Recipe: FoCo Sunshine - Spicy Salmon & Egg Burrito

 Note: this dish is spicy! Use less cayenne pepper for more mild results.

Ingredients:
 6 eggs
1 big clove of garlic
1 cup chopped parsley
1/2 cup chopped basil
18oz salmon (can be canned, cooked, smoked, etc. - but not raw)
1 tbsp cayenne pepper (1 tsp for mild spice)
1 tomato
1 jalapeño
3 tbsp mayo
4-6 tortillas

Instructions
1. Melt your favorite butter/oil in a frying pan with the stove set to around medium.
2. Scramble 6 eggs.
3. Mince 1 big clove of garlic and add to eggs.
4. Chop 1 cup of parsley and add to eggs.
5. Chop 1/2 cup of basil and add to eggs.
6. Add ~18oz of precooked salmon to the eggs and mix well.
7. Add 1tbsp of cayenne pepper to the mix.
8. Chop 1 tomato and add it to the mix.
9. Chop 1 jalapeño and add it to the mix.
10. Add 3 tbsp of mayonnaise and mix well.
11. Throw onto a tortilla and wrap into a burrito (makes about 4-6 burritos).

I Should Not Be Forced to Bake a Cake and Neither Should You

This article is a response piece to an article published in the Christian Science Monitor on December 29, 2015 entitled “Oregon bakery pays $144,000 fine for refusing to bake gay wedding cake.” The original article can be found here: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/1229/Oregon-bakery-pays-144-000-fine-for-refusing-to-bake-gay-wedding-cake?cmpid=editorpick

In 2013, Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer were planning their lesbian wedding. For their wedding cake, they went to Sweet Cakes by Melissa, a bakery in Oregon. The bakers there refused the order on religious grounds. They apparently did not approve of gay marriage. That should have been the end of the story. Laurel and Rachel should have found another bakery willing to take their order and given them their money instead. Rather than do this, however, Laurel and Rachel decided to sue for the discrimination. They won and were awarded $135,000 for the emotional suffering they were caused by the denial of service.

Had the property rights of these business owners been respected, the free market would have been enacted. The two women would have taken their money to an establishment willing to fill in the supply for their demand. Sweet Cakes by Melissa turned down their money. In doing so, they clearly defined the service/product their private company was willing to provide, and which private parties it was willing to do business with. The keywords in this last sentence are 'private' and 'willing.' Business should always be voluntary. After all, nobody should put a gun to your head and order you to shop at a furniture store. The concept is the same in both instances. While companies and their clients are distinctly defined different parties in the transaction of goods and services, they are both, nonetheless, private entities which should be able to choose what kind of transactions they engage in.

Perhaps Sweet Cakes by Melissa thought that they didn't need Laurel and Rachel's money. Perhaps word of the incident would have hurt their business. Maybe it would have put them out of business. It's also possible that their overall business wouldn't change at all or even increase because of it. The point is that we should be held responsible for the consequences of our decisions, and do so in the free market system naturally. Had the couple just walked away, they would have filled the market with the demand for services they need. I could see an entire business being dedicated solely to the fulfillment of that need. That's why the free market is such a great thing.

Instead, socialistic bureaucracy is choking away the property rights of business owners. Businesses are private endeavors using private property to perform private transactions amongst private parties (the only exception being the public government). The law used in this case wasn't even one that had to deal with denying service to potential clients. It dealt with discriminatory hiring practices, a law which also strips away another right for a business to run itself as it sees fit. We may not like the choices some companies make, but we must allow them to operate with freedom for the sake of principle. We do have the option to boycott them, and collectively our actions will speak through supply and demand.

It appears that the primary argument against what I'm saying is that of collective public ownership – which is, at it's core, communism. It's the idea that since the business is open to the public, it must subscribe to public rules. The ruling judge in another case won against a venue refusing to host a different lesbians' wedding put it this way in her decision, “the policy to not allow same-sex marriage ceremonies on Liberty Ridge Farm is a denial of access to a place of public accommodation.” This business is located on private property. It has private rules which just so allow members of the public to enter it at hours it designates. The establishment is not a part of the public, and therefore it should not be within the same jurisdiction as public places. It provides a service which members of the public can request of it as private individuals, but it is not performing a public service subjective to the collective community like parks or streets. It pays its taxes and outside of that it owes the public nothing.

