Book Review - The Bird of the River by Kage Baker

Kage Baker was one of my favourite authors, and she will forever be missed by both science fiction and fantasy fans worldwide. Her death in 2010 was a blow to her fans. The reader in me is glad that she finished her "Company" series before she died, since I don't think anybody could bring justice to it like she could have. (Hey, maybe that's a good idea for next week's book post!)

Her last full novel before she died was The Bird of the River, and it's set in the fantasy world that she had created, along with The House of the Stag and The Anvil of the World. It's a beautiful novel, very low-key and yet so well-written that I could not put the book down. Her characterization abilities were fantastic, and even if the plot of one of her books was sub-par, you could glory in her rich characters.

This book had all of that.

My Curled Up With a Good Book review can be found here.

From the review:

"This is the story of a river boat named the Bird of the River and a young brother and sister who have to make their way on it after their drug-addicted mother dies in a horrible accident. They also have to figure out their place in the wider world, and thankfully their pseudo-family on the boat will help them with that. Young Eliss is the main character, a teenager who excels at being able to spot river snags that must be destroyed or maneuvered around. As the oldest, she has to take care of her half-brother, a boy with mixed heritage - he's half "Greenie," a race that is horribly looked down upon by the humans of this world. Add to the mix a new passenger who is travelling incognito to search for a lost member of his rich family and a ship's captain who gets wildly drunk every time they reach port, and the reader gets a sense that all is not right with Eliss's world."

Eliss is a beautiful character, a child who has had to grow up very quickly due to her mother's foibles and untimely death.

Reading one of Baker's books, you can lose yourself in the world she has created, only coming up for air after a couple of hours.

Baker went out on a high note with The Bird of the River, as it's up there among her best.

Check out next week's post for more Kage Baker goodness. There's a reason she's one of my top two favourite authors, and that I'm incredibly sad that I will never be able to read anything new by her again.

Star Trek: DS9 - Ep 21 - The Circle

(this review contains some spoilers for the first episode in the trilogy, "The Homecoming")

The middle part of any trilogy is usually the weakest of the bunch. It doesn't have the explosive beginning and it doesn't have the riveting ending. Instead, it's a transition, where things start to go even worse for the good guys. Star Trek has a reputation for having lackluster endings to its two-part episodes, but it's never had a trilogy before, so this was unexplored territory. Like a trooper, though, Deep Space Nine follows through with a solid outing that continues the trend of good episodes.

In "The Homecoming", Major Kira (Nana Visitor) rescued Li Nalas (Richard Beymer), a Bajoran Resistance hero, from a Cardassian prison camp, hoping that he could lead Bajor through the dark times that a radical group called the Circle was bringing about. Li claimed not to be the man that everybody thought he was, but Commander Sisko (Avery Brooks) convinced him that he could be that man. The episode ended with Li Nalas replacing Kira as Sisko's first officer.

As "The Circle" begins, Kira is trying to discover her place in the new regime. As she tries to pack and her friends try to convince her to fight for her job, Vedek Bereil (Philip Anglim) comes to her quarters and asks her to stay at the monastery. Meanwhile, the door to Sisko's quarters has been vandalized with the sign of the Circle, indicating that they can go anywhere on the station. Quark (Armin Shimmerman) has some important information for Odo (Rene Auberjonois) about who is supplying the Circle with weapons as the violence spills into the streets. With Kira trying to relax and "be useless for awhile" and Sisko trying everything he can to get her back, the Circle tightens its noose. Revolution is coming to Bajor, and there may not be room for the Federation after it's finished.

While the teaser is positively chilling with the sign of the Circle on Sisko's door, the opening scene after the credits is simply priceless. Kira is trying to pack and one after another of her friends comes to see her. Odo is after her to fight for her position, Bashir (Siddig El Fadil) is trying to figure out what is going on and just wants to say goodbye, and everybody else just makes the situation even more chaotic. It makes Bereil's entrance even more effective and startling. It's a wonderfully played scene by Visitor and the others, and Angelim brings a wonderful serenity to his role as Bereil. In fact, Angelim is outstanding throughout the episode, contrasting the intensity of the action and emotion with his detachment, even as he fights his growing attraction to Kira. The scenes between Kira and Bereil simply crackle with potential energy, just waiting to be released.

Which brings me to another great guest-starring turn, by Louise Fletcher. She hasn't changed since "In the Hands of the Prophets". In fact, her words and tone of voice are dripping with even more malevolence. The scene where she interrupts Bereil and Kira as they discuss their orb visions is simply wonderful. Fletcher is a veteran, and she brings the wonderful smarminess to the role of Vedek Winn that she brought to Nurse Ratched in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. She only has two scenes in this episode, but they are both intense.

Which brings us to Minister Jaro (Frank Langella, uncredited). What a guest cast they have brought together for this trilogy! They all bring class and style to their roles, with Langella being one of the best. He has a quiet menace to him, especially once his secret is revealed. The only problem is, once again, he seems to mumble. I'm not sure what it is, but when I can hear everybody else but not him, it's not a good thing. Still, subtitles fix that and he is otherwise fantastic.

I can also say the same for Richard Beymer. Li's very uncomfortable in his role as Sisko's first officer, and he's especially nervous with the status that Bajor has given him. "I don't even know what a Navarch (the title they have given him) does." When he's forced to command, he asks Dax (Terry Farrell) for advice, being completely out of his element. Sure, he's led fighters into battle, but command of a station? Beymer brings a quiet passion to the role, showing us a man who wants to do the right thing but isn't necessarily sure what that right thing is.

I've spent a lot of time on the guest cast, but the regulars are almost perfect as well. The opening scene mentioned above is classic, a nice bit of comic relief in the middle of a tension-filled episode. The Quark-Odo scene is quite good as well, where Quark gives Odo the information on the weapons shipment. Odo makes good use of his shape-shifting ability in finding out the secret of the Circle. There is not a bad performance in the bunch, but I have to give special kudos to Visitor. Her scenes with Bereil and opposite Jaro are well-acted.

Finally, there's the rest of the episode. What can I say about it? It carries forward the plot from the first episode and leaves us with a lovely cliffhanger for the final episode. The pieces are in place, our heroes know what is going on but can't communicate that fact to Bajor, and we're given hints that we're in for a rollicking conclusion.

There is a nice action sequence toward the end of the episode for those of you who like phaser blasts. It's well-choreographed and executed. It does suffer a bit from "Red Shirt Syndrome," but at least the men aren't killed. There is one minor niggle in the episode, though. When Kira is kidnapped, how does Quark know where she's being kept? Being an underhanded businessman, I can understand how he'd hear about the weapons trading, but knowing the secret hideout of a fanatical Bajoran sect? Please.

The normal let-down that occurs in a second episode does not happen here. Yes, it is a transition between the first and the last episode, but this one is just as interesting as the first. We were introduced to the problem in "The Homecoming," and "The Circle" shows us how things are even worse than we had figured. There's no running around incoherently or treading water while the show fills time until the final episode. Instead, the plot ratchets up another notch or two and things look even bleaker. I have to admit that I loved it, and I can't wait for the conclusion.

Memorable Quote

"We've got to leave! Well, I do, anyway. You can just turn into a couch." Quark

5 Stars

Mom: "I Don't Want My Preschooler to be a Gentleman"

What's this? Another post on chivalry and manners? Is this becoming the "chivalry and manners" blog? (Hmmm, maybe that's an idea...)

I couldn't help myself when I saw this post in the Style section of the New York Times (h/t: I believe it was Instapundit yet again, but it's been a week so I'm not sure).

