Marvel's Runaways

Over Thanksgiving my family and I watched Justice League - and although we did enjoy it, I think the critics were right about how one-dimensional the villain was.  He was just sort of...there.  Big, bad villain out to destroy everything.  Because that's just what he does.

I brought that up because the Justice League's Steppenwolf is a great counterpoint to the villainous parental units in Hulu's show Runaways.

I find myself wondering what led these guys to do what they do.  Where did they cross the line?  They raised some apparently great kids, after all.  Kids who know right from wrong.  The parents have the typical annoyances of any social group (like hating on one parent's homemade brie).  They question what they're doing.  They're sometimes very nerdy, or comforting, or parental...they are sometimes so very ordinary.

And yet they unequivocally are doing wrong.  I'm sure we'll get more of the backstory as the series unfolds.  See what the parents are trying to do, why they think it's acceptable.  We've already heard some of the self-justification (i.e. one mother mentioned that she takes in runaways and helps them live well for about six months, six months she feels they wouldn't have had otherwise...as she apparently assumes they'd have died living out on the streets.  And so she justifies killing them.  Which is wrong in and of itself, of course.  Yet on top of that, she's telling herself that she's making some sort of deal by giving them a good life - for a time - and it's a deal she's making without the knowledge or consent of the other party.)

I'm also kind of fascinated by how the group affects each other.  There have been moments where one or another has expressed...concerns.  Misgivings.  Doubts.  As one parent noted, the runaway they sacrificed was almost the same age as their own children.  So it's interesting how they reinforce each other, keep everyone on track (for their villainous goals...)

Which ones are driving the group?  Which ones might break away as the story gets told?  How far will the parents go?  Especially when they realize their kids oppose them?

This kind of ties in with some of my previous topics regarding how we confuse self-interest with the public good, and the ways that power corrupts.  In cartoons and TV, we often show the angel and demon sitting on someone's shoulder, trying to persuade them to act one way or another.



Yet what happens when they look alike?  When you can't tell the angel apart from the demon?

How can you tell when you've crossed the line then?

Update

Well, Thanksgiving is done and I've got your typical end of the semester schoolwork to do (a couple of projects, some final exams, etc.)  Oddly enough, I think I prefer doing a computer project over the large writing assignments I've had in most of my previous classes.  I dunno, frustrating though it is when my programs don't work it's still more fun than researching and citing sources for a 12+ page paper.  Plus it's kind of cool to see all my work actually do something.

I visited with the fam last week.  Did our usual holiday movies (watched Justice League and Thor: Ragnarok), played a bit of Pandemic (Season 2, the second legacy set.) 

For those who were unaware, legacy games are boardgames that change over time, based on what you did in previous games.  With Pandemic they tell a story that takes place over the course of a year.  The things that happen in each game will affect your ability to play in later games, so you have to strategize not just on how to win your current game but also on how to set yourself up for success in the later games. 

One of my brothers, my Dad and I have played Pandemic pretty much every time I visit, and we rather enjoyed the first legacy set (season 1).  The only issue is that once your year is up (which can be anywhere from 12-24 games, since if you lose a game you play another game corresponding to that 'month') you can't really go back and play it again.  You've changed up the board, destroyed cards, and done various other things that make it really hard to reset and start over. 

At the same time, that's part of what makes it fun.  Different. 

So anyways, I'm taking a break from my latest homework (dealing with mySQL and databases.  It's not too bad, though figuring out the proper syntax for complicated queries can be a pain.) and I wanted to talk about the Hulu show Runaways.

Since I started off with more humdrum stuff (see all of the above), I decided to write this as two separate posts.

Character, Heroism, Humanity, and Current Events

For the past few days I've had some thoughts circling around regarding current events, but I couldn't quite find the right string to pull in order to start untangling my thoughts.  Whichever way I started would have unduly influenced the direction of the post, in ways I wasn't quite ready to write.

So I went back, to my own personal history.

I began my intereset in politics more out of a childish whim than any reasoned knowledge.  A decision made while competing with my brother and sister.  I did encounter, and even partially accept some of the common beliefs about politics:

All politicians lie.  Politics are an ugly, nasty business.  Politics is how some incompetent but smooth-talking a$$-kisser gets promoted while better talented, more deserving people get overlooked.  Power corrupts - sometimes followed by "and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

At some point, I decided that if every good person just threw their hands up and said "ugh, politics!!!" that would basically leave all the decision making to people who were NOT good.  The ones who live up to every negative stereotype regarding power and politics.  If we want something different, if we want politics to be better, then we have to be involved.