I’m not arguing against social reform, but there must be a distinction between social and legal reform. We must be free to make the decision to do the right thing, not have it be forced upon us by the legal system. To force people to be morally good creates resentment for those practices (even if they really are objectively right), and we might get it wrong to begin with. It also stifles the development of social reform since it forces people to subscribe to a particular system of doing things rather than allowing it to evolve naturally as situations change. Morality loses all meaning when it is prescribed rather than something people freely came to on their own accord. In both preserving the moral good and legal freedom, we must allow private entities to make their own decisions on how to govern themselves. Even if a decision made by a particular party is socially frowned upon, they must have the right and freedom to do so without the expense of dealing with legal ramifications.

Is the Libertarian Party right to sue the Commission on Presidential Debates?

 

The Libertarian Party (LP) claims to be “the Party of Principle.” As someone who has subscribed to the political philosophy of libertarianism for close to ten years (my entire adult life) and cares for it deeply, I am often put off by the shenanigans of the official LP which contradict those very principles. I do think that libertarianism is founded on some very strong principles. I'd say that those principles are more solid than any other political philosophy or party. I think those principles are important and must be maintained for social progress. It is for these reasons that I feel that libertarians must strictly hold the LP to high standards – to those very principles. If we sacrifice those principles in our attempt gain office we won't have them once we're in office; we'll be just like the Democrat or Republican candidates – telling it's followers what they want to hear to gain voter support while playing cut-throat politics to maintain power.

So, what in blazes am I talking about?

On September 29, 2015 the LP filed a lawsuit (not the first of it's kind which the party has filed) alongside the Green Party against the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) arguing that the requirements the organization set up for presidential candidates to participate in its debate events keep third parties from being eligible year after year.ⁱ I won't discuss what those requirements are, or what the lawsuit wants them to be changed to because it's completely beside the point.

Well, isn't the LP being discriminated against along with other third parties? Isn't there a conflict of interest since the CPD was created by just the Democratic and Republican parties? Didn't then (1987) co-chairman for the CPD Paul G. Kirk, Jr. say he believed that third party candidates should be outright excluded from the panel?ⁱⁱ Doesn't the LP have a right to that stage to give the people a third option?

To answer my own questions: yes, yes, yes, no.

I'll repeat this unpopular opinion: No, the LP does not have a right to the CPD debate.

The fact of the matter is, the official sounding CPD is actually a private corporation, founded jointly by the Democratic and Republican parties, also private institutions which, to the best of my knowledge, receive no government subsidies. The CPD is completely privately funded, the debate events it holds are private events, and the rules they create are legally sanctioned by the foundational principles of private property over which they have ownership. The presidential debates is a product disguised as a public service. The LP has no more right to demand participation in it (let alone it changing the rules of this private organization) than the Raiders have a right to demand participation in the Super Bowl without qualifying by the NFL's rules.

Do they have a monopoly on something that has much influence over the election? Arguably you could say that they do, but that is only because of a combination of a lack of conscientious consumerism and competition. It's only because so many people watch the CPD debates exclusively that they have said “monopoly.” That is completely at the fault of the American collective. If there was enough demand otherwise, things would change very quickly. Anybody can hold a presidential debate. After all, before the CPD there were other independent presidential debates. Quite frankly, there were years in which no presidential debates were even held (i.e. 1964, 1968, & 1972).ⁱⁱⁱ The CPD dominance can be largely attributed to the lack of supply within a marketplace where there was clearly demand. The Libertarian Party did host a “Third Party Presidential Debate” in 2012, but ultimately that didn't directly compete with the event which included the two largest presidential candidates.^iv

The way I see it, the only three outcomes that would favor third parties such as the LP that don't violate libertarian principles are if a third party meets the CPD requirements to participate (15% voter support), the CPD voluntarily changes it's own rules to include third party presidential candidates more easily, or if a different event holds a presidential debate including the Democratic and Republican nominees alongside third party candidates due to enough demand (much of which would have to come from within each of the two major parties) for such an event. As a supporter of competition within the marketplace, I'm holding out for the third option.