In the "Motherlode" part of the Style section ("Motherlode?" As the name of a parenting column? Ain't that just adorable?), Lynn Messina writes "I don't want my preschooler to be a gentleman."

Messina opens the blog this way:

"My 4-year-old son, Emmett, swallows a spoonful of cereal and asks me if I know what a gentleman is. Surprised, I tell him I have some idea; then I ask what the word means to him.

“A gentleman lets girls go first,” he says, explaining that every day at naptime all the girls go to the bathroom before the boys."

She is horrified that her young boy "just got his first lesson in sexism" by a teacher who, she says, no doubt means well.

I personally would say that the teacher is making it way too simplistic, though maybe that's because of the age-level she's dealing with. I don't know.

Anyway, she goes on to lament that her views seem out of step with the mainstream. "Almost everyone I mention it to thinks it’s lovely and sweet. What’s the harm in teaching little boys to respect little girls?" (Because I guess respect is a bad thing?)

But wait, there's more! While she doesn't like it as a mother, she's horribly offended as a feminist. Because didn't we get rid of treating women differently thirty years ago? Perish the thought! It's horrible that men would treat with women with respect and courtesy even beyond what they would give to any man! You're an evil scumbag if you beat a woman, but you're also an evil scumbag keeping women down when you open the door for them or offer to lift a heavy suitcase!

Pure evil, it knows no bounds.

But she sees through men's evil plans:

"Letting girls use the bathroom first isn’t a show of respect. It is, rather, the first brick in the super high pedestal that allows men to exalt women out of sight. A true show of respect is paying us equally for the same work, not 77 cents on the dollar, which is the current average. That’s the world I want my son to live in and I seriously doubt it will ever happen as long as women believe men should hold the door open for them."

Yeah, because men just want women out of sight completely, and that's the only reason they would treat a woman with extra respect.

I want to highlight something Lee Habeeb wrote on National Review Online, called "The War Against Black Men," because I think it speaks to the cultural aspect of this issue.

Habeeb talks about how the nation (he's talking about Chicago, but I think it's a societal problem) doesn't have a gun problem, it has a father problem. Or lack thereof.

What pertains to my point is this:

"When young men don’t have fathers, they don’t learn to control their masculine impulses. They don’t have fathers to teach them how to channel their masculine impulses in productive ways.

When young men don’t have fathers, those men will seek out masculine love — masculine acceptance — where they can find it. Often, they find it in gangs."

He's not talking about how men treat women in this article. He's talking more about violence in general.

But it does bring to mind something that I also think is a problem in this society where men aren't taught to respect women, where misguided feminists think that treating a woman with an extra bit of respect and courtesy is somehow demeaning them. The combination of the two can be quite toxic.

When women aren't respected in society, you get this.

Fathers are an important aspect of that training. Boys learn from their fathers how to treat women, because they live every day seeing how their father treats their mother. There are other influences as well, of course. Evidently Messina's son's teacher is an influence too.

Of course, I'm not saying that it can't be taken too far, and some men do treat women this way because they don't think they are capable of doing anything themselves. Holding the door and carrying things for your wife doesn't mean anything when you also verbally demean her and treat her as useless and as somebody who should stay in the kitchen and be quiet.

But do we have to throw out the good stuff with the bad? Why does respect have to be thrown out with the condescension?

Messina goes on to say that in her mind, a gentleman lets other people go first, regardless of gender. "If two boys reach the top of the slide at the same time, a gentleman lets the other one go first." (why do I picture that and see two boys just constantly gesturing to each other for the other to go first, until they start fighting over who gets to go last?)

Her final paragraph is the kicker, though.

"It’s churlish to argue, so I let it go, and when, a few hours later in the park, I see him grab his soccer ball from a girl his own age, I feel a ridiculous rush of relief at his ungentlemanly behavior. Then I cross the field to remind him yet again how to share."

Why she seems to think that treating women with respect takes the place of basic civility in general, I don't know. Can't a boy learn to share without also losing the basic respect for women?

It is possible to have both, you know.

Podcast Stuff - Episode 51 of Down the Hall

It's always fun when you get really fascinating people to sit down for an interview with you.

In episode 51, we have our first-ever two-part interview. I talked to Dr. Michael Marker, from the Educational Studies department in the Faculty of Education (loyal fans may remember him from episode 37). We talked about a wide range of subjects, from schools as transformative experiences (hence the title of the episode) to academic conferences and the problems some of them have, and the great work that many MET students have been doing in his ETEC 521 course.

He also provides some great music too.

Make sure you join us in two weeks for part 2.

Fiona and I also talk about culturally-responsive education, and we extol the virtues of the Radiolab podcasts and site. There's even talk of rat-licking!

You can download or listen to the episode here. Let us know what you think!

You know what else you can do? You can make us cry with happiness by liking us on Facebook! Because my happiness tear ducts haven't received enough of a workout yet this year.

Go on! Do it for me.

Star Trek: DS9 - Ep 20 - The Homecoming

What's more important: the truth, or a legend to believe in? In times of great strife, sometimes the legend is the most important thing, especially when that legend is something that inspires us to be more than we think we can be. Does it matter if it's based on a lie? Perhaps after the fact it does, but during the time of trouble, the legend is often more important. We tend to ignore the emotional cost to that legend, however, especially in the aftermath.

The first season's finale (In the Hands of the Prophets) showed us a Bajor that was slowly coming to terms with the Federation presence on Deep Space Nine. However, Bajor is a planet in transition, in need of leadership as the Provisional Government consists of a bunch of back-biting factions that can't get along. What began in the last episode continues here, as we see a Bajor in crisis.

Now this is what I watch Deep Space Nine for. It's episodes like "The Homecoming" that could not be done on any other Trek show (at least not without feeling extremely forced). The fact that it's written with great power and just the right dash of humour makes it even more of a standout. Add wonderful acting by everybody involved, and you have three 5-star episodes in a row.

Quark (Armin Shimmerman) is given a Bajoran earring by a freighter captain (Leslie Bevis), who says that it was smuggled off of Cardassia IV. Quark gives it to Kira (Nana Visitor), who realizes that it belongs to the great Bajoran Resistance leader, Li Nalas (Richard Beymer). She wants to borrow a runabout to go on a rescue mission. Sisko (Avery Brooks) has his own problems, with a radical Bajoran group calling itself "The Circle," who wants all non-Bajorans off of Bajor, making an ugly appearance on the station. The Provisional Government is proving powerless to stop the factional fighting, and he realizes that he needs a strong Bajoran leader's help as much as Kira thinks the planet needs one.

He authorizes the mission and sends O'Brien (Colm Meaney) along for the ride. After an action-filled rescue, Li is brought back to the station, where his problems are only beginning. All Bajorans look up to him, but everything is based on a lie. He feels overwhelmed by the fact that Bajor needs him so much. Will he crack under the pressure? Or will he be everything that both Sisko and Kira need? Since this is the first part of a 3-part episode, you can probably guess.

The producers went all out on this story arc, bringing in some great guest stars. Frank Langella plays the uncredited role of Minister Jaro, a member of the Provisional Government who just oozes slime. He doesn't really do much in this first episode, but he is instrumental in the "kick in the gut" ending that leads into the fabled "to be continued" fade to black. You just know that something's not quite right, you just don't know what. He's very understated, almost to the point of mumbling (the only fault, as I found him increasingly difficult to hear), but he carries himself with such power that you can't help but come to attention when he comes onto the screen.

