Friday, 30 November 2012

Newspaper Comics - is Online Saving Them?

The awesome Speed Bump from Nov 27, 2012.
One of my favourite childhood memories is eagerly getting the newspaper each day, ripping open the "non-news" section (that's what I always thought of the stuff like "Lifestyle" and other sections that weren't hard news stories), and finding the comics. Sunday tradition was to dig through the mountain of flyers, catalogs, and other sales items to find the self-contained Sunday comics pages.

I had many favourites at the time, like Hi & Lois, Beetle Bailey, Hagar the Horrible, and the Wizard of Id.

That's mostly gone by the wayside now. I stopped getting newspapers that had comics a while back, and now I don't get the newspaper at all. I get all of my news online, either from news web sites or blogs or whatever. That has had the unfortunate side effect of eliminating comics from my reading.

Except that it hasn't. Because they're all available online.

Newspaper subscriptions have been trending downward for years, so comics artists and syndicates have had to make some changes in how they do things. One of those changes has been to make their work available online, including huge archives of previous strips if you want to pay for the access.

The great In the Bleachers from Nov 30
Scott Adams has his own Dilbert site, for example. Others are included in various umbrella sites such as GoComics and ArcaMax (the direct link to the comics page doesn't appear to be working right now, but you can find it through this link). These sites allow you to subscribe for free and have them delivered to your inbox every day, which really saves a lot of time and effort.

GoComics allows you to set up your own comics page you can go to each day, with one of them being sent to you in the mail if you're not a paid subscriber. If you are paid, the entire thing gets sent to you.

There are some great ones out there that I follow, such as Luann, Strange Brew, Dilbert (of course), In the Bleachers. I was really sad when the Far Side went away, but I believe Dave Coverly's Speed Bump is a nice replacement for it. A couple examples of it are on this post, and I just find Coverly's sense of humour to be wonderful.

Speed Bump from 11-19
So my newspaper comics reading is saved, even as newspapers go the way of the dodo.

What comics did you like to read? How about currently? And do you get a newspaper every day? How much of it do you read?

*Note* With this post, I have now posted at least once every day in the month of November. Also have had something post every day since I re-started the blog at the end of October.

A milestone I'm really happy with. And it shall continue as long as I'm able!

Thursday, 29 November 2012

A Mind-Boggling Mother-in-Law Question

Cannot emphasize enough that this is not the trio addressed in this article.
Thanks to Leefur on Flickr, under Creative Commons license
I was reading the Instapundit blog on lunch yesterday, as I am wont to do, and came across this gem.

A woman writes in to Elle magazine's "Ask E. Jean" column (or maybe it's an online-only column; I'm not sure) with this question (paraphrased):

My husband of 14 years, who is now 39 years old, is off boinking my mother when he goes on business trips close to where she lives. Strangely, I'm not upset by this. Should I be?

Ok, there is a lot more detail if you go to the page itself (and it's worth going just for the many comments going back and forth on this issue). But that's the gist of it. Husband boinks Mom, Wife not unhappy. Society tells her she should be, but she's not. Is there something wrong with her?

The question's bad enough, but the answer is even worse. Is Elle considered a feminist magazine? I don't really know. But if this is what it's peddling, well, let's just say that I'm not surprised society is as damaged as it is.

E. Jean says this:
"For 20 years, the world’s most attractive idiots, unrequited lovers, and chafing milksops (including myself) have babbled in this column about “unconditional love.” You are—astoundingly—the first to live it."
Of course, she goes on to tell the woman that if it bothers her, she should ask her husband to stop (the wife claims that he's said if she wants him to, he will stop the affair, as if we haven't heard that before). But as long as it doesn't bother her, she's the ideal we should all be shooting for! She's glorious! She's something we should all aspire to!

Excuse me while I go hack up a lung.

Is she serious with this advice? It just boggles my mind.

The comments section is a war between those who see this as sick and those who are of the "it's not hurting you, so don't judge her!" mindset. I think I fall into the former category for the most part.

Affairs are betrayals to the spouse who was cheated on. When the person involved is your mother, that's a double betrayal, because that's your mother not respecting you or your boundaries. Say what you want about whether or not "open relationships" are also killing the family unit, but at least those are consensual. Evidently the wife didn't know about this until just recently.

That's betrayal! I'm sorry, but there's no other way to put it. Whether she wants to feel bad about it is her own thing, of course. Though she should look at why she doesn't feel bad about it, and not be asking for advice on whether she "should" feel bad.

Would she feel bad if it was any woman other than her mother?

My beef is less with her (we all deal with things in our own way, and while I think she needs to examine her feelings and perhaps get help if she's having trouble doing that, that's something she has to do) and more with E. Jean's answer.

This kind of situation is not something to aspire to. We should not be working towards feeling nothing when our spouses betray us, whether it's with another family member or somebody else. "Unconditional love" does not mean "doormat." It means that you love them no matter what, but that doesn't mean you put up with anything they do.

Is your husband beating you? Or cheating on you? Or whatever? You can still love them even as you get away from them because they are betraying your trust, or making you unsafe and causing you pain, or whatever. Loving them does not mean you don't remove yourself from the situation. You can forgive them for what they do, but that doesn't mean you stick around and let them do it again.

To me, that's what "unconditional love" means. The emotion is there, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be a realist.

If the woman who wrote the letter wants to put up with it, that's her decision to make, as unfortunate as that is. Shame on her mother and the husband for putting her in that position, though.

But it's the "everything is relative" and "there are no right or wrong answers" mindset that is why this society is going down the toilet.

Some things are just wrong. If you want to accept the wrongness, that's fine. But you shouldn't be forcing that opinion on everybody else. And by bringing your kids up to feel the same way, you ultimately are forcing that opinion on everybody else. Because if more and more people do that, society will crumble into an "every person for themselves" monstrosity. It may take a generation or two (though some would say we're already getting there), but it will happen.

If you truly believe there are no right or wrong answers, are you also saying that morals don't exist?

If so, that's truly sad.

For you women out there, do Elle and similar magazines reflect *any* of your viewpoints?

Wednesday, 28 November 2012

Book Review - Garment of Shadows by Laurie R. King

I love it when authors try new things. Even if they don't work, the fact that they're trying something new shows that they have a bit of ambition. They want to showcase a variety of different styles or techniques, or subject matters, or whatever.

Of course, it's easier to do in something like a TV series where there are episodes once a week and a formula can be jarring. How about authors whose books come out once a year?

That can actually be scary.

However, it's still admirable. It's even better when they follow up an unfortunate failure with an excellent follow-up that retains everything you love and admire about the book series.

Laurie R. King has now done that. Her new book, Garment of Shadows, is a wonderful book full of excellent characterization, historical detail, drama and mystery as well. It takes world events from the early 1920s and seamlessly weaves a tapestry of amnesia, murder, and revolution through the various threads of history.

Last year, King tried to change things up a bit with a farce called Pirate King and it just fell flat. Boring, not funny, with little suspense and characters who all ran together, it almost made my head explode (now that would have been exciting).

This time, though, King excels at what she does best. Sherlock Holmes and Mary Russell (his wife and current chronicler) are amazing characters.