Is it deplorable that we're in the situation we're in right now? Yes, it is. I don't like it. I'm not saying that libertarians should lay back and accept the situation for what it is. We have to work towards change to achieve any of our social goals. I don't like the CPD. I don't like the power it holds over public opinion on the presidential elections or how it uses that power. I don't like that year after year the LP is kept as much in the dark as the Democrats and Republicans can keep it in. But, it's the people who subscribe to the CPD events. It's the people who give the two major parties the support they have. It's the people who complain that both choices are corrupt or inadequate but choose not to look at alternatives. The CPD is a private corporation. They have every right over their product – the presidential debates they hold. They have every right to make whatever rules they wish for the event. The LP has no right to bust in and tell them to change a thing.

You've all heard the phrase, “I don't agree with what you're saying but I'll fight for your right to say it.” I think that hits home to a lot of libertarians. What of property rights? Are you going to violate them just because you don't like the product? Are your actions going to be determined by an emotional outrage due to injustice or will they be founded by principle?

ihttps://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarian-and-green-parties-sue-fec-for-anti-trust-violations-in-presidential

iihttp://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/19/us/democrats-and-republicans-form-panel-to-hold-presidential-debates.html

iiihttp://www.debates.org/index.php?page=overview

ivhttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/13/libertarian-party-sues-chance-stand-2016-president/

Learn How to Lucid Dream

What is Lucid Dreaming?

Lucid dreaming is a form of dreaming in which the dreamer becomes aware that he is dreaming and then able to consciously control what happens in the dream. It's a very odd, but exhilarating experience because it is a very vivid form of visualization. The dreamer has to merely put forth a thought and the subconscious will fill in all the blanks. It requires a constant mental effort or else the subconscious takes back over the dream. Through this technique the dreamer can do just about anything. Some of the things that a lucid dreamer could do is fly, go skydiving, run crazy obstacle courses, play video games, create worlds of energy, create two dimensional realities. It's like reality+. You can do just about everything you could in real life plus more, and it's all completely under your control.

How to Lucid Dream

Some people find lucid dreaming much easier than others. There is a way to train yourself to lucid dream. It can take up to a year, but if you're persistent then there should be results. There isn't anything crazy that you have to do, but it needs to become routine. One annoying factor is that you're going to have to give yourself some extra time in the mornings, so you'll have to get up earlier than you usually do.

Also, if you are taking anything that causes you to not dream, that's something you're going to have to eliminate in order to be able to lucid dream. Alcohol, for instance, greatly cuts down the amount of time that your brain experiences Rapid Eye Movement (REM) sleep, which is the period of sleep in which you dream.

If you're having trouble dreaming in the first place, there are a couple things you can do to stimulate it. First off, try concentrating on the idea of dreaming as you go to sleep. Tell yourself that tonight you will dream. Practice visualization as you drift off.

It's also very possible that you just forget you even had any dreams. It's easiest to remember your dreams if you wake up straight out of REM sleep. If you're finding that you're consistently not able to remember having any dreams, try setting your alarm to go off an hour or two early and see if that doesn't work (obviously, you don't want to do this on a regular basis).

Finally, there's drugs, which I am very cautious about recommending since dreaming is a completely natural function that you're trying to stimulate, so using drugs as a jump start can work, but don't let yourself become dependent on them in order to dream, or sleep for that matter, as that would be counterproductive. That being said, melatonin can greatly stimulate the dream process, and lucid dreaming for that matter. If you do use melatonin, make sure to do so on a night where you can get plenty of sleep.

The Dream Journal

So, the first step on your journey towards lucid dreaming is to get a Dream Journal (DJ). This is something that you should keep at your bed, preferably within reach without having to get out of bed. Obviously, you'll need a pen to go along with it. Each time that you wake up from a dream, immediately write down everything you can about it. Don't fall into the trap of assuring yourself that you'll get to it in a minute. Force yourself to get up and write. Write down every detail, no matter how disturbing. Depending on the content, you may want to keep your DJ private. This stimulates your brain to consciously access the part of your brain that was dreaming. At first you'll only get a couple lines down for each dreaming session, but eventually you'll be able to remember more and more. Don't worry if you're rambling, as remembering one part of the dream will spark a remembrance of another part.

