Friday, July 24, 2015

Well Begun Is Half Done


I’m back!  I do want to apologize for my blogging absence lately.  I can’t believe it’s been over half a year since my last post.  A lot has happened in between and I can’t put my finger on a single reason for the hiatus, other than “life.”  I’ve since had landmarks galore; I graduated with my master’s degree, moved back to my hometown, bought a house, and earned my marriage and family therapy license!  Also notable in February I accepted a job providing therapy to a population I never expected in an environment I’ve never imagined as an option.  Working in an inpatient psychiatric facility has expanded my horizons and been a tremendous opportunity for my experience and professional growth.  But it has also had an impact on my personal mental health, and in the interest of balancing my new life, I left the blog light off.  I’ve definitely missed it, and things are finally starting to settle down for me.  Recently I got the urge to finally write a post I've had bouncing around in my head for a while, and it was great to dust off the old blog again.  So without further ado... welcome back and I hope you enjoy!

Often while watching one of my favorite films, Mary Poppins, I draw parallels between her work with the Banks family and the techniques used in family therapy.   I absolutely love that there's a strong connection there, and I'd like to break it down.

The first thing to point out about the story is its initial “problem children” angle.  Oftentimes families present with a crisis or challenge and it’s easiest to blame the children for the disruption.  This is because they tend to act out behaviorally, in a way that can be measured like “tantrums,” “disobedience,” or “truancy.”  They don’t have effective language yet, so the behavior IS the language to signal something’s wrong.  But to many parents, these behaviors begin to become one in the same with the children; they become the problem rather than the manifestations of external factors.  In reality, problematic behavior is a response to something deeper, something missing: stress, instability, a feeling of insecurity.  And this can clearly be seen in this example. 



While comical characters, it’s important to look at how the Banks parents appear to their children.  Both George and Winifred Banks are involved elsewhere, leaving the children with no stable caretaker.  Nanny after nanny come to try to alleviate the symptoms, to put a band-aid on the children’s issues, but they only exacerbate the situation.  The children don’t want temporary nannies, they want their parents.  As a way to cry for help they act out: running away, terrorizing the nannies, talking back.   In response the parents only search for more strict nannies.  This is an ineffective solution, only further depriving the children of the warmth and love they so need and desire.  A family therapist using the MRI Strategic method would see this as a runaway feedback loop and search for an alternate solution at the appropriate level. 


It’s even interesting to me to dive into the reasoning behind the parents’ misdirection.  George loses himself in work because of the  current society’s expectations that “in the age of men” he is lord of his "dominion.”  His place is in the workforce and Winifred’s is in the home.  Contrarily, Winifred bucks this notion of society, pouring herself into activism and the fight for women’s rights.  She dare not defy George to his face, however, and is expertly attuned to what may upset or please him.  She is the peacekeeper of the home while fighting the good fight outside of it.  Activism makes her feel important and accomplished because George takes his masculine expectations of the home most seriously.  In the midst of this marital struggle, the children are lost and left behind.  George values consistence and schedule (to a rigid extent) while Winifred fares better in chaos and unpredictability (leading to unclear expectations).  In this case, Feminist Family Theory may prove effective to help the couple come to terms with society’s expectations on gender roles, and in turn relieve them of the pressure they feel as a result.

Meanwhile, Structural Family Theory emphasizes the value of a healthy balance between rigid and diffuse boundaries between members.  If the boundaries are too diffuse the members become enmeshed: lacking individuality and order.  If they are too rigid the members become disengaged: lacking warmth and connection.  This translates into family rules and interactions as well.  Winifred likes to discuss things, and when the children provide input for their choice of nanny she humors them by listening.  She is flighty and appears na├»ve, yet kind.  George, on the other hand, insults her nanny-choosing ability and dismisses the children’s advertisement, to the extent of ripping it up and throwing it in the fireplace – the ultimate rejection of the kids’ opinions.  He has expectations, yet is cold.  These two extremes prove that neither is ideal and this conflict has obviously contributed to the current family crisis. 