I won't say anything more, because my review's now up on Curled Up With a Good Book, and I'd like you to read it there. But come back and let me know what you think.

From the review:
"After the events of The Pirate King, Mary Russell and her husband, Sherlock Holmes, are in Morocco in 1924. The novel opens with Russell waking up locked in a room with no memory of who she is or how she got there, a painful headache the only reminder of what has happened. She's covered in blood, which can't be a good sign. She still has her wits, and when soldiers come banging on her door, she's able to get away. Meanwhile, two old friends have drawn Holmes into a growing conflict between France, Spain, and the strengthening Moroccan independence movement. War may be coming to Morocco. Will Russell find her memory—and Holmes—before things get worse?"
Do you like it when an author tries to change the pace a little bit, doing something different with his or her ongoing character? Do you have any examples you'd like to share?

Come back after reading the review and leave me a comment. I'd love to know what you think.

Tuesday, 27 November 2012

Creatively Battling African Stereotypes - Radi-Aid

I love it when people come up with some creative way to make their point.

What's your main image of Africa? If you're like a lot of people who don't really think about it much, you probably think of starving children living in very poor communities with grass huts and bad water.

Looks pretty civilized to me! Nice mix of traditional and new
And while there are certainly areas in Africa that still need help, many of which have a major problem with corruption that hinders getting the aid that's needed, there are a lot of "civilized" areas in Africa too. Much like the American stereotype of Canadians living in igloos, believe it or not things like cell phones and the Internet do actually exist there too!

So when a stereotype get mocked (even a supposedly beneficial one like this), I have to applaud.

According to Orange News, there's a new viral video going out online that has Africans donating radiators to help Norwegians fight the cold weather.

The video for Radi-Aid (which is a parody of the 1985 song We Are the World) "was the idea of a Norwegian group aiming to challenge stereotypes about Africa."

In the video, South African rapper Breezy Vee, "urges Africans to donate their old radiators to help Norwegians survive the winter." Because, you know, frostbite can kill and how many Norwegians will freeze to death?

I love this from the Radi-Aid web site:
"Imagine if every person in Africa saw the “Africa for Norway”-video, and this was the only information they ever got about Norway. What would they think about Norway?"
They're probably think it was above the Arctic Circle, but why should westerners be alone in having weird geographic knowledge?

The "About Radi-Aid" section of the site goes on to more serious topics, though, and it's something I can respect.
"If we say Africa, what do you think about? Hunger, poverty, crime or AIDS? No wonder, because in fundraising campaigns and media that’s mainly what you hear about.

The pictures we usually see in fundraisers are of poor African children. Hunger and poverty is ugly, and it calls for action. But while these images can engage people in the short term, we are concerned that many people simply give up because it seems like nothing is getting better. Africa should not just be something that people either give to, or give up on."
Kudos to this organization for coming up with a fun way to point out that nobody should have to suffer under stereotypes. True aid and reform can't come to Africans who need it if the world has given up on it because of these stereotypes.

Even better is this, also from the same page:
"Aid is just one part of a bigger picture; we must have cooperation and investments, and change other structures that hold back development in poorer countries. Aid is not the only answer."
Check out Travel News Namibia  for this success story
Too many people forget that, I think. Aid is a band-aid if the structural problems aren't addressed. Investment in the countries, organizations that go over there to help them learn how to help themselves, things like that are what will make the continent prosper.

There has been much success there and we just don't see it when we are bombarded with images of starving children. How about some stories about the successes to show us that we are making a difference.

Don't ignore the problems. But don't focus on them at the expense of everything else, either.

Neither method will help in the long run.

Here's the hilarious video:

Monday, 26 November 2012

Star Trek: DS9 - Ep 5 - Captive Pursuit

Hunting is a very common activity, one which many humans think nothing of. There are, of course, others who find the whole concept abhorrent. The debate can get quite heated at times, and the subject in this case is a “dumb animal,” a non-sentient being. What would happen, however, if the hunted was as intelligent as you or me? That would probably be a different debate all together.

“Captive Pursuit” addresses this issue a little bit, but it is more a character and moral study of Chief O’Brien (Colm Meaney) then it is an anti-hunting statement. It’s also an examination of a clash of cultures that Trek excels at, though it is a bit simplistic in its structure. All in all, it’s a captivating 45 minutes, as Meaney excels as he usually does with a bit of meat, and once again a rather pedestrian episode is carried by the acting involved.

Commander Sisko (Avery Brooks) is dealing with a sexual harassment complaint against Quark (Armin Shimmerman) as the episode opens, but he quickly has more to deal with then that. A ship has appeared from the other side of the wormhole, the first such ship to ever be encountered. Sisko is practically salivating at the prospect of his first chance to have an initial meeting with a new species. The ship is badly damaged, and only O’Brien’s quick thinking manages to bring the ship to the station in one piece. Sisko quickly assigns O’Brien the role of figuring out what needs to be done with the ship, and to meet the alien for the first time.

Over time, O’Brien shows the alien, Tosk, around the station and tries to figure out what damaged the ship. Tosk (Scott MacDonald) is clearly hiding something, and he’s clearly running from something. After a while, more aliens show up and try to capture Tosk, embroiling the station and Starfleet in a sticky situation as they get caught in the middle of something that’s fundamental to an alien culture. O’Brien, who feels attached to Tosk, has some decisions to make, ones that could affect his career as well as his life.

Make no mistake, this is Meaney’s episode. All of the other characters have bit parts, though some are more important then others (especially Sisko). They all have some good lines, but it’s Meaney who has to carry everything, along with MacDonald. Thankfully, they do the job wonderfully, as their interaction is very interesting. MacDonald brings a certain stoicism to his role as Tosk, a man (for lack of a better word) resigned to his fate and determined to preserve his honour, even as one of the most dishonourable things imaginable to a Tosk is about to happen. He refuses to sully his honour even more by accepting what O’Brien’s offering. O’Brien surprises him by offering him something from his world: a new chance.

MacDonald moves around like the costume is really restricting, but when he’s called upon to do something action-like, he holds nothing back. The fight scenes are well choreographed, and he pulls them off very well. Meaney does a great job with the myriad emotions that he has to convey: his tentativeness upon officially meeting Tosk (remember, he’s not a trained first-contact specialist), his slowly growing respect for Tosk, and then his determination to do what he considers the right thing.

There were a couple of minor logic holes in the episode, however. First, I can understand why there are weapons lockers in the habitat ring of the station (you never know where invaders are going to board, especially with transporters). But where’s the logic in allowing guests to access where those lockers are? Sure, the lockers require security clearance to get into, but why even allow guests to be able to ask the computer about them? Maybe that’s something Odo addresses later, but it’s such a fundamentally stupid thing that it should never have happened in the first place. It never has much bearing on the episode, since its only function is to allow Odo to catch Tosk doing something wrong. Why couldn’t there have been some other reason for Odo to capture him? Or at least make Tosk work at it a little bit more.

The second problem is Sisko’s quick aboutface on the hunting issue. There’s a scene where Sisko is venting his outrage at the lead hunter (Gerrit Graham), saying it’s barbaric to be hunting a sentient species, and how it may be the way they do things, but it’s not going to happen on this station. Then, without explanation, he comes out of his office and says that they are going to hand Tosk over to the hunters.

