Artists Among Us

I serve as a commissioner on my city's cultural arts commission and as a liaison to the public art committee.   As someone who works in assessment and evaluation and is passionate about evidence-based research and practices, I saw the opportunity to serve on such committees as a way to expose myself to the arts and give back to my community.  While I studied dance for more than 10 years and wrote poetry for the better part of my youth, my transition to responsible adulthood has yielded little opportunity for me to formally either dance or write poetry.  I dance (informally) all the time, at home, in the car and in the grocery store.   (Side note: I would like to start a movement for people to dance in the grocery store.)

Our city is now holding an exhibit called Artists Among Us, which is a showcase of the art work of the commission and committee members.   The majority of such folks are artists in varied mediums of sculpture, photography, painting and singing.  While not mandatory, I took this as a sign that I should take time to put some practiced effort into stretching my artistic muscles.   Here are the results of such stretching.

THE PLURAL OF ANECDOTES

by Heidi Mallon

The sum of stories makes a rich picture.

Each tale, an anecdote

provides an example of how life goes.

What is evidence

but the collection of data points

gathered

interpreted

presented as truth.

A story is a data point

embossed with subjective perspective.

Decorated to entertain

to persuade

or even inform.

It can’t be helped

as storytellers are human

flawed and blessed.

So how to find truth?

Unwrap the actual facts

and enjoy the wrapping.

The plural of anecdotes is data.

Perhaps

by Heidi Mallon

What will happen?

Maybe

God-willing optimism will poke out its head

from the turtle shell of despair.

Is there hope

that the sun shining bright

will shine brighter still

to shield one

from the cold embrace of anxiety?

I am a realist, a pragmatist

sensible at nearly every turn.

Dare I hope?

What lurks beyond the corner

could be pernicious

earthshaking

ridiculous

humdrum

aimless

puckish

or some more of the same.

The one thing that is for sure

is that it is uncertain.

Make Yourself Heard

For grad school I had to write a personal manifesto.  Here is the Heidi Mallon Manifesto:

MAKE YOURSELF HEARD

1. MAKE YOURSELF HEARD. No one can support your ideas or recognize your value if you stay silent.  

2. Be introspective.   It is the key to both open-mindedness and legitimate self-confidence.

3.  Move!  Run, jump, dance or wiggle.  Just don’t be still all the time.

4.  Humor is a necessary part of every successful day.

5. Value data, statistics and information, but only to the degree that their source and interpretation is trustworthy.

6.  Have a mentor/coach/advocate and be one for someone else.  

7.  Surround yourself with challenges.  It is the only way to grow, learn and become better.

8.  Drink.  Water to stay hydrated and whatever else to keep you mentally afloat.

9.   Consider nature.  How do you affect it, with your action and/or inaction?

10.  Drive like the Stig.

Sports Films

As someone who appreciates both sports and films, I do love a good movie about sports.   There is no shortage of lists of great sports movies.  Typically they include movies like Rocky, The Natural, A League of Their Own, etc.   Being partial to hockey, I have always been drawn to movies like Slapshot, Mystery Alaska and Miracle.

Miracle is a favorite, as it encompasses a great story, good acting and is truly inspirational.   I recently watched another sports movie called Warrior starring Tom Hardy, Joel Edgerton and Nick Nolte.   Now I had heard and read many good things about Warrior, but for some reason I was reticent to see it.  Now I am so glad that I did watch it, as it has so many parallels to Miracle that I have to rate it as a one of my favorite sports films.

First of all the acting is top notch.   I had only seen Tom Hardy in films with his British accent, so it took a moment or two to adjust to his American accent.    Nick Nolte was so quietly amazing, I don't think I have seen him in a better role.  His Oscar nod was totally deserved.   And then there is Joel Edgerton.  I had heard of him before, but this was the first starring role I had seen him in.   I was impressed with his quiet and powerful performance.    The other film I saw this weekend was Zero Dark Thirty and he was in that as well.   I enjoyed that movie on so many levels, and Edgerton's character as a Navy Seal was short on screen time, but certainly noticeable.

