The Conceit of Christianity

Now that the holiday season is over I actually have a bit of time to sit down and reflect on things that have happened and what they mean. It's been a bit of an awkward time, between my mixed marriage which lands me in church, my atheism and dealing with the public, my Judaism and dealing with the public, as well as being very aware of the minority position I'm in. And I've learned quite a bit this year.

Those that follow my twittering will know that I've been reading up on the pre-Christian origins of the December 25th celebrations (and here's a nice article with religious stories and at least 12 pre-Christian gods born on December 25th). I've also been reasoning out exactly what is meant by holiday greetings. But something interesting I have learned about this year is something I could never put my finger on until now. It's the conceit that lays at the heart of modern Christianity. I'm not using conceit in a pejorative way but rather pointing out that current members seem to all share an inflated sense of importance and universality.

What triggered this Yuletide realization was a discussion that occurred at my job. I'm out as an atheist and that means that some of the more conservative people I work with come to me as their friendly unbeliever. Christmas came up and I told them that to me Christmas was simply "Chinese food and a movie day". They replied that it was sad as it is a day about family. I replied "That's true. If you celebrate Christmas." They went on to say that it's really one of the few days off that are celebrated, as opposed to Veterans Day, Memorial Day, Presidents Day, etc. I, once again, agreed stipulating that it's only true if that person should celebrate Christmas.


And then it dawned on me. There was something deeper to their assumptions about the holiday of Christmas and how people celebrated it. To them it was a family day without much religion. But that was still coming from within their Christianity. Their view of my atheism is not that I reject all gods but rather I rejected the Christian god. Their view of the Judaism I was raised with, likewise, accepted a god and therefore the Christian god in some way, though without Jesus. This is probably a shock to most Christians but the Jewish god is not the same deity as the Christian god. Assuming so is part of the conceit of Christianity. Were that true then Christians would be expected to believe in Allah but I'm guessing you'd be hard-pressed to find a Jesus follower who would claim that is true. The best way to visualize this is to put the "big three" in a line:

Judaism-----------------Christianity-----------------Islam

That is a simple time-line. Now, here's how Christians see it:

Judaism----------------->Christianity-----------------Islam

And here's how Muslims see it:

Judaism----------------->Christianity----------------->Islam

Each successive religion sees the previous ones as part of the foundation of their own religion. That's because the older a religion is the more readily people will respect it as a belief system, though Scientology is not more ridiculous than a literal reading of any of those major religions listed above. But by building on an ancient heritage and history they can claim some sort of legitimacy by lineage. The twist is that those previous foundational religions don't accept the spin-off faiths in any capacity. Christians don't accept Allah as their god nor Mohamed as a major prophet. Jews, similarly, don't accept the Christian god or Jesus. There is one ancient rabbinic text that may mention the same Jesus of Christian fame, though it writes him off as a poorly read scholar and therefore finds his religious exegesis moot and invalid. While I can't speak on the details separating the belief systems between Christianity and Islam I can point out some incredibly vast fundamental leaps between Judaism and Christianity. So here are some key facts about how the religion works according to Judaism

• God does not care about belief. One does not need to believe in god in order to be a good Jew.
• It is not written anywhere in the Hebrew Bible that a messiah will be born of a virgin.
• Messiah, in Hebrew, means king rather than embodiment of god. Think savior as in saving someone, not Saving someone.
• There is no heaven or hell in Judaism and to live one's life with the afterlife in mind is forbidden.
• The letter of the laws does not completely exclude the idea of other gods, simply the worshiping of them.

That's just a sampling of differences which really split Judaism from Christianity on the god level. Christianity is based on faith, belief and worship while Judaism is based on practice and adherence (and lineage). Since these are essentially opposing sets of metaphysics their entire world-views are incompatible.


That was a lot to take in, but there's a second part to the Christian conceit I want to get to and that is the idea that Christmas can be a secular holiday. This is false. The confusion comes from the fact that it is currently a federal holiday and therefore observed by the state with the closing of the post office, municipal services and banks. This does not mean it's secular. George W. Bush made "Jesus Day" (June 10th) a state holiday in Texas but if you think that's secular then you're delusional. The truth is the state makes mistakes and this is one of those cases. Christmas, the celebration of Jesus' birth, can never be a secular holiday as long as Jesus is involved in it. And for those who argue that he's not an longer then I must disagree. While the reason for the season is Earth's tilt away from the sun the reason for Christmas is to put a Christian mask over pagan holidays in order to win converts. Christmas is, at its very core, a holiday to celebrate a Mass for Christ. The fact that it's a federal holiday does not make it secular, but it does drive home the... incredible conceit of Christianity ever year to non-Christians. I'm not trying to be rude by calling Christianity conceited; I'm jut trying to point out a fundamental problem with how Christians view the world in relation to their one, elected, narrow world view. However, when's the last time you heard a Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, Jain or Zoroastrian claim that Christmas is a secular holiday? While it's not a rare view it is held as an elusively Christian sentiment. Hell, Hannukah is actually a military victory remembrance celebrated in a specifically Greek style and has no religious roots to it and I've never heard anyone say that Hannukah should be a secular American holiday.

Is Christianity alone in this conceit? Not really. I'm sure that most people that are part of a religion believe their world-view to be correct. Who would choose to believe in something they know to be false? The issue that comes up with Christianity is its sheer number of followers. Jews are only about 2% of the population, albeit a vocal 2%. Christians clock in at just over 75%. What is important to remember is that being a majority does not make a religious practice secular. While being a majority does make it easier to bend the US legal system to turn a religious holiday into a nationally recognized federal holiday it does nothing to lessen the purely Christian concepts that Christmas consists of. With a 78% majority Christians cannot vote away logic. They can only vote to ignore it.

For all my Christian friends: I do not mean offense to you. Even if you see bits of yourself in this post does not negate the fact that I'm still your friend. If this single aspect was all I saw in you then I'd be letting the air out of your tires rather than cheerily returning your phone calls. I'm also not arguing against Christmas and pushing an atheist world-view. Celebrate Christmas. All I ask is that Christians (and the mainly non-religious who were raised Christian) recognize that Christmas is still part of the Christian religion and culture, and that is is completely separate and in some cases antithetical to the ideas of other groups. To deny this is to deny the views of others and that would mean actively wrapping one's self in Christian majority arrogance.

The Disney Princess Convolution

I am a little confused over this hubbub regarding the newest Disney princess, Tiana. I know that there's a lot of talk because she's the first princess who's African-American but it's by no means a racial jump for them. I believe the first non-white princess what Jasmine. She was Middle-Eastern and no one blinked an eye. Also included in the franchise is Mulan, who was Chinese. In fact, Disney counts Pocahontas amongst their princess line. She's Native American and that didn't cause any stir. And then there's Ariel from The Little Mermaid. She's not even human!

The fact of the matter is that Disney has already created and marketed an African princess: Nala. Sure, she's a lion but Ariel is an Atlantean and at least lions are real. We also come across the oft ignored Giselle from Enchanted. While she is white (with skin like fresh milk) she's live action so that's got to cross some sort of racial boundary.

So really where's the amazing twist of having an African-American princess? Disney has done races before. Yes, they have one more token ethnicity but overall the standard is still going to be white. I'm not defending or complaining about that, just stating that nothing new is really happening here.

Personally, I don't really want the ethnic inclusion that so many seem to crave from Disney. Portraying a Jewish-American Princess in a Disney cartoon is guaranteed to be more trouble than it's worth.

