Ads for Amazon Fire HD Tablets

I find these ads for Amazon Fire HD Tablets to be interesting. The point of these ads is to demonstrate the durability of the tablet - but I find myself distracted by the actions of the users and more mindful of the disastrous scenarios averted that have little to do with damage to an electronic device.

For example, in this first commercial, I'm more relieved that this distracted woman didn't hit the kid on the skateboard than her tablet being okay:


In this next ad, this guy is lucky he didn't fall down the stairs or that his tablet didn't maim his poor dog at the bottom:



If these ad execs intended for me to be relieved that the tablet was not damaged, they should not have featured scenarios involving competing higher stakes. Instead of impressing upon me the durability of the Amazon tablet, I find myself thinking that these people are better off without the tablets in the first place, realizing the havoc they could wreak on themselves and those around them who are far more fragile. 

I noted this phenomenon in the first commercial and was surprised to see this issue repeated in the second, which inspired this blog post. It's odd to me that these tech users would be featured as not only irresponsible, but also more concerned about the damage to their devices and thereby inconsiderate and oblivious to the more meaningful dangers they narrowly missed. There are far better ways to sell the product while still conveying the message of its durability. 

What do Tic Tacs have to do with commuting?

As far as I know, nothing. This commercial didn't help enlighten me. Popping Tic Tac mints would possibly alleviate bad breath, but not a long work commute. I don't get commercials like these that attempt to make connections that make no sense to be made in order to sell the product. Are people seriously going to buy Tic Tacs because they think of how it will make their morning commutes more bearable? Was someone actually paid to come up with this concept? That's even more perplexing. 

The Wedding Ringer

I watch the trailer and I think this movie could be the developmentally disabled baby of "Hitch" and "Wedding Crashers."

Someone watch it and tell me if I'm wrong. Thanks.

Nice Try Doritos

Doritos announced the ten finalists in the 2015 Crash the Super Bowl contest. My least favorite is "What Could Go Wrong," as elaborated here.

Interestingly enough, the version of this commercial that made the finals is different from the original entry. This version adds the female speaking off-roof to assure viewers that she did not actually plummet to her death.

I still think this commercial stinks. 

One of my faves, Dog Dreams, did not make the top ten - and so I officially have no idea what the Doritos judges are looking for.

This Shit Is Disgusting

I see this and I fear the end of days - dreadful acts by humans which poison themselves and the good Earth. Please make it stop.

This is a recipe for disaster! It's shit like this that leads to an uninhabitable environment, extinction and zombie apocalypse. Haven't we learned anything??

Constellations on Broadway

How could they leave you hanging Jake!?

***I wrote this letter to the Director of Constellations, currently in preview performances on Broadway, starring Jake Gyllenhaal and Ruth Wilson. It won't really make much sense if you haven't seen the show but I decided to post the letter here as a blog post since I'm (maybe) a tad shy of being obnoxious/delusional enough to actually deliver it.***

12/22/14

Dear Michael,

I saw Constellations at the Samuel J. Friedman Theater this weekend and commend you on your efforts.

I am aware that your His Royal Court production [in London] won the Evening Standard Award for Best Play 2012 and received 4 Olivier nominations. Congratulations.

Your actors are amazing. However, last Saturday night, they did not receive a standing ovation from the audience. Despite their positive fronts, the actors’ disappointment was palpable. I think the disconnect comes from confusion that the play actually ended. The time it seems to take for the audience to digest the ending exceeds the fleeting moments available for applause/recognition. 

You don’t need feedback from a stranger. However, I’m taking the liberty of offering some thoughts as I have nothing to lose, and we live in an age of technology where a reality that you’d actually read this letter seems possible, even if unlikely.

• The lighting work in your play is an exciting and unique visual technique. However, the lighting regularly and frequently goes dark in between the various realities; therefore, it is not immediately clear that the play has ended when the light again goes dark in similar fashion after the final scene. There was a terribly awkward pause between the end of the play and the audience’s realization eventually leading to broken and scattered applause. This can’t be gratifying to your tremendous performers/production which deserves a thunderous ovation. I believe a unique visual (lighting) cue at the end that more clearly signifies the end of the play would be beneficial. 