Richard Beymer (from Twin Peaks, among other things) plays Li Nalas beautifully. He's spent ten years in a Cardassian labour camp and he looks quite confused in his first scene. As he gets cleaned up and starts to realize just what freedom is, and how he may be shackled in a more figurative manner by the needs of his people, he becomes a very conflicted man. Every emotion appears on his face as it washes over him. He ultimately decides that he can't bear it, and the confrontation with Sisko which finally convinces him is stellar (the quote below, followed by "But it's all based on a lie." "No, it's based on a legend. And legends are as powerful as any truth.").

It's a wonderful performance, brought out by a great script that allows Beymer to stretch his acting muscles. The direction of that scene should take some kudos, as all of Sisko's lines are said while he's blurred in the background. Li Nalas is front and center, and as Sisko's words start to affect him, we can see it on his face. He's still not comfortable with his role, but he has finally accepted it.

The regulars seem inspired by a new season and a meaty story. Visitor is wonderful as Kira, playing a lot of different parts. She has to come on to a Cardassian guard and is quite effective in doing so. She's passionate in her attempts to convince Sisko of the need to rescue Li and the look on her face when she has to leave some of the prisoners behind is almost tragic (too bad that part was undercut by Dukat saying later that all of the other prisoners have been released). Brooks is also great, especially in his scenes with Li (not just the one mentioned above, but all of them).

There are also some nice humorous touches to lighten the high drama of the episode. It opens with yet another great Odo/Quark scene, which is a nice way to start the season ("Rule of Acquisition #76: Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies."). While Quark's branding by the Circle is quite effective as an intimidation tactic, his scene where Dr. Bashir (Siddig El Fadil) is trying to treat it is hilarious. Even that scene has a nice contrasting dramatic touch, however, as Li Nalas gets his first shot of the reality of the conditions on Bajor. He can't believe that Bajorans would do such a thing to Quark.

There were only a couple of minor quibbles with the episode, and neither one brings it down in my eyes at all. The first is that O'Brien seems awfully blasé about going off on what might be a suicide mission, considering he's such a family man. I don't think Sisko ordered him on it, but I could be wrong there. Secondly, the open secret of Kira's trying to get a runabout from Sisko seemed very misguided. I know it was an attempt at humour that everybody seemed to know about it, but keep in mind that when she was trying to convince Sisko, she was also trying to keep the Federation out of it so they would have deniability if the mission failed. Having it be common knowledge that she was going to Cardassia IV seems a bit dangerous.

"The Homecoming" fulfills a lot of different roles, and it does them all very well. First, it examines the role legends play in inspiring people, and makes us think about the legends we believe in. Not only "are they true?" But also "what does the legend think about all of this?" Secondly, it's a powerful tale of a culture in transition. Will Bajor survive all this? Finally, it's an intriguing opening to what promises to be an interesting 3-part story arc to start the second season.

More of this, please. Deep Space Nine is on a roll.

Memorable Quotes

"I am not the man they think I am." Li Nalas

"Perhaps not. But Bajor doesn't need a man. It needs a symbol." Sisko

5 Stars

Can a woman really "steal" your man?

It's that age-old controversy. Can women and men ever be just friends?

To listen to some women (and, admittedly, some men too), the answer would be "no!"

Take Sasha Brown-Worsham over at the Stir. I was reading Instapundit last week (you really should, you know), and came across Brown-Worsham's article entitled "6 Things a Woman Says When She Is Trying to Steal Your Man." To look at her list, it would seem that she is of the opinion that men and women can't be friends. She opens by talking about her seemingly clueless husband:

"My husband is one of those men who is totally clueless to other women's advances. A women could plop down on his lap, start making out with him, and he STILL would say: "What? She just likes me as a friend."

Suuuure. Still, you spend enough time with a guy like that and you start to doubt your female instinct. Maybe she isn't a vicious man-stealing woman, intent on sleeping with my hubby. Maybe she IS just a friend. Let's not kid ourselves."

Now I admit it. I used to be one of these clueless guys, when I was much younger. I never missed any advances (or if I did, they never told me about it and none of my female friends clued me in to it), but I could be very clueless in what a woman was trying to get me to do.

I remember one night at a club, one of the women that was in the group I was out with was talking to me for a while, and she finally had to come out and say "I'm asking you to dance" because I was totally missing what she was hinting at.

But do Brown-Worsham's six things always mean that she's after your man? It can never be that she just finds value in his friendship?

Like #3. "I'll never be as pretty as your wife." Brown-Worsham says "This one is especially manipulative. It LOOKS like a compliment, but it's not. It's actually a thinly disguised way to open a conversation no one should be having with YOUR spouse."

But is it really? It's possible. But it's also possible that the woman has really bad self-image issues. Looks can be a major problem for people of either gender. Both men and women can think that they don't have anything to offer in the attractiveness department. And if you're married to a really hot woman, it's even more possible that another woman will say this (though it's still a sign of low self-confidence, as a confident woman wouldn't feel the need to even compare, or at least state it outright).

Then there's #5: "Wanna go to lunch alone?" It is possible for a man and woman to go to lunch as friends, you know. Friends do it all the time.

That being said, if the emphasis on the invitation is on "alone," then there may be a problem. Especially if the three (or four, if the other woman is also with somebody) of you do go out to lunch a lot. In that case, if she's emphasizing the "alone" part (i.e. without your wife), then there may be an issue.

Either that, or she wants to pump you for Christmas present ideas for your wife.

The comment section is almost more interesting than the post itself, as there are some great arguments made on both sides of the issue. And yes, admittedly, there is some typical Internet stupidity as well.

I think one thing Brown-Worsham is missing in her post is context. That, and patterns.

For example, context is what the situation is when one of these things happens. Is it a woman who's been friends with your husband forever? Then going to lunch is not going to be a problem. Did he tell you about the invitation or did he hide it from you?

If you're both at a bar and a woman neither of you knows says "Wow, my boyfriend would NEVER do that for me. You are SO great!" after talking to you both a bit, then yeah, she's probably hitting on him. But if it's a woman he's known (or maybe even you've both known) for a while, then it may just be her complaining about her boyfriend.

Then there are patterns. Is the woman doing a lot of this? Did she hit all six of these things in one night? Are there a lot of clandestine lunches and meetings? Or is it the occasional lunch and you know about each of them?

This list is much too simplistic, and if people went by it, it would destroy (or prevent) a lot of great friendships.

Which is sad in so many different ways.

Book Review - Foundation by Peter Ackroyd

The subtitle for Peter Ackroyd's new book, Foundation, is "The History of England from Its Earliest Beginnings to the Tudors." Sounds like quite the comprehensive book, doesn't it?

And it kind of is, in a kind of general way.

It's a fascinating book of British history, told in an alternating way. By this I meant that it's chronological, king by king (and leader by leader, if known, before kings came into effect), but the narrative alternates with chapters that are a bit more broad, detailing something about British society or norms, or maybe even culture. There's one chapter that's on British names before William the Conqueror and after him.

All in all, it's a great book with just a couple of minor issues.

These issues are detailed in my review, now up on Curled Up With a Good Book (you didn't think I was going to give you the whole review here, did you? You'd never click the link!)

From the review:

"What makes this book really interesting are the little asides on things like where certain words come from, or how something (a building, for example, or even a code of law) still exists today. I had no idea that "peeping Tom" came from the Lady Godiva legend: one man named Tom disobeyed the royal edict of not looking at Godiva as she rode through the town naked. These are sprinkled throughout the chapters and add a bit of meat to what otherwise would be a rather bare history."