Finally, the much adored Mary Poppins arrives on the scene.  Kind, yet extremely firm, not old-fashioned, she sells herself quite strategically to Mr. Banks and begins her work immediately.  The children are confused at first by this nanny who is so starkly different than any caretaker they’ve yet encountered.  There is resistance, of course, as there always is in the face of a disruption to the norm.  Even the most dysfunctional family’s actions serve a function, even if only to keep to what’s comfortable – this stability state is called “homeostasis.”  When they test Mary only to find she is unwavering in her expectations and yet fun to be around at the same time, they quickly give up the self-defense walls they put up initially.  As mentioned above, they thrive off of structure and having a caretaker from which they can feel a sense of safety, security, and stability. 



Mary also lays down expectations of her own.  She gives herself a “trial week,” implying that this is not to be a permanent thing.  Therapists do this too, and define the length of treatment from the beginning, lest families become attached and helpless on their own.  She is a mechanism, through which the family will be improved, not the cure itself.  She keeps things very down-to-earth, while dabbling in playful fantasy; this keeps the children engaged while making sure they’re grounded in reality as well.  Playfulness is a necessity in working with children in any field.  As mentioned in previous posts, play is the language of children.  Mary understands this, which is why using magic to clean the nursery and going on fantastic outings is a part of her repertoire.  She uses humor as well, which is highly valuable to kids, yet slips in some smart sarcasm every now and then (“you know best, as usual”).  Very confident and experienced therapists use this as a technique in itself.  Sometimes pointing out the ineffectiveness of a family’s current efforts in just the right way can give them a different perspective.

My favorite parts of Mary’s approach are the elements reminiscent of Strategic therapy.  She makes cleaning fun, so that children actually desire to do more of it.  (“I don’t want to go on an outing, I want to tidy up the nursery again!”)  Paradoxical interventions are used, as she sings  “Stay Awake” so that the defiant children will resist direction and do as she wishes, not what she says.  Some call it reverse psychology, but we call it prescribing the symptom.  Also, her flawless indirect directive during “The Life You Lead,” in which she convinces Mr. Banks that taking the children to work with him was his idea, makes my therapist heart sing.  The immediate denial of fantastic events after “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious” brings the children back to reality and shows that a caretaker can be both silly and serious, but can’t be both all the time.  It doesn’t always make sense while she’s doing this but in the end she gets the response she desires.

Throughout all of this, George Banks gets more and more irritated at Mary Poppins, despite the fact that the children are happier and no longer acting out.  He’s confused at the sudden change, at the disruption of his “known,” his homeostasis.  He’s used to thinking that he has control (even if he never really did) and the fact that he doesn’t understand this just makes him feel even more powerless.  He feels “undermined,” illustrated by his demand that his piano be in tune even though he doesn’t play.  He’s “out of sorts” and grasping at any semblance of control over his “dominion.”  This is why Mary’s strategy to have him take the kids to work is important.  She knows he needs to feel a sense of control and puts the kids right in a position for him to take the parenting reins.  While Strategic, this is also Structural reconstruction, as the parental subsystem should hold appropriate hierarchy over the children subsystem.  Unfortunately this ends in once again another power struggle with the kids, which is handled ineffectively. 


George has good intentions to impress but ultimately boggles the children and makes them feel intimidated.  Mary had emphasized kindness and searching for the little joys in life – something that Mr. Banks generally overlooks (“He can’t see past the end of his nose”).  This is why feeding the birds seemed much more important to the children than Mr. Banks.  Again, here we see Mr. Banks attempt a misguided solution by pressuring Michael more and more.  He talks long-term investments, which is way over the children’s heads, as kids can’t really think future-oriented yet.  We know how this ends, with a very large consequence in a run on the bank.

Afterward the children know something unfavorable happened.  When they desperately relate the situation to Bert they say, “You should have seen the look on his face, he doesn’t like us at all.”  Bert uses metaphoric language to try to get the kids to understand Mr. Banks’ perspective – another intervention helpful for understanding and communicating about the issues.  “Caged up” is a metaphor for his isolation in the lone power-holder role, he “fends for himself”, and Bert enlists children to give their father “help.”  He gives them a sense of agency and humanizes Mr. Banks, making him seem more relatable as a lost soul. 

Bert also shows his strength during his conversation with George Banks.  As George opens up to him, complaining of when “things began to happen,” everything “higgledy piggledy” and Mary bringing “chaos in her wake,”  Bert is frank with him and reminds him that he’s missing his kids’ childhoods.  He reflects back to George how he feels; he needs to act as a father, but in a way that makes him think twice about the effects.  He’s just experiencing a crisis in his normalcy (that homeostasis again) and more important is how he chooses to be a father from here on out.  Once George is fired from the bank he is ultimately freed from those rigid expectations of being the perfect lord of his castle.  His paradigm shifts and he is able to spontaneously surprise his children with mending their kite, and ultimately beginning to mend their family. 