Why I can't, in good conscience, wish you a merry Christmas

It’s that time of year again. Yes, that time that comes once a year, every year: the “Holiday Season”. And with the holiday season comes a certain number of annual battles. There’s the “religious displays on public property” struggle. There is also the eternal “to have or not have Christmas in schools” fracas. But what I’m going to talk about is the smaller but far more common skirmish known as the “happy holidays” blitz.

Yes, the ever present scuffle over what the proper greeting to share during this winter season is. The common nondenominational standard is “happy holidays” and that’s a fine choice. It can cover anything you’ll be celebrating this season that is a holiday and that’s the extreme majority of people. Its only real opponents are the militant “merry Christmas” crusaders who want to force their reason for this season as THE reason for the season: Jesus. It is a good thing to note that the solstice is the actual reason for the season. The winter solstice is when the Earth’s axis is tilted the farthest from the sun as it can get and the days become longer, the nights shorter and the possibility of not freezing and starving to death began to look more realistic to struggling communities that lived before heating and grocery stores came into existence. For all of you who think that the winter solstice is actually a pagan celebration you might be surprised to find out that Yule is the pagan celebration that was adopted by Christians in Europe in order to pull in more converts. So for those militant “Merry Christmas”ers who revel in the Yuletide spirit… you’re the proud participants in an ancient pagan holiday! Congratulations.

The interesting thing about the Christmas Army is that they insist that everyone wish them a merry Christmas. Let’s look at that for a moment. The fact that it should be “merry Christmas” no matter who is being addressed means that they are specifically wishing their holiday on others. That’s fine as a proper Christian really can’t endorse Chanukah, a day remembering a military victory over non-Jews who wished to impart their beliefs on the Jews. A Jew can’t really endorse Christ’s Mass, a celebration of (to Jews) the birth of a man who ended up espousing the end to Judaic law. So wishing your own holiday to others is fine…

As long as you’re prepared to be wished other people’s holidays on yourself. For example, as a (cultural) Jew if someone wishes me a merry Christmas I have a number of logical responses to give:

• Happy holidays.
  The standard and probably the safest.

• Season’s greetings.
  Remember that one?

• Happy Chanukah.
  This, while completely appropriate and a response in kind, has the ability to make the other person feel awkward. It is confrontational to the extent that within the holiday wish is the fact that they just wished a Jew a merry Christmas.

• Happy solstice.
  Solstice is an astronomical event that occurs at some moment during the 21^st of December, no pagan beliefs necessary or implied.

• Thank you.
  Not rude in any way though it will probably get you some odd looks.

• Thanks, but no thank you.
  At first the above might seem rude and even more confrontational than the previously mentioned “Happy Chanukah” but in any other social situation this would be completely acceptable and even polite. Offered a food item you do not eat? Handed a flier that you’re not interested in? Any offer that you would like to politely turn down can use this response so why would someone else’s religious celebration be any different?

While I am thankfully not in retail my wife is and has already experienced the wrath of at least two customers who are crusading for Christmas. These people are rude, usually mean spirited and at least tacitly bigoted. While I won’t get into what Christianity would think of these traits it is moderately safe to say that none of them are part of the joyous and loving Christmas spirit these people are trying to shovel down other people’s throats.

---

I know that a lot of people, some of my friends included, think this whole thing is dumb and that Christmas is pretty much an American holiday at this point. If find that the vast majority of people who feel this way come from a Christian background. It doesn’t really matter if they are practicing or not, they still come from the comfort of a majority. Being part of a minority (or even coming from one minority to another, as is my case) gives one a completely different perspective. Christmas is not a comforting family event for me. When the decorations with Santa were put up in schools and the town Christmas tree went up at the municipal center, near the courthouse, police station and library, it was a reminder of being different (which is fine) and no one recognizing or respecting that (which is not fine).

For people with Christian families, whether they are Christians themselves or not, the holiday of Christmas represents something completely different than what it does to me. They see it as a fun, festive time of year. I see it as the continued implicit acceptance of Christianity by American culture and local governments. And while in practice Christmas unfortunately has developed “secular American” aspects it remains, at its core, a religious celebration for a religion I’m not a part of for a god I don’t agree with.

So I ask all of you out there to remember the real reason for the season: the Earth’s axial tilt in relation to the sun is at its farthest. Historically mid-winter was a freighting time when food supplies could run low, there was less daylight and therefore less usable time in the day, the cold was at its worst and survival could become a terrifying day-to-day issue. The “reason for the season” was that solstice was the turning point. There’s a reason that Yule, Christmas and Chanukah all rely on lights and fires in their celebration; because they represented survival, hope and more hospitable seasons. Families would gather not to rejoice but for warmth and because who knew if they would survive to see each other again. Then the solstice would come and the winter would ebb. Days would become longer and it really did turn into a season of hope. To me, that seems like more than enough reason to celebrate.

For my money I now prefer some variation on “ solstice”, be it happy, joyous, safe or warm.

“Season’s greetings” also properly captures this concept; by definition the season is the reason for the season.

“Happy holidays” comes in as a third choice for me, being very safe but also works on the assumption (however safe it may seem to be) that there’s a holiday at the core of their celebration. Personally, there’s no god at the core of my holiday gatherings and festivity. There are, however, friends and fun.

So with that I wish all of you readers a safe and joyous solstice. That’s a sentiment I can get behind.

LOLHeroes - Episode 3

This season is shaping up to be a mess. First of all, Sylar/Nathan kissed Mrs. Patrelli on the cheek so she should be completely aware of his fake identity. Then we find out that Matt's invisible Sylar has one goal: to be anoying. Really. That's his official goal. And now we're following a synesthete? That's not a crazy mutation, it's a perfectly accepted neurological disorder. What don't we toss in an insomniac who's power is that he doesn't sleep a lot. Or maybe a hemophile who had the ability to bleed a lot. What the fuck?

And that's all I have to say about that.

What are your thoughts? Think this season is an improvement, on par as past seasons or worse? And what bothers you most about the Heroes universe?

LOLHeroes - Season 4 premier

After a bit of a rocky end to last season LOLHeroes is back. I tried to stay away. I really did. However, the demand for somethinggood to come out of what was NBCs flagship was too great so I returned to my torrents, keyboard and image editing program. What follows is all I could salvage of the premier of season 4. The episode wasn't terrible but it was certainly not good. It feels like the writers are simple rebooting season 1 all over again. Peter is back in his medical field, Sylar is getting a new set of parental issues, Claire is trying to balance school and abilities... the list goes on. But this time there's a creepy carnival.

I will not be happy unless there is a truly evil clown.

And now

We've had this plot before. They ran with it for a whole 2 episodes before they killed off DL. Want to take bets on how long Peter sticks with it?

Oh god! He's inside my lungs!

Speaking of... what happened to Molly and Mohinder? Oh, and Micah and everyone else from down south? Remember that chick who learned from TV as well as her grandmother Uhura? They all used to be regulars.

She and her emo friend had a perfectly goofy and servicable plan to see if it was a suicide. What does Claire do? Jumps out the window. Not only will this out you in your new school but you'll get new blood all over the chalk outline. And how long do they leave that outline on the ground, anyway?

Why International Blasphemy Day is important

What can I say about Blasphemy day that wouldn't simply be me adding to the noise about it? I could repeat all of the clever things I've read about it, such as blasphemy is the only true victimless crime. Still, that's just regurgitating what's already out there.