It's actually a very good book, despite being a bit superficial at times. Most importantly for me is that I learned some things that I didn't know, and I'm fairly well-versed in British history.

I'm not an expert by any means, but if I'm reading a general history, it's very possible that I'll already know a lot of what's in it. Instead, I may be reading for the author's interpretation, as historians are constantly re-examining things.

Ackroyd has written a really interesting book, and I hope there will be a second one.

I also hope that he doesn't drag it out into three books. That would just be overkill.

Take a look at the review and let me know what you think.

Facebook Stupidity and a Heroic Kid

Two things to talk about in today's post, both from the same story.

A teenage Michigan boy was a hero recently, when he let a desperate woman into his house and then helped fend off her attacker.

The unidentified woman was apparently kidnapped, raped, and then the perpetrator was transporting her somewhere in her car when she jumped out and escaped. She saw the light on at the boy's house (his father had left to pick up his fiance and so the boy was taking care of his two younger siblings) and pounded on the door, calling for help. The man was chasing her.

With quick thinking, the boy let her in, made sure all the doors were locked, and didn't let the man's shouted threats intimidate him. He called his dad and the woman called 9-11. After an aborted attempt to set fire to the house, the man ran away, and was later killed by police.

It's an inspiring story, and I encourage you to go to the link above and read the details. The kid is a hero.

The story also prompted something else to pop into my mind, though, and it's the real reason for this post.

Stupid Facebook behaviour.

What am I talking about? The asshole rapist (now thankfully dead) posted to his Facebook account just a short time before getting killed, with the status update saying "Well folkes im about to get shot. Peace"

Is that the stupid behaviour? No, that's not it. In this day of social media, these perpetrators always do something like that. It may be stupid, but it's expected.

No, I'm talking about his friends.

Seriously, folkes...sorry, folks. If you ever have the bad luck to know somebody who has gone off the deep end, or who is just plain evil and you didn't realize it, and they post something like this? DON'T COMMENT ON IT!

There were 25 comments at the time of the Daily Mail screen grab, and four of them were displayed. One guy says "I don't know what I feel." Excuse me?

Another one is somehow looking for the cause of this behaviour, saying that the guy is a "sweet person" and something must have set him off. Funny, but this kind of gets in the way of the "sweet guy" impression:

"Ramsey had been on parole since last summer after serving the minimum five-year prison sentence for assault with intent to do great bodily harm, according to Corrections Department online records."

Yeah, sounds like a really sweet guy.

Another one wonders what happened to the guy he grew up with.

And the last one just made me laugh (in a seriously "WTF???" way). "Very unfortunate." And then she tags him! Like he's going to see it.

I'm not saying any of these feelings aren't legitimate. Who knows what we would be feeling if we suddenly discover that one of our friends did something like this. The guy who doesn't know what he feels? That's perfectly legitimate and logical. Sometimes we don't know how we feel. We thought we knew this person. And it turns out we don't.

So, feelings = legitimate.

But posting that on Facebook? Especially in response to a post like this?

Do you really want to take the chance that your name will be plastered all over the world in an article like this? When you're still trying to work out your feelings about a traumatic event?

Take a deep breath and realize that maybe Facebook isn't the proper place to work through turbulent emotions like that.

At least it doesn't appear anybody "liked" the post.

That would have been cringeworthy.

Star Trek: DS9 - Season 1 Boxed Set

Here's an episode by episode review of Season 1, along with a review of the boxed set of DVDs (the regular DVDs, not any Blu-Ray possibilities, though seeing them come out on Blu-Ray would be really cool).

The first season of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was a very interesting beginning. We discovered in the first episode that we would be staying in one place, exploring a little but dealing much more with the Bajoran people and how they are recovering from years of occupation, along with their grooming to be new members of the United Federation of Planets. Past Trek shows have been on a ship, but this show would take place on a space station.

One thing this means is that they can't run away from their problems. If something comes up, they have to deal with it, and the consequences of the problem could very well come back and haunt the crew later on. Recurring characters (Garak and Dukat are introduced in the first season, along with Keiko O'Brien coming over from Next Generation) abound, and relationships are allowed to grow and change.

These characters are not static like the Next Generation characters generally were. I can't see much of a difference between William Riker in season 1 and William Riker in season 7 of Next Generation. Kira Nerys, on the other hand, has changed greatly just within season 1 of Deep Space Nine

I was really glad when all seven seasons came out in DVD boxed sets. The presentation is wonderful, with four episodes per disc (except the first one, which includes the 2-hour premiere). The menus are great, with the Deep Space Nine theme projecting majestically from the speakers. It's always been my favourite of all the themes anyway.

After you choose an episode, you then can either play it, press "set up" (where you set up your audio and subtitle options), "chapter log" (where you can go to any scene), or return to the main menu.

There are six discs in the set, with the first five containing the episodes and then the sixth being a bunch of specials. There is a documentary on the first season, called "A Bold Beginning." There's a crew dossier on Kira Nerys, the secrets of Quark's bar, a sketchbook of production sketches and a little bit about alien props.

There are also a bunch of easter eggs on this disc, with other crew dossiers and little interesting tidbits about the actors and their roles. We hear about how they got their part and what their feelings are about their characters. Some of the interviews are from the first season, when the actors didn't know where their characters were going.

Others are from after the show, or during the last season. They're par for the course for actors' interviews, so if you're naturally bored by them, you won't find much of interest here. If you like the show, though, they're intriguing.

All in all, this is a wonderful collection of episodes. The picture quality is wonderful, with the exception of one episode, but I’m sure that's just on my edition. "The Storyteller" made my DVD player have conniptions, and I had already had so much hassle with Columbia House that I wasn't going to try and deal with them to get a better copy. It's just one episode, though.

The packaging is interesting and sturdy, with two fold-out covers revealing the plastic disc trays. The overall quality of these discs is quite high. Only the quality of some of the episodes themselves brings the rating of the boxed set down to 4 stars. They had a rough patch in the middle of the season.

Season 1 Episode Recap

Here are the episodes contained on each disc, along with my ratings and links to my individual reviews. Ratings are out of a possible 10 (just to give you something different from the original star ratings)

Disc 1
Emissary - an excellent start to the series. We get introduced to all of the characters, but we don't get massive infodumps. Only boring aliens and a little scenery-chewing bring down a great beginning (8.0)

Past Prologue - DS9 hits the ground running with a great follow-up episode that gives us a close examination of Major Kira. Some logic problems hinder it, but the characterization (especially Kira, but the others as well) more than makes up for it. Also a plus for introducing Garak (though he's not seen again in the first season). (8.0)

A Man Alone - The first bump in the road. Some questionable acting and a horrible ending (horribly abrupt, anyway) make this episode tedious in the extreme. (5.0)


Disc 2
Babel - It only took three episodes (not counting the premiere) for them to do a "disease of the week" episode, but the producers do it with style, bringing the actors along with them. Auberjonois and Shimmerman save this one. (7.5)

Captive Pursuit - An episode I've always loved, it lost a little bit in the re-watching. Still, the acting of Meaney and Macdonald (the guest star) more than make up for the really pedestrian plot and major logic holes in the episode. The best of the season so far. (8.5)

Q-Less - The first real bomb. For so long, this show has been depending on the acting to save the plot. This time, the plot is so bad that the actors take a vacation. DeLancie is always good and Q has some good quips, but the vapid Vash and the "I'll be in my trailer if you need me" acting of the regulars sinks this one. Big time. (3.5)