Like Warrior, Miracle has strong performances.  Particularly Kurt Russell as Herb Brooks.  It can be so difficult to tell a sports story, particularly one that involves an event as monumental as the Miracle on Ice.    But rather than waiting around for sports action, the viewer is drawn into the personal, social and political dramas surrounding the characters.  Warrior is able to achieve this same level of storytelling throughout the movie as well.   Though many might be compelled to watch for the MMA (mixed martial arts) fighting, the turmoils and difficulties of the characters are deeply affecting.  I don't even really care for MMA fighting that much, but the movie created interest for me by showing the strategy behind it and made the story and outcome seem realistic.    Between the story and acting, I found Warrior to be an extremely well-round movie.

I feel that a thesis might arise from comparing these films, so I will stop there :).  A dissertation could come out of Zero Dark Thirty!  Until I find the time (or courage) to spend more time parsing these movies, I will be content to just sit back and enjoy watching them.    I can use this blog as my opportunity to be an "armchair" movie reviewer.

New Year's Resolution

As the new year starts and many people make resolutions to get in better shape, I wonder if I should resolve to not work out.   You see, I am addicted to exercise.   I am in very good shape and a highly capable athlete, though my station in life nor job requires me to be.   Besides the fact that I love being such a physically capable person, the biggest (and most consistent) high I get out of life is from my workouts.  I have never used drugs of any sort to get high, so I cannot adequately speak to that, but the natural high I get from working out has served me so well that I see no reason to ever use drugs.  Plus, I get other benefits from my workouts besides the high.

Because of my staunch regime of workouts, I considered giving it up.    The regime has been OCD in nature, as I have worked out nearly every day of my life since I was about 12 years old.   When I say every day, I mean every day, save the days I was hospitalized or recovering from surgery.   This was through college and grad school and working full-time.   These are good workouts, lasting at least an hour and sometimes lasting nearly two or three.   How has my body not worn out?  Because I vary the workouts.   Cardio/running at least 3 times a week, between 5-15 miles a time.  Weight training at least twice a week, varying the weights I use and switching between developing muscular strength and endurance.  And finally sprinkling in low impact workouts like hiking/walking and yoga.  It has become such a part of my life that I think it would be harder to give it up, than for a person who hates exercise to start working out.  I think it qualifies as an addiction.

Feeding this is the literature and evidence that exercise improves your health and makes you look better.  While those are benefits I enjoy, the thing I love most is how I feel great during and afterwards.   I feel so confident and capable.  I am less irritable and it has been shown that exercise acts as an acute buffer against stress during the day (which is one reason that I favor morning workouts).       The social aspect is and can be nice for many people, but I have always been a lone wolf when it comes to workouts, even when I was playing team sports (ice hockey and cheerleading).  

Maybe I shouldn’t give up exercise entirely, but just tone it down.   Or perhaps be more forgiving if I miss a workout.   The problem is, missing it is not only just not doing the workout.   It is like walking by an old friend that you want to give a hug to,  or passing up an interview for your dream job.  It is MISSING it.    It seems I have a good deal of energy and passion that might be redirected.   I am applying for a program in grad school.   If I get in, maybe my faculties would be better served to excel in that area.   I could utilize the discipline from my workouts to succeed in my new field.   I will have to think about that on my run tomorrow.   Runs are so helpful because they help me clear my mind and organize my thoughts.

On second thought, I will continue to work out.   When part or all of my body gives out, that will be time to stop J

 

Movies with an agenda?

As the holiday season is well upon us, so is the onslaught of movies with "Oscar buzz."  I particularly enjoy this season in the movies, mostly because these movies tend to focus on good stories and amazing  performances.   I do enjoy the occasional mindless entertainment via action movie or comedy, but I don't enjoy those movies quite as much without the good story or acting.  Skyfall was particularly enjoyable to me, not only as a life-long Bond fan, but as someone who appreciates a good story.

I am quite looking forward to Zero Dark Thirty and Django Unchained.   The latter for more pure entertainment, as Quentin Tarantino is know to deliver.   I don't love all his movies, but you can expect a fun ride with them, and some good performances.   There is a bit of reversal of typecasting with Christoph Waltz in a "good guy" role and Leonardo DiCaprio in a "bad guy" role, though those absolute characterizations are not typical in Tarantino movies.   Both DiCaprio and Waltz are talented actors, so I expect to be entertained.    My sense is that Django Unchained's agenda is do to just that.