• It was unclear to me why balloons [making up the set] were falling towards the end of the play. Maybe that’s just fine left as a mystery but I’m not sure if there’s a message that’s meant to be conveyed. It was interesting to note though that Marianne’s character specifically expresses her contempt for being surrounded by balloons when she’s dying and yet the entire stage production is filled with “balloons.” So, the balloons/balloon lighting, as beautiful as they are, seem to be an affront to the character and her experience. The "bursting" of all the balloons, including the “lighting balloons” being retracted to accomplish this effect, combined with the dramatic sound effect of all those balloons popping, could be a special effect that differentiates your penultimate scene from the final scene. These types of theatrics, which would better herald the ending, could be considered unnecessary (and expensive; impractical); but, it would also give Marianne what she wants (in more ways than one). 

• I really appreciated how Jake, through his varied performances, was able to distinguish Roland's proposal scenes. When he receives the news of Marianne's illness (malignant or benign), Roland is comforting, reassuring, relieved (even angry). In the scenes where they discuss her decision to depart, he’s pretty much a restrained constant. It dawned on me that I never witnessed Roland as a tearful, crying, hot mess, or Marianne for that matter, in any scene where they’re confronting Marianne’s illness. This would have been very humanizing and relatable. The lack of more strong emotions leaves a gaping hole in their relationship. The stakes have to be higher and he just seems too cool and she too calculating in every iteration. 

• Marianne is constantly quirky. She is comedic; she is exhilarating; she can also be cold and clinical (like when she is explaining adultery or her illness). That’s her character. If there could be a tad more warmth infused in her, it may help us care more about Roland and Marianne’s fate. She is almost too cold in every version of Roland’s proposal; even when she says yes, it’s more comedic than moving. Subtle performance choices may help the audience get more invested in their fate, to actually hope and root for these characters even as we are offered a multitude of possibilities and should know better. I’d like to see more tenderness, more feeling, more passion – even more physicality for an American production. I’m not saying these characters should be making out on stage; however, there was a distance between them that I’m not sure was wholly covered by the time we get to the end, where I believe we’re supposed to be hoping that they get to share a fate that allows them to be together even if the odds of this are unclear/against them. 

• It works that the actors wore the same outfits throughout the play. However, we never see any even minor changes in their looks. For example, Marianne never lets her hair down. This contributes to a static feeling throughout the play and in the characters despite the passage of time and countless possibilities. Maybe that’s what you want? But changing up things slightly in her (or his look), can help you further differentiate versions of the same scene that start feeling overly repetitive based on dialogue shifts alone. Maybe in one version of the bedroom scene, Marianne could reveal more by removing/unbuttoning an outer layer of her clothing, which could signify a change in her own openness. There may be ways to play around with this and still allow her to return to the status quo for alternate scenes.

• I expect you must strictly stick to Nick Payne’s script. I wish you had flexibility, in particular with respect to Roland’s question to Marianne in the final scene to which Marianne always responds that the seller of his honey just stared. If only Marianne could have answered differently in that final scene to that otherwise unspectacular question – the answer then leaving the audience to wonder if this time things happened differently or to question whether the differences and similarities among scenes reside actually in the characters’ choices about what to reveal to each other.

Congratulations and all the best on your Broadway run.

Hello Again Lenovo...

*"Thank you Sir; May I have another?" pic copied from http://lemmingscliffnotes.blogspot.com/2011/07/original-originals.html

I am an idiot. I don't want to bother finding a replacement laptop from another company especially because I actually really liked the ThinkPad (although, it's quite annoying that the PgUp and PgDn keys are next to the arrow keys and even more annoying that my fingers can't tell the difference). 

So despite this, and this, I just reordered another Lenovo ThinkPad. 

The draw was that if I do it now, I can get the same Black Friday deal I took advantage of in November. The price has gone up since then! Also, I can benefit from the free return special being offered now only through Christmas - so I figure, if I hate this second one (and myself), I can go through this rigmarole again.