In the end we know Mary Poppins must leave, although we’ve become so attached to her by this point.  When it’s pointed out to her that the children care more about their father than her, she replies, “that's as it should be.”  Again, Mary played the perfect therapist: becoming part of the system just long enough to restructure and refresh the family, and then leaving them to continue making progress on their own.   It was a jolly holiday, and now that the winds have changed - literally and metaphorically - she disappears.  

It's debatable who the story of Mary Poppins is really about.  Some say the kids, some say Mr. Banks, some say Mary and Bert.  It's all a matter of perspective, but in my opinion the entire system is the subject of the film.  In true systems theory form, it's all interconnected. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and it's obvious at the end when the happy family unit is complete and functioning well.  It's important to view families in this way, especially when working to improve them.  No one member is more important or significant than the others, and you never know how one is affecting the rest.  In this way we can take a lot away from this playful children's tale.  It's practically perfect in every way.

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

Big Hero 6 Review (Spoilers!)


I finally got the chance to see Walt Disney Animation’s new film Big Hero 6 over the holiday weekend and wanted to write a bit about my thoughts.  This won’t be as extensive as my Frozen review, but I definitely thought it deserved a bit of analysis and reflection.  I’ll start by saying I went in not expecting much.  I lack any knowledge of the original comic, (disclaimer) and action movies are very hit or miss for me, especially Marvel films.  Captain America captivates my attention substantially more than Thor does.  I can’t pinpoint the rhyme or reason but it does.  In addition, I’ve tried to keep myself informed on trailers, concept art, and other publicity that could give me a clue as to how good this film would be, and as a result   I saw things that got me excited and things that annoyed me.  Therefore I tried to go in with an open mind and reasonable expectations, and was pleasantly surprised!

I’ll start with the positives and what I liked about Big Hero 6.  I appreciated the unconventional family portrayed, as a pair of brothers being cared for by a busy aunt.  We learn that the boys’ parents have died and Aunt Cass stepped in to provide guardianship, but nothing more about the situation.  She’s not the most adept at childcare but you can tell her heart is in the right place.  The truth is this situation isn’t as uncommon as audiences may think.  In my experience, kinship care is the preferred option for children whose parents have died, are incarcerated, or even have had their children removed by child protective services.  Oftentimes these guardians have the biological ties but are still must learn how to best care for children for a variety of reasons.  I liked seeing the dynamic between Aunt Cass and the Hamada brothers.  She seemed a bit eccentric but I like to believe she was really just doing the best she could with what she was given. 

Moving on, one of my favorite sequences (aside from the flying sequence in the middle… this floored me more than the lantern scene in Tangled!) was the introduction of Tadashi’s “nerd lab” friends to Hiro.  We meet GoGo Tomago, Wasabi, and Honey Lemon in an exciting scene in which they demonstrate their scientific contributions and unique personalities.  They entice Hiro into wanting to be a part of the program with their friendliness and brilliance.  Fred serves as the comedic relief, making the team all the more relatable to the audience. 

This team of scientists was not only exciting to see in action, they were a diverse group in more ways than one.  This has been one of the most consistent praises of the film so far, thankfully!  It boasted not one, but TWO female scientists.  I appreciated the social message this sent, as one was tough as nails and a bit tomboyish, while the other was girly, stylish, and sweet as, well, honey.  This served to open up the concept of female superheroes rather than pigeonholing one into the “strong female” trope.  It’s okay to like pink and high heels and chemistry at the same time.  It’s also okay to fight sexist language by saying “woman up!” while fighting a super villain.  I liked and appreciated that a lot. 


I was also reminded of a tweet I saw a few months ago referring to Frozen and Elsa’s popularity.  It mentioned that the reason Elsa may be so popular with girls is that she was more or less a female with awesome superpowers.   This stuck with me when I watched the action sequences in BH6, and I was cognizant of how I was entranced and even envious of their scientific “powers” so to speak.  It was awesome, and I hope filmmakers start to catch on to this obvious demand from their female audiences.  Maybe then we’ll get Marvel movies with headlining female leads rather than a few females supplementing the many male title leads. 

