself)

I remember reading an article a few months back that said Rogue One would set itself apart from other Star Wars movies by not having any Force-using/lightsaber wielding characters. The original concept of this movie, as described in early reports after it was first announced, was for it to be a gritty, more militarized story set in the Star Wars universe. However, over the past month or two I have seen more and more articles popping up about the possibility of Darth Vader showing up in the new film. Since he has been considered one of the most formidable film villains of all time, I think it would be a great idea to work him into the movie!

What really intrigued me about the article I read was the possibility of Darth Vader being portrayed as ruthless in Rogue One, and the potential display of violence that would accompany any scenes with him. One possible example of his unyielding behavior could include using bodies on the battleground as human shields. According to the original report on this rumor, the concept art depicts possible scenes in the upcoming movie as "more violent than what we’ve seen Darth Vader do on screen before."

The original trilogy was released before my time, so I would love to see Darth Vader in action on the big screen! Sure, the iconic suit showed up at the end of Revenge of the Sith, but he did little more than stand around for a brief amount of screen time. I think it would be awesome to see a new portrayal that gives the character more gravitas as the ultimate bad guy (and potentially re-establishes him as the greatest movie villain).

At the end of the article I saw on Facebook, the author said if these rumors of a more violent version of Darth Vader turn out to be true and these scenes are included in Rogue One, "there's a good chance that the standalone film could get a Rated-R rating, but I highly doubt they'd show something violent enough to get that rating." I highly doubt this as well. Star Wars has always been a franchise made with kids in mind (just look up any of the plethora of the interviews available online where George Lucas makes this point). With that being said, Darth Vader can still show up as a force to be reckoned with while keeping the violence and gore to a minimum.

I consider the portrayal of The Joker (RIP, Heath Ledger) in The Dark Knight to be one of the greatest movie villain performances ever. The Joker was a rather violent character but a lot of his more disturbing actions happened off-screen (such as "Let's put a smile on that face"). Darth Vader could easily be portrayed as a merciless character in Rogue One by implying a lot of his cruel behavior rather than showing it explicitly on screen. 

In conclusion, a question for anyone who reads this post: Do you consider off-screen violence to be as bad as on-screen violence?

Touched by an Angle (And no, I did not misspell "Angel")

Angle: a particular way of approaching or considering an issue or problem. Of course, there are many other definitions of the word "angle" that one may find in a dictionary, but this is the definition I am referring to by the title of this post. Now let me explain why I came up with the title...

Last week I watched an interview with Pauley Perrette (who plays Abby Sciuto on the TV show NCIS), where she recounted her experience of getting attacked by a homeless man. In her interview, she mentioned that after that experience she got more involved working with homeless people and organizations that are dedicated to helping them improve their lives. I found it very interesting that just a few days later I was watching an episode of NCIS that had homeless veterans at the heart of the story.

The episode, titled "Shooter" from Season 11, started off with a very different vibe. It did not feel like the average NCIS episode, but I quickly grew to love the direction it took. As soon as the theme of the episode became apparent, I wondered if Pauley's experience might have been the inspiration for the story of this particular episode. I watched the episode a couple days later for a second time with the commentary track turned on. Neither Pauley nor the writer of the episode specifically mentioned her experience being the inspiration for this episode. However, Pauley did talk about parts of the episode hitting really close to home for her.

One character on the show told another (Ducky to Gibbs for those of you familiar with the show):
"I recently read a HUD report. It estimates, on any given night, between 50 and 60,000 [veterans] who have served are sleeping on the streets or in shelters." At first I wondered whether these statistics had any weight or if they were just made up. When I watched the commentary, the writer said that all the facts they included in the episode were true.