Goodbye Lenovo

The laptop I received just a week ago is defective (flickering screen). I attempted to reach Lenovo customer support by phone. The phone menu was confusing and complicated, which resulted in holding to speak to a representative, and then holding some more after being informed that I needed to be rerouted to another department. 

Hold time for Sales (for new orders) - short/under a minute;

Hold time for Customer Care (for service on existing orders) - 1 hour and 33 minutes and running! [I kept my phone going out of curiosity post-blog publication and reached 2 hours and 15 minutes before needing to make another phone call!] 

For this reason, although there's also this reason, I am returning my Lenovo ThinkPad T440p. Too bad - I actually liked the machine enough that I was initially inclined to exchange it. However, I'm now seriously disturbed by such awful customer service. I'm going to take advantage of their supposed free holiday return policy. 

Mrs. Clooney and Misogynist Media

The misguided author of this article, "The New Trophy Wife" believes she's empowering women as she shits all over them.

Isn't the essence of this entire piece (oxy-)moronic? How do you simultaneously celebrate accomplished women like Amal Clooney and then designate her as an "upscale" redefinition of a "Trophy Wife?" Even women deemed to have attained equal earning power and career position would ultimately still be objectified by this author as a desirable mate's accessory- and that's something for the rest of us to admire? 

This disturbing message is not a new trend. In Beyonce's ridiculously sexist but crazy catchy song, she pleads to her man to be allowed to "Upgrade U":
"Ran by the man but the women keep the tempo, it's very seldom that you're blessed to find your equal, still play my part and let you take the lead role. Believe me. I'll follow, this could be easy."

Even Queen B, in all her powerful glory, glamorizes settling for sidekick as the ultimate aspiration. I consider this to be a pretty crappy message. 

The Huffingpost blog post author lauds the replacement of "the woman who got ahead on her looks by marrying a 'sugar daddy'" by the new edition, accomplished Trophy Wife, proclaiming "That's sexy."  

That's sexy?? For whom? I'm confused. What are we even talking about anymore? Heavy sedation and a spinning totem may be required just to wade one's way through the presumptions within presumptions that flimsily arrive at the illogical limbo of this author's flawed conclusion.

The author even interjects in her article "Hooray equality!" However, I do not think that word means what she thinks it means.

Using demeaning generalizations and phrases like "brainless beauty," and by equating earning power, high salaries, lofty academic degrees, and professional positions with worthiness, this author does more to set back feminism in the 21st century than any Don Draper could (I actually don't watch Mad Men - I just assume Don Draper is a sexist from the 50s?). These modernized gender constructs are no less destructive to female empowerment than their antiquated counterparts. 

The author's concluding message involves a quote identifying the hallmarks of the new-age "alpha" women as "power, success and financial security," the overarching value of these qualities residing in their newfound likeliness to inspire erections and/or wealthy marriage proposals. I guess the poor recipients of unimpressive B.A. degrees are effed. Good luck settling for less powerful vagrants, like teachers, firemen and public servants. And God help the spinsters. 

The Walking Dead Season 5 Mid-season Finale - "Coda"

*Picture courtesy of http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com

co·da

kōdə/ noun 
1 a : a concluding musical section that is formally distinct from the main structure. 
   b : a concluding part of a literary or dramatic work.

The mid-season finale aired last Sunday, 11/30, but I was so underwhelmed I am forcing myself to post only now, a week later.

I suppose what follows are spoilers but there wasn't much that wasn't rotten about this episode to begin with.

I second-guessed that I was even watching the mid-season finale because of how uneventful the episode was until the last five minutes. I get how things work now. I can just imagine zombie executives sitting around a conference room discussing their Walking Dead formula - elevate an otherwise non-essential character to only summarily kill off the character to give the masses something to talk about (and petition, really?) in an otherwise dull half-season. How lazy! 

Everything involving the hospital in the first part of this season 5 was just a contrived and empty construct leading to nothing but the elimination of an insubstantial character who was systematically inflated to artificially create the impression of a meaningful loss. I was as emotionally invested in this character's departure as I was (not) moved by the hokey folk music she performed in the last few minutes of previous episodes in place of a satisfying ending.  