Once you've gotten to the point where you dream regularly and can write down your dreams in a decent amount of detail, start analyzing them. You'll obviously need quite a bit of content to do so. Identify elements that keep popping up in your dreams. This could be anything from specific people, animals, objects, or situations. Make a list of these Dream Identifiers (DI).

Reality Checks

Next, you need to create a Reality Check (RC). Remember how in the movie Inception DiCaprio had a top he would spin to verify that he wasn't dreaming? We're going to do just that but for the opposite purpose. The first RC that I recommend is to look at your closed hand and slowly open it one finger at a time. In a dream your fingers will distort. They'll stretch out, become wavy, or melt into two dimensional strings. Another RC is to look at the clock. Analog clocks work best since in a dream you'll see the hands moving, but a digital clock works as well since the numbers will change, especially if you look at it, look away, and the check the time again a second later. There are a couple others, such as flipping light-switches on and off repeatedly, but I don't like a lot of them since you can't perform them anywhere, and if you do them in real life (which we're about to get to), you'll probably annoy the people around you. These RC's must be something you can perform at any time a DI pops up.

So, the next step is to start performing a RC whenever you encounter a DI while you're awake. You need to turn it into a habit. This habit should make it's way into your dreams, and when you perform your RC things will start to get a little weird. You'll have a hard time accepting that you're dreaming at first since it seems so real and vivid, but you'll know logically that you must be in a dream since what you're experiencing just does not make sense.

Lucid Dreaming at Last

And then you'll wake up. You'll wake up a lot once you hit this point. Don't get discouraged, as you've taken a monumental step towards achieving lucid dreaming. At first you'll wake up the moment that you realize that you're dreaming. When you hit that moment of realization, concentrate on staying in your dream. This is hard to do since when you realize that you're dreaming, you become aware of your body lying and sleeping. This is what wakes people up.

Eventually, you'll achieve a sort of union between sleeping body and dreaming mind. This is when you stay in the dream. You'll still be completely aware of your body sleeping, but you'll stay in the dream and be able to move your focus back into it. I remember the first time I lucid dreamed I realized that I was dreaming and expected to wake up like I had so many times before, but I didn't.

This is a very exciting moment. You won't know what to do with yourself at first. Just play around with the dream world. Think of anything and your subconscious will fill in all the details. Avoid taking too much control as your subconscious will simply not be used to it and you'll wake up. Instead, slowly implement more and more control as you have more and more dream sessions. Also, avoid anything that is too physically stimulating as that too has a tendency to wake you up in your early days of lucid dreaming.

Some Additional Information

Finally, lucid dreaming is like working out. If you stop, you will gradually loose your ability to do so. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but it's something that you should be aware of if you throw in all that effort to achieve lucid dreaming. Figure out your own priorities.

Also, eventually your RC will stop working as your mind will be able to create more stable dreams. By that point you should be fairly experienced with the dream world, so you'll have to create your own reality checks on the go within the dream. A great way of doing this is to try to take control of the dream. Just be vigilant (in real life as well as in the dream world) and pay attention to things. If you're dreaming without having realized it, something will pop up that just doesn't make sense.

The more you dream, the longer you'll be able to stay in the dream world. Lucid dreaming works the same way. The first couple times I had lucid dreams, they only lasted a couple of minutes. As I become more acquainted with lucid dreaming, though, I was able to stay in my dreams longer and longer. Eventually I got to the point where I could spend a couple days worth of time in a dream. This can be a little disorienting when you wake up, but it doesn't take too long to remember where you are or what day it is.

Happy dreaming!

How to make a paperclip phone stand.

 

Do you ever find yourself in need to prop your phone up? Sure, there are phone stands you can buy, but it's really easy and cheap to make your own out of two 4" paperclips and just a little bit of duct tape. The Philadactyl is here to show you how! Watch the video below to see me actually make one of these stands, and/or you can find a complete step by step guide with pictures if you scroll further down.