Last but not least, Wasabi was an ambitious, yet skeptical male character who showed that superhero dudes can be cautious and even nervous sometimes.  The film doesn’t try too hard to prove anything about gender and science and fighting, yet because of that it totally works.

While I appreciated the diversity in race and gender in our main characters, I couldn’t help but notice a lack thereof in the background characters.  For a city that is supposed to be a blend of San Francisco and Tokyo, there didn’t seem to be many Asian characters after the first scene, besides of course our protagonist siblings.  The culture and architecture were incredibly fused but I would have loved to see more representation in that regard.  Also, the use of CGI was both a blessing and a curse in my own humble opinion for this film.  For the action and scenes with flight and robotics this format excelled.  However, I’m still not sold on its ability to depict a wide range of humans in a satisfactory way.  Honey Lemon and GoGo both screamed Rapunzel and Tadashi was a cookie-cut of Hans.  It was a distraction to me, personally, and I really would like to see more risk taking in animation styles in human forms in subsequent films. 

Another critique I have is the portrayal of Baymax as a fat comic relief character at times.  I adored Baymax in general but there were several fat gags that made me uncomfortable, especially when I heard the theater laughing around me.  The initial trailer showed him trying to chase a ball that he couldn't reach due to his body shape.  While this was not in the actual film, the first draft of body armor definitely set him up to be a source of humor rather than an intimidating fighter.  While I know this isn't the most atrocious joke, and Baymax ends up having more depth as a character than just a fat comedian, I still think these small aspects could be eliminated altogether for the benefit of promoting healthy body image and confidence.

To finish on a positive note (sort of), I’d be remiss if I didn’t discuss the excellent character development around the concept of grief and loss.  It’s not like Disney hasn’t covered this area before.  Parental death has almost become the running joke and is almost more expected than unexpected by this point.  And it’s no surprise it happens here but we also get the added death of Tadashi.  While death itself isn’t new it is covered in a unique way.  Hiro grieves along with his aunt and Tadashi’s group of friends but very separately.  He’s only 13 and since his parents died when he was very young I can deduce that he didn’t really establish effective coping skills.  He takes his time grieving while Aunt Cass and his friends voice concern and encourage him to begin moving on.  In reality seeing someone hurting so much is painful in itself, so it’s natural to want to give them a little extra push.  However, it’s important to remember the process is different for everyone and this pushing can actually make some people retreat even more. 

The nice thing of introducing Baymax at this turning point in the film is his “personality” of robotic innocence.  His friendly nature is inquisitive, effectively asking Hiro to think more about his grief and pain while explaining it to the healthcare companion.  I love that Hiro’s emotional health is what’s important in this film rather than a physical ailment.  This positive message about his grief and depression has the potential to help change the way people think about mental and emotional health.  It is just as real and important and needs unique attention to begin healing.  In this film Baymax acts as a collaborator, a conduit for internal inspection, and most importantly, a literal representation of his brother’s spirit and love. 



My favorite scene in the film, as mentioned earlier, was the scene in which Hiro and Baymax test out his new flying feature and soar high above the gorgeous city of San Fransokyo.  While experiencing pure bliss in the literal ability of flight, there was a short moment where he looked at his reflection holding onto Baymax in a window with a huge smile on his face – this was a flashback to earlier in the film when he looked at his reflection holding onto Tadashi while on an exciting chase from the police.  It was such a short symbolic moment but it hit me pretty hard.  Hiro had found a way to cope with his grief and discovered a friend in which he could see his brother’s legacy live on.  The ending sequence where Baymax’s sacrifice to save Hiro and Abigail shadowed Tadashi’s sacrifice to save Callaghan made the symbolism all the more clear.  The emotionality of this film felt genuine, and this is something I was definitely not expecting going in.


Well, this post ended up being much longer than I initially expected, but it seems appropriate for a film that pleasantly surprised me.  I know I’m limited in my background knowledge of this comic so I’m interested to learn more about it and how Disney honored its origin while adding its own touch.  As always, I’m glad to see steps forward in racial and gender diversity, and hope it fans the flame to encourage more of this obviously needed progression in the future.  While the storyline was formulaic of its superhero genre, the visuals and added depth of grief, family, and friendship helped it feel more complete. 