Zero Dark Thirty is already making headlines.   Not only for it's value as a movie, but with accusations by some that it has an agenda.    Full disclosure, I am a fan of Kathryn Bigelow and quite excited about her telling the story of the hunt for bin Laden.   That aside, I understand that there is creative license with the story and it is meant to entertain.  If a movie provokes thought (much like I think ZDT will) so much the better.   I have read at least 2 articles discussing whether the movie argues that "enhanced interrogation" (i.e. torture) is effective.    My thought is, so what if it does or doesn't?  If someone is thoughtful enough to try and recognize when someone is trying to sell them something in a movie, that someone should be able to weigh the evidence, theories and philosophies for that argument.   People with either be lemmings or they won't.   When going to the movies, one can find an agenda in ANY film, if you are looking for it.   Without knowing whether Bigelow has an agenda or not, I plan to view the movie and decide for myself thereafter.

Of course some movies do not try to hide that they have an agenda.   I am a fan of documentaries and believe that good ones tell stories as objectively as possible.   But it can never be completely objective.  Just by choosing a particular topic, the documentary filmmaker has an agenda but working to bring that topic and its surrounding issues to the public eye.    Fictional stories in movies can be hyperbolic and use half-truths to sell a point.  However, the viewer knows that it is fiction and will presumably sort out their beliefs/feelings from that storyline.   At least I hope they would.  On a cynical day, I don't know that people are capable or willing to do that.

I had heard recently that Tom Hardy, Tobey Maguire and DiCaprio were working on a film about poaching.   As an animal lover and wildlife advocate, that is a movie that I hope has an agenda.   The potential for good acting and storytelling is there, which might draw me in otherwise.   But an agenda that I agree with will draw me in just as quick.  

 I think that is the case with the majority of people.  If they want to be entertained, or they agree with the agenda (intended or not) of a movie, they will buy tickets.    Movies seem to be so targeted.  Targeted to a demographic, to an award, or to a cause.  But they are all targeted to make money.    Money for the studio, for an actor, and/or director.    That movie may not translate directly to money, but to opportunity or to fame.  In that regard, ALL movies have an agenda.

A Career in Conservation?

A Career in Conservation?

A few weeks ago I took one of the best trips of my life.  Living in a swing state, I was being bombarded by election calls, ads and mailings and needed to get away.  I tried to decide between going to New England and going to California.   As it turns out, Hurricane Sandy was about to swing through, so fortunately I chose to go to California.

I had a VIP experience at the San Diego Zoo.   I went to the Veterinary hospital there and saw a mountain lion named Koya (one of the few indigenous species at the zoo) get a root canal.   I saw some of the fantastic, innovative tools that vets there use to help treat animals.    The hospital houses SIX pathologists and I heard about some innovative techniques used in turtle physical therapy.    I got up close to tigers and leopards, and fed and petted elephants, giraffes, meerkats and 23-year-old blind sea lion named Jake.  Beyond the thrill of all that, I learned so much.  For instance, elephants like raisins, polar bears like grapes (and are incredibly smart) and flamingos get their pink color from their consumption of shrimp and other crustaceans.

I have always loved zoos and aquariums.  I watch Nature religiously and even went to the Berlin Zoo on my honeymoon (to see Knute the polar bear).  I guess my dream job would be to be a zookeeper.  Being around animals, not at a desk, and educating others about conservation would be a dream for sure.  So after my visit to the zoo, I thought about how I might achieve that dream.   I went to the Denver Zoo website, to see about volunteering or internships.    Much to my surprise and joy, I discovered a Master’s program for working professionals.   I can get my Master’s in Zoology while still working at the Center for Bioethics.   Having graduate degrees  in both education and zoology will prime me for my dream job.  Zookeeper/conservationist/animal advocate.

It only took 2 weeks, but I completed my application.   Essays and information submitted, transcripts sent,  and letters of recommendation submitted.    In March of 2013, they will be interviewing candidates for admission.    This time of year usually fliess by, but I have a feeling it will be slow going as I wait to hear if I am on the path to moving towards my dream job.

