Test 2

This group text between Melissa, Fiona and I perfectly illustrates why I love my wife.

She helps to even me out.
She smoothes out my rough edges.
She bring balance to The Force that is my life.

This text was from this afternoon when my daughter wasn't feeling well and didn't want to take care of Molly. I (being the consummate skeptic) respond in the most 'me' way possible: "tough". Girl, you need to take care of the dog.

Melissa, on the other hand, is concerned and wants to know what is happening that Fiona doesn't feel well.

Why is she so great? Melissa is more caring and empathetic than I could ever dream to be. She balances out my cynicism with her compassion, and reminds me that sometimes the world is a bit different than I perceive it to be. She helps me to recognize that occasionally I need to give people (read: my daughter) some grace. For helping to provide that balance, I am eternally thankful.

Happy Valentine's Day to everyone - but especially my "lobster" Melissa.

I've mentioned my friend Nate before. The above is a recent press video that he produced with the help of some fine folks. You can download his most recent single "The Camera Chases" at any of your favorite digital music outlets (iTunes, Spotify, Prime).

And be sure to check out his music and show dates at NateWalkerMusic.com.

[video credits: filmed, directed and edited by Keith Pyatt, assistant DP - Leigh-Ann Ott]

Is it just me, or do Elsa's actions this look somewhat familiar?



As the good folks at IGN said on Twitter:

Elsa is essentially a superhero now and we're definitely ok with that.

Agreed. I think that it'll be another smash success for the House of Mouse. However, this has me wondering if Disney be able to replicate the hit musicality of the first film?

I got schooled by The Oatmeal.

No, really.

For the full comic, go here.

My takeaway is this: no matter how many facts that I have to back-up my argument, depending upon the listeners worldview, people may not listen to reason. Check out The Oatmeal, and read more about the "Backfire Effect". It's worth your time.

York College of Pennsylvania is facing some scrutiny for some creative photo editing:

The new billboard for York College of Pennsylvania features a typical headline for admissions marketing: "Envision the Possibilities at York College." Eight students smile. One is African American, one is Asian American and one woman (with her hair covered) appears to be Muslim.

But in the last week, the billboard turned from a source of pride to one of controversy. The original photograph shot for the billboard (above on left, with the billboard on right) featured two white students who were replaced with two students who reflected diversity. The original photo and the doctored one circulated on social media (with arrows noting the changes), and one of the students in the original photo shoot reached the photographer. She reported to a local news station what he said: “He was, like, yeah, they just wanted a more diverse billboard, so we had to get two other students, and we put them in there. When they went to show the person that had to approve the photo, it wasn’t approved, so they had to rush to fix the problem."

Hit the link for the actual photo comparisons.

Yikes. I'll bet the marketing folks at York College are sweating a lot.

Man, it looks like Hoth around here!

Yup. We were home from work and school today. I just finished clearing the driveway. Hopefully it won't re-freeze overnight...

[image: some nerd-group on Facebook]

Okay, so here's the deal gang... people are mean.

Alright - not everyone. But lately, it seems that everyone who calls the Undergraduate Admissions Office here at Penn State is just straight-up unpleasant.

This is the time of the year when we put out thousands of admission decisions. Literally. In the month of January alone, we released over 15,000 admission decisions. That's a lot. And as you can imagine, not every applicant is getting the decision that they want from us. Some students get admitted, others denied, and yet others are invited to our waitlist.

And then come the phone calls. And the emails. And the in-person appointments. Yes, we actually have families that get into a car and drive several hours to our office to talk about the "mistake" that we have made in their child's admission decision.

Please don't get me wrong: I don't mind that people who call and want to talk to us about their application, and the opportunities that they have at Penn State. What I do mind is the folks who call/email/show up and yell at our staff. Berate our staff. Call us "crazy". Tell us that we're "horrible".

I have no patience for the rude, obnoxious, and offensive phone calls and emails. And yet, we have to have patience because it is our job to work with students and families to help them find the best fit for the students' higher education.

This leads me to ask a seemingly dumb question: why is it that people who want something from us think that they will get what they want if they are aggressive and downright mean?

Let me give you an example.