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

Sometimes Crazy Ideas Come True

Earlier this year I had a crazy idea.  I was really nervous to try it and put myself out there but decided to throw caution to the wind and try anyway.  I consider myself extremely lucky to have quite a few blog supporters and friends who know what I’m going through this year as I carry out my internship and complete my graduate degree in Marriage and Family Therapy.  Well, I’m proud to announce that the end is near and I have about ONE MORE MONTH left in my therapy internship before moving on to the next chapter in my life.   I could say it’s flown by, but that would not be entirely true.  It’s had its ups and downs, its confidence-boosters and its humiliation, and its rewards and challenges, but I wouldn’t trade this experience for the world.  I feel more ready than ever to start pursuing this as my lifetime career, and you guys as my followers have definitely helped contribute to that.

I am still completely floored by how many showed their generosity and support by contributing to my play therapy wishlist over the past year.  I have reached so many kids through these gifts and for that I am truly grateful.  I was able to witness children diagnosed with ADHD sit and concentrate on removing a peg from Jenga while teaching them why it’s important.  I have communicated with small children through puppets and animal figures while they tell me about their cultural traditions.  I have utilized books about feelings and tricky situations to show kids they’re not alone and there is hope.  I have used simple art supplies like crayons and colored pencils to create metaphors for anxiety and self-esteem, as well as to calm little kids’ nerves during an initial session.   I hope I’m driving the point home here that every single gift has been put to good use and helped me have an impact on a child or family in need. 

Seeing this colorful shelf of fun brightens every day

After this post I won’t be promoting the wishlist as a form of contributions anymore.  I have applied to several full time therapist positions and will (fingers crossed) soon have the opportunity to be compensated for my time in the therapy room rather than working for free.  I hope to have the means to start purchasing my own play toys, as well as the time to write here a little more regularly.  I really miss giving this little blog the attention it deserves and hopefully you’ll be seeing and reading more here soon.  If you’d like to contribute in the meantime, click this link and see if there is anything you’d like to send me to enhance my work with children.  To those who have already contributed, “thank you” is not sufficient enough to express my gratefulness.   You’re the best, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart.


Until next time! ~C

Friday, October 10, 2014

Cultural Appropriation in World Showcase

If you’re like me, you’re a little sick of all the Maelstrom coverage and commentary happening in our community currently… however, if you’re also like me, you want your voice to be heard too regardless.  My stubbornness coupled with my lack of knowledge and personal experience when it comes to EPCOT, led me to join forces once again with the well-traveled and experienced Mike from the Castle to Castle podcast.  Mike and his cohost Emily had me on their podcast a few months back and we discussed many Disney topics in terms of the sociological angles we all love.   You can find that show here if you are interested!  I hadn’t planned to have two collaborative posts in a row, but my busy schedule combined with great friends who can participate in civil discourse helped it end up that way.  So welcome, Mike, and let’s get to why we feel the need to chip in on the Maelstrom mess.

Photo by Mark Willard, used with permission


Well, first off, thanks for inviting me to contribute to this discussion! We loved having you on our show, and I'm honoured to be asked along, although I can’t claim to be a Maelstrom/Norway expert. I do have opinions and ideas about the subject we're about to discuss, and the thoughts in blue are mine.




The hot topics in the most recent conversations are the two major forces at war here: Resentment over Frozen’s massive influence in Disney park management, and a love of EPCOT and its original mission and vision.  I’m not here to discount either of those feelings and so I’m not focusing on them here.  I’m fixated on the bigger problem here, - yes bigger than both Frozen and EPCOT - which should spark more concern in the grand scheme of things, which is that this situation may be a case of culture appropriation.

Kudos for framing this discussion of Maelstrom-to-Frozen (or ‘Frozenstrom’, as I’ve taken to calling it!) within the context of cultural appropriation and exchange. Most of the current discussion focuses on EPCoT purists vs. Frozen fans (which is a false dichotomy; I consider myself a bit of both!), with a sideshow of certain…less critical bloggers complaining about the complaints, and then other folks getting annoyed about that.