He claims it’s a prime directive thing, but it would have been nice to see this realization on his part. As it is, it comes out of left field a little bit, and seems tacked on in order to give O’Brien a moral dilemma to deal with. He also seems a bit hypocritical to berate O’Brien at the end when he basically allowed the whole thing to happen by asking Odo (Rene Auberjonois) not to hurry in his security arrangements to catch O’Brien and Tosk. It makes a nice scene at the end, but I think the scene could have been written better to make Sisko look like less of an asshole. Maybe a stern reminder to “not do this again, or I’ll have your badge.”

I know it’s a pedestrian episode, and some of the above makes me want to give it three stars. But I really enjoy it. Meaney and MacDonald give it a lot more substance then it seemingly deserves, so I’ll have to give it four stars, for enjoyment if nothing else. This is yet another episode that is saved by the acting (or, in the case of A Man Alone, a bad episode that is made bearable). Early in the first season it’s becoming a habit, and I hope it doesn’t maintain that attitude. Good acting is one thing, but one of these days the story won’t even support the acting at all. Then where will we be?

Note:
Doctor Who fans will get a kick out of O’Brien saying that the enemy ship is “reversing the polarity of our shields.” Sure, it’s not a neutron flow, but it’s close.

Memorable Quotes
“I’m sorry. I have no vices to exploit.” Tosk

“Nobody’s abducting a prisoner out of my brig as long as I’m alive.” Odo

4 Stars

Sunday, 25 November 2012

The Forgotten Fun of Board Games

I used to be a huge fan of wargames, simulations of (mostly what I played) World War II battles, either strategic or tactical. I played Third Reich, a huge strategy game that goes from the beginning of World War II to the end, with my brother for a long time. Also played a few classics like PanzerBlitz with a good friend. In college, I had a friend, Jerry Miller (Jer, you out there buddy?) who I played Squad Leader with all of the time. He beat my ass almost every game, but it was still a lot of fun.

These are serious games, but there are a lot of casual games out there that don't have a lot of complicated rules. They can be done in an hour or two, while a lot of these wargames need to be left set-up and played over a number of sessions.

Games like Trivial Pursuit (something that I'm sad to say nobody plays with me anymore *sniff*). These family games are always fun, and they can be played by pretty much anyone.

But there's a genre of games that fall between these two extremes, and it's an area that I'm happy to say I'm starting to get into more and more. These are games that are still short, and the rules are definitely fairly easy to learn (though playing *well* can sometimes take a bit of dedication). Some of these games take a couple of hours, but others can be done in just an hour, or even less.

Last year, when I went to V-Con, I discovered the Gaming room and spent a bit of time there playing with a couple of great guys, Richard and Tony. I played Merchants of Venus (and won, though I was sitting in for somebody who had to leave, so it wasn't all my doing) and a couple of other games that I don't really remember.

I intended it to become a habit, but something happened and I pulled away for some reason.

This year's V-Con (I didn't do a wrap-up this year, and I should have but I wasn't blogging at the time), I spent even more time in the Gaming room, including almost all day Saturday. Tony and Richard were there and seemed pleased to see me again, despite my withdrawal. I met a few other people too, and even played my first game of Magic: the Gathering that wasn't on the Xbox in probably 15 years.

We played games like Seven Wonders (a wonderful game of building civilizations that only takes an hour), Epic Spell Wars (I love that game, a card game where everybody is a wizard and you're trying to kill the other players with your spells that are formed by different cards in your hand), and Alhambra (where you're trying to build the best Alhambra out of the cards and pieces that are available).

It was a lot of fun.

Last week, Tony invited me over to his house for a gaming night with Richard and a few of their friends. I was honoured to be asked and it was tremendously enjoyable. We played Seven Wonders again, but we also played Ticket to Ride (a game where you're trying to build railroads from one destination to another, and which I have now bought on iOS) and a really fun game called The Resistance.

This game was fun because it involves a lot of bluffing and conversation. Basically, you're all members of the Resistance, except that at least two players are spies (there could be more if there are more players). Spies want the Resistance to fail, of course. There are five missions, and the role of "team leader" goes around the table each round. The leader chooses who will be on the mission teams, and then those chosen vote for whether the mission succeeds or fails. Three successful missions wins the game, while three failed missions wins the game for the spies. The spies know who each other are, but nobody else knows.

There was a lot of lively conversation around the table about who may be spies. It's a game of bluffing and trying to figure out human behaviour, and it's a hell of a lot of fun.

V-Con had cemented my new love for games, but that night really reinforced it. The camaraderie was wonderful to see and be a part of. The banter was infectious ("I think you're the spy because you have shifty eyes.") and it was great just learning new games and meeting new people.

If you like casual games, giving some of these games a try may be a good idea. They are a bit deeper than your Monopoly or Life games, but they're not much harder to learn and they are a lot of fun. Ticket to Ride is a great example of that.

Below, you can find a great video done by Wil Wheaton and the "Geek & Sundry" folks, showing them playing the game. Wil does an awesome job explaining how the game works, much better than I could. And you can see the game in action. The explanation's at the beginning of the video, so just watch that if you want. But for you Eureka fans, it has Colin Ferguson playing...just saying.



I plan to keep playing games now that I have been bitten by the bug. You can even play some of them online, either solo or with people across the world. Ticket to Ride is on the iOS, as is Small World (Haven't played that game yet). Settlers of Cataan is on Xbox Live (and I assume Playstation as well) and is another great game.

Do you enjoy games? What sorts of games do you like?

Saturday, 24 November 2012

Podcast Stuff - Episode 48 of Down the Hall

A wild mix of stuff in this week's episode of Down the Hall!

Fiona talks to Dr. Marlene Asselin from UBC about her work with CODE Canada and CODE Ethiopia. They are working to train teacher-librarians in Ethiopia, a really important project. Marlene provides her insights on the program, the challenges and successes of the program.

In addition to that, among other things, Fiona and I discuss our feelings about Disney buying Lucasfilm. Darth Mickey, anyone? I know I was entertained by this discussion, and I know you will be too.

Episode 48 can be found here.

And while you're at it, you know you're a Facebook junkie. I know you're a Facebook junkie. You're on there all the time anyway, playing CityVille, Farmville, Warville or WhateverVille. So why not head over to our Facebook page and "like" us while you're there?

It's the moral thing to do, you know.

Friday, 23 November 2012

The Consequences of Being Stupid on the Internet

In the olden days, if you did something disrespectful or stupid, you would only really hear about it if somebody saw you. If somebody did see you, your reputation in the village may get a bit tarnished, but perhaps you could appear in front of the Village Council, make amends somehow, and go on your way? People might look at you funny for a while. But over time, if you behaved yourself, your offense may have been forgotten.

That is, unless you created a leaflet with a pencil drawing of you doing the stupid thing, hand-drawn about 5000 times, posted it to the notice board on the village green and dropped it off at every house in every village for miles around.

Even then, nobody in, say, Moscow would have any idea what you did if you happened to go there.

Now? Being stupid can place a permanent stain on your reputation, cost you your job, and maybe even prevent you from getting more jobs unless you do a massive, public mea culpa.

