Living in a fantasy world... not a good idea?

Yesterday I found that some folks were posting on Facebook about the lack of merit of certain science fiction movies. The primary complaints focused on the content and how they were basically rehashes of old stories or old concepts or old religions. The common thread was how some people out there are just not equipped to really study original works and certainly don't want to have vapid actors representing such ethereal ideas.

Let's start out by saying that I agree that many people today are spoiled, don't want to do the hard work required and want to just hang out, dude. That being said, who are we to judge these misdirected, vacant and unmotivated individuals? Shouldn't we just be grateful that they are at least deriving something from these forms of entertainment? Oh, that's right – my bad; they're movies, not classic works of art. How silly of me? How do you compare the Mona Lisa to “The Matrix”? Or “Star Wars” to Michelangelo’s David? These types of movies are snapshots of our culture, not objects of art that belong in iconic museums (when our culture produces something like “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure”, what does that say?). Yes, they are inspirational yet bring a simplified version of a concept that is perceived to be too complicated to the masses. And what does that say about our educational system? Not much, unfortunately. And what does it say about our culture? At least it's trying to bring a version of art to the masses. In the distant past great paintings and sculptures were commissioned and paid for by the ruling elite and therefore reserved for their enjoyment only. At least Bill and Ted tried to teach some history, albeit a slightly distorted view.
Are there solutions out there? Shouldn’t we be blessed with the idea of diversity even in the level of laziness someone expresses or should we push the standards of education for all at all cost? I would hope that it would be somewhere in between. At least among those that have enjoyed long lives, many consider lifelong learning to be a major component of the success of their longevity. And guess what; they also are the ones that set an example for those of us that are younger and willing to continue to believe that we don’t know everything.

Is the critique of others tastes in entertainment and education measuring others by our own personal yardsticks or are our protestations laced with the intent that we know that settling is not an option for personal growth – approaching someone like a coach prodding someone to give more than they think they are capable of doing? It’s all in the intent. Are you trying to be superior and righteous? Or are you really trying to help expand someone’s horizons?

So in the end, let's just get off the high, intellectual, spiritual horse and just be okay that some people are on a different intellectual path and bless them on their way.

To Hall or not to Hall, that is the question...

Living in this world can either be a challenge (hint: laden with problems, people with attitudes) or an opportunity. With Alex Rodriguez coming close to a major milestone in Major League Baseball – 600 career home runs – the debate over what is considered the “new” credentials to be elected into the baseball Hall of Fame is hot and heavy. It used to be that everyone just knew what it would take to make it into the hallowed Hall. Outstanding performance, grit, enduring statistics, leadership and success on the field all weighed into the measured ballots of the vaunted sportswriters of America. Now, with the taint of steroids on the past 25 years of baseball, the debate rages causing many to attempt to redefine what it means to be an outstanding baseball player in the modern, drug-stained era and how to attempt to compare to the other, cleaner, brighter, “good ol’ days” of baseball.

Unfortunately, even good baseball players that may have succumbed to the pressure of performance for ungodly amounts of money for a short period of time are now suspect. Will Andy Pettitte now be excluded for a relatively small indiscretion? Or will it have to be a gross abuse that physically showed like Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa or a player from my beloved San Francisco Giants, Barry Bonds? Or should we just build a separate wing on the Hall – The Steroid Wing, or the late 20th Century Wing – with a giant asterisk above the door? How will the sportswriters compare the accomplishments of the modern athlete versus those feats of amazing game-changing abilities of the earlier players? Is it even possible to compare the game as it was when all that anyone worried about was gambling and booze?

So do we allow Pettitte to walk through the proverbial gates of St. Babe and keep Roger Clemens on the outs because Clemens has been unrepentant to date? Do we allow Bonds to enter because of his incredible accomplishments before his head got physically a few sizes bigger during one off-season? Do we permanently keep McGwire and Sosa out because they only provided a couple of seasons of excitement? And why is no one looking at Serena Williams and asking the same questions? Have you seen her next to her competitors? Has anyone questioned the amount of muscle as well as the anger management problem that is so obvious that looks like ‘roid rage?

So in the end, it’s really all about the money. If we as a fan base weren’t willing to pay basically a day’s pay for just one seat at one of these sporting events, there certainly wouldn’t be the pressure to perform at a level that is beyond the existing evolutionary chain. So, in the end, we push our kids to attempt to launch themselves into the stratosphere of sport, all so that we can watch them explode like fireworks on Fourth of July when it all comes crashing around them. Good thing they made all that money.