Dax - Much better than I remembered, but still not the greatest. It brings up some interesting issues about Trills and especially the slug inside them. Unfortunately, it doesn't deal with them very much. It's always delightful to see Anne Haney, but the rest of the guest cast needs some work. (6.0)


Disc 3
The Passenger - Another one that's better than I remembered, but only marginally so. Siddig El Fadil does a horrible job playing "evil" and the ending is a joke. Except for Caitlin Brown, the guest acting is painful too. This episode has the added "bonus" of having sent us Lt. Primmin as the new Starfleet head of security. Thankfully, he was sent packing very quickly. (4.5)

Move Along Home - What a worthless episode. Nothing really happens and Auberjonois is the only one who looks like he even cares. The plot is a cliché and we don't learn anything new. At the end, you're left saying "What's the point?" (4.0)

The Nagus - Now this is more like it! The Ferengi haven't become annoying yet, and Wallace Shawn turns in a virtuoso guest performance. Shimmerman does a wonderful job too. When the only bad thing you can say about an episode is the Ferengi laugh, you know you're in good straits. Why can't it always be this good? (9.5)

Vortex - The first episode to address the mysteries of Odo, it's more of a tease then an offering of concrete information. Still, it's interesting and it's too bad the guest cast is pretty laughable. Auberjonois and DeYoung shine, though. (7.5)


Disc 4
Battle Lines - Some standout work by Nana Visitor along with Camile Saviola as the Kai make this episode much better than it should be. There's a bit too much technobabble for my taste, and O'Brien and Dax are wasted uttering it. If we just saw the bit down on the planet, this would easily be a 10. (9.0)

The Storyteller – unfortunately, this episode crapped out on me when I tried to watch it (maybe there's a spot on the disc), so this summary is by memory of the many other times I've watched it. This is a great O'Brien and Bashir story, cementing their friendship that will carry through the rest of the series. A fluffy B-story involving Jake and Nog is good but detracts from the main storyline. Perhaps it's too light to carry an entire episode on its own, but I kept wanting to get back to Meaney and El Fadil when the others were on the screen. (7.5)

Progress - stellar guest acting by Brian Keith and Nana Visitor holding her own with him makes this another wonderful examination of Kira's character. Her character arc in this first season has been really interesting. We've seen her realize that she's not a rebel anymore. Then she has to deal with the violence that permeates her soul. Now she's has to come to terms with being part of the establishment and realizing that you can't always fight everything. A fun B-plot softens the intense drama. (10.0)

If Wishes Were Horses - DS9 stumbles into its first season stretch run with a horrible episode about fantasies coming to life. Everybody looked bored (well, it *was* late in the season) and the episode just isn't interesting. (2.5)


Disc 5
The Forsaken - the producers inflict Lwaxana Troi on our station crew (and the viewers), and none of them survive. Colm Meaney is the only one who looks like he cares, and the episode is just painful to watch. Just slight improvement on the last one. Things are not boding well. (3.0)

Dramatis Personae - A funner episode then it should be, this one doesn't really bear re-watching. The acting is good, but some major plot holes hinder the plot. Completely ignoring the problem that they've been arguing about the whole episode doesn't help, either. (7.0)

Duet - the best episode of the season, and perhaps the series (though there are certainly other contenders). The scenes between Yulin and Visitor spark with intensity and everything else about this episode stands out as well. A great story that parallels the Holocaust and its aftermath. (10.0)

In the Hands of the Prophets – An excellent ending to the season, showing us how far all of the characters have come since they came to this rattletrap of a station. It's also an interesting examination of the religion/science debate. It doesn't give us any answers, but for once that's a good thing. There are no easy answers, and it would be a disservice for a television show to even pretend to have them. A fitting coda to the season. (10.0)

Star Trek: DS9 - Ep 19 - In the Hands of the Prophets

The conflict between religion and science is centuries old, and will perhaps last for centuries into the future. There is no easy solution. One man's "god" is another man's theory of how nature works. There may never be a solid answer, because something taken on faith is, essentially, unprovable. Star Trek has always been a secular show, Gene Roddenberry being an avid secular humanist. Thus religions on Trek have usually been shown as misguided, with the Federation coming along and showing that the God these people believed in was false and science could lead them to salvation.

Deep Space Nine changed all that. No, it didn't become the New Religious Hour. Instead, it deigned to show a religion and its worshipers as real people. It showed that there are different points of view, but that nobody is inherently right. The show was deeply respectful of the Bajoran religion and its "Prophets." However, you knew that, eventually, there would have to be an episode about the uneasy tension between the two. "In the Hands of the Prophets" is that episode, made all the more powerful because it ended the first season of the show after building up the Bajorans throughout the season. It's a wonderful episode, tying up very neatly the ongoing storyline of the first season, leaving us with some of the uneven ends that this conflict always does.

Keiko O'Brien (Rosalind Chao) is teaching her class about the wormhole when she has an unexpected visitor. Vedek Winn (Louise Fletcher) has come with an important mission: to either get Mrs. O'Brien to stop teaching blasphemy about the Wormhole Aliens (the Prophets) or to remove the Bajoran children from the school. This has the effect of heightening tensions between the Bajorans on the station and the Federation personnel, as it seems that the "godless Federation" is trying to remove the Bajoran religion from its society.

Winn starts to win over a lot of people on the station with her ideas, including Kira (Nana Visitor), despite the fact that she's the leader of an ultra-orthodox sect that doesn't have a lot of support in the Vedek Assembly. Along with this is the suspicious death of a Starfleet engineer. Are they related? When Sisko (Avery Brooks) tries to elicit help from the Vedek who is the frontrunner in the race to be the new Kai, Bareil (Philip Anglim), he is rebuffed. When the school is bombed, however, Bareil reconsiders. This leads to an explosive conclusion that could bring the crew of the station back together again. Or it could force them further apart.

"In the Hands of the Prophets" brings up a lot of interesting points about issues of faith versus reason, but it doesn't even attempt to answer them. We haven't been able to answer them for this long, so why would we think a 45 minute episode of a television show could do it? Some shows might, but Deep Space Nine does not fall into that trap. Instead, it brings to light the various issues in a more "normal" plot. Sisko's impassioned speech after the bombing opens a few more eyes, including Kira's, about how the Bajorans and the Federation can work together, despite their differences.

The real eye-opener for any Trek fan used to the Trek tradition of looking down on religion is when Jake (Cirroc Lofton) says what every other Trek episode has hinted at before: that belief in the Prophets is stupid when it's obvious that the Prophets are really wormhole aliens. Sisko sits him down and corrects him, saying that the Bajoran faith is what got them through 70 years of occupation. The wormhole aliens' view of time is so fluid that they can see the future as well as the past, so why shouldn't they be called Prophets? He then reminds Jake that everything is a matter of interpretation, and that if Jake continues along that line, he's no better than Winn, just from the anti-religious side. It's a wonderfully played scene, displaying Sisko's worry about what's happening on the station as well as educating a boy about the value of a religion, even if you don't follow it.

In fact, there are so many standout scenes in this episode. The acting is simply wonderful, with the actors evidently finding a script with a lot of meat to it and sinking their teeth into it. Everybody, from Visitor, Fletcher and Brooks to even Shimmerman and Lofton in roles where they only have one scene, are very good. Fletcher is simply electrifying as the smarmy yet true-believing Winn, who has an agenda even more than just keeping blasphemy away from her "children." It is a bit disappointing that the writers turn her into more of a power-hungry character than a religious zealot, but she is still interesting, and that's the most important thing.