I looked up the HUD (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) report myself for curiosity's sake. Since this episode originally aired in April 2014, I found what I guessed would have been the most recent report available to the writers at the time. The report I found said that on a single night in January 2013, an estimated 55,779 veterans were homeless. (Click here to see the report) I also looked at the subsequent reports and the estimates for a single night in January 2014 and January 2015 were 49,993 and 47,725, respectively. (Both of these numbers come from the 2014 report and 2015 report presented to Congress in November 2015)

A man by the nickname of Blue was the homeless veteran character featured in the episode. During the commentary, Pauley said he reminded her of a homeless man she used to know and how similar the character's story paralleled her experience with the man. Pauley said she used to see the man on the street often, but one day he was suddenly gone. Later she found out that he had died. She spoke of how sad that experience made her and that she keeps a photo of him on her phone. This was a testament to me of the lasting impact other people can have on our lives, and vice versa.

We are surrounded by media, and it has the potential to inspire us to do great things. Rarely do I get emotional when watching a TV show, but this episode was one of those exceptions. NCIS is one of only a few I can think of that has ever has touched me. The media we choose to consume can have a positive or negative impact on us. I wish there was more media content available that promoted prosocial behavior such as the episode I have discussed in this post. When we do find positive media we can let it serve as a pleasant reminder that there is good in the world; or we can act on the inspiration we receive, get involved in some capacity to make a difference and be the good in the world.

In conclusion, I really enjoyed the angle (hence the title of my post) presented by this episode of NCIS on the issue of homeless people. Although the main story was about homeless veterans, the episode also touched on homeless people in general. Though I am not entirely sure how I can get involved in the cause, I plan to find out what I can do to have a hand in reducing the number of homeless individuals, wherever they may live.  I would like to repeat here what Dr. Coyne said at the end our lecture this past Wednesday, "You all have a symphony to write in this world. Make it a good one."

Injustice is Served

Infuriating. I can think of no better word to sum it up.

I finished watching Making a Murderer on Netflix last week, and my head was swimming in all of the thoughts that I had along the way as I was viewing the series. I decided to type up my initial thoughts/reactions and come back to them later after I was no longer so emotionally invested in what I would write. Even after revising what I wrote last week (and toning it down quite a bit), I am fully aware that much of what I am publishing in this post still comes across as emotionally charged. Here are my thoughts:

• This series really intrigued me for a number of reasons. For starters, I was interested because I enjoy a number of the crime dramas on TV (e.g., NCIS). Ironically enough, I watched an episode of NCIS last night that featured a conspiracy story and it reminded me of Making a Murderer while I was watching it. I would almost describe Making a Murderer as Forensic Files on steroids.
• Another reason I was fascinated with the show and wanted to watch it in its entirety was the realization I had quickly after I started viewing it, which was the importance of critical thinking outside of academia and in virtually all professions. Which leads me to my next point...
• Calling all critical thinkers! Honestly, I am still in awe that any rational person could convict Steve as guilty (at least guilty beyond a reasonable doubt). The defense attorneys did a magnificent job of exploiting the holes in the prosecution. As the series progressed I came back to the same thought over and over: "Guilty until proven innocent is the way it seems to go these days". In my opinion, there was more than enough questionable evidence to have reasonable doubt regarding Steven Avery's innocence. He was wrongfully imprisoned for 18 years the first time. Why should I assume anything less this time?
• Both of the judges were very lousy, in my opinion. Seriously, is there a way to impeach judges? Every decision they made during the course of the trial (and listening to them speak) gave me the impression that they considered Steve Avery & Brendan Dassey guilty from the get go and were never planning to let them off the hook. Judge Willis’ remark in the hearing for Steve's sentencing alone is a great example: "You're probably one of the most dangerous criminals to ever step foot in this courtroom." REALLY? If Steve was in fact guilty of murder (which I still doubt), then maybe that statement has some weight. However, I cannot help but think that Judge Willis went into Steve's trial with his own personal biases affecting his decisions the whole time. And what good is a judge that allows his prejudices to influence the way he oversees a trial? Neither Brendan nor Steve had any chance with Judge Fox and Judge Willis, respectively, in my opinion. Talk about an uphill battle...
• What in the world is wrong with the justice system in Wisconsin? This series leaves me thinking I never want to live there. Both of the investigations into Steve Avery's alleged crimes as highlighted in this series were really sloppy (as far as they were portrayed in the documentary at least). Whether the evidence used in the murder case was valid or not, the fact that the majority of it was discovered by the Manitowoc County Sheriff's department raises way too many red flags for me. They were supposed to remove themselves from the investigation, yet they were still involved the whole time...
• Brendan's original lawyer, Len Kachinsky, made me sick. He never seemed to even have the desire to defend Brendan's innocence. The final episode depicted how Len and the private investigator he had working with him conducted themselves during the case in a manner that almost made them appear to have been helping the prosecution strengthen its case! Mr. Kachinsky was caught in an obvious lie when he was questioned about it in court years later, and under oath to boot.
• In the end, as unfortunate as this is to say, I believe the jury was swayed to their guilty verdict almost entirely because of Mr. Kratz' appeals to emotion in his opening & closing arguments. He established a perception of Steve and Brendan in the minds of the respective jury members that I think would be hard for most people to overlook. The prosecution did a poor job of proving either Steve or Brendan guilty beyond a reasonable doubt so I seriously have to wonder what persuaded the jury in each of the cases to reach the verdicts that they did.