Let's say that you think that you're awesome at your job. You would go to your boss and say, "I'm awesome at my job, could you please consider me for a promotion?", right? The way that many of these callers treat our staff is akin to throwing open your boss's door and screaming, "Hey there chief! I want more money. I think that you're an idiot for not already considering me for a raise. I'm going to go visit the president of the company and tell them how stupid you are, and demand more money in my paycheck."

Sounds crazy, right? This is what we deal with everyday, but even moreso this time of the year.

I think that there are a couple of issues at play here:

1. A lack of understanding. First and foremost, I don't think that people realize the volume of applications that we receive at Penn State. If we get 60 thousand applications and only enroll eight thousand students (at the University Park campus), then there will be a lot of very talented students that we are not able to admit. It's not an applicant problem, it's a space issue at our campus. Having moved to the Common Application this year has only exacerbated this situation (because we have seen a dramatic increase in applications). And it should be noted that none of this isn't unique to Penn State. 
2. A sense of entitlement. Many students and families think that if they have attended every home football game for the past ten years, they are entitled to being admitted to Penn State. This rationale is especially bad with applicants who have alumni in their family or who "know someone" (e.g. a local congress-person). Alumni will usually play the 'donor card' and say that they gave money to Penn State for their education, and then argue that this fact should essentially guarantee their son or daughter a place on campus. 
3. A mis-perception of what "customer service" is. One of the things that our operation prides itself on is working with students and families to provide good service. Personally, I don't even like to refer to what we do as "customer service" (I'd rather refer to it as "student service" or "building relationships"). But, in essence, that's what it is. The problem is that many callers treat our staff like they are talking to Verizon, and when they don't get what they want they think that they can talk to someone else who will oblige them. I hear stories every day about the father on the phone who isn't getting what he wants and says to one of our team, "I'd like to speak to someone higher up than you are." This is especially aggravating because the "higher up" person is going to tell that father the exact same thing that he's just heard. And then the cycle repeats itself. 

So, what is this rant all about? What am I asking YOU to do? Simple: be nice.

The Golden Rule applies everywhere you go folks, and that includes working with admissions staff at colleges and universities. When a caller has waited on hold for 35 minutes (because we get thousands of calls each month), and finally gets through to one of our staff, the conversation usually goes in one of two directions:

• "Wow! You guys must be super busy!" 

...or...

• "It is completely unacceptable that I have waited that long. I deserve (insert ridiculous demand here) for my time that you have wasted."

Needless to say, we prefer the former. AND, our staff is going to be much more accommodating and likely to help you if you are understanding and compassionate.

That quote is an old one and has been uttered in many different ways by many different people, but most of the attribution that I have found goes to American businessman John Templeton. However, for the purposes of this writing, and the argument that I'm making, the source is irrelevant.

What does matter is the notion that above all else you should treat people how you'd like to be treated. While you may have been waiting on hold for 27 minutes, the person that just picked up your call was likely getting screamed at by the previous caller. If you start into that person as well, then they are likely going to shut down and not be as likely to go the extra mile to help you.

Think of it this way: if you want to get help in resolving your issue, be nice. No matter how frustrated you are. Because the odds are that the individual that you get to help is more frustrated.

Bottom line: just be nice.

I was combing through some admissions-related articles and remembered hearing about this one. All I can say is wow:

According to a summary of her claims in the judge's ruling, the admissions officer asked Katchur about her race, and when she answered that she was white, the admissions officer asked "if plaintiff was sure and suggested that plaintiff obtain an expensive genetic test to see if she could qualify as Native American or American Indian to garner better chances of being accepted to Jefferson." The admissions officer also told Katchur, she said, "that she advised a past Caucasian applicant to obtain a genetic test, that the applicant learned that he was partially African American, and that he was accepted into Jefferson on account of his race." Black applicants have a better chance of admission, Katchur said she was told.

There are many things wrong with the situation - but chief among them is the fact that the admissions officer asked about the race of the prospective student. Then recommended taking a test to see if there were any traces of diversity in her background. Regardless of your opinion of affirmative action and consideration of race in admissions, these actions by the admissions officer are beyond what is appropriate.

Hot off of the presses, here's the 2019 "sizzle" video for Penn State. I'm proud to work here and call this place my home!