Visitor plays Kira with passion as she defends Winn at first ("Some might say pure science, taught without a spiritual center, is a philosophy, Mrs. O'Brien."), but then comes to terms with the fact that the Federation actually does deserve her support. She's come a long way since the first episode where she didn't want the Federation there, as the final, touching scene between Sisko and her shows us.

Even those with fewer scenes did well, adding some much needed humour to a dramatic episode. When O'Brien (Colm Meaney) asks what the now-dead Ensign Akino was doing in a runabout at four in the morning, Odo (Rene Auberjonois) looks at him and says "Apparently, he was getting murdered." The one Odo/Quark (Armin Shimmerman) scene in the episode is also priceless. Terry Farrell is the only one short-changed in this episode, not having much to do but saying her lines with conviction. She certainly wasn't weak. She just didn't have anything to really say.

That's obviously not Rosalind Chao

I have to give kudos on the production front as well. First, there's Neela (Robin Christopher), O'Brien's assistant. She was certainly decent, but the compliments on the production come from showing a little foresight. She was in Duet as well, and it was nice to see them showcase her in an episode before she becomes an important part of another one. She is very important in "In the Hands of the Prophets," and it was nice to see a familiar face. She was still a bit obvious, but at least the regular viewer had a little bit invested in her.

Also, the direction was great, staying out of the way for the most part (and that's good in a dramatic episode like this). There were two wonderful scenes that the director made even better, though. The first is when Sisko visits Bareil in the garden. Sisko throws a stone in the water and it disturbs his reflection in the pond. When it stabilizes, Bareil is walking up behind him and we can see that in the restored reflection. The second is the slow-motion climax, which was very effective.

I can't say enough good things about this episode. Everything works, from the plot to the script to the acting, the entire package is so juicy. Deep Space Nine ended its first season on a high note, with two first-class episodes. It bodes well for the show as it enters its second season. We leave Season 1 with a realization that, despite our differences, it is possible to get along and get some work done. It's even possible to bridge those differences and become unified.

Memorable Quotes:

"The Prophets teach us patience." Bareil

"It appears they also teach you…politics." Sisko

5 Stars

Stay tuned next week for the Season 1 wrap-up!!

Book Review - The Brenner Assignment by Patrick K. O'Donnell

As stated in last week's book review post of O'Donnell's Dog Company, small war-time stories can be quite riveting, as we see what a few people are going through in their individual missions, the camaraderie that they have with their fellow soldiers (or whoever they're working with) and the potentially harsh circumstances that they're going through. Since many of these stories are done through interviews with the living, we get to see what those who didn't make it through the events of the book were like through the eyes of friends and colleagues.

It can be quite powerful.

Back in 2009, I read O'Donnell's The Brenner Assignment and was captivated. It's a true spy story that can have more impact than any fictionalized one. The Brenner Pass is a mountain pass through the Alps connecting Austria and Italy that the Germans were using to bring troops and supplies to their northern Italy war effort. The Allies wanted it closed to prevent this. This book is the story of the two missions that attempted to do this.

It has all the makings of a spy novel, but it has the benefit of actually having happened.

My review of the book is on Curled Up With a Good Book.

From the review:

"Modern spy novels don't really do much for me, though I do like those taking place during World War II for some reason. One thing I haven't read much about, however, is *real* World War II spy missions. That's why I was excited to pick up Patrick K. O'Donnell's new book, The Brenner Assignment, about a mission to close the Brenner Pass between Austria and Italy that allowed the Germans to bring their troops and supplies down into the Italian boot. Taking place in 1944-45, this mission has everything: derring-do, romance, battles against tough odds, and lots of intrigue. O'Donnell tells it in an interesting fashion, and it would look good on any World War II history fan's bookshelf.

O'Donnell uses a combination of sources, mostly interviews with the surviving participants in the mission. The main "character," Howard Chappell, was still alive but very reluctant to talk about what had happened. O'Donnell spends the Preface telling us how he came up with the idea to research this assignment and the difficulties he had in getting Chappell to speak. It took having a mutual friend, Albert Materazzi (who was the operations officer in charge of Chappell's mission and his best friend), to finally get him to open up."

It's understandable that Chappell would be reluctant to talk. It sounds like the mission was quite emotional for him. I'm glad that he finally relented and O'Donnell was able to complete this fabulous book.

News of the Weird - Jeopardy-Winning Computer Swears Too Much

Some linguists say that "street" language will eventually be the death of the English language, at least as we know it.

Who knew that it would also be the death of an intelligent computer in a much more immediate fashion?

Yes, "Watson," the computer that beat two Jeopardy champions at their own game, has had to have its "memory wiped" because it was starting to swear too much (no word on whether this was before or after Quentin Tarentino offered it a role in his next movie).

According to the Daily Mail, programmers had it download the entire contents of the Urban Dictionary site, and the machine took it a little too much to heart.

Evidently programmers were trying to create a machine that would pass the Turing Test for machine intelligence (The Turing Test is basically a test where a machine tries to sound like a normal human being if you're conversing with it without knowing it's a machine. If it passes, it's considered intelligent).

Yes, speaking in slang would be a good indication that you're talking to a human and not a machine, but without the intelligence to realize when you should use slang and when you shouldn't, it's really hard to consider you intelligent (a fact that also applies to far too many human beings to begin with).

So poor Watson digested the entirety of the dictionary and then start responding with "bullshit" or other similar profanities to some questions that it was asked (so it thought it was talking to a politician then?)

According to the International Business Times:

"Watson unfortunately learned all of the Urban Dictionary's bad habits, including throwing in overly -crass language at random points in its responses; in answering one question, Watson even reportedly used the word "bullshit" within an answer to one researcher's question. Brown told Forbes that Watson picked up similarly bad habits from reading Wikipedia."

So it's a student trying to fake a research paper in college?

I had no idea Watson was so versatile!

Anyway, in typical fashion, the Daily Mail overstates things. It keeps saying that Watson had its "memory wiped," when in reality the programmers just removed the Urban Dictionary from its memory and put a swear filter in (which Watson typically gets around by putting asterisks in the middle of its swear words). Yes, I suppose it's technically accurate that it had its memory wiped of the Urban Dictionary, but the connotation of "memory wipe" is that it's entire memory was erased.

That's not what happened.

Poor Watson. Isn't there somebody who will stand up for his right to swear as much as he wants? Isn't this part of what a free society is?

They're stopping Watson from swearing.

Are you next?

The Daily Mail doesn't get into questions like that.

Star Trek: DS9 - Ep 18 - Duet

Note: While I don't reveal everything in the main plot summary, I do talk about the ending. Some of the ending is too powerful not to talk about. Spoilers beware!

Even 70+ years later, visions of the Jewish Holocaust horrify us. To some, still living after having survived that horrible time, the reality of it still inhabits their dreams and turns them into nightmares. We keep saying that we'll never forget, but one wonders sometimes: when the last survivor of the Holocaust has finally passed on, how close will we feel to it? Will it lose some of its immediacy? We may never forget, but will we stop thinking about it?

It's questions like these that makes episodes like "Duet" all the more important and powerful. "Duet" is Deep Space Nine at its best, with nary a wrong move made. Sure, one can quibble here and there (and believe me, I will), but taken as a whole, it's a stellar episode with an important message that we should all remember. I say above that I reveal everything about the episode's plot. It doesn't matter. Episodes like this never lose their power, even if you know what happens. I have seen it countless times, and the ending still brings tears to my eyes. It's a must-see episode.