It's not her fault that she was so poorly used. Who will be the baby Jude holder now (besides Tyrese, Carl and Michionne, who is also being wasted - even Carol has evolved!)? If your role on the show is to explain baby Jude's whereabouts and continued survival, your character's days are numbered. 

By the way, the actress who played Officer Dawn Lerner wasn't very good in the part and the character was a bore (although, it was cool to see her hold her own in a fight scene last episode). The best part of this episode was that Walking Dead brought an end to subjecting us to Officer Lerner, although they continue to waste our time and their season.

Hating on/Review of the Doritos Crash the Super Bowl Semifinalists

*Pic courtesy of some Random Blog - no, literally.

3 of the 11 commercials I featured in my review of Doritos Crash the Super Bowl contest entries are among the 29 semifinalists:

Dog Dreams
Lemonade Stand
and the commercial I noted in my "Updates" after originally posting: Doritos Angler

Despite my weak prediction track record, below are my picks for the 10 finalists. You can see how subjective this whole process is by reading another review of the semifinalists here on the Video Contest News website.

In no particular order after the first half:
Dog Dreams - however, the VCN reviewer points out that the driver's lack of a seat-belt could be an issue because federal regulations prohibit advertisers from depicting unsafe driving. Can they just "video-shop" that in?
Do the federal ad regulations relating to driving apply to dreams about driving?

Doritos Angler - I think this commercial is ridiculously absurd and funny! 

Lemonade Stand

When Pigs Fly - which I reviewed in the comments to my earlier Doritos post.

Tea Time

Mis-Spelling Bee

Wish Upon a Dorito

Actually, I am finding it painful to come up with 10.


Here are my thoughts on the others:

Middle Seat is a well-produced commercial - also requesting a review in the comments of my earlier post. However, I just can't get past the crude dig against sufferers of Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS). I don't find it funny at all and I don't think it's acceptable for a nationally airing commercial to be so insensitive with respect to a medical condition. 
In fact, it seems this entry breaches the Doritos contest official rules:
"it must not contain... messages (including but not limited to words, images or symbols that are widely considered offensive to individuals of a certain race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic, or other group..."

Gone Ape - How could these guys have missed the obvious punchline of the ape shoving the triangle into the mouth of the doctor who slapped her hand? 

Baby's First Word - This is a well-made commercial but it's far too predictable. Who didn't know where this one was going the moment it started?


These are the semifinalists that completely left me head-scratching:


What Could Go Wrong? - In my opinion, this is the worst of all of the 29 semifinalists! Besides the low production quality, I am really perturbed by Doritos finding anything funny about a woman being hurled off a roof-top. Especially in light of the recent incidents of violence against women by NFL players, why would Doritos or the Superbowl want to be associated with a commercial making light of even the accidental harm to/death of a woman. It's just not funny. 
In addition, does this not violate this official Doritos rule? "must not portray neck and/or head injuries or symptoms thereof, including, without limitation, concussion or memory loss." 
I guess events leading to these prohibited injuries and/or fatalities are okay and even comical to the Doritos judges?

Trouble in the Back Seat - low production quality and completely unoriginal idea. How many Doritos commercials are out there involving a police officer making a traffic stop?

I Did That - same comments as those for "Trouble in the Back Seat" but just swap out police officer making a traffic stop with man dressed up as a Doritos chip guilty of nacho hand-stains on a woman's butt.

Pink Slip - good Doritos eating actor but how would a commercial with such low production quality ever air on prime-time television, let alone during the Super Bowl? Come on.

Other semifinalists I straight up hated: Blind Date, Doritos Manchild and Cheesy Teasy. 

The remaining semifinalists I didn't mention didn't really inspire a strong reaction either way. My brother got a kick out of "Tiny Mouth," which was ranked #2 by the VCN reviewer but I don't really get it? Which means it will probably win.

Despite posting like a hater, good luck to the semifinalists!

Ad Critique - Overstock.com Diamond Ring

This is another commercial that I have been meaning to critique.