What would be better still?  For me to get on the Daily Show and be interviewed by Jon Stewart as conservationist.

Ethics in "The Dark Knight"

Film is a multi-purpose medium in modern society that entertains, educates and philosophizes about the human experience. Of course not all films accomplish, or even strive to achieve these purposes. However, films that both entertain and stimulate thought and discourse become useful vehicles for education.  In an attempt to explore complex notions of ethics, integrity and the human condition, filmmakers may not always  capture the casual viewer’s interest or imagination. A stunning example of a film which entertains and stimulates thought is Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight”. Nolan’s movie dramatizes ethical and moral dilemmas experienced by Batman (and his alter ego Bruce Wayne), as well as those faced by his allies in the fight to save Gotham from crime and injustice.  The examples are extreme and involve peoples’ lives being brokered by Batman, the Joker (the chief villain of the movie) and District Attorney Harvey Dent. Though the movie is a fantastical allegory, it nicely parallels health care ethics in terms of lives and well-being hanging in the balance. The themes of “The Dark Knight” include integrity, the common good and justice.
        Throughout the movie, the character of Batman/Bruce Wayne experiences numerous challenges to his integrity, the most glaring dilemma being in defining his personal values and staying true to those values in two different roles.  Bruce Wayne creates the persona of Batman to be a masked crimefighter who secretly battles the criminals and villians of Gotham.  Despite having this cover, Batman refuses to use guns and will not take a human life.  Both Bruce Wayne and Batman are able to maintain their personal integrity by stopping short of killing, even though Batman frequently and deliberately places himself in dangerous situations in which violence is not only standard, but expected.   The persona of Batman not only enables Bruce to fight crime, but it also protects him, the people he cares about from physical harm and his business interests from criticism.   

The value in separating the personas of Bruce Wayne and Batman is tested to the extremes in the film by the Joker, Batman’s central nemesis.  This occurs when the Joker, seemingly in cahoots with the mobsters of Gotham, gives Batman an ultimatum regarding his identity.  As Batman has almost completely shut down crime in Gotham, he has stopped the mobsters from making any money.   The Joker threatens to murder a person every day that Batman does not come forward to reveal his true identity.  To prove his point, he starts by killing a man who was heartened by Batman’s efforts to fight crime, and thus dressed up as Batman to help fight criminals.   Batman is now faced with a dilemma.  He either allows  the Joker to murder a person every day he does not come forward, or destroys the protective cover of Batman and risks his own personal safety as well as those of his loved ones.   In addition, revealing Batman’s identity would destroy the powerful image and hero that deters and stops crime in Gotham.