A Kobheerian transport arrives at the station, asking for medical assistance for one of its passengers, who has Kalla-Nohra Syndrome. Kira (Nana Visitor) quickly agrees, and asks permission to attend to the passenger. The only people who have Kalla-Nohra are survivors of a mining accident at the Cardassian labour camp called Gallitep, and she wishes to pay homage to one of her heroes, one of the survivors of the camp. When Kira reaches Sickbay, she's surprised to find out that the patient is actually a Cardassian, and quickly orders his arrest for war crimes.

He claims that he was only a file clerk at Gallitep, named Aamin Marritza (Harris Yulin). Sisko (Avery Brooks) is determined that he will not be handed over to the Bajoran government until his identity has been confirmed. An interrogation and subsequent investigation reveals that it is not Marritza who they are holding, but actually Gul Darhe'el, the infamous Butcher of Gallitep. Kira must not only deal with having a vicious war criminal in front of her, but also with how his story doesn't quite add up. Will Kira figure out what is going on and allow justice to take its course?

Let me get the quibbles out of the way first so I can gush. First, one of the guest actors, Tony Rizzoli, plays a Bajoran drunk who ends up playing a major role in the climax of the episode. Unfortunately, for as important as he is, he doesn't really hold up his end. He only has three scenes, but he was irritating in all three. His tone of voice and his attempted sneer when he realizes that he's imprisoned with a hated Cardassian just simply doesn't work, looking forced and unrealistic.

Secondly, while I will extol Nana Visitor's virtues for the rest of this review, she does go over the top a little bit at times. This includes the final scene, which lessens the impact just a touch. Not enough to bring the episode down, but enough to wish she had done better.

There, that's it. I can't say enough about the rest. Let's start with Harris Yulin. He was simply phenomenal in this episode. He has the perfect balance between Cardassian arrogance and the meekness of a file clerk. He turns it on and off like a faucet, and only when necessary. When he's first tossed in prison, he's just a Cardassian who wants to be released because he's being held for no reason. Then, it's confirmed that he was at Gallitep and he becomes just a little more arrogant, stating how wonderful Gul Darhe'el was as a commander. Then the insanity really starts when it's revealed that he's Gul Darhe'el.

He starts ranting and raving, poking Kira with his words, holding over her all of the crimes he's committed ("I don't think I can pay for all of them, Major. There were so many. And you can only execute me once."). Finally, there's the breakdown when the truth is revealed. He's able to change at the drop of a hat as the circumstances change, and he doesn't have a false note in any of it. When Kira says that she can't let Marritza go, he fires back, with a chilling calm: "Oh no no no no. Of course not! No, see, you're the one who's lying now, Major. It's not the truth you're interested in. All you want is vengeance."

The exchanges between Yulin and Visitor are simply wonderful. Visitor holds her own, perhaps because she has a great actor to work off of. Surprisingly, the couple of weak moments mentioned above are when she's with other people. Yulin is the catalyst for some great acting from Visitor, and my respect for her only grew with this episode. She had some tough material, and she worked it like a pro. Visitor plays Kira with a passion in this episode that had only been hinted at before ("Commander, I know what I've done isn't exactly policy, and may not even be legal. But it's right."). It's a wonder to see what a good actor can do with great material.

This is really Visitor and Yulin's episode, but the rest of the cast have some standout performances as well. Sisko and Dukat (the ever-wonderful Marc Alaimo) have some great byplay as Sisko discusses Marritza's situation with him. These two always sparkle when they're together, even when they're on a communication screen so the actors are probably not together. Alaimo has the same chemistry with Rene Auberjonois, playing Odo, when they discuss things.

In fact, it's almost better, and makes me wish there had been more Dukat/Odo scenes in the series. Odo wants to see confidential files on Gul Darhe'el and Dukat refuses to let him. The surprise on Dukat's face is palpable when Odo tells him that the man in his cell insists that he's Darhe'el, a man whose funeral Dukat attended six years ago. Even Terry Farrell gets into the act, with a great scene counseling Kira on whether the need for vengeance outweighs the need for justice. Again, the acting is simply engrossing all around.

All the acting in the world would not make this episode powerful without having a solid script and production behind it, but thankfully that's not a problem here*. The lines tingle and the camera shots perfectly capture what they're intended to. The pull-away shot at the end, as everybody gathers around the dead body is a chilling end to a wonderful episode, but even the interrogation scenes are well-done.

When Kira finally agrees to answer Darhe'el's questions, she slowly starts to walk away and then calmly sits down in the chair she's been using in her interrogation. For the most part, the director lets the actors and the words do the work, and the episode is even better because of it.

Whatever you do, you have to see this episode. It's one of Deep Space Nine's best, and deserves a look-see. It's episodes like this that will keep the Holocaust in our minds after the survivors are dead and gone.

*There have been some accusations on the Net (especially Usenet) that this episode was lifted almost word for word from Robert Shaw's The Man in the Glass Booth. I have seen a lot of debate on the subject, but have seen no real conclusions. If it's true, then it's a shame that the producers did not credit Shaw in some way. Whatever the truth is, that doesn't take away from the power of this episode, especially of the actors involved. I just wanted to acknowledge that the accusation is out there.

Here is some great interaction between Yulin and Visitor.



Memorable Quote:

"What you call genocide, I call a day's work." Gul Darhe'el

5 Stars

News of the Weird - Special Edition - Toilet-training iPads

I try and keep my Weird News posts to Tuesdays if I have them, just because I like my themed days.

Sometimes, though, there's just too much (and I'm aware of the irony in the fact that I haven't had one in a while, but there's another one scheduled for this Tuesday already).

Does your child have everything? Are you one of those parents who insists on buying an iPad for your kid even though he is only a year old?

Then you must buy the iPotty for him!

That's right. The iPotty is a combination toilet/iPad holder for those kids who just can't be torn away from their shiny new toy to learn the intricacies of going to the bathroom.

According to the Daily Mail:

"The firm behind it claims the gadget, revealed at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, can help children feel more comfortable by allowing them to watch videos or play games while answering the call of nature."

As you can see, it's a little toilet with an iPad holder, complete with splashguard in case little Timmy is a bit too wild when he lets loose! And the seat folds down so you can have little Timmy sitting in it all the time. You know, so you can have him sit there in "time out" when he misbehaves. This will be a good way to ease in to sending him to the bathroom itself when he's been bad when he's a little older.

It will let little Timmy continue watching his videos or playing his games while he's also learning how to not use a diaper.

It's a win-win!

Is this really a good idea? Are toddlers that good at multi-tasking? I'm not a parent, so this is an honest question to you parents out there. If you are potty-training your kids, should you really be distracting them? Or do you think this would actually ease their anxieties about doing it?

And of course, as newspapers and print books die out, Big Timmy will eventually be taking his iPad for his evening constitutional anyway, so this is good training for him!

Parents, please chime in. Is this a totally silly idea or mana from heaven?

Podcast Stuff - Episode 50 of Down the Hall

Has it really been 50 episodes? We started this podcast back in December 2010 and it's been going strong with only a couple of hiccups along the way. I'm very proud of what we've done with it.

It's also the first episode of 2013, so there's a double-reason to reflect on things.

We have an interview with Dr. Marv Westwood, head of the Veterans Transition Program out of UBC. He tells us all about the program, from how it was envisioned to what it has done to help those service members who have been traumatized by their experiences, and to help them return to civilian life. It's a wonderful program, and the interview is fabulous.

We also talk about the Royal Canadian Legion (for some reason I keep trying to type Canadian Foreign Legion, and what a concept that would be!), our holidays, and much more.