So here's the truth: I angry at religious people. All the time. It's silly to be angry at religion itself. A religion is simply a set of rules. No matter how hateful, sexist and abusive those rules are, if no one plays by them then there's no problem. And all organized religions have employed practices of sexism, abuse and hate, form Judaism to Buddhism to whatever other religion you can think of. But it's not religion I hate. What's really important to remember is that it had a purpose at one time. Back when were were barely civilized (relative to today, not stating that we are truly civilized now) we needed religion. Why? Because of the fear and terror that it instilled in humans. When there was very little communication and transportation was slow what reason was there to not kill the next goat herder, take his clothing and flock and move on. It could be months before anyone knew the victim might be missing and most likely no one would ever know who's path he had crossed. People had less to work with and live on. People had more to fear from nature. That fear was the only thing that could keep a community in line. And that hate, or at least distrust, of the other was all that could keep a community together. You combine superstition with hate and community and that's a very simple recipe for religion.

As the years went on people needed more from it. Religion had to offer deeper truths than just a legal system to abide by. So mythology began to mesh with philosophy to become a more modern version of religion. The problem is that religion already has to have answers. What good is a system of universal truths if some of it isn't true? So religion starts with answers and and then works those answers into the observable world. It's the equivalent of trying to write the answers to a calculus book before calculus has been invented. In short; it's a poor choice.

And we've come so far since then. We've learned about the world and our brains. We don't need the idea of an invisible friend sitting in the sky, watching our mistakes, in order to not be cruel to each other. But those answers that were written before we were smart enough to ask the right questions still apply to most of the population. That fear and hate is still tethering people to their ethics. What terrifies me are the really religious people who are afraid of atheists. They rant about how people can't be moral creatures without the fear of god. What that tells me is that they can't be moral creatures without their fear of god. That were they to realize there's no reason for them to be a theist then they'd feel OK killing and stealing.

Does this apply to all religious people? Yes, but not to the extent of murder. I've seen religion tie some of the kindest people I know to horrible rules of behavior. One of the people I used to trust with advice and knowledge actually encouraged me to find someone else to marry because my fiance was not of the same religion. I've seen people who believe in equality for all people no matter their sexual orientation turn their backs on gay marriage because they thought their bible told them to. Hell, Christianity's strongest ties to Judaism are based on a handful of mistranslations and passages taken out of context by apologetic cultists trying to gain political power.

Today the only thing religion is good for is making your decisions for you. Bibles don't take the last few thousand years into account so the choices are probably not going to be the soundest choices. So what's the alternative? Well, I'm going to side with the tools we've been building up for millennia: amazing communication and an incredible understanding of the world around us as well as within. Beyond that, for when we come to unmapped regions of knowledge? We have logic and the scientific method. Yes, it's slow but the universe isn't going anywhere. It's more work to actually think and be rational but a deeper understanding of the natural world lets people see that this universe is so much more complex and impressive than if it had been tossed together over a week by someone who was bored and lonely. Reality is majestic enough without throwing a blanket of magic, fear and lies over it.


How does all of this relate to Blasphemy Day? The whole point of Blasphemy Day is to protest (specifically regarding the UN) rules both legal and social that make it taboo to criticize religions. Defamation of character is an attack on a person but defamation of religion is a defense of reason, which is what the modern world is built on. Blasphemy Day is supposed to show those who live by faith that talking about religion in all of its glory and gory details won't destroy creation. The proper response to criticism isn't anger and violence. It's to think about it and then respond in kind. Blasphemy isn't a crime. It's an invitation to discussion. Once a topic is declared off limits to criticism then it's off limits to growth and instantly becomes irrelevant. Every single idea in science is open to scrutiny under the scientific method. If it doesn't hold up continuously then it's torn down and built up or tossed out. Nothing in science is sacred and untouchable. Why is religion different than any other set of ideas? Fundamentalists keep complaining that they want equal regard in society, schools and the government. That means opening up to analysis, observation and criticism. When they hear blasphemy that's only because it's the answer you've already chosen for whatever question is asked. But what it really is is an invitation to the equal treatment they've been demanding.

I could just put out a string of insults that are factually true but phrased to create ire:

• The main reason you're the religion you are is because of where you are born
• Pascal's Wager applies just as much to Zeus and Satan as it does to Jesus and God
• If you believe that Jews and Christians have the same god then you haven't read either bible
• The Jewish bible, Christian bible and Koran all have many authors and editors. There is no direct line of truth from any of those writers to the version you have read
• Even Buddhists have committed acts of violence in the name of their faith
  

I'm not going to end with those, however. The most blasphemous and useful thing I can close with is this:

I have no faith in god. I have no faith in people. But in regard to people I do have hope.

Blasphemous, I know. Oh, and maybe one quote for the road.

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
- Mark Twain

Rosh Hashsanah ice cream!

Well, it's that time of year again. New year, that is. Tonight I'm headed out to a dinner with some friends and family so I wanted to make something special. What, you ask? Apple cider ice cream. It is a modified recipe that I then continued to modify so I have no idea how close it is to the original. What I do know is that my version is heavy on the apple and spices so it's very heavy tasting. To keep with the apples and honey it will be served with honey as a topping... with apple pie. Hey, if you're going to have a holiday feature an awesome fruit then you should really take advantage of that.

The first version of this recipe is from A Is for Apple: More Than 200 Recipes for Eating, Munching and Cooking with America's Favorite Fruit.

The second version is from SeriousEats.com

Here's my version:

Apple Cider Ice Cream

-makes about 5 cups of ice cream-

Ingredients

2 cups apple cider
1 cup sugar
cinnamon to taste (I used 3-4 dashes)
2 cups heavy cream
2 cups milk
6 large egg yolks
pinch of salt
quick pour of vanilla extract
3 tablespoons of apple butter
honey

Procedure

1. Combine the cider, sugar, and cinnamon in a heavy medium saucepan and bring to a boil over high heat, mixing with slotted spoon. Boil until the cider is as thick as maple syrup and the sugar has caramelized, about 20 minutes. As the cider reduces in volume, it will bubble up to the top of the pan. When this happens, lift the pan off the heat and stir until the bubbles subside, and then continue cooking. Don't be afraid of the boiling as this is when it actualy loses water and becomes the reduction.

2. While the syrup is cooking, scald the cream and milk in a large heavy saucepan over medium heat. (The mixture is ready when you see small bubbles around the edge of the pan and steam rising from the surface.) A wrinkled "skin" may also be present; just leave it alone. Keep hot over low heat.

3. As soon as the syrup is ready, pour it into the hot cream and milk while whisking vigorously. Cook over low heat, whisking constantly, until the syrup is thoroughly incorporated into the cream mixture. Remove the pan from the heat.

4. In a medium bowl, whisk the yolks and salt just to combine. Whisk in the hot cider syrup mixture. Scrape the mixture into the saucepan and set the pan over medium-low heat. Cook, stirring constantly but gently with a heatproof rubber spatula, going all around the sides and bottom of the pan, until the custard thickens enough to coat a metal spoon, about 10 minutes. Don't let it boil or it will curdle and ruin.

5. Immediately remove the pan from the heat and strain it into a bowl. Cool the custard, uncovered, stirring occasionally, until it reaches room temperature. Add in the vanilla extract, then cover and refrigerate over night.