        So in the midst of trying to locate and capture the Joker, Bruce Wayne must weigh the consequences of his choices.  Should he reveal his identity as Batman to save potential victims from being murdered by the Joker?  Or should he keep his identity secret to protect his identity and maintain the peace and law enforcement that Batman provides?  Initially Bruce Wayne leans toward maintaining his secret, but after several more people are murdered, that decision becomes more difficult.   His butler Alfred (who is the chief  supporter of his secret, both physically and mentally), argues that he needs to keep his identity secret, as the persona of Batman enables him to serve the greater good as a symbol and that he should not give in to the whims of a madman.   In contrast to that, Rachel (Bruce’s childhood sweetheart and another character privy to his dual identities) argues that he should come forward to prevent innocent people from being murdered.  The motivations for her argument are colored by the fact that she has told Bruce in the past that they cannot be together as a couple as long as he is Batman.  Rachel herself has her integrity tested in several instances in the film.  At one point Rachel is facing the Joker directly, and revealing herself (and her identity as Bruce’s friend) means that she will likely be maimed or killed. Rachel’s commitment to honesty and justice seems to be in contrast with Bruce’s values of maintaining his Batman persona and his affection for her.
        The theme of justice is another strong thread in “The Dark Knight”.    Batman is the secret crusader who fights for good outside the law.  His character is juxtaposed with that of Harvey Dent, the District Attorney who is determined to fight crime in Gotham within the constructs of the law and who acts as a metaphorical white knight.   In addition, he is romantically involved with Rachel.   Despite this relationship, Bruce Wayne does not see Harvey Dent as a foil, rather  as a way for him to eventually relinquish the Batman persona so that he can be with Rachel.   The characters of Harvey Dent and Batman show the multiple and complicated ways for justice to be exacted and enforced.   However, their varied approaches dovetail together in the climax of the movie, first with an ethical dilemma faced by Batman and then with the crumbling of Harvey’s moral code and his adoption of a new system of justice.
        At the end of the film, the Joker has been captured and is being interrogated by Batman as to the whereabouts of Harvey and Rachel, both whom have disappeared.   The Joker has crafted a scheme in which both Harvey and Rachel are bound and surrounded by explosives in two separate locations.  The Joker gives Batman both their locations, but only with enough time to save one of them.  Does he save the woman he loves, or the man who can uphold the peace of Gotham and take over as Gotham’s hero?   Besides the stakes being high, the decision must be made immediately.    Though this decision is made hyperbolically dramatic in the context of a movie, it is not so different from the decisions that a health professional might need to make in an emergency situation.  In a short time table, health care professionals frequently have to consider life, quality of life and the values of their patient and themselves.
        The Joker, well-established as a character that does not play fair, has switched the locations of Rachel and Harvey, resulting in Batman going to save Harvey when he intends to save Rachel.  As a result, Rachel dies and Harvey ends up with half of his face burnt off.   Rachel’s death and his disfigurement cause Harvey to go into a mental and emotional tailspin.   He then goes after the corrupt cops and mobsters who captured him and Rachel,  and upon encountering each offending person, determines whether he will kill them or not by flipping a coin.   Harvey argues that the system of justice under which he formerly operated was not fair, but that by flipping a coin each decision is fair in that each outcome has a 50/50 shot. The movie is powerful in the regard that Harvey Dent is initially shown to be a just man whose perspective of justice becomes skewed and his code of ethics is radically changed by traumatic events.
        Harvey’s downfall sets the stage for Batman’s final ethical dilemma of the movie.  In a final showdown, Harvey wants Batman, Commissioner Gordon and himself to all face the consequences of their decisions in the movie. Using his coin flip system of justice, Harvey is threatening Gordon’s family with a gun.  As a result of the ensuing altercation,  Harvey dies as Batman and Gordon try to save Gordon’s family. Standing over Harvey’s dead body, Batman realizes that the public will learn of Harvey’s murderous crime spree.   This will likely result in the overturning of the convictions of hundreds of criminals, and undo much of the legal justice that benefitted the city of Gotham.   Bruce will be then further removed from being able to retire the Batman persona.   It is at this point that Batman decides that he will take responsibility for Harvey’s crimes.   In order to preserve the good that was done, both by Harvey’s legal work and Batman’s crusading, Bruce allows the persona of Batman to be labeled as criminal, responsible for Harvey’s crimes.   The beginning of the movie shows examples of citizens standing up to crime and emulating Batman as a hero.   Through the crimes and manipulation of the Joker, Batman is faced with ethical choices that result in him becoming an erroneously-labeled villain.  This is further example of Batman’s integrity, as he believes that the value in having a city with less crime and preserving the image of Harvey Dent is more important than Batman being perceived as a hero and just crusader.
        There is a point in the movie where Harvey Dent states “You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.” This statement applies to both Harvey and to Batman.  Both characters act with integrity and are driven by a sense of justice.   Events in the film cause their individual interpretations of justice shift.   Harvey comes to believe that judging individuals through the chance of a coin flip is justice, whereas Batman believes that the larger good is representative of a just society.
Both ultimately become villians in the end, as Harvey literally becomes a villain and Batman figuratively becomes a villain.   
        The Dark Knight is rife with themes of justice, integrity and the common good. The characters face challenging ethical dilemmas without a lot of time to make a decision.   These dilemmas are also faced while having to consider the lives and values of others and avoid personal physical harm.   It parallels the situations that many health professionals face in having to address the life and well-being of themselves and patients, as well as adhering to a code of ethics. The discussion prompted about integrity, justice and ethics in “The Dark Knight” is only enriched by multiple viewings. What particularly makes it a dynamic film is that although many questions are raised and dilemmas are presented, no concrete answers are given. It is up to the viewer to decide their own guiding principles.