While it is an episode of reflection, that doesn't mean there aren't laughs. There are plenty of them.

Episode 50 can be found here. Take a listen and let us know what you think.

While you're at it, there's something else you could do for us too. I'm not sure exactly what it is, though. Let me think...

Oh yeah! You could go like us on Facebook.

You know, to follow your New Year's resolution to be kind to people and stuff like that. You don't want to fall off the wagon this early, do you?

Star Trek: DS9 - Ep 17 - Dramatis Personae

Star Trek episodes which involve characters being possessed by aliens that change their personality are almost a dime-a-dozen, and the only way they are entertaining at all is how the actors play those characters. At times, the situation leads to some nice set pieces (like O'Brien threatening Keiko in TNG's "Power Play"), but often it just gives the actors a chance to act "evil." "Dramatis Personae" is yet another in the pantheon of "let's let the actors run wild and see what happens to them" episodes, but the acting, for the most part, makes the episode a lot more interesting then it should be. It's too bad that the plot itself isn't stronger.

Major Kira (Nana Visitor) is trying to convince Commander Sisko (Avery Brooks) to investigate a Valerian freighter that is coming to Deep Space Nine. The Valerians used to run weapons to the Cardassians when they were occupying Bajor, and Kira thinks they still are. Sisko agrees that something is kind of fishy, but refuses to treat them any differently until something can be proven. Kira, frustrated, agrees to do all she can to prove it without inconveniencing the Valerians. Suddenly, a Klingon ship comes through the wormhole and explodes before any communication can be established, though a Klingon manages to beam aboard. He quickly dies, however, muttering the word "victory" before passing on.

Soon, crewmembers start to act strangely, all except Odo (Rene Auberjonois), though something weird does happen to him. He appears to lose shape temporarily, but quickly recovers. Bashir (Siddig El Fadil) can't find anything wrong with him, and releases him, but not before he makes some cryptic statements about choosing sides in the coming conflict. Odo's suspicions are aroused, especially when the conflict between Kira and Sisko starts to verge on mutiny, pitting the Bajorans on the station against the Federation. Will Odo be able to figure out what's going on before the station explodes into conflict?

One strong point of the episode is that it uses the existing tension between Kira and Sisko to great effect, though I think it would have been more effective earlier in the season when that conflict actually existed. By this point in the season, they've settled into an understanding of each other that robs the episode of some of its tension. It doesn't help that the first sign of something wrong is Dax (Terry Farrell) acting all giddy. If the first indication had been a confrontation between Kira and Sisko (which, admittedly, does come soon after), it would have extended the "is something weird going on or is this going to be a political episode?" question for just that much longer.

The force that's causing all of the trouble doesn't follow the usual Trek formula, because while it is, in effect, re-enacting a conflict from a distant planet, it adapts itself to the current situation. Sisko doesn't start spouting some gibberish from something that we have no frame of reference for. Instead, it takes the existing tension with the Valerians and transforms that into the catalyst for the civil war. That was a nice touch.

I also liked how each character took on a slightly different personality that had some basis in the "real" personality of the character, no matter how distorted. O'Brien (Colm Meaney) is fiercely loyal to Sisko, to the point where he's almost willing to commit violence to defend him. Kira is adamantly nationalistic, being even more stridently for Bajor and against the Federation then she already is. Dax becomes a nostalgic storyteller, and it's funny how she keeps getting interrupted by the other who don't have time for her trips into the past. Bashir is almost a neutral party, reveling more in the cloak and dagger aspect then actually choosing a side.

The only one that's unrecognizable is Sisko, and I don't know if that was intentional or if the producers are saying something about him that I don't really care for. Sisko becomes a "hands-off" commander, not really caring what's going on. He lets O'Brien handle everything until the mutiny actually happens. Some have said that maybe it represents his earlier attempts to distance himself from Starfleet and his responsibilities after Jennifer died. Maybe, but that doesn't quite ring true.

The acting in the episode is very good, with only the occasional over-acting on Brooks' part. He actually nails a few of the scenes, especially when he's building the clock and telling Odo to let O'Brien handle everything. Auberjonois does another stand-out job, especially after the last two sub-par episodes. It's nice to see him in fine form again. He shows Odo's intelligence beautifully as he slowly figures everything out, and his using Bashir's arrogance against him to force him to find a cure, tempting him with the power that controlling the force would entail. He also has a wonderful scene with Quark (Armin Shimmerman), which is also nice to see after so long.

Ultimately, while the episode is enjoyable, a couple of things bring it down. First, Odo mentions that the force has only affected the crew members in Ops. While this explains why only three other Bajorans are with Kira, it doesn't explain why nobody else appears to notice anything wrong. Sure, there's a throwaway line in there about Keiko and Jake being off the station on some kind of field trip (how convenient).

What about the other Bajoran security forces? Hell, what about the rest of the Starfleet officers? The climax of the episode just doesn't fit when all these questions are asked. O'Brien's talking about leaving the station with Sisko and bringing a Federation task force back. What, he's just going to leave the rest of the Starfleet folk there?

The coda is also especially weak, with an unnecessary apology from Kira and nothing really profound or funny being said. It just kind of sits there, and the episode could have ended a lot better with a few final lines after the force is finally driven out. One final problem, as well. After all this build-up, the Valerian situation is never even dealt with! Kira seems to prove that they were running weapons, but not a word of this is mentioned at the end of the episode. Huh?

Still, after the horror of the last two episodes, "Dramatis Personae" marks a step up for the series, ramping up to the conclusion of the first season. It's entertaining, which is pretty much all we ask for. A little tighter, and this would have been an even better episode. Still worth checking out, though.

Memorable Quote:

"Anyone who's against Sisko is against me." O'Brien

4 Stars

Is there an age limit on the term "boyfriend/girlfriend?"

Throwing this out there for you language aficionados (yes, I do use big words in posts about language...what of it?)

We all know what a boyfriend or a girlfriend is, in the romantic sense (though linguistically, maybe there is even a question regarding when a woman is talking about her "girlfriends" as well?) Is there a time where this isn't the correct term to use?

Last night, I was reading one of my favourite blogs out there, Instapundit (it's now on my blog list on the right side of the page, so check it out!), and came upon this post. It links to a fairly humorous post on "The Cut" with some other ideas for naming your romantic partner.

The list is ok, but it does bring to mind the question: since language continues to evolve and language customs change, is it a bad thing to use those terms when they might not be appropriate?

Everybody knows what is being talked about when a 65-year-old woman talks about her boyfriend. Just like everybody knows what "their" means when you use it so you don't have to say "his/her" all the time, like when you say "when a student doesn't read their email..."

Going by the letter of the grammar law (and watch out for that ruler, kiddos!), both of them would be wrong. Can a 67-year-old man really be a "boyfriend?" Maybe not grammatically, but why play around with it? You know what you mean. I know what you mean. Even Emily Litella knows what you mean (but she will mis-hear it, most likely).

I like "boyfriend/girlfriend" a lot more than trying to figure out exactly what you mean by your word choice. Is he a "lover" if you have sex more than once a week? Does a "beau" mean that you haven't had sex yet? Is there a code? A dictionary? A Google Translate site?

So have at it, those of my fans with linguistic tendencies! Is it better to just say "boyfriend/girlfriend," or does that offend your sensibilities? And if it does, what would you say instead?

Extra credit if you can explain why women can use "girlfriend" for their female friends but guys can't use "boyfriend" for their male friends.

You only get the credit if you *don't* invoke "fear of being seen as gay" in your response.