In Defense of Farscape

(Etarran-style rejected title: "Lay off my favourite TV show, you frelling dren-faced farbot phillistines!")

It has been the policy of certain “friends” of mine – for exactly how long I cannot say – to make fun of/ get a rise out of me by disparaging the Australo-American Sci-Fi/Comedy