6. Freeze in an ice cream maker following the manufacturer's instructions. When mixture is getting to a solid state, just past half way, add in 1.5 tablespoons of apple butter. After the consistency is a bit harder, add the other 1.5 tablespoons of apple butter. Opening the ice cream maker twice may add some additional time to the standard instructions.

7. When serving drizzle with thin lines of honey. This will quickly freeze and harden as a topping. Enjoy.

Why Glee doesn't work

So Glee had its second/third premier or second episode of actual premier or whatever Fox is calling it. The first episode aired months ago and has been on TV again and on the internet all summer long. The show started up the actual season last night. And I’m still not impressed. Judging by the reaction of the internet I’m part of a select few. I know only of two others who are as not won over as I am.

But this is not without reason. There are many things about the show that I can specifically point to and say “This is what is bothering me”. So I’m going to go ahead and share those points. If there are any Glee fans reading this perhaps you can address some of my grievances.

• I’ll start with something small but important. The film is obviously filmed in widescreen. It is obviously cropped for standard broadcast. I know this because during episode two there were multiple times when the speaking character did not appear on screen, or appeared with only a partial face. There are other shows filmed in widescreen now that are also shown in that format for their standard definition broadcasts. Why this horrible chop job on Glee?
  
  I don’t even think it’s Pan And Scan. It appears that Fox simply framed the centre of the image and cut out the rest. So when someone is speaking and it appears that they aren’t even in the room it really makes watching a show difficult.
• While we’re on the subject of editing let’s talk about the sound. The dubbing and post-processing during the songs is so bad that it destroys the performances. How a show about singing can have the worst sound editing on television in recent history is beyond me. I understand that the songs are not going to be performed live. However, they don’t sound live. They sound like the person singing is:
• standing still. The performances are usually done while the characters are performing choreography so that makes the bad lip syncing all the more noticeable.
• in a recording studio. These kids are singing in auditoriums and small rehearsal rooms. There should be some sort of interaction between the acoustics of the room and their voices.
• mastered for an album. And not a live album. It has the quality of a highly polish, over produced studio album. I get that they’re trying to push the iTunes downloads but this is ridiculous.
• There are no dynamic characters on the show. They are all flat caricatures at best. Some of the regulars don’t actually get any lines or acting at all. Want to take a look? Sure. And I’ll call them by their roles as I don’t remember a single character name.
• Principal – money-obsessed administrator
• Cheerleading coach – Bitch. That’s really all there is to her. Her main goal in life, above that of coaching, seems to be to end the glee club. Why? Because they are taking away money from that pays for her cartoonish obsessions with details regarding the cheerleading team such as international dry-cleaning. I don’t get her as the villain of the story.
• Everyone in Glee Club
• Big black diva
• Type A obnoxious (aka Mini-Menzel)
• The Jock
• The homo – This is not a pejorative. His main trait is that he’s gay. The only other things you can tell about his character is how he looks. As a person… he’s just gay.
• Asian girl
• Wheelchair guy
  If there’s anything else we’re supposed to know about these kids it sure is not being conveyed through actual writing.
• Cute OCD teacher – Who is also annoyingly weak in regard to her one relationship which consists of doting on main character.
• Bitchy wife – The main character’s wife. She seems obsessed with money (then why marry a teacher?). She is obsessed with getting a large house. She often times forgets that she’s married and appears to believe she has a live in man-servant. There is nothing redeeming about her and I don’t understand how a shrew like that manages to keep someone in a relationship unless he’s
• A) being blackmailed
• B) completely whipped
• Main character – He seems to be completely whipped. He takes abuse from his wife, from students, from other teachers. His strongest moment came in episode two when he politely left after cheerleading coach finished her bitching monologue.
• The main character sucks. I assume he’s supposed to be the sympathetic character viewers identify with and follow through his journey. I don’t feel particularly sympathetic to him. The problem is he’s too pathetic. In regards to his wife he has three viable options in regard to his wife: murder, divorce, suicide. I know it’s a poorly written character when even if she was pregnant the most sympathetic choice would still be to leave her. And it’s been set up ever so obviously since the pilot that main character is supposed to leave bitchy wife for cute OCD teacher so why should I bother becoming invested in his current marriage at all?

So really that’s the entire show so far. I know it’s only two episodes in and I’m going to give it a few more tries (if only because the other people I hang out with on Wednesday nights want to) but so far I’m not impressed. The characters are all crap, the performances are good but that just means I’m interested in the soundtrack and not the show, the gay jokes are wearing thin already and the clever one-liners are not enough to keep me hooked.

Web Comic - Can I Put You On Hold?

Can I put you on hold? by bulletproofheeb

Crossing The Line: Apple and the RI/MPAA

What is the last straw for you? What is the breaking point before you cut any ties to a company or organization and move on? I've been looking for this line in regard to some of the big businesses out there and it seems like the public just keeps pushing it back. There are two groups that I'm at the near breaking point for: Apple and the RI/MPAA.

Let's start with Apple. As a company I despise them. They champion the walled garden/closed system/big brother approach to everything and while this makes for a tight and stable product it is a system you are not allowed to interact with. Much the same way people say "At least Mussolini made the trains run on time," you can say that Apple makes a solid piece of software. The problem is anything that you run on a lot of their products is by their choosing. Sure, it may be nice but if it's not then it's already too late to look for competition. They have created a computer ghetto. It's a lovely community but you are stuck there whether it is to your taste or not.

The most recent slap in the face in terms of their operating procedure is the rejection of all Google Voice applications for the iPhone. If you were running Windows Mobile then you wouldn't notice what Microsoft thinks about an application; it's an open system that you're free to install anything you'd like on. If it was on Android (technically, it is since Google has their app in their own OS, but pretend we're talking 3rd party) then as long as it's not malicious is would stay in their app store. But with Apple they have this sliding scale of what can or can't be sold. If it's malicious it's out. If it's in poor taste it might be out at some point. If it duplicates a feature on the iPhone then it might be out. And if it produces competition to Apple or one of Apples partners then it will most likely be pulled.

Because Google Voice gives users many options that normal phone carriers don't it has been pulled. Apple says it's because it duplicates iPhone features but it doesn't. The iPhone has no feature that lets you switch numbers on the fly, send free text messages through your alternate number or transcribe your voicemail and forward it as an email. But since it has a number dialer it competes with the iPhone's dialer and that is forbidden. Bullshit. This is Apple trying to stifle competition for AT&T. With Google Voice you can jump carriers on a moment's notice and take your number with you without having to deal with a support line.

So now Apple is using the walled garden to stifle competition. And that's bad business. What's the motivation for improving products and services if you know that your user base is trapped. I'm not saying Apple is going to stop all updates but whatever they offer is clearly on their terms and not in response to demand. There's a demand for Google products. There is a freeze on the supply, however.

And now Google Voice is available for the iPhone free of charge but only if you have a jailbroken phone. I've been following the iPhone with a very close eye. Following the saying "hate the factory, not the machine" I recognized that the iPhone is an amazing piece of hardware run by a dictatorial company. With the iPhone 3GS I saw almost no reason to jailbreak other than for cosmetic purposes and came damn near close to getting one. But this has crossed the line. If a product has to be hacked and cracked and warranty-voided the moment you take it out of the box then there's something wrong with that product. In the case of the iPhone and Apple it's all software. But is that the kind of company you want to invest your time and money in? A company that will take out legal programs because it means more work to continue to innovate? A company that rather than participating in a creative dialogue with the user and 3rd party developers simply cuts the cord and forces its customer base to take whatever is doled out and no more? That is a broken system that will only breed dissent and stagnation. And that crossed the line.