 

Once you have your paperclip ready to go, bend it upwards at point 1 so that it's sticking up at a diagonal angle. Bend it outwards just a little bit at point 2 to give your stand a larger base. Bend the paperclip even more upwards at point 3 to create the back on which your phone will rest. Once this is done, it should look like the photo below:

We're almost done! To keep your phone in place rather than have it sliding down the front of your stand, bend the paperclip upwards at points 2 and 4 so that it looks like the photo below:

Now just repeat this process for a second 4" paperclip, line the two of them side by side, and duct tape them in the middle. The final product should look like this:

Smoking Bans: A Debate Filled With Erroneous Polarized Arguments

During High School, I took a class on argumentation and debate. One of the topics that we had to debate was the issue of smoking bans in restaurants and bars, a trend which has been sweeping through the United States over the past several decades. I expressed my strong views on the subject, and as such was placed by the teacher onto the side of the debate which I personally opposed. The arguments each side used during the debate were ones I was quite familiar with. The smokers wanted the right to smoke while the non-smokers wanted the right to breathe clean air. Throughout the entire process, I desperately wanted to go to the other side and explain to them exactly what kind of argument they could use to beat us, but I was forbidden to do so. I wanted to give them my reasoning on the subject, reasoning that I hadn't seen pop up too often during this kind of debate. My side won the argument, and I walked away with the most disappointed bittersweet victory I had ever tasted.

Fast forward many years, and I now find myself working in a bar. Consequently, my work environment is filled with discussions on such topics, and when the city of Fort Collins decided to ban smoking not just inside of bars and restaurants (as had already happened many years prior), but also on all patios as well. This move sparked conversation on this familiar debate, and I kept hearing those same arguments which I had heard during my High School class: the smokers wanted the right to smoke while the non-smokers wanted the right to breathe clean air.

It is this political climate which has inspired me to finally formulate my two cents on the subject publicly. There is a profound flaw in the way that this issue is being debated. The reason why I felt such torture all those years ago in the classroom was that the focus was thrown onto the incorrect parties throughout the entire thing. The debate focused on the smokers and non-smokers, but there is a far more relevant party which this issue, and any laws passed on it, affects far more than the clients of these businesses.

Have you guessed it? I'm talking about the business owners. They are the ones who are being restricted from providing the types of services they wish to provide. They are the ones who put forth the money for the businesses, own the property with which the businesses operate, and pay taxes on their entrepreneurial endeavors. They are the ones who should be able to decide what kind of environment their customers walk into when they walk into the restaurants and bars in question. They are the ones who have the law breathing down their necks on this issue.

I can understand why this argument has thrown so much focus on smokers vs non-smokers. They are two interested parties who are very polarized. They both want to live their lives with the freedom to do so however they see fit and they are easy to group into opposing factions. This polarization appears to give credence to the smoker vs non-smoker argument.

But, I urge you to understand that this is ultimately a fallacy. If we really want to promote freedom, in all aspects, to where people can live however they choose to, we must respect the property rights of business owners. The businesses in question should be able to provide whatever kind of service they choose to. However they choose to rule on this subject internally, they will attract or repulse customers based on their decisions. There will be places where smoking won't be allowed without there ever being a law dictating that. Perhaps smokers won't go there. That's something between the establishment and their potential customers. The law has no place in this. There'll be places with non-smoking sections and smoking sections. Adament non-smokers might choose not to go there. Again, that is their decision. And finally, there will be businesses which  allow smoking. At that point, the non-smoker chooses to enter or evade that establishment by their own prerogative. Caveat emptor.

"Ah," but some smoking ban supporters might say, "but what about the employees who work at establishments where smoking is permitted? That constant second hand smoke will affect their health." Perhaps so, but they chose to work there. Nobody put a gun to their head and told them that they have to work there. They might further argue that there could be circumstances where the only jobs available for certain people would be at establishments where smoking is allowed. Nonetheless, it is ultimately their decision to engage in employment at such establishments. It sounds harsh, but responsibility must accompany freedom.

It is not the job of the government to protect people from themselves. Life isn't a cakewalk, and it never will be. History has shown that whenever the government steps in in such a manner that it usually doesn't improve the situation. People should be left to their own devices without having Big Brother breathing down their necks. Some will surely harm themselves, but it's not the government's job to prevent this as in doing so they will only hinder others from succeeding by imposing on their liberties, which is, when you think about it, ultimately quite un-American.