Yes, we have this thing called social media now. There seems to be a virus running rampant throughout social media, though, because it seems to infect millions of people and make them broadcast their stupidity for all the world to see.

If you were on the Internet at all this last week, you've seen the saga of two non-profit organization workers who have killed their careers. Lindsey Stone and Jamie Schuh were on a company-sponsored trip to Washington D.C. As part of their trip, they decided to take in some of the sights, including Arlington National Cemetery. To be specific, the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. It's very nice that they were patriotic enough to go pay their respects to the fallen like that.

Except that's not what they did.

For those who don't click on the link (and why do I provide them if you're not going to click on them???), here's what they did, with Lindsey in front of the camera and Jamie behind it.


Real cool, eh? Even more stupidly, Lindsey posted it on her Facebook page.

And it went viral. Scathing criticism came from all over the web at their blatant disrespect to our fallen warriors. Lindsey was stunned that it caused this much controversy. She said it was just part of her and her friend being their typical douchebag selves, "challenging authority in general." They took a picture of her smoking in front of no-smoking sign, for heaven's sake! This is the same thing, right? It was all in good fun.

We're cool, right?

No, we're not cool.

Criticism continued to pour in, until the organization they worked for, LIFE (Living Independently Forever) eventually terminated them (or asked for their resignation, it's unclear which, but they have basically lost their jobs).

What is it about people and social media? People are wont to post their most stupid moments for all to see. Called in sick to work? You probably shouldn't be posting that picture of you at the Cardinals game the same night, or you down at the beach sunbathing.

What we used to keep hidden, we now showcase to everybody. Even if you keep your Facebook profile private, a picture is inevitably going to get out if you're being an idiot. Remember the jerk who made a video of himself yelling at the girl at Chick-Fil-A a few months ago? He was yelling at her for the company's contributions to anti-gay organizations. Whether you agree or disagree with Chick-Fil-A's owners, what does it say about you that you take it out on a minimum-wage worker at the drive-through window?

It says you're an asshole. And then when you post it online, you tell everybody in the world that you're an asshole.

When it gets out who you are and where you work, the company you work for is not going to want to be associated with you. Unless you're unionized (don't get me started on that), the company has every right to let you go for bringing their name down into the mud with you.

For those of you crying "free speech!" very loudly, all that says is that the government can't lock you up for speaking. The First Amendment does not protect you from other consequences of your actions.

On the other hand, it is a fair question to ask about whether or not a lot of people over-react to stuff like this. When videos and pictures go viral, there's almost a pack mentality where everybody gangs up on the offender, hounding them off the Net and sometimes (as in this case) out of a job. Where do you draw the line there? Personally, I do think that having fun at the expense of the war dead (not just soldiers, but *dead* soldiers) is over the line.

It's also an unfortunate fact of life that this stuff tends to fly out of control. Why spark it to begin with? Especially when you are being an idiot? Whether or not people are right to go overboard, it happens. Why risk it?

So what is it? What is it about social media that draws out our inner idiot? Or do we all have inner idiots and social media just makes it easier to show them to everybody else? I guess the two ladies would have taken that picture even if they didn't have a place to showcase it. Maybe pass it around to all of their friends.

Or would they?

Is there an innate need for attention that brings this out? A kind of "look at me!" mentality that social media feeds off of?

Is it a virus? And if so, is there a cure?

I don't know. Personally, I think it's yet another sad reflection on society.

Both issues mentioned above are, actually.

Thursday, 22 November 2012

Happy Thanksgiving

I don't have anything big to post today.

I just wanted to wish all of my American friends, family, and readers who I may not know who you are, a truly wonderful Thanksgiving.

Being up in Canada and having celebrated Thanksgiving back in October, I am at work today, but my thoughts are with you all.

I am truly thankful for all of you, the support you've offered, the love you've shared, and if you are just a reader who doesn't know me, I am thankful that you find this blog good enough to read every day now that I've come back (27 days and counting!)

You all mean a lot to me.

Regular programming will return tomorrow.

Wednesday, 21 November 2012

Book Review - Tutankhamen: The Search for an Egyptian King by Joyce Tyldesley

Egyptology is just a fascinating subject, though I haven't really delved into it as much as I could have. I do read the occasional book on the subject though, and the latest that I've read is a book by Joyce Tyldesley called Tutankhamen: The Search for an Egyptian King. It's the story not just the boy king himself, but of finding his tomb and excavating it.

Tyldesley does go into a lot of detail on Egyptian burial practices, but she also talks about Howard Carter (the man credited with finding the tomb) and some of the other archaeological work that he did. She even gives a "best guess" of Tutankhamen's timeline and how his life and death may have panned out. Thankfully, she doesn't footnote this as she clarifies that it's her own speculation and nothing more.

I like that in history authors, when they don't automatically put their own biases into the book and state them as fact.

My review is up on Curled Up With a Good Book.

From the review:
Joyce Tyldesley has written many books on Egyptology, one of which was an excellent book on Nefertiti. When I saw that her latest book, Tutankhamen: The Search for an Egyptian King, was available, I had to have it. Tyldesley's current book does delve into Tutankhamen's history a bit, but it more addresses the archaeology of Howard Carter's immensely important find and the aftermath than it does the boy-king's actual life. Part of that is because so little is known, and part of it is because the story of the discovery and excavation of the tomb makes an excellent story in itself. While the book is slightly muddled, overall it's a very good tale of early 20th-century archaeology.
I also read her book on Nefertiti, and it was a very good read as well.

I encourage you to check out this author for Egyptian history. She's always interesting and a good read.

Tuesday, 20 November 2012

Has Terry Brooks Discovered Sex?

I don't mean personally, of course, but in his Shannara books.

I've been an avid reader of Brooks' Shannara books since I read Sword of Shannara sometime back in the 1980s. I've devoured each book, and I do believe I've read every one of them.

Maybe my memory is faulty (and if so, somebody please let me know), but there is no mention of anything related to sex in any of the previous books. One character may love another, there may be a kiss or two. But that's about it.

He's telling Kate the shocking secret of Brooks' next book
I recently finished The Measure of the Magic, book 2 (and conclusion) of the Legends of Shannara series. Colour me completely shocked when there was actually a fade-to-black love scene in it! Yes, two characters actually had sex. I was flabbergasted.

I was even more surprised now that I'm reading Wards of Faerie, the first book in the Dark Legacy of Shannara series (and his latest) and there are references to characters taking other characters "into their bed" and one of the more prominent government officials actually taking lovers.

Did somebody spike Brooks' tea while he wasn't looking?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining about it at all. I think it's actually a good thing. These things happen in novels that aren't designed specifically for children. I think that's why the early Shannara books were often recommended for children who were looking for a Tolkien fix (back when kids actually read Tolkien, and no, I'm not comparing the quality of the two writers). Because they were pretty safe. There was violence, but it was never described in great gory detail. No more so than Tolkien's was, anyway.

Don't worry, parents out there. Nothing is explicit, with only the one scene that fades to black before Brooks has to describe anything overtly sexual. It's just the references themselves that are surprising me.