Now we come to everyone's favourite villain: the RI/MPAA. The cartels that represent music and movies have taken the following stance:

"We reject the view that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works. No other product or service providers are held to such lofty standards. No one expects computers or other electronics devices to work properly in perpetuity, and there is no reason that any particular mode of distributing copyrighted works should be required to do so."

What that means is they think it's unreasonable to expect their products to last forever. Sort of. If you re-read the above you may notice that the statement (made by the lawyer representing the RIAA and MPAA to the Copyright Office) tries to make the concept of "product" and "service" interchangeable.

"We reject the view that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works."

No one is asking this of them. Books do not remain in print forever. Magazines close production or require you to renew your subscription. But what magazines don't require is for you to pay to keep access to the issues already delivered to your home. It's not a question of continued access to the creative works as intellectual property. It's the continued access to creative works in hard copy. Your music files should not expire after you have bought them. Your e-books should not vanish one you have legally purchased them.

Of course no one expects electronic devices to work "properly in perpetuity". That would require your warranty to never expire! But you can expect to keep the hardware forever. My friend had a laptop who's cooling fan died. Instead of the unit expiring I cracked the case, peeled out the innards and made a wi-fi equipped 14 inch digital picture frame. When the battery dies on your cell phone you still get to keep the phone and replace the battery (unless it's an iPhone). Corey Doctorow lists a bunch of "creative works" of various ages that still work for him:

I've got 78RPM records from my grandparents' basement that play just fine today -- and I've got Logo programs I wrote in 1979 that I can run today. I own a piano roll from 1903 that I can play back if I can clear the space for a player piano. I've got books printed in the 17th century that can still be read -- and if they can't be read, they can be scanned and the scans can be read.

I personally do work arching documents and converting them to digital form. We've done legal documents, museum catalogues, technical journals… and they all still work. I've opened books from nearly 100 years ago and not a single one ever demanded that I authenticate the most recent purchase of the rights to read the text. They were bought and they work. End of story. Unless you have a closed system like DRM that treats the legal customer with distrust and possibly contempt. It is not the responsibility of the customer to prove their self to the product. It is the responsibility of the producer to provide a product that proves itself worthy to the customer. And that, MP/RIAA, is how you've crossed the line from producer to extortionist.


In both cases you have the huge, deal breaking issues that are made simply because the company in question treats the consumer as a child at best and a criminal at worst. And in both cases the fair option to regain your consumer rights falls in what is now legally dubious territory. If you want your iPhone to work like a real computer product you have to jailbreak. If you want your music to actually play on all your devices, as fair use dictates, then you need to pirate DRM-free tracks after you have legally purchased the music. Is that piracy? Is that fair use? Today it seems to be both.

So what about you? What company or group has crossed the line you've drawn in the sand? What company is getting close? Or do you keep finding that you push that line back inch by inch, giving away more of your rights and a consumer, only to be left with crippled products?

DVD review: The Day the Earth Stood Still

A smarter remake would have been based on the political ideals of its predecessor: fighting against the cynical cold war mentality of the time and trying to find something inspiring that humans have to offer the world and beyond other than fear and destruction. Instead, this version assumes that we’re worth saving but never explains why. At one point an alien agent tells Keanu Reeves (played by Keanu Reeves) that he has found the human race destructive and dangerous; humans need to be killed. But also, he has decided he really likes us and wants to stay. Do you get it? Neither do I.

Other than a couple of inane scenes like the one I just mentioned there is very little else I can recall about this film. I know Jennifer Connelly is in it and she has an adopted/inherited child who’s a bit of a spoiled dick. I know they visit John Cleese who pokes huge holes in Klatu’s (Keanu Reeves’) plan and Klatu ignores him. I know that Gort, the robot, unleashes a swarm of matter-eating bugs. Then they go away and Klatu leaves Earth and then the movie ends. Also, Klatu has magical powers that pop up in order to make life very convenient for him and avoid any suspense.

After watching The Day the Earth Stood Still I’m left with the same feeling as if I had just read high school poetry: vague feelings of banality and awkwardness. It’s rare to have an action film that can balance dullness and lack of plot so perfectly that one is left without a gist of disappointment or spectacle. The Day the Earth Stood Still manages to reach that perfect balance and creates the sense of being gorged on nothing more than air.

On a scale of -5 to +5

The Day the Earth Stood Still is a -.5

A review of the EXPERIENCE of seeing Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince

This is not an ordinary film review. I am not going to be reviewing the actual movie Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince. Instead I will be reviewing the movie-going experience. And that experience was awful and just for a little context I’ll start with the good and work towards the bad.

The good is that most of the audience was your typical midnight premiere fan base. They laughed when there was a good joke, gasped when there was a scary moment (well, during the one scary moment) and cried when Dumbledor died. Oh, spoiler alert. But really, the book came out 4 years ago. I think that spoiler’s expiration date has passed.

The medium is the guy who was sitting on my left. I don’t blame him for this as it is a long movie, clocking in at around 2 and a half hours. He fell asleep. Twice. And for long stretches. The first time he started to breath a bit loudly and the girl he was with poked him. He woke up and watched the movie for about 20 minutes before drifting off again. He was quiet and didn’t move around. Overall it was more amusing than distracting. He was obviously there to make his girlfriend happy and was probably less fidgety than if he had tried to keep himself awake. The movie started late so it was actually over just after 3am. Dark room, early AM hours and a movie he’s not interested in. Can you blame him for quietly dozing off?

The bad. This one is the deal breaker and the real story of the night. This is the story of how I was nearly punched in the face and one man probably lost the respect of his child. During the film at some point there was a scene where Hermione is crying and Harry is trying to talk to her. It was at this moment that the man behind me and one seat to my right started making loud snoring/snorting noises because he was bored with character development. I turn around and see a man in his mid 40s sitting between his wife and child (I would guess to be around 13). I shush him. He leans down so his head is just above mine and starts snorting/snoring even louder to make some kind of point. I then tell him to “shut the fuck up”.

I thought that would be the end of the situation. Obviously he is here for his kid so you’d think he’d be aware that there’s at least one person in the theatre he cares about who wants to see the movie. Wrong. He kept making very loud breathing noises sporadically throughout the rest of the film.

The movie ends, people applaud and the lights come up. Everyone either stands to leave to turns to their party to discuss the movie. I look back and see father has been staring at the back of my head, honing the fine art of being exceptionally creepy. I turn to my wife and state “the movie was pretty good, except for the fucking mouth-breather behind us” and motion back. And then the real fun began.

He feels it’s his duty to inform me that “this isn’t your living room”. I am aware of this because if it were he’d be more likely to be tied up to a tree outside then let inside our living room. Instead I tell him that it’s not his living room either. He then goes into a small self-righteous speech where he complains that he makes one noise and gets shushed and this isn’t my living room and what the hell, it’s not my living room. Obviously his brain-needle has reached the end of his brain-record and is just repeating the last line he can think of. I respond by telling him it’s not his living room either however I did pay $10 so that should guarantee I can watch the movie peacefully. He points out that he paid $10 as well, but he should know since this isn’t his living room he doesn’t really have the right to ruin the movie for other people. He looks at me and asks “What do you want?” I say “I wanted to watch the movie. What do you want?”