This raises questions regarding what is 'good' politics and what is 'bad' politics.  Where do you draw the line?  How do you know when you've been corrupted by power?

As I studied political science, I developed a more nuanced understanding...I think.  You see, we distrust politicians partly because we all know it's an act.  On some level, at least.  Like movie stars and other celebrities, there's the public persona...and it doesn't always match what the person acts like when the cameras and microphones are off.  In a small community you can figure out whether someone is genuine or not...but in a nation of over 300 million individuals most of us can't. 

The Fables comic books had an interesting claim that elections are like a seduction, which is why Prince Charming did so well.  And (like many seducers and politicians) winning the election often involves making promises you can't really keep.  And yet we want to be seduced.  (Part of Trump's appeal, horrible though he is, was that people felt that they saw the real deal.  They distrust the stage persona of a professional politician, and felt more comfortable with Trump - warts and all.  That comment, btw, is not meant to excuse or justify voting for Trump.  I do think his obvious 'warts' are worse than the hidden 'warts' of his opponents.)

Yet I don't think many politicians believe they are corrupt, or knowingly are passing legislation that will hurt the nation.  (I might make an exception for the current Republican tax plan, however.  As just one small example of how terrible it is, the potential impact on grad students would be devastating.  It seems like they're not even trying to pretend that they care about the rest of us any more.) 

Many even got their start because there were real issues they wanted to address (Danica Roem seems like the most recent example.) I suspect that any corruption, if it happens, occurs because of typical human fallacies.  Primarily our tendency to confuse policies that are good for us with policies that are good for everyone (after all, you have to win re-election...and if you don't get re-elected how can you help anyone?) and the tendency to believe the ends justifies the means.  After all, you know you're right, you know you've got everyone's best interests at heart, you know everything would go great if you could just make your plans a reality - and if people would just stop interfering with you - and what does it matter if you spread false rumors, or mislead the public on what science says about a topic, if those actions help you make the 'right' policies a reality? 

That's a rather rich topic all by itself, but it's only part of the tangle I wanted to discuss.  So moving along-

Somewhat tied in with the discussion of 'good' politics and 'bad' politics is some assessment of which politicians were 'good' and which were 'bad'. 

Which comes perilously close to judging our neighbors.  Hmmm.  This gets into my Catholic upbringing, which still influences me despite being rather lapsed.  So let me rephrase that.  I think that "judge not, lest ye be judged" is a reminder that people are inherently complex.  If we truly knew someone, inside and out, the way God would, then we would understand and forgive our transgressions.  And the forgiveness we want for ourselves is the forgiveness we should give to others.  Like in the Lord's Prayer -

forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those
who trespass against us.

We all judge each other, and in some ways it's inevitable and required.  We make decisions, daily, about who we spend time with.  Who we cultivate.  Who we vote for.  Yet I try to lessen any truly harsh judgements by reminding myself that I know only part of anyone's story.  The public persona (good or bad) we see on TV gives a very superficial sense of who anyone is.  Heck, we don't even know people we've been friends with for decades.  Not as well as we think we do, at least.  You might figure out 90% of who someone is in a few days, or months, or years...but you can spend the rest of your life learning the other 10%.

And that's another small thread to the tangle...not yet the whole of it.

Sometime around seventh or eighth grade I remember a priest talking to our class about faith, and he described it as an ongoing interaction.  The gist of what I recall is this:

Our initial beliefs are often very black and white.  Saints and sinners.  Good and bad.  Then sometimes we start questioning things.  We learn that it's more complicated than we thought.

And this is good.  The goal, hopefully, is that as you get your questions answered that you gain a stronger, deeper, and more nuanced understanding.

The discussion was related mostly to faith in God, but I think the same can be applied to people (and judging people) as well.

For example, there are three presidents that I would consider the 'best', though granted I haven't exhaustively studied them all and don't know much about the more obscure ones (Chester Arthur, anyone?)  Those presidents would be Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Franklin Roosevelt. 