So, after 30+ years, Brooks is finally acknowledging in print that adults have sex.

This is excellent news, because the books might actually feel a little more real (as real as magical fantasy can be, anyway). Normal character relationships can happen.

This will be great as soon as my eyes stop getting all that exercise from bugging out.

Give me a bit of time.

Monday, 19 November 2012

Star Trek: DS9 - Ep 4 - Babel

Communication is such a wonderful thing. Reading, writing, talking, there are so many ways that people get their point across to each other. But what would happen if you couldn’t? What if you spouted nothing but gibberish, and everything that somebody said to you sounded like gibberish too? There’s a common link that allows us to communicate with one another, and when that link is broken, chaos ensues.

Thus, we reach the fourth episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, “Babel.” The station is coming apart at the seams, as the Cardassians left it in a sorry shape upon abandoning it. Chief O’Brien (Colm Meaney) and his crew are being run ragged trying to get everything fixed. People are stuck in airlocks, ship maintenance is behind schedule, and computers in Operations aren't working either. Worst of all, the replicators are producing horrible coffee!! I have to question all of this, however, considering everything seemed to be working fine for the last two episodes, with hardly any comment on systems not working or breaking down. I don’t question that there were still repairs to be made, but the fact that O’Brien is this busy all of a sudden strains the willing suspension of disbelief. There should have been some indication in previous episodes of these problems. Strike one against the episode.

Nevertheless, we take as given that nothing is working. When O’Brien is fixing the replicators, he unknowingly trips a device located in the circuitry of the replicator, which causes havoc. Nothing happens for a little bit, but gradually, O’Brien looks more and more tired, until he suddenly starts spouting gibberish. The words are clear, but they don’t make any sense. The device created a virus that has Aphasia-like symptoms, where the processing area of the brain which creates the understanding of language is affected. What the victim says has no meaning, and the victim hears nothing but garbage as well. Kira (Nana Visitor) thinks it’s Cardassian sabotage, but it turns out to be a Bajoran terrorist weapon planted when the station was created, 18 years ago (“before I became chief of security,” Odo reminds everybody). It’s a race against time as Dr. Bashir (Siddig El Fadil) tries to find a cure. Will he find one before he succumbs? Or will they have to track down the creator of the virus? Or will an obstinate freighter captain (Jack Kehler) end up destroying the station while trying to break quarantine before anything can be done?

Ah, yes. The “must find a cure for a virus before it’s too late!” episode. It only took DS9 4 episodes to pull off one of those. Then again, it only took Next Generation two episodes to do it, so there you go. Still, as virus episodes go, it was pretty good. Mainly, once again, because of the character interaction. What? Character interaction in a story where most of the characters can’t communicate? Yes, even in an episode like that. The reason is Odo (Rene Auberjonois) and Quark (Armin Shimmerman), who are both immune to the virus. They have several wonderful scenes together, as well as some apart (it’s hilarious when Quark is haranguing the patients, making sure they aren’t faking it to get out of paying their bills. “GOLD!!! OWE MEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!”). Auberjonois and Shimmerman have a wonderful chemistry that carries through the entire series, but it really begins here. Sure, they’ve had some good scenes before, but this is where the relationship truly develops.

The rest of the actors do a pretty good job as well. I love the relationship between Jake (Cirroc Lofton) and Sisko (Avery Brooks). They truly look like father and son, and you can tell how much Ben loves his son, especially when Ben puts his arm around Jake and kisses the top of his head. I’ve read that Brooks was almost a father-figure to Lofton while they were doing the show, and it truly does show in their performance. The cast also does well spouting the gibberish. I have to wonder if they had two sets of lines: ones that the character is trying to say and then ones that the character actually says. You can see the desperation in their faces when they suddenly can’t understand anybody and it’s obvious that nobody can understand them either. It must have been difficult to remember all that gibberish.

I have to also compliment the writers on giving a new twist to the solution. Not the solution itself (which is fairly run of the mill and convenient), but the way it’s found. On which other Star Trek series would one of the main characters actually kidnap somebody to help solve the problem? I loved it. Points off, however, for some of the other cliches used. There’s the artificial deadline, where something has to be done or bad things will start happening. In this case, it’s used twice! First, Kira suddenly has 12 hours to find a cure or people will start dying. I’m glad medical science is that exact. Then, Odo has 5 minutes before the ship explodes. Nice of the ship’s engines to be that precise. Maybe this is intended to be a warm and fuzzy for Trek fans, since it’s used so often? Personally, I find it trite and boring, and just once wish somebody would give a time prediction like that and then have it be fatally wrong. “You’ve got 5 minutes to disengage before the ship blows up!” BOOOOOM!!!! “Ooops. Make that 30 seconds.”

Still, the episode is entertaining, and the Quark/Odo scenes make it worth watching. I’ll even forgive the script the logic problem of nobody ever fixing the replicators for 18 years (or at least being lucky enough not to trip the booby-trap). Good old Cardassian technology, I guess! Good characters and good acting will make me forgive an otherwise weak episode. This one wasn’t weak, it was just old with a couple of new twists. Thus, the characters bring it up to 4 stars. Definitely a good episode for this early in the first season.

Memorable Quote
“You claimed Rom fixed your replicators. Rom is an idiot. He couldn’t fix a straw if it was bent.” Odo

4 Stars

Sunday, 18 November 2012

Failure as a Driving Force

There is something that's universal. It happens to everybody, be it kids trying to walk for the first time to somebody running for President, and everything in between (and even beyond).

Yes, we all fail. In fact, we fail a lot. Life is full of little failures when we try and do something.

Some people let failure paralyze them. Sometimes it's not even failure, but the fear of failure that keeps us from moving forward. We come up with some brilliant idea that we want to try, but then we don't put it into action because we're afraid it might not succeed. Maybe it isn't as brilliant as we thought it was. Or maybe we just don't have the skill or expertise to pull it off.

When we think of failure, we often think of these big things. We don't realize that there are many days that are full of little failures. You tried to fix the squeaky hinge on the door but it was beyond your capability and you had to ask for help. You tried to fix the clogged drain. Maybe you tried to figure out on your own how to hide columns on an Excel spreadsheet but then finally had to ask somebody.

We all do it. Failure is a part of our lives.

Wow, that was depressing. Isn't this supposed to be an inspirational post?

Yes it is.

The thing is, failure can be, and often is, a driving force in our lives, forcing us to improve our minds, our bodies, or even just our everyday life skills.

Had to ask about hiding columns on your spreadsheet? Maybe learning that taught you how to figure out other things in Excel without help. Through failure, you learn things about yourself, what you can and can't do, and maybe what you can teach yourself or have others teach you how to do. Maybe that failure inspires you to learn more about the subject so you don't have to ask for help again.

The best failures inspire us to do better, to be better. They open up new avenues to explore, new thought processes to implement. They make us better people.

A couple of weeks ago, I tweeted and Facebooked (wow, that's become a verb now?) a quote from a great post on the Inkpunks blog by Andrew Romine, called "Failure: You're Doing it Right." The quote was this:
"I throw myself at failure and hope I miss."
I think that's a wonderful quote, because it acknowledges that failure is always a possibility. But it's not something to be frightened of.