It’s at this point that he turns to walk away. Every few moments, since the exit line is moving so slow, he turns back to make a threatening gesture here and a dirty look there. I look at him. I look at his kid. I say “Wow, great role model.” And just to prove my point he shoves past his wife and makes a lunge over the back of the row to punch me in the face. I see this coming and don’t flinch; thinking how spectacularly this will prove the point I’m trying to make. And his young son grabs his dad’s arm and is dragged forward as he tries to hold his dad back. This guy is the very definition of class. And this whole time he is trying to hit me I can’t help but marvel at the fact he thinks this proves that he is a good role model. That or he just doesn’t care about his family.

As he’s literally dragged away by his wife and son we all stare. He keeps making faux lunges and shouting at me to “come up here” (he indicates the row where his is, one up from us). I’m not looking at the rest of my group but my wife and I are staring at him agog. His son is still hanging from his father’s right arm this whole time. And I have to because it’s so ridiculous. I laugh. This just leads to him lunging again and being held back by his now very embarrassed wife and his son who looks to be on the verge of tears. This pretty much continues as he’s walked/dragged down the stairs towards the exit. My group is just sitting and staring. Other people are walking and starting. His wife keeps looking at us and shrugging. I don’t know if she’s confused why we said anything or if she’s apologizing so I just look confused (which I am) and shrug back. This whole time the father is shouting at me to do many things, sometimes contradictory. “Stand up and come over here!”, “Yeah, just keep sitting” and so on. And then he vanishes around the corner and is gone.

I was pretty shocked at this whole thing, both at the time and now. Yes, I know I could have kept my mouth shut and my head down but then someone else would end with him behind them at another movie, I’d venture to say at least at the next two Potter films. Someone else would have to endure him making obnoxious commentary through bodily noises. And he’ll never learn a goddamn thing about proper behavior. So instead I did open my mouth. And now his wife will be at the least worried and most likely embarrassed the next time they go to a movie together. And his son will probably not forget this for a very long time. So while I was nearly punched in the face at Harry Potter he emotionally scarred his son for years to come. I’m OK with that.

Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince

Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince is the first time a director (David Yates) has done more than one Harry Potter film since Chris Columbus began the franchise. The fact that there is now such a strong and consistent style to the films proves both comforting and a bit disappointing.

First off, I enjoyed this movie. Not only does Yates have a wonderful visual style (I’m a sucker for those shiny black ceramic bricks that foretell danger) but he also has a knack for getting very good performances out of young actors in this series. He nicely balances the bizarre world that Alfonso Cuaróne crafted in Prisoner of Azkaban with the high school drama ­Mike Newell brought to the franchise in Goblet of Fire. It’s also fortunate timing in the franchise as Yates seems the most adept at incorporating the larger visual effects. Since the movies are getting darker and more intense these are much more common in the last 3 books than anywhere else in the series.

The one thing that bothers me is, fittingly enough, the one thing he seems to borrow from Chris Columbus and that is a closer adherence to the source material. In films 1 and 2 the films are almost direct adaptations of the books, simply abridged for time. These are also the two weakest films in the franchise to date. The point of adapting something from one medium to another is to add something to the story. All Columbus did was take a bit away. It was nice to see things movie but it really wasn’t a standalone product. It was a companion to the book. Complain about tone shift and changes to detail all you want but Prisoner of Azkaban was the first attempt to make a real movie out of the books. Yes, things were cut, rearranged and changed but in the continuity of the films (which is different than the books, like it or not) it was a necessary and marvelous leap forward.

Now Yates has taken a half-step back, doing more of a close reading than an inspired adaptation for the story. To be fair some of this blame can be put on the editing and/or the script but Yates is the director and shoulders the responsibility. In Order of the Phoenix there are some minor adaptations but for the most part plot points are shortened and then smoothed over, not rewritten. So while the Yates movies are much closer to the original text I feel that is their greatest weakness. Overall his films feel a bit choppier and cut up than either Goblet or Prisoner. When comparing the book to the movie for Half-blood Prince I can easily see most of the changes and they aren’t shifts for pacing and continuity. For the most part they are actions and subplots being condensed for time, and once aware of it this really shows.

Dumbledor, for instance, is a lot more upfront with Harry from the get go about what he wants. Yes, this does make the movie move faster it also cuts out a lot of the development that happens between them in the book. I know that looks like I just complained it’s not close enough to the novel but that’s not the point at all. The point is Yates doesn’t take that Dumbledor/Harry development and move it elsewhere. He just leaves it on the cutting room floor. The same goes for a lot that happens with Ron/Hermione and Harry/Ginny. There’s a lot more that’s simply stated in dialogue than shown in action and because Yates shows so much craft in other aspects of the film it really feels like he rushed in the areas he changes.

The real loss here is that Yates proves he’s capable of pulling the emotional depth out of his actors to show these relationships rather than tell you what’s going on. Someone as ham handed as Columbus doesn’t earn that respect in his movies and even Cuaróne’s film seems much more interested in world building a universe of intensity rather than subtle crafting of high school relationships. But Yates follows on the heels of Newell in terms of how he treats the students and staff of Hogwarts. This is the only aspect where he skimps but it does lead to a choppy feel.

Do not misinterpret this criticism. This is a highly enjoyable movie. In terms of this franchise it’s a good one. And sticking so close to the original text will probably be a huge plus to many fans out there. But it does come at an artistic cost. The reason I’ve gone into such depth with this single complaint is that Yates is signed on for the final adaptation, both parts. So this is partially a preemptive review of the Deathly Hallows as well. It’s a double-edged sword; that the comforting fact Yates is more than up to the task of creating appealing and deserving films is paired with the disappointing realization that this will come at the cost of many small character driven moments and subplots.

On a scale of -5 to +5 Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince gets a +3

PS Does anyone else find it a little odd that other than the counter still being in the great hall “house points” have all but vanished from the movies?

Netflix: WTF - The Gay Bed and Breakfast of Terror!

SPECIAL NOTE: For a podcast review of this movie and an interview of Netflix: WTF check out my special guest appearance on the About12Minutes podcast here!

So this time around I was stuck watching a movie called The Gay Bed and Breakfast of Terror. And terror abounded as I prepared to watch the movie. You see, it was up against some stellar competition, including a Steven Segal vampire flick as well as the Stephen Baldwin picture Sharks in Venice. Not only that, but my friends and I have been burned before. There was a “movie” “about” a zombie rabbit we tried to watch and simply couldn’t. I use quotes since it was only a movie in the sense that any motion picture is a move-ie and I hesitate to use the term “about” since it wasn’t really about anything. I don’t even think I posted a review of it since we got through about 20 minutes and then had to turn it off or risk seizures. I feared this may be the same quality, come to kill me.

And in that context I feel safe saying I was pleasantly surprised by The Gay Bed and Breakfast of Terror. It wasn’t good but it actually pulled off campy moderately well. The premise is that a group of gay couples all end up at this bed and breakfast run by a psychotic right wing Christian mother and her sexually repressed daughter. It’s done on video tape but the quality is relatively good. The couples show up one after another and each one is a pre-made stereotype. You have the young guy with his older sugar-daddy, there’re the two artsy lesbians, the two lipstick lesbians, a butch leather couple, a resident fag-hag. They’re here to be killed, not to break stereotypes.