Movie Review: Wild (2014)

The Philadactyl reviews Wild

Cheryl's life is ruined, and she has decided that in order to pull herself together she's going to walk herself straight by hiking over a thousand miles along the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT). She begins with little experience if not none, and over the course of the movie she makes peace with her past so that she can move forward with her life. This synopsis could be implemented into a riveting adventure story about man vs the wild and how Cheryl gains and implements experience into her travels through nature. It could start with her being afraid, lonely, tired, and making some foolish mistakes, but show through various scenarios over the course of several months how she learns to survive, becomes effective at it, and becomes comfortable with her surroundings and way of life while on the trail. Such a story should be about transformation, but alas 2014's Wild starring Reese Witherspoon clearly has very little idea of how to do just that.

The opening scene of the movie tries to draw the audience in, and almost succeeds to do so, with Cheryl climbing to the top of a mountain to dress a particularly nasty wound involving her big toe. In doing so, she accidentally knocks her boot, the one piece of gear that would protect her wound from her harsh surroundings, down the mountain. It keeps rolling and rolling as Cheryl watches in disbelief. This clearly, is not one of Cheryl's most pleasant moments, and it truly tests her. The audience is left to wonder just how Cheryl got into this conundrum, and how will she handle it to overcome it? Any immersion which this dramatic opening scene had on the audience is instantly broken as Cheryl stands up, throws her other boot down the mountain, and emotionally yells, “Fuck you!” Good job, Cheryl, now you have no shoes out in the wilderness. Oh yeah, that's right, we're watching something that's fake, something that Hollywood made. I'm sitting in a movie theatre, because if I was in Cheryl's situation, even if I was emotionally wrecked and I felt helpless, I wouldn't do anything to intentionally make my situation worse. Maybe my actions might unintentionally make things worse, especially if my nerves were shot, or I might give up for a while, but out in the wilderness, where you can only help yourself, you would never knowingly do something to make things worse. The melodrama that Cheryl engaged in is equivalent to angrily destroying your phone by throwing it at a wall. Sure, it's a huge inconvenience to yourself, and thus a valid expression of frustration, but it isn't life endangering.

This opening scene provides the model for the rest of the movie. That scene isn't returned to. By the end of the movie, we still have no idea what point in her adventure she was at when she had climbed that mountain, how she got hurt, or how she moved own without any shoes. Due to the shameless and painful plug they have later in the movie, I suppose it can be assumed that REI dropped off a new pair for her by helicopter.

Cheryl's hike is then shown in chronological order, but nothing really happens. There are plenty of situations which would have to be addressed throughout the course of hiking a thousand miles across various terrains out in the wild, but the movie almost never touches on it. Instead, it focuses on why Cheryl is hiking the PCT in the first place, and thus the movie gets sucked into a black hole from which there is no redemption.

During the course of Cheryl's hike, the movie is constantly cut with scenes from her past, which are jam packed with generic cheesy drama. I understand that the movie tried to explain why Cheryl would do something so dramatic as to go out and hike a thousand miles through the wilderness, but it went over the top with it and threw too much emphasis on it. We get it, she had a messed up life; you could have shown us this in a brief fifteen minute scene if you really wanted to show us.

That brings up another point – why show us her past at all? There were plenty of situations throughout the movie during which Cheryl could have talked about it with the various characters she encountered on her adventure, and she did a little, but the movie mostly relied on actually showing us scenes from her past. She even got interviewed at one point by someone writing for the “Hobo Times.” The scene was one of the few successfully comical moments in the film, but it lacked the potential to shift focus from Cheryl's past to her current adventure by exposing her past in a modern sense.