The entire post is well-worth reading.

Andrew lists three things to keep in mind when you find that the fear of failure is keeping you paralyzed. One of those is that failure can actually be a good way to discover your strengths.
"Sometimes failing at something is the only way to discover what you’re really good at. This is a less intuitive (and perhaps less pleasant) aspect of failure, but still a very important one. You have to be willing to put in long hours in any career or craft to get good at it. In those hundreds or thousands of hours of writing, drawing, puppetry, or even accounting, you’ll find your strengths and weaknesses. You’ll discover where your passion really lies."
I found this post really inspiring.

I love to write, but I have found myself falling into lazy funks that have kept me from actually producing anything. This blog went dormant for three months, and for weeks at a time even before that. I still haven't produced more than one story that I've actually submitted to a magazine for publication.

A big part of that is fear of failure. There's also the "why would anybody care what I think about something" feeling too, but it's more than that. It's the "why keep doing something that nobody's ever going to read?" trap as well.

That kind of thinking is poisonous, and while it has held me back from doing things, it hasn't held me back from the dream of doing them. I still feel inspired when I talk to writers such as Sandra Wickham (a writer and contributor to the Inkpunks blog and also one of my favourite Twitter follows who I had the pleasure of talking to again at V-Con this year) or other writers who I follow on Twitter or read their blogs.

When I came out of V-Con this year, I truly did feel inspired by all of the author and publisher panels that I attended, and the wonderful conversation I had with Connie Willis (an excellent SF author who was the guest of honour).

But then I got home and that same old fear hit.

It's something I'm really working hard to get over, and I think re-starting this blog and keeping it going as I have this month is a good start.

Posts like Andrew's help too.

I encourage you to check out the post because, while it's mainly about writing, it can be inspiring for anybody who finds themselves paralyzed by that same failure fear, even if it's not writing-related.

And check out the rest of the Inkpunks blog too if you're a writer. There's some good stuff there.

Saturday, 17 November 2012

The Dangers of Formula in a TV Series

Many episodic TV shows have a formula they stick to. For a wildly popular show, that formula is sort of the "brand" that keeps people coming back and watching the show. They sometimes deviate from it, but unless the deviation is quite creative, fans can sometimes rebel against it.

Note that I'm not talking about shows that have one continuous story that goes from week to week, like The Walking Dea or Lost or something like that.

I actually do enjoy when a show tells a lot of different types of stories using different formats. The various Star Trek series would veer from super-serious drama to light-hearted comedy to science spectacle (though the science was often laughable) and back, all in one season. The Las Vegas CSI show often has a few comedy episodes to break up the monotony of all that serious death and murder (something I think the Miami show could learn from, at least the first few seasons that I saw in syndication before I stopped watching it).

But other shows have a formula and they stick to it. If it's very successful, why deviate?

In this day and age, that can be dangerous.

Take Castle, for instance.

Readers of this blog know that the wife and I were blasting through the seasons of this great show starring Nathan Fillion. At the time of writing that post, we were watching multiple episodes a night. But by the time it actually posted (I wrote that post on Monday and it came out on Thursday), we had stopped, at least momentarily.

Why? Because they were all feeling the same.

Don't get me wrong. It's still an excellent show, well-written and witty with interesting murder cases. But they all follow the same formula (at least through the first season and a half, so I can't say whether it has changed): discover body; meet a couple of suspects; try to figure out what happened; discover that one character must have done it; accuse character; character denies that they could have done it, points detectives in new direction (possibly introducing new characters); discover that another character obviously did it; accuse character; continue that pattern until there are only one or two characters left; finally solve murder. Many times there's a sub-plot with Castle's mom or daughter that will end up providing Castle with some insight into the murder case when he's talking to them about their issue.

The constant "you did it! No, you did it! No, you did it!" was starting to get annoying. So we're taking a break, though we do want to get back and finish watching.

What's dangerous about shows following a formula nowadays is in how many people consume their TV. How many of you don't watch episodic TV anymore, but instead wait until the season's out on DVD? How many of you have discovered a new show that's into season 4 or season 5 and have plowed through all of the old episodes on DVD or on Netflix or something?

When you're watching a huge number of episodes back to back, the formula gets boring after a while. If you're watching something week to week, you've had a whole week to let the formula fade from your mind so that it's not annoying when you are exposed to it again. Not to mention the fact that you're only watching one episode a week so you're not getting overwhelmed by the formula.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not attacking Castle or it's formula. I do love the show.

But formulas can make catching up on a series increasingly tedious after a while.

It didn't used to be that way, but then you can say that about a lot of things, can't you?

Friday, 16 November 2012

Disney now owns our childhood

Where were you on that fateful day, October 30, 2012?

You know the one I'm talking about. The day the earth moved, shifting on its axis, when millions of voices weren't silenced, but instead exploded onto Twitter to vent outrage or glee?

Yes, that was the day that news came out of Disney buying Lucasfilm (and all that it owns) for $4 billion.

Believe it or not, I was actually in an office meeting. I had a dead spot in the meeting while the others were looking at things that they needed to talk about and I fired up my phone and checked Twitter. I'm sure my eyes widened when I saw the first thing that popped up.

Twitter became a madhouse for the next two hours at least. The productivity of nerds (hey, that's a great name for a band!) all across the country probably plummeted toward zero at a lightning pace.

All for $4 billion.

Is this a good thing?

Opinions are divided on this. Many Star Wars fans have been disillusioned for years about how George Lucas has pretty much made the franchise unwatchable with the prequel trilogy. Jar-Jar Binks is almost a curse word in nerd circles.

On the other hand, while many around the Net were making jokes like this:


others seem to remember that Disney has actually done a pretty good job with other companies that they've purchased. The Marvel Comics movies have been very good since Disney bought the comic company.

Personally, I'm actually optimistic, though I realize they could ruin a good thing with Episode VII on its way in 2015. On the other hand, it was already ruined, so could it get any worse?

What hits me more is just how much of what I grew up with is now owned by Disney. I grew up reading Marvel Comics, and while I also read a lot of DC (owned by Warner Bros), Marvel was huge in my life. They are part of Mickey's empire.

ESPN (and ABC along with it)? That was my major sports network growing up.

Disney also owns the Muppet Studios, so the muppets are now part of the empire.

A major chunk of my childhood, all under one huge umbrella.

Still, it's not all bad. At least they haven't bought Hasbro.


Yet.

Thursday, 15 November 2012

The Wonder of Nathan Fillion

Actors usually come in one of a couple different formats. Either they're true stars that shine off the screen no matter what they're in, where you go to see the movie or watch the TV show just because of them.

Then there are the types who successfully blend in to any script and story that they appear in. You may not be going to see the movie because of them, but you know that when you see them, they're going to give you an outstanding performance. They add to the wonder of a movie. Even if the movie or show is bad, you can at least say "this actor was good despite the material."

Then there are those who lie outside of those two boxes, or maybe they straddle both of them. They are a rare breed.

Nathan Fillion is one of these actors.

I first stumbled across Fillion in Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog where he played Neil Patrick Harris' nemesis, Captain Hammer. I thought he did fine, but didn't really think anything of it.