Why must women constantly be portrayed in such a vapid way? More bothersome than her juvenile, hysterical reaction to being gifted an engagement ring, is the sudden change in the engaged female's demeanor to that of nagging selfishness. Why should she make an issue of her fiance, who so generously gifted her a diamond ring, using the savings towards a gift for himself? It's so unlikeable of her to bring up the first month's rent when it comes to his watch but not to her more expensive diamond ring. Then, for the final nail in her character, she accepts his purchase upon demanding that her lover never be late... like, ever.

What is the intention of ad execs when they feature such characters? The male is portrayed as generous and fiscally smart, and the woman is portrayed as hot, giddy, uptight and controlling. What is the attraction for consumers? Shop at Overstock.com and pacify the naggy bitches in your life that you want to continue to bone?

The couple in this commercial are clearly getting divorced.

Law School Deans Protest Too Much

*Picture courtesy https://catmacros.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/busted/

Check out this recent article in the New York Law Journal regarding the reaction of law school deans to the decline in scores of the most recent July 2014 NY Bar Exam.

The article describes law school deans as being puzzled, dismayed and even angered by the results and the conclusion by the test administrators that the drop in bar passage is not representative of issues with the test but that "the group that sat in July 2014 was less able than the group that sat in July 2013." Brooklyn Law School's Dean was so incensed that he called for a mass apology to his entire class of graduates.

I'm no expert but I'm actually puzzled by the deans' puzzlement. My understanding is that law schools have been graduating way too many lawyers than justifiable by the need in the legal market and most schools have been slashing admissions standards. 

These articles are just a small sampling of those addressing the legal market burst bubble:

There would be enough legal jobs for law graduates if law schools hadn’t slashed admissions standards.

The Real Problem with Law Schools: They train too many lawyers

Just How Bad Off Are Law School Graduates

From the last article referenced above: "Prospective law students are already responding to the dismal job market. Applications to law school are expected to hit a 30-year low this year — down as much as 38% from 2010. Some law schools have responded by shrinking their class sizes, and there have been predictions that in the not-too-distant future some lower-ranked law schools might have to close entirely."

Shrinking class sizes means shrinking budgets - less students generate less money. So most law schools have relaxed their admissions criteria to enroll students who may not have otherwise made the cut. So, why the surprise that these students may not be as strong when it comes to passing the bar exam?

The New York Law Journal article included these stats:

"Brooklyn Law School saw a 9.5-point decrease, to 84.5 percent from last year's 94, which had been a record for the school. But the academic profiles for the class of 2013 and class of 2014 were nearly identical, Allard pointed out: both had median LSAT scores of 163. Indeed, the credentials for the national classes of 2013 and 2014 were identical as well. Each had median LSAT scores of 157 and median GPAs of 3.42, according to Law School Admission Council data."

Now, I'm no statistician. However, I know lawyers and most of them don't have the mathematical expertise to be spewing statistics. In the hands of attorneys, statistics are often misused and carelessly inserted to provide weighty authority to faulty arguments. 

Here's my question for a statistician - what does a median really represent? Does this data actually support the conclusion that the credentials for the classes of 2013 and 2014 are identical? I doubt this. In fact, it's my guess that despite sharing the same median LSAT score and GPA, the credentials of the national classes of 2013 and 2014 are not exactly identical. 

The median is simply the measure of the center of the data. Here's more helpful info I googled (from http://www.nedarc.org/statisticalhelp/basicStatistics/measuresOfCenter/median.html):

"When the mean and the median are the same, you know that the dataset is "normally distributed." When the mean and the median are different, you know that the data are "skewed" in some way."

So, this naturally begs the question, what are the mean GPAs and LSAT scores for the national law school classes of 2013 and 2014? The answer to this may help settle the question of declining bar passage, probably the natural consequence of the actions taken by law school deans that now leaves them dumbfounded.

Return to Walking Dead - Season 5

After a strong start to the season, this show returns to disappointing after multiple sluggish episodes culminating in an inane ending to tonight's "Crossed." It really annoys me when Walking Dead forces their characters to do things that completely undermine them- for example, Sasha's ineptitude tonight. I won't even elaborate because it's so uninspiring in its stupidity.

I wish the writers would make more intelligent choices instead of thoughtless ones that don't even drive the pace of the plot forward and therefore are usually worthless. 