I feel a bit cliche for saying that, since those are some of the presidents 'anyone' would know...even after they've forgotten whatever they were taught in grade school.  And yet they remain well liked and popular for good reason. 

George Washington, whose public persona is still influenced by the Cherry Tree Myth, established the tradition of a two-term president.  He was the very first president, and he probably could have served longer if he'd chosen to.  To have that power and willingly set it aside is a pretty amazing thing.  And it helped establish - even solidify - our democratic system at the very onset.  Washington giving up power is part of what makes our system strong.  It makes us less dependent on a cult of personality, or some specific person being in charge. 

Abraham Lincoln, "Honest Abe", who led us through the Civil War and freed the slaves. 

And FDR, who led us through the Great Depression and World War II.

Current trends have given us a more nuanced understanding of these men.  George Washington owned slaves.  Abraham Lincoln may have freed the slaves only because it made political sense at the time (or perhaps he truly believed in abolition but didn't feel it was politically feasible until the end of the Civil War.)  FDR ordered the internment of Japanese Americans, broke the tradition of a two term president and tried packing the Supreme Court with his supporters.

None of these men are the heroes we built them up to be.  Does that mean they weren't great?  Does greatness excuse such behavior?  Are we wrong to judge them by our standards, when by the standards of their time they were not unusual?  Or perhaps it's even more heroic, to achieve what they have done despite being flawed and imperfect human beings.  (And yet that still doesn't make what they did right...)

In Goodwin's book Team of Rivals, she mentions a discussion Abraham Lincoln had on whether George Washington was perfect or not.  Lincoln argued that "It makes human nature better to believe that one human being was perfect, that human perfection is possible."

I understand and, to a certain extent, share that sentiment.  Not that it's okay to cover up our human frailties in order to keep that mirage...

But the modern world is so very, very cynical.  Movies are full of anti-heroes, not heroes.  Writers try to show nuance and depth by making flawed human beings, which sometimes works well and sometimes just makes the main character rather distasteful...and the cumulative result is kind of depressing. 

It makes you feel like there's no hope, whatsoever, of finding someone who can live up to our expectations.  Every politician has dirty laundry. 

It's funny, in that I know so many people who would never do the things we've come to tolerate from politicians on a regular basis...I don't know how many of them would change if they were ever given the power of an elected official, but I can't imagine it is that hard to find candidates who are free from baggage.  (Though, to be fair, some of it could be made up smears to win elections...how many of those good people I mentioned would end up looking just as terrible once their opposition got done with them?)

How much of that is unrealistic expectations, and how much of it is our settling for poor candidates because we've cynically decided it's impossible to achieve more?

This has gotten rather long already, but I did want to add one more thread to the tangle. 

I have always valued character in political candidates.  That's partly because of a poli-sci class on political psychology, where we explored the ways that personality affected the leadership of various presidents.  (It's generally easier to see the difference in presidents, rather than trying to consider specific members of Congress...though we do place undue influence on the position.)

Character is what determines how the President handles the inevitable unexpected crisis.  Character determines how well they will work with allies and enemies to get things done.  You can study where they stand on the issues, but to be honest our system requires more than one person to get anything done politically...I could handle a President with whom I disagree politically if Congress opposes them (which is part of why I wasn't too worried about Bernie...no matter what his political leanings he'd have had to get legislation through Congress, after all.)

Yet there was one article during the 2016 election that made me reconsider some of my position.  It said the Civil Rights Movement was able to accomplish as much as it did because it focused on working with whoever they could, and didn't get bogged down with questions of character.  That, to a certain extent, focusing on character was a sign of privilege. 

I could see the point, at least about the Civil Rights Movement. 

And yet I can't stand this casual belief that character doesn't matter, and the acceptance of lying and cheating so long as someone's political positions match yours. 

To tie this in with current events - every day we hear more and more horror stories about sexual harassment.  It's kind of overwhelming, and  yet it's also long overdue.  The things women have been dealing with are so widespread and prevalent that I don't want anyone to feel pressured to stop...but it also contributes to this sense that 'everyone is flawed'.

Power corrupts.

It's like...can't we do better than this?  We had Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, surely we can select people who are less...flawed.

Can't we?

"This is how it happens"

I started following this site in order to diversify my information stream, and sometimes there's something really good.  Like this.

School Update

I'm preparing for a mid-term this evening.  This class only grades four things - a mid-term exam, final exam, and two projects.