Instead, for half the movie we got a series of discombobulated flashbacks which were just scenes inserting unnecessary drama and/or sex. They weren't even chronological, and often times didn't really relate to anything the Cheryl was doing out in the wild. They were just there for the sake of tugging at the emotional strings of the audience by quickly triggering them with one extreme social situation before jumping on to another one. A brief list of scenes used to do this involve an abusive alcoholic father, drama over her mother being in the same school as her, an asshole brother who may have been mentally retarded that got in the way of his mother bettering herself, distanced himself from her, and didn't get to reveal how much his mother meant to him before she died unexpectedly of cancer, Cheryl cheating a lot on her husband and as a result getting pregnant by an unknown father, getting divorced, using drugs, getting robbed, and even a guilt scene about shooting a horse (although this last one kind of tied into her getting in touch with nature, but by this time in the movie flashbacks came off as cheap and empty). While these scenes could arguably be there to provide back story, due to their over the top nature and multitude they lacked any substance. Instead of building character they ironically took away from being able to show Cheryl's transformation along the trail which would have developed her character on its own.

This technique of relying on drama for cheap emotional triggers even permeated its way into the hike scenes by means of rape fear. There are at least three scenes during which Cheryl, despite having been established as a very promiscuous woman (she even brought an entire roll of condoms with her), is scared of being raped during her encounters with strangers. None of those strangers ever made a physical move on her, and those scenes came off as quite unnecessary. While they revealed Cheryl's insecurity, once would have been enough to do that, especially since half the time said strangers actually helped her on her way. This might be a minor thing to complain about, but in the context of all the other unnecessary drama the movie throws at you, it's that cherry on top of a pile of excrement.

The half of the movie focusing on Cheryl's actual hike is decent, but it doesn't shine, mostly due to how little focus it has. Character transformation isn't fluid, making jumps here and there. During an early scene Cheryl is inside of her tent scared by the noises she hears outside. Very soon after she's howling with coyotes she hears in the distance. Out of nowhere she suddenly gets over her ex. The list goes on. Obviously, it would have been very difficult to show such transformation because of how little screen time Cheryl's actual hike was given, and that is the central flaw to this film.

The movie doesn't really show her struggling with nature outside of a small scene here or there. A lot of the hiking scenes involve her during her breaks at campgrounds and even at a town. Most of the conversations and events during those scenes are shallow, pointless, and confusing since Cheryl's character is radically different there than during her flashbacks. Before her hike she is shown as somebody who is outspoken and does her own thing to the point of confidently engaging in reckless and self-destructive behavior. Out in the campgrounds and wild she is quite timid. I suppose it can be claimed that the hike transformed her, but that transformation wasn't ever shown. Nobody gets to see why she turned out that way.

My main gripe with the movie is that it didn't really show Cheryl tackling nature. It didn't show her struggling to learn the most basic of survival skills such as making a fire, making inexperienced mistakes, and then learning from them. Such experiences, and scenes depicting them, should have been central to showing Cheryl's transformation. Instead, the closest the movie comes to this is a scene where Cheryl buys the wrong type of fuel for her stove, a scene where she trims down her pack so that it's not as heavy, and a scene using iodine tablets to purify some water from a puddle she found. Notice that all those scenes involve her dealing with gear, not nature (although to give the movie credit, Cheryl does get swept away a little by a river). She was relying on finite resources to survive rather than bending nature to her needs. Hell, at the end of the movie she burns the pages of a book by themselves without using them as kindling to start a proper campfire. Good job, Cheryl, that fire lasted you fifteen minutes at most. Now what are you going to do?

Like all of her life decisions, her conclusions came out of nowhere and the movie was over. I will say that I did buy what she had to say at the end of the movie, about how she accepted her past rather than regret it since she had learned from it. It was a realistic conclusion, but the ending was rather abrupt. There wasn't really any indication that Cheryl was reaching her destination, physically or internally. She came to a sign before a bridge and went into a monologue. Some post script about how she eventually found a new man and had a child with him was shoved down the audience's throat and the credits rolled. At the end of a movie about a journey, I didn't feel like I had gone anywhere.

Wild is a drama film trying to disguise itself as an adventure film about inner and outer exploration. It doesn't really know what it wants to do, and this ultimately becomes as self-destructive as the protagonist's past. Although it's clear that the filmmakers wanted to take the audience on a journey of reconciliation and transformation that only prolonged exposure to the wild outdoors can do, it failed to actually do so since there isn't really any journey between the beginning and the end, and it got so tangled up in it's own back story that the conclusion is abrupt and empty.