Now, I turn my attention to a cake pop. 

Mmmmm. That's better. 

Doritos Crash the Super Bowl Contest Semifinalists (My Picks)

Although Doritos initially expected to announce up to 30 semifinalists by Monday, November 17, this has been delayed as they are still reviewing submissions. 

In the meantime, here are entries that stood out to me:

50 Shades of Nacho Cheese: This commercial is a take on "Fifty Shades of Grey" which is a clever strategy considering Universal has teamed up with Doritos for the contest and Universal will be releasing the "Fifty Shades of Grey" movie in February 2015, soon after the Super Bowl.
This commercial will especially resonate with the legions of global fans obsessed with Fifty Shades and therefore has cross-promotional appeal. If this commercial goes viral/is aired during the Super Bowl, it would introduce Fifty Shades to a broader audience than simply the readers of the book - I envision male Super Bowl viewers who would otherwise be amused by this commercial, are explained the inside joke by the Fifty Shades fans in their lives, i.e. wives/girlfriends/boyfriends? and are then coaxed into accompanying said Fifty fans to the movie - ahhh, see how Doritos brings lovers/freaks together.




Dog Dreams - This one featured awesome special effects, a Doritos truck and the perfect dog for the concept! How did they do that!? I'm curious how much this commercial cost to make. Not sure why the house is decorated like it's from the 70's though?



Craveman - Although my initial instinct would be that cavemen have already been overdone (Geico), this commercial was really well made. Check out the Nacho Cheese impression of Michaelangelo's "The Creation of Adam." Again, how much did this one cost to make!?



Dorito King - This one is my brother's favorite. It is successful because of the talented actors, particularly Marcus Johns who I think is a real comedic standout. I expect to see him make it big and he already has a substantial Vine following.



A Dorito A Day Keeps the Doc Away - This one is my brother-in-law's favorite. It's a well-made commercial with cool effects. It's also being well-promoted because it stars a pro-wrestler.



The Last Bag - This really well-executed commercial packs in a lot of action in just 30 seconds and I now realize firsthand how challenging that is to pull-off. The throwback to multiple Universal movies was really clever too (especially to my fave). However, this entry uses original music - which sounds great but is illegal according to the official contest rules. It doesn't seem fair that this commercial would move forward for that reason to me since all rule-abiding entries were limited to only the music provided by Doritos.



Girls Only Party - Once again, it's the talented cast that really makes this commercial a stand-out for me. The girly men are hysterical. I love the scene with the hand-slap followed by girly laughter.



The Lemonade Stand - This is a really well-made commercial. However, as nicely as this idea is executed, there's something awfully saccharinely manipulative about the whole thing. I think I got diabetes just from watching this. I'd like Doritos to ultimately go for something edgier as their winner.



Old Enough (Version 2) - There's something simultaneously creepy and captivating about this odd little commercial. Again, great casting enhances the production and I like the diversity of the cast which is lacking in previous contest finalists. However, I don't get why the little girl would be too young for Doritos? I'm not sure that Doritos wants to endorse that message even if I see Super Bowl viewers getting into the hot model.



Hurry Back - Clever premise that was executed nicely. Great acting and loved the expression of the little girl at the end.




I wonder how many of my picks will make it to the semifinals!

By the way, if you would like for me to review your Doritos commercial entry, comment with the link below.

UPDATE: Check out additional great entries that I missed before writing this post by reading the comments! For example, why does Doritos Angler have so few views?! It's hysterical!

The Walking Dead Season 5 Premiere - "No Sanctuary"

*Very cute zombie love picture courtesy of redundantthoughts

My love! Could it really be!!? Have you finally returned!?? (and along with it my recently defunct blogging)

Finally!!!!! After a sluggish and disappointing Season 4, and even as implausible scenarios persist (the feeding, changing, and no-(zombie-drawing)-crying of Judith), the Walking Dead reemerges months later in all of its former glory. They even made Carol a bad-ass! 

The question that lingers is can this wonderful momentum continue throughout the season or will it be reserved only for the mid-season/season finale? 