On the one hand, it's kind of cool not to have quizzes and homework every week.  On the other hand, it's kind of scary to think that I'm over halfway through the semester and don't really have any idea what my grade will be.  Plus, if I flub this mid-term it'll be pretty darn hard to recover from it.

Then again, the professor says if you study and do the homework you tend to do well (regardless of whether your grade comes from two exams and two projects, or whether he assigns quizzes and homework every week).  And that seems like a credible claim to me, especially if the exams are open-note and open-book.

So anyways.  Mid-term tonight.  This class is on operating systems, and it's really rather interesting.  (To be fair, I think almost everything is interesting, so that's hardly much of a claim).  I wasn't aware of the trouble with race conditions before, or the Dining Philosopher's Problem. 

And next week I've got my third calculus exam, we've moved on to integration.  After Thanksgiving I'll be headed into the home stretch, with various end of semester projects and exams coming due. 

On Roy Moore

I haven't posted anything on this yet because a) I like stories to develop a bit before commenting, saves me from backtracking too much as new info comes out and b) most of what I'd say is pretty much what everyone else is saying.

Namely "WTF!?!"

I mean, I get innocent until proven guilty (and not trying someone in the court of public opinion), but the people trying to defend Moore just make him (and them) sound like there's no reason to doubt the accusations.  For example:

"Joel Pollak, an editor at Breitbart, appeared on MSNBC to argue that three of the four women's accounts had "no business" in the national news, because a 30-something Moore pursuing relationships with 16- to 18-year-olds was not inappropriate. "As far as we know, there's only one relationship that's been alleged that's problematic," Pollak said, referring to Moore's alleged sexual contact with a 14-year-old."

Umm, no.  A 30-something pursuing teenagers is just plain creepy.  It's definitely inappropriate. 

The Alabama Republican county chairs opinions were even worse! 

They seriously see nothing wrong here?!?

And I'm not even getting into Jim Ziegler's comments, which I agree with Stetzer were "simultaneously ridiculous and blasphemous."

SMH.

On Losing Our Democracy, Cont.

I am not happy that Trump is President.  At the same time, I don't necessarily feel that Hillary's loss is a sign that democracy is a loss.

I already discussed how rigged the system was in the first place.  That social contract is fraying.  We're losing our democracy.

Although there are academic studies that explore this, I think there's an even better example.  Just consider marijuana.  61% of Americans think it should be legal.  To give you some perspective, about 59% think abortion should be legal.  62% think the government should ensure access to healthcare.

Marijuana legalization has more support than healthcare and abortion.  When we had a townhall meeting on the topic, people came out in droves.

And in this last election?

...

...

Crickets.

What we, the average American, care about is not reflected by our politics.

Too much of this, and whoever gets elected to office will lack legitimacy.  After all, they'll be elected by the wealthy.   Not us.

I get why Trump appealed to so many Americans.  I mean, I think he's a con artist who couldn't possibly deliver on what he promised.  He's an arrogant blowhard who can't control his emotions, has no class, is crass and rude and loves being so.

But Americans were so starved that they went for him anyway.  I know conservatives have made a thing about the 'out of touch, arrogant liberal elite'...I think Trump's win shows the same accusations can be applied to themselves. 

Hillary, btw, played into that narrative all too well.  I'm not sure how much room she had to gain new supporters, as I said before she has a long political history and most people already have an opinion about her.  What I do know, though, is that Madeline Albright's comments seemed remarkably tone deaf and alienating for someone who wasn't already a Clinton supporter.  My instinctive reaction is "Yes, mother.  Whatever you say, mother.  I will support her just because her genitals happen to be shaped like mine. Even though I don't think she has the character I hope for in a president, and I think she showed poor judgment - most recently for how she handled the e-mail scandal - but sure, I'll vote for her because she's a woman like me." *sarcasm*  *eye-roll*. 

That might not have been Hillary saying that, btw, but far too many of her supporters failed to see the problem.

Most Americans might not know what the 'right' answer is to the complex problems of today.  They don't necessarily know what tax policy or federal reserve rate we need, or what sort of regulations should be placed on banks.  Don't necessarily know whether charter schools are the way to go or not.

We just know that we've been screaming "Fix it!" for at least a decade.  And nobody is fixing a damn thing.