This is honestly just the tip of the iceberg. A number of other things come to mind that I would like to point out (maybe in a future post!). I have left out a number of questions that I considered critical to proving Steven Avery guilty or innocent that were addressed in the show and my thoughts on them. The show explores a number of things only briefly and left me with many additional questions.

I recognize that this series was released with the intention to tell a story. The filmmakers combed through a vast amount of footage and edited it down to share their perspective on the case. Dean Strang, one of Steve’s defense attorneys, said in an interview that the trial lasted about 6 weeks. At 5 days a week, he estimated that to be 200-240 hours. He stated, "If you made a movie that was 240 hours long, nobody would watch it, and it would be torture to make them." (Listen to the full interview here) With that being said, we must realize that the show evokes a significant emotional response even though viewers have a limited perspective on the case as a whole.

WARNING: I hesitate to recommend that everyone should watch this series. I found it very intriguing, but I realize a number of people may be offended by some of the content. On Netflix it shows up as a TV-14 rating, but based on the profanity used throughout the series I sincerely wonder why it did not receive a TV-MA rating. I may have avoided it altogether if that had been the case. The profanity level varies from episode to episode. Also, some of the details of the case that are mentioned (whether or not they are 100% true) paint a rather graphic image. Otherwise it is pretty consistent with other “true crime” series. Consider yourself warned.

President Trump?

As I sat in the exam room at my doctor's office on Thursday afternoon, I looked over at the magazines that were available and the cover of an issue of TIME magazine there caught my eye. It read, "How Trump Won: Now he just needs the votes". At first I was simply interested in seeing what the article might be about, but as I began reading I quickly became intrigued with the author's message.

Early on in the article, the word disintermediation is used to explain why Trump has been so successful in the polls. The basic concept of disintermediation is cutting out the middleman. For example, someone publishing an ebook by themselves rather than going through a publishing company. The article explores the disintermediation of the political race for the upcoming presidential election this November. The middleman in this scenario is the mainstream media (or "lamestream" media as suggested in the article).

Social media has connected the world in such a way that Trump and his fans can, in effect, communicate directly. Although the media has been predicting for months that Trump's campaign is going to lose steam at some point, that does not seem to be the case. In my opinion, the mainstream media is wasting their breath. I would be willing to bet that Trump has more Twitter followers and Facebook friends than the number of people who watch the news and hear what the "lamestream" media has to say.

I acknowledge that the article spent very little time discussing the view of people who think Trump is a joke as a candidate for president. The article is pretty one-sided in discussing why Trump is having success in the race and how he may have a good shot at becoming the Republican nominee. One point the article brought up is how Trump is known for saying just about whatever he wants. In a world that seems to have become dominated by "political correctness" and fear of voicing an opinion to the contrary, what would it be like to have someone as President that is so well-known for being politically incorrect? Maybe Trump has what it takes to shake things up and actually make a big difference. Only time will tell.

UPDATE (11/10/16): I guess the question mark in the title of this post is now obsolete...