And break stereotypes the do not. There’s some nearly anonymous cheating, illicit rendezvous in the pool house and then the killing begins. And it’s actually kind of funny. It’s so over the top bad, with over the top crappy props and over the top bad acting that it actually is campy. A lot of movies fail at camp because they try to be a funny movie on no budget. This succeeds because the parts you aren’t laughing with, you’re laughing at.

By the end there are a couple of what would be called twists in a normal movie but in this are really just the logical evolution of “what can we do to make this a little sicker”. Think Ed Wood raised on John Waters and this is pretty much that bastard child.

On a scale of -5 to +5 The Gay Bed and Breakfast of Terror gets a +2 for entertainment. If it were trying to be a real movie it would be a -2 but that is surely not the case here.

Tim Burton is a slow learner

Many things can be said about Tim Burton. He has a great eye for fictional geography, he loves the style of old German silent films and, unlike the oft attributed Zach Snyder, he fits the definition of “visionary”. But one thing that cannot be said of Tim Burton is that he’s a fast learner.

Let me go back a little bit. The some days ago the first photos from his new movie, Alice in Wonderland, were released and a few thoughts went through my head. The first was that the lead actress (Mia Wasikowska) is made up a bit like Helena Bonham Carter, with her hair a bit like a bird-nest(watch out Helena, he might trade up again like on the set of Planet of the Apes). Second, I was put off by the fact that Depp as the Mad Hatter looks like a steampunk Willy Wonka. Finally, I wondered when Tim Burton would learn not to direct other people’s material.

That is the lesson I wish he would learn because it is getting a bit pain for the people who have to watch him slowly stumble towards this inevitable conclusion, one movie at a time. I like Tim Burton, don’t get me wrong. However, I am not completely enamored with him and his style. He makes a good deal of mistakes. These range from casting to project choices. Some of his movies age incredibly well (Beetlejuice) and some not so much (Batman). One of the few consistent facts about his career is that when he directs his own material it tends to be much better than when he takes on someone else’s work.

Let's take a look:

Original ideas	Any good?
Beetlejuice	Great
Edward Scissorhands	Great
Ed Wood	Great
Mars Attacks	Crap
Corpse Bride*	Good

Adaptations	Any good?
Pee-wee’s Big Adventure	Good
Batman	Good, but flawed
Batman Returns	Very flawed
Sleepy Hollow*	OK, great design
Planet of the Apes	Shit
Big Fish	Fair (averaging between the fact that I find it terrible and others find it sappy but watchable)
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory	Crap
Sweeney Todd	Good, though the strong points are the costumes and the actors’ performances (minus HBC’s singing), not the direction

* Technically, these are based on existing stories but are so far removed from the original stories that they could be put into a 3rd category.
**No, he didn’t direct Nightmare Before Christmas

Even if you disagree with some of my mini-judgments there’s still an overwhelming pattern to this list. His best works is all his own and his worst tend to be adaptations. Why is this? Most likely because he has such a strong vision of his movies that it doesn’t matter what the content is; it must fit into his style. This works perfectly fine if the material is his to begin with. But when it’s a story that already exists he sometimes has to do a number on it in order to force it into the box that is his style.

And now we get his version of Alice in Wonderland. Granted, it’s neither Alice in Wonderland nor Through the Looking Glass but rather a bastard sequel set years after the second visit. However, they are still someone else’s characters and someone else’s world. This all makes me worried about the project. Will it look great? Absolutely, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to be a good movie. And with his past performances I don’t know if I trust him anymore. I may or may not see this one in theatres but if I do go it will be with reservation. And if it doesn’t completely blow me out of the water then Burton will become relegated to “Netflix Only” status, along with Michael Bay and other directors I wouldn’t mind seeing but would mind paying for, because I have absolutely no interest in his next project.

What is it? A full length remake of a perfectly serviceable half-hour short he made decades ago: Frankenweenie.

Leia: Who's your daddy?

NOTE: Credit where credit is due. This is actually co-written with my wife. We totally geeked out and this was born.

Return of the Jedi has been on twice today and it raises a shitload of questions about continuity. Actually, it doesn't raise them. It brings up inconsistencies between the original trilogy (the real Star Wars movies) and episodes 1,2 and 3 (glorified, and sloppily written fan-fic). The one point that we'll be focusing on is Leia and her actual lineage.

In the original trilogy we are told a great many details about the Skywalker family tree

• Luke is Vader's son
• Luke is Leia's sister
• Luke an Leia are twins
  (I was doubtful that this was in the original trilogy but both Obi-wan and Vader mention it briefly)

What strikes out as strange is that there are multiple instances where Leia and Vader are emotionally distant to each other despite expectations. Leia meets Vader face to face after he ship is captures in A New Hope and there is not emotional recognition. This seems odd since we know that both are strong in the force and that Vader's relation to Luke let them sense each other later in the series. But we'll come back to the "Force paternity test" later.

The second thing that seems strange between Vader and Leia is that Vader searches the force and feels that Luke has a twin sister: Leia. He then goes on to refer to her as "your twin sister" and "your sister" (to Luke). Never once does he even acknowledge her as his own daughter.

Third, Leia doesn't attend the ritual burning of Vader's body on the forest moon of Endor after the destruction of the second Death Star. At this point Luke as told her that they are sibling and that Vader is his father. He never says Vader is her father and she isn't shaken by the fact that he seemingly is hers as well. Shes doesn't feel the need for closure with Vader, either for the destruction of her home planet Alderaan or to deal with the death of her possible father, by attending his funeral.

From all of this is seems that Luke and Leia, while twins, do not share the same father. And this is a point that has bothered me for a while now. There is absolutely no connection between Leia and Vader but there is between Leia and Luke. How can this be? And it becomes even more evident when the "Force paternity test" is brought up.

What is the Force paternity test? It is the ability of one strong with the Force to simply know biological relationships between people. We see Luke use it to tell whether Vader is being truthful about their father/son relationship. Luke feels that it is true. We see Leia use something similar to verify that she and Luke are siblings in Return of the Jedi. We possibly see Vader use it to tell that Luke has a twin sister (though it could just be him pulling out the memory of Obi-wan telling Luke) and furthermore we may see it in the fact that Vader seemingly refuses to call Leia his daughter. The last instance I'll postulate this occurs is when the family tree is revealed to Leia. She searches the Force and sees that she and Luke are related but never even hints at a suspicion of being related to Vader.

At this point I need to note that I will not be accepting the Episode 3 events as fact. If anyone doubts that Episodes 1-3 are in a different continuity than 4-6 all one has to do is look at the fact that Luke asks Leia :

"Do you remember your mother? Your real mother?"
She replies: "She was very beautiful. Kind, but...sad."

And if you're going to tell me that Leia remembers that from her birth (that's ridiculous) and Luke does not (that's doubly ridiculous) you're a fool. And if you need more proof, how is it that Obi-wan doesn't know of Leia's existence until Yoda tells him about her, though he was present at her birth in Revenge of the Sith?

So without the actions that take place in episode 3 we don't know that Luke and Leia share the same father. From all evidence in A New Hope, Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi it truly seems as if they only share a mother. And that's possible.

There is a medical term "hetero-paternal superfecundation" or bi-paternal twinning. This refers to an event when a mother carries two children at the same time from two different fathers. Most often this is when the mother releases two eggs (dizygotic) and has intercourse multiple times, leading to each egg being fertilized by different fathers. It is also possibly that an egg can be released during an already existing pregnancy and that egg can be fertilized by a second person, though this is much rarer. This is all true and it really does happen.