Fast forward to V-Con 36 in 2011, which had a large concentration of stuff on Joss Whedon and his many TV shows. I had been hearing so much good stuff about Firefly, but had never bothered to sit down and watch it until I was inundated with Whedon at the convention. The wife and I raced through all of the episodes of the series, and Fillion (who played Captain Mal Reynolds, the lead in the series) was simply outstanding. Yes, Whedon and the other writers gave him some great lines, but Fillion made that show.

I was sort of aware that Fillion was currently starring in a different television series, Castle, but it wasn't really on my radar. We started watching that, and the healthy respect for Fillion that Firefly gave me blossomed into full-blown "damn, this guy is awesome!" feelings.

For those who don't know, Fillion plays Richard Castle, a crime writer who is shadowing a New York detective for his new series of books based on a hot female detective. Detective Kate Beckett is his muse, and he also has the hots for her. Together, along with other cops in the precinct, they solve murders and Castle brings his unique writer's perspective to the solving of the crimes.

The writing is top notch, the cast is excellent, but Fillion is just awesome in the role. His interplay with Beckett (played by the also excellent Stana Katic) is wonderful. He brings a roguish charm to the role that just works brilliantly. I don't know if the series was created for him, but I can't see anybody else playing that role.



We've watched a few episodes of Season 5, but have decided not to watch anymore until we get caught up on the series. We're currently in Season 2, and loving it.

One of my favourite scenes:



Fillion is the ideal Hollywood icon as far as I'm concerned. Not only is he in an excellent series, not only is he brilliant in everything I've seen him in (even his recurring Buffy the Vampire Slayer role in the last season), but he seems to realize what he has. He doesn't let the success get to him.

He's a wonderful person to follow on Twitter because he doesn't get into the morass of politics. I can only remember a small handful of tweets that have had anything to do with politics. As Michael Jordan once supposedly said when refusing to endorse a Democratic candidate, "Republicans buy shoes too." Why alienate half of your fans?

Fillion doesn't do that. He's a fun follow on Twitter. He's an great actor in an outstanding show.

How can you go wrong with that?

Wednesday, 14 November 2012

Book Review - A Wanted Man by Lee Child

Lee Child is quickly becoming one of my favourite thriller writers, mainly for the fast-paced, punchy chapters and dialogue that just make you want to continue reading long past the time you should have put the book down. Jack Reacher is a wonderful character, a tall, imposing figure who also has a quick intelligence to take in the entire situation and make a decision on how to deal with it. This is especially helpful when he's about to get in a fight.

Child's latest Reacher novel, A Wanted Man, is a very intense novel that takes place over a couple of days. It's a continuation of the character arc that was begun in 61 Hours and continued in Worth Dying For (before the interruption of The Affair) and it's still not quite over yet. Each book is self-contained, so no worries on that account. It's a character arc that's going over a few books, and it will be interesting to see the results when they finally come.

This is once again an excellent book.

My review is up now on Curled Up With a Good Book.

From the review:
"Fresh from his experiences in Nebraska, Jack Reacher is hitchhiking his way to Virginia. A car stops, the two men and a woman inside apparently debating whether or not to pick up this drifter with a broken nose. They finally seem to reach an agreement, and Jack gets in. Thus begins a harrowing journey across the state of Iowa as the true nature of Reacher's new companions becomes apparent. Police roadblocks won’t stop them, and FBI Agent Julia Sorenson is trailing them the entire way. Just what is the story behind the trio, and why is the FBI after them? Reacher's about to find out, and the answer may put an end to thoughts of his dream Virginia meeting."
It's the character interplay between Reacher and the people he ends up travelling with, as well as the sheriff and Sorenson, that really make this book enjoyable.

There are a couple of problems with it that bring it down a notch. Mr. Child, I respectfully have to inform you that McDonald's doesn't serve burgers during breakfast. A&W does, though!

Also, the timeline doesn't exactly track, or at least it feels kind of off. It didn't mar my enjoyment of the novel that much, but it was nagging at me throughout my reading. They were driving a fair distance in a limited amount of time.

Despite that, I highly recommend the book.

Tuesday, 13 November 2012

News of the Weird - Court Orders Woman to Wear "Idiot" Sign

Have you ever been driving and seen something in front of you that you just had to avoid? Not because it was something that, if you ran it down, you might get 15 to Life (or maybe just bad Karma), but something that was just annoying and keeping you from getting where you wanted to be?

Maybe a herd of ducks waddling across the street?

How about a school bus stopped for the kids?

That's what annoyed one Cleveland, Ohio woman to no end. Why should she have to stop and delay her trip to the local pub (ok, I don't really know where she was going, but still) just because a bunch of grimy rugrats are trying to get off or on a school bus?

According to Canoe News, she decided to do something about it. When the bus stopped and that little "Stop" sign flashed out that keeps traffic in both directions from driving by and possibly having a kid as a hood ornament, she took things into her own hands and drove up on the sidewalk to avoid the whole situation.

But she did it one too many times and the bus driver and cops were ready for her one day. As soon as she pulled the same stunt, cop sirens wailed and she was quickly picked up.

In addition to the standard "suspended license and fine" punishment, the judge also came up with something else for her to do:
"The judge also ordered Hardin to stand on a street near where the offence took place for an hour a day next Tuesday and Wednesday wearing a sign that reads: Only an idiot drives on the sidewalk to avoid a school bus."
Creative thinking, Your Honour!

Does this make some grand statement about society, and about how impatient we all are?

Or is this just a stupid woman?

You decide.

Also, I'd love to hear about things you've done on the road when something is annoying you. Nothing illegal, as I don't want you to out yourself. But anything else is fair game.

Chime in!

Incidentally, if you want to see the woman in action, go to the Canoe story I linked to. There is video of exactly what she did.

Monday, 12 November 2012

Free Speech Outrage of the Day

Thanks to To Hold Nothing
Want to show that you're an asshole? Try burning a poppy on Remembrance Day (Veteran's Day for you Americans, where I don't think the poppy is the same type of symbol as it is in the British Commonwealth countries).

Want to show that not only are you an asshole, but you're a despicable human being? Take a picture of it and blast out there onto social media.

Want to become a sympathetic subject of the constant battle for free speech in civilized and free countries?

Do it in the UK.

According to the Telegraph, a 19-year-old man from Aylesham was arrested not for burning a poppy on Remembrance Day (evidently that's cool), but for posting it on Facebook. It's not even clear he burned the poppy to begin with.

The UK does not have the First Amendment, but you would think in any free society people would have the ability to say whatever they want as long as it wasn't a threat to somebody.

You would be wrong.

The man was arrested under the "Malicious Communications Act".

According to the Guardian:
"According to the website of the CPS, the Malicious Communications Act 1988, section 1, "deals with the sending to another of any article which is indecent or grossly offensive, or which conveys a threat, or which is false, provided there is an intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient".