An interesting Bat-read at /film:

“It’s very much a point of view-driven, noir Batman tale,” Reeves says. “It’s told very squarely on his shoulders, and I hope it’s going to be a story that will be thrilling but also emotional. It’s more Batman in his detective mode than we’ve seen in the films. The comics have a history of that. He’s supposed to be the world’s greatest detective, and that’s not necessarily been a part of what the movies have been.”

Batman’s detective skills have mostly been overlooked in the movies, although Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy had few scenes here and there of Batman engaging in some minor detective work. The Batman will apparently take things even further. In regards to the detective aspect, Reeves adds: “I’d love this to be one where when we go on that journey of tracking down the criminals and trying to solve a crime, it’s going to allow his character to have an arc so that he can go through a transformation.”

The article also talks a lot about the variety of villains that will be in the story - not just one-at-a-time, a la the movies that we have seen thus far.

BUT, the most interesting thing for me is this tid-bit:

Beyond that, Reeves confirms that Warner Bros. is moving away from the shared universe idea, and is going to focus on one movie at a time. “Aquaman is going to be very different from the Todd Phillips Joker movie, and that’s going to be different from Shazam and Harley Quinn,” Reeves says. “Warners believes they don’t have to try to develop a giant slate that has to have all the plans for how it’s going to connect. What they need to try and do is make good movies with these characters.”


This all sounds promising, and I’d love to see Reeves knock this out of the park. When done right, Batman can be compelling as hell. When done wrong, well, then we end up with Justice League.

My emphasis. I have to say that I'm stoked for the Shazam flick (trailer here). Love me some Zachary Levi.

Aw geez guys, it wasn't that bad.

However, I'm surprised that Warner wants to move away from the "Cinematic Universe" format. Marvel (read: Disney) has demonstrated over and over again that the intertwined story-lines and characters in their films can be an enormous box-office success.

Back in the days of the original X-Men movies (over at 20th Century Fox), I was just overjoyed that Marvel characters were getting the big screen treatment. The idea of a larger universe for these characters - where everyone is aware of other characters - is what has become so appealing to me. Once Marvel got to the Avengers: Infinity War, and all of these epic comic book characters were sharing the screen together, it was simply thrilling.

SO, why is it that DC Comics/Warner Bros. cannot catch the same rainbow magic that Marvel has with the "cinematic universe" concept? According to Screenrant, it started with meddling from the Warner Bros. studio:

Concept artist Jay Oliva has confirmed that Snyder's original plan for the DCEU was for a five film arc. This story would be told in Man of Steel, Batman v Superman, Justice League, Justice League 2, and likely Justice League 3 - with Superman, the rise of the Justice League, and Darkseid at the core. We've laid out his entire plan in the past, but Snyder only truly got to see his vision through on Man of Steel. Although the story and tonal decisions of Batman v Superman remained true to Snyder's original take, Warner Bros. still stepped in to cut down the 3 hour runtime that would eventually be released as the Ultimate Cut. Snyder's grander plans for the DCEU went off the rails after Batman v Superman received an even harsher reaction than his previous DC film and saw the studio get cold feet. They heavily reshot Suicide Squad to change the tone, and that was just the beginning of the studio meddling.

As a result of Batman v Superman's reception, Geoff Johns - then the freshly appointed head of DC Films - became more involved with Justice League. Reports surfaced that changes were being made to Snyder's original plan during production. After completing filming, Joss Whedon was hired to write scenes for the film's upcoming reshoots. His role became much larger after Snyder stepped away from the project in early 2017 due to the death of his daughter. With Snyder out of the picture, Warner Bros. and Whedon continued to change Justice League to better fit the vision of the studio, going as far as changing the ending as plans for Justice League 2 were distanced. Justice League still saw a tepid response upon its release and disappointed at the box office. It is the lowest grossing DCEU film to date worldwide, despite housing all of its stars.

I liked both "Batman Vs. Superman" and "Justice League" - though not as much as any of the Marvel universe movies.

Back to the original reason for this post: Batman.

Bruce Wayne has been one of my favorite DC characters for a long time. Ever since the Michael Keaton donned the black cowl back in the late 80s - my first real exposure to a good superhero film - I have been a fan. But, putting a different twist on the character is a good thing. We've all seen the Batman-as-a-vigilante superhero guy. What about a less superhero-y type of adventure for the caped crusader? Something more akin to Sherlock Holmes would be pretty sweet.