Theory: Luke and Leia are a result of bi-paternal twinning. According to the original trilogy this answers every question raised about the family of Vader, Luke and Leia.

• It answers why Leia remembers her real mother.
  Because she is kept by her real mother and Luke is sent away in order to protect Leia if Vader ever comes looking for his son.
• It answers why Leia feels no connection to Vader though she does feel a conncetion to Luke.
• It answers why Vader never aknowledges any relation to Leia, even when searching the Force on the second Death Star.

And this makes the most sense to me. The fact that I went out to hunt down this information (my wife actually mentioned the medical phenomina from it's inclusion in a One Life to Live plot line) rather than accept the story fed to me by Revenge of the Sith just goes to show how terrible a movie Episode 3 really is. And with that I close my case.

What follows is pure speculation. I would guess, without knowledge of episodes 1-3, that Obi-wan is Leia's father. It seems that she does have a conncetion with him the way Luke does with Vader. When she is captured by Vader and the fate of the rebellion is in jeopardy she trusts her gut instincts and sends a message to Obi-wan, a man she has never met before. It also fits that she has been told of Obi-wan, though not enough to make her think that they are related. Also, when Alderaan is destroyed not only would Obi-wan feel the destruction of the planet but the emotion that he experiences would seem to be shared between he and Leia. He is visibly shaken by the even even though he has never been to that planet to our knowledge. He seems to be feeling it through Leia.

Is it crazy to think that Luke and Leia's mother was involved with Obi-wan and that Anakin raped her after he turned to the dark side? It fits into original trilogy continuity. However it is just a theory. And while it fits it is not hinted at to nearly the degree that the other theory is; That Luke and Leia are twins that share only a mother.

TV to marathon

I recently posted about television shows I intend to watch for the first time. But how about some shows that are so good I want to watch them again, marathon style? I’ve got a bunch.

In fact, I have already started a marathon of Middle Man with my wife and a couple of friends. It is a glorious show that should not be in the grey floaty ether of cancelation/hiatus that it is. Based on a comic book, this show is pitch perfect. You know how some people complained that the film version of Watchmen was too close to the original as to offer nothing new? And how some people said the same of Sin City? Well, Middle Man is nearly like that, except the acting and the new stories add so much more to the franchise. The episodes taken from issues of the comic are almost panel for panel the same. Then there are completely original episodes that fit in seamlessly, making for a great adaptation. This is how it should be done. The back and forth is so good that the un-filmed final episode is being released as a comic! Plus the fact that Natalie Morales is really hot doesn’t hurt anything.

• The Prisoner – I can’t believe that I have friends that have not seen this show! The show that Joss Whedon called the best TV show ever made! And yes, it is that good. The production is dated but the craft and quality of this series are still oh so fresh. Gasp as Number 6 is drugged. Marvel as he fights to keep his identity. And furrow your brow as you try to figure out what’s really going on.
  
  On the surface it’s about a former secret agent. After he resigns he’s abducted and taken to the village where various agents of some unknown organization constantly subject him to psychological torture in order to find out his secret. If you want the original Lost then look no further. This is where it all started. And nothing is as it seems.
• Nowhere Man – An unofficial sister show/sequel, Nowhere Man is about a man who has a name (or does he…). Tom Veil is a photographer who comes back from a restaurant bathroom to find that no one from his life remembers him. Not only that, but a single photograph of his has been stolen. He runs off with the original negative.
  
  It’s the inverse of The Prisoner. In The Prisoner we have a man with no name trapped in a village. In Nowhere Man we have a man with a name running from the world.
  
• Arrested Development – Possibly the most clever American “sit-com” ever written. Perfect casting doesn’t hurt either. This is a show so good that, if you like to laugh, you should have already seen.
• Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles – I know it just ended but between the cancellation and the fact that the only living part of this franchise is now the McG trilogy – well, I just need some of the magic back. Ranking this in amongst the rest of the Terminator franchise, my wife places it at a close 2nd just after T2 while I put it as a close 1st, just above it. It is that good. And it undoes all of T3 while staying in continuity. This show starts slow but once it gets rolling has some of the best drama on TV at the time and best time travel I’ve seen written for TV ever.

I believe that's it, although it's still plenty to get through. If anyone wants to tag along for a show, let me know and a schedule shall be made.


Question of the post: What shows are so good that you keep going back to them?

TV to watch

A while back I did a big write up about new television shows that I was going to follow. This time around I want to talk about the exact opposite. Instead of new TV shows I am watching I’m going to discuss old TV shows I have yet to see.

I usually feel a little anxious to get back to my regularly scheduled programming during the summer hiatus and this year is no different. What is different is that I have a sweet home theatre PC ready to soak up and squeeze out any TV show my heart desires. Sure, I can watch Conan now that Hulu works with my remote but what about all the shows I hear about but simply have never gotten around to? I’m sure everyone has that pile of books that are “to be read”. Well, my TV is no different. And the project has already begun.

What I’ve started watching

• Spaced – Currently about 3 episodes in. At this time I like it but I still don’t see what all the huge fuss is about. It’s a solid Brit-Com and there’s a lot of talent in there but it doesn’t get nearly the laugh count of IT Crowd or Black Books.
• Battlestar Galactica – Finished the mini-series and am not starting the actual season one episodes. I was waiting for it to end so I could just watch it straight through. After Sarah Connor Chronicles was canceled I had this huge gaping hole where sci-fi used to live. I tried to fill it by finishing Stargate and have now moved on to this.

Still to get to

• 30 Rock – OK, I’ll admit it. I’m biased against this show because it started in the same season as Studio 60 and I threw my lot in with Aaron Sorkin. I like Tina Fey. I hate Tracy Morgan. Let’s see what happens.
  P.S. I did see the first episode or two a while back and wasn’t that impressed. But it’s streaming on Netflix so it’s easily available and therefore gets a second third chance.
• Big Bang Theory – It sounded like a US version of the IT Crowd so I put it on low priority. Now the creator is speaking at TAM (The Amazing Meeting) and a bunch of people I know swear by it so season one is waiting to be shoved into my eye holes.
• It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia – Just never got around to this one. The commercials made it look “eh” and the fact that it was on FX didn’t do anything for it either. I now hear that not only is it hilarious but also the same guys want to do a sci-fi version.
• Supernatural – I have no excuse on this one. Jess, one of my nerd-barista-friends recommended this to me when it was in its first or second season and I just never bothered with it. Suddenly it’s getting write ups left and right at the end of this past season. Literate Buffy comparisons? Dark takes on power and good vs. evil? Looks like it’s time to drop my prejudice against Honky McPaleface (Dean from Gilmore Girls) and settle down with a mini-marathon.
• The Wire/Carnivàle/Deadwood – A triple threat recommendation from someone I work with. His tastes lean heavily towards the snobby, hyper-literate and avant-garde so of course I’ll trust him.
• Twin Peaks – How have I gone this long without seeing this show? I honestly have no idea. Fox Mulder in a dress, here I come!

And that’s what’s lined up on my television plate. There are little things like Party Down and other shows that I’ll try to get around to but this is my heavy hitter list. And next up I’ll be writing up a list of shows I have seen but deserve a marathon or re-watching. And anyone I know is invited to join me for those.

Question of the post: Any TV shows that aren’t on the list that I simply must see? Drop ‘em in the comments and I’ll let you know if I’ve seen them or not. If not then perhaps I’ll take your advice and add them to this list.