The CPS website states: "The offence covers letters, writing of all descriptions, electronic communications, photographs and other images in a material form, tape recordings, films and video recordings.""
This law is offensive, and is akin to "hate speech" laws that are becoming more prevalent in North America as well. We haven't reached this point yet, but it's almost certain we will if we continue down that path, mainly because the definition of "hate speech" will start getting defined more and more broadly until it's meaningless. Anti-black/gay/Christian/women/etc statements are one thing (and I don't agree with them being against the law either, though they do demonstrate that the person making such statements is a boor who should never be listened to by anybody). But burning poppies? Where do you draw the line? (I seem to be asking that question a lot lately)

Yes, burning a poppy is obnoxious, and doing it on Remembrance Day is offensive. But what gives you the right to live a life free of offense? I find lots of things offensive. I don't think there should be a law against them, though.

Thankfully, the outrage about this online is palpable. Not that the UK government will listen, but at least people aren't lying down for this. These stupid arrests will continue to live on, and the UK will increasingly become a police state where you can't do anything without getting government approval first.

Ok, I exaggerate, but that seems to be the slope they're on.

Thanks to the Telegraph
The UK has a number of laws of similar stupidity, ones that I am truly afraid will be making their way over here at some point. Wonderful actor Rowan Atkinson recently spoke out about another one that appears to be intended to keep people from feeling insulted.

Section 5 of the Public Order Act of 1986 is as follows (thanks to the Digital Journal article I linked to above):
"As it currently stands, Section 5(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 reads:

A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."
So insulting somebody is a crime. Outrageous.

Atkinson was quite eloquent in his statement:
"The clear problem with the outlawing of insult is that too many things can be interpreted as such. Criticism is easily construed as insult. Ridicule is easily construed as insult. Sarcasm, unfavourable comparison, merely stating an alternative point of view can be interpreted as insult."
Atkinson spoke as part of the launch of Reform Section 5, a group that is advocating changing the law to remove insults from it. It's supported by a number of officials and public figures, including Stephen Fry.

Personally, I don't think that goes far enough, as I think the entire law should be scrapped, not "reformed." Threats should be covered separately, as anybody who issues a threat, be it written, verbal, or smoke signals, should be punished. They don't need a speech law about it.

Government and laws should not be there to keep people from being offended. People who feel that way actually offend me.

So should they be arrested? Or is one person's offense fine while another's is actionable?


Star Trek: DS9 - Ep 3 - A Man Alone

"A Man Alone" was the third Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode aired, and unfortunately it's a bit of a let down from the previous two. Thankfully, the first two garnered enough good will that this minor speed bump did not derail the momentum the show had. But it was a close call.

Odo (Rene Auberjonois) truly becomes a man alone as he's suspected of murdering a Bajoran man, Ibudan (Stephen James Carver), who Odo had arrested and sent to prison during the Cardassian occupation. The episode starts (after an obligatory Bashir trying to pick up Dax teaser) with Ibudan gambling in Quark's (Armin Shimmerman) when Odo spots him, roughs him up, and tells him that he has 26 hours to get off the station. Later on, in a holosuite, Ibudan is murdered, and it looks like Odo is the only one who could have done it. No other DNA is found in the holosuite and there are no clues to indicate somebody else may have been there. Is Odo a murderer, or is something else going on?

A small second and a smaller third plotline occur as well. Keiko O'Brien (Rosalind Chao), a botanist by trade, is feeling very left out of everything. There's no need for a botanist on the station, she can't be on any ships that will be exploring the Gamma Quadrant, and she doesn't want Miles (Colm Meaney) to pull any strings for her. She doesn't know what to do. Until she notices Jake Sisko (Cirroc Lofton) and Nog (Aron Eisenberg) getting into trouble because they don't know what to do either. She finally gets the idea to start a school for the few children who are on the station. The third plotline involves Dr. Bashir (Siddig El Fadil) chasing after Dax (Terry Farrell) but thinking he's been stymied by her interest in Commander Sisko (Avery Brooks).

This is a very uneven episode, with some good moments but some atrociously bad ones as well. It comes early enough in the series for us to have a sliver of doubt about Odo and whether or not he'd do something like this. Sure, he's a main character so you know he's not guilty. But the episode allows us to see what his sense of justice is like and we get a glimpse into his mentality. I could see him as a benevolent dictator, doing bad things "for the right reasons." Justice is more important to him then picky things like human rights. Ibudan's a murderer and a scumbag? Throw him off the station despite the fact that he's been granted amnesty by the Bajoran government. It's an interesting character bit, and we see that Odo is just that little bit different then the typical Federation ideals. We know he's going to be a nice contrast to the Starfleet types.

We also see Kira's (Nana Visitor) fierce loyalty to Odo, as she defends him against attacks from without and within. She can't believe Sisko would relieve him of duty even though he's the prime suspect in the case. The two confrontations between Sisko and Odo work very well, too. Sisko doesn't really know what to make of Odo as he's still getting to know him, so he's perhaps a bit harder on Odo then he would be after he gets to know him. Auberjonois does a wonderful job both in these scenes, as well as the one with Quark.

Tragically, the episode falls apart near the end, when we are shown the fallout from what happened. The people on the station become hostile to Odo, first shunning him (a somewhat effective scene) and then turning on him and wanting to hang him from the nearest balcony. This is all instigated by Zayra (Edward Laurence Albert), and it just doesn't work. Zayra is the one who starts convincing people that the shapeshifter can't be trusted. He's the one who incites the mob. He's the one who reports a conversation he had with Ibudan where Ibudan stated that he was afraid of Odo. It looks like he's part of the entire plot. But nothing happens to him. He just disappears and no mention is made of him after the resolution (though I may have missed it). So either he's just a passionate yet innocent man who was played badly, or it was badly written. Either way, the scenes don't work. Not to mention Bashir's conveniently timed solution to the whole thing which completely undercuts any dramatic tension in the scene.

In fact, Zayra's not being mentioned at the end brings up another problem with the episode. We get almost no resolution. After Odo does the unmasking, we get a voiceover and that's it (other than a scene involving the school). Huh? I sincerely hope that DS9 is not going to suffer from the Next Generation disease of abrupt endings. Spare me, please.

The other plot lines are competently handled, though they feel forced at times. Farrell hasn't quite mastered the "old but young" aspect of Dax yet, and her dinner with Sisko seemed very off. We do get some interesting insights into the Trill, but the scene itself was rather bland. As was the teaser scene between Bashir and her.

I've never been a big fan of Keiko, but here she does ok. You can definitely see the frustration in her face when she sees Nog and Jake misbehaving. Her complaining to Miles about feeling useless got a little shrill at times, but overall was well done. She does make it sound very easy to come up with a curriculum that will cover human, Ferengi, Bajoran, and any other race that has children on the station, but hopefully that will be addressed later in the series. Her scene with Rom (Max Grodenchik) was wonderful, by the way. She follows him around the bar trying to convince him to send his son Nog to the school using some very well-reasoned arguments, and finally, out of exasperation, he agrees to think about it. It would have been nice to see why Rom finally agrees, but I guess we're supposed to assume that he decide Nog was getting into too much trouble.

Overall, "A Man Alone" was a nice idea badly executed. The actors seem to be still trying to fit into their roles and aren't quite comfortable yet. At times they rise above it, but not always. This is one where they don't quite succeed.

Memorable Quote:

"Laws change, depending on who's making them. Cardassians one day. Federation the next. But justice is justice." Odo

3 Stars