Good point.  Frozen vs. Maelstrom has become a binary on which we as a community have been asked to choose a side.  I, too, like both and refuse to pick a “side.”  Culture appropriation, for those of you new to the subject, is the act of taking elements of another culture and using it to further your motive of fitting in, looking cool, or meeting a surface-level desire without actually learning about and respecting the many dimensions of that culture.  The first example that pops into my mind is how ex-Disney star Miley Cyrus recently appropriated the twerking dance move from African-American culture to further her career and create a new edgy image.  It’s unclear what Miley has done to help with civil rights, racial inequality, or discrimination in return, which is why this is problematic.

So why is this different from cultural appreciation?  The concept of World Showcase promotes appreciation of different countries and their cultures.  It emphasizes uniqueness while reminding us we aren’t all that different after all.  One could go there to learn more and explore what makes Norway unique.  It’s not as commonly known as, say Mexico or Italy, so it was truly a new experience for many people.  Now that Maelstrom will be removed for a Frozen attraction and Anna and Elsa will be returning for meet and greets, it begs the question of how much actual Norwegian culture will remain. 

Photo by Mark Willard, used with permission


I reckon, if we’re going to respect World Showcase and the countries represented within, we need to be constantly mindful of the difference between cultural exchange and appropriation. You explain appropriation perfectly; cultural exchange goes beyond mutual appreciation, to where the two (or more) different cultures can share ideas and customs, without anyone getting short-changed or disrespected.
           

I’m concerned because children and families are missing a key opportunity here.  Media literacy, or explaining good and bad possible consequences of what we see in the media, is important for education and socialization as kids grow up.  If you can sit with your child (of a certain age) while watching Peter Pan and explain why that portrayal of Native Americans is problematic, that’s better than hiding it from them altogether.  Likewise, if you can sit with your child and explain that Arendelle is based on a country called Norway with specific cultural elements, your child will obviously learn more than viewing solo.  And taking them to the Norway pavilion, if that chance is available, would be a fantastic way to solidify that discussion and encourage cultural competency. 

The removal of Norway and implementation of Arendelle removes that opportunity and link to the real thing.  Or, at best, dilutes it.  In its place, it leaves a caricature, an Americanization of Norway and its culture.  This is a problematic trend in an increasingly progressive world.  And my question is, does Disney want to be responsible for that in this day and age?

It’s my understanding that World Showcase was conceptualised and organised with considerable thought given to exchange – but with the last word generally given to the countries involved. Not only do I think ‘Frozenstrom’ negates this good will, I think it potentially goes beyond your basic appropriation, edging perilously towards cultural imperialism.  That Americanised caricature you predict would be the result of the dominant Disney getting one over the apparently subservient Norwegians, who we’re told can’t but love the idea. After all, they’re getting all that tourism and Adventures by Disney custom!

Good thoughts, Mike.  I’m glad you brought up the point we are all fed again and again – that this is good! This is promoting tourism in Norway and they only have Disney to thank!  To be thorough, Disney has had its fair share of cultural appropriation in the past.  Think, the Indian Village at Disneyland which capitalized on the “Cowboy and Indian” craze of the 1950s.  Was Disney truly trying to educate families on Native American history and culture, or were they portraying a romanticized version families saw on their televisions each week?  We look back on that critically now and as a sign of the times, so why is it okay to do it now in the twenty-first century?  Shouldn’t we know better?  Shouldn’t Disney?

Photo from Daveland
The cultural imperialism coming to Norway – where a fictionalised version of somewhere at least half-inspired by the country will be around 60% of its representation in EPCOT – generally pales in comparison to that exacted upon more marginalised countries and cultures, like Miley’s twerking rip-off from black women (arguably, one of the most marginalised identities to have). That said, it’s a useful example of how insidious cultural entitlement can be, when the worst offenses are mostly invisible to those blessed with white privilege.

Photo from the Disney Parks Blog
Thank you for pointing that out – this isn’t the worst possible example of cultural appropriation.  But once again, this is something people are dealing with on a daily basis.  With Halloween approaching we’ll see cultural appropriation in the form of tasteless costumes that perpetuate stereotypes.  The Americanization of characters can arguably be found again in the upcoming Big Hero 6, which is troublesome and frustrating.  The Frozen/Maelstrom debacle is just another example of something Disney should know better than to do in 2014.

Thanks again to Mike from Castle to Castle for joining me on this post! I hope this angle helps some look at this issue from a different point of view, but even if not it was something I felt compelled to discuss.