Winning

I fit in exercise session 68, cuddled a sweet baby, reunited with old friends and after years, finally played a home game of poker- and won! 

p.s. It doesn't happen often but Noah joins the ranks of rented movies that are so bad, I can't even finish them. This movie was terrible in so many ways, as better elaborated here: The Emperor's New Movie.

p.s.s. It was probably cute, but I fell asleep before getting through Dreamworks Wallace & Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit. Reading through a Wikipedia overview after waking up didn't compel me to continue. 

I also saw Kung Fu Panda 2, which was cute but did not surpass its predecessor.

Divergent - The Paradox of Choice

Just saw the Divergent movie - it's very entertaining and cast very well. Shailene Woodley is a great young actress and yes, her romantic opposite is hot. 

While I enjoyed the story, its base premise seems to be flawed. 

"In a futuristic dystopian Chicago, society is divided into five factions: Abnegation the selfless, Amity the peaceful, Candor the honest, Dauntless the brave, and Erudite the intelligent. Members join a faction based on their choice but are given a suggestion by an aptitude test." 

The test results of Tris, the heroine of the story, show attributes of several factions (Abnegation, Erudite and Dauntless), meaning she is Divergent. Tris spends most of the movie keeping this a secret, as Divergents are considered threats to the social order and are persecuted.

To mask that she is a Divergent, Tris's test results are recorded as Abnegation (the faction into which she was born). However, at a choosing ceremony, Tris joins the faction of Dauntless. She then proceeds to pass various stages of testing to complete her initiation into Dauntless.

At one point, Tris needs special training from her boy toy, the dark and stormy Four (stupid name) to complete her final initiation test as a Dauntless would, as making choices unlike those of Dauntless would reveal her to be Divergent to the powers that be. To me, this demonstrates a paradox. 

If passing the Dauntless final test is facilitated by making choices as Dauntless would, then anyone who doesn't via assessment test match into Dauntless but chooses to join Dauntless and successfully passes initiation should (either be Divergent or) possess the qualities of more than one faction - that of the house they matched into and that of Dauntless.

I understand that according to the story, Divergence is a special quality, like a physiological condition, existing when a single individual possesses attributes of more than one faction - a big no-no for the government. But, if you're going to allow for choice, anyone who tests into one faction but joins another also possesses attributes of more than one faction - that of the house they tested into and that of the house they chose and successfully joined. The existence of choice begets its own kind of divergence.

I'm guessing the ultimate revelation could be that everyone is capable of divergence and that factions are simply a tyrannical system of control imposed upon the masses which when confronted will enable people to realize that they do not have to exclusively embody one defining attribute. In that case, choice should have been eliminated to keep the pre-revolutionary ruse intact. It's totally inconsistent to persecute Divergents if you're going to allow people to choose a faction despite what they test into, unless the expectation is that anyone who chooses a faction outside of their test results should definitely fail, but that doesn't seem to be the case in the story. You would think the Erudites would have figured this out already?

p.s. According to Wikipedia, the author of Divergent wrote the novel "while on winter break in her senior year and the movie rights sold before she graduated from college." I was lucky if I got through a load of laundry during my winter breaks.

Jeopardy Injustice Prevails!

I received the following notice:
 

A few days ago your petition — Justice in JEOPARDY for Kid Contestant Zoe! — was automatically closed because it had been open for 366 days. Is your campaign still going? Don't worry — you can easily reopen your petition.

If your campaign won, that's fantastic! Declare victory now and let your supporters know you've won.

Thanks for starting a campaign on Change.org,

The Change.org Team 

I still think Jeopardy made a terrible ruling, and a whopping 49 people across the country agree with me.

Masterful Tim McGraw

I wasn't really familiar with Tim McGraw (and I don't think I knew a single song of his) but I happened to catch Oprah's Master Class on the OWN Network featuring him. What a contrast to the episodes I've encountered previously! 

Tim McGraw came off likable, charismatic, sincere and interesting... helping me to realize the value of the show when it's done right. Listening to his story was inspiring and conveyed the benefits of perseverance, hope and humility. It doesn't hurt that he's also talented and good looking. Well done Tim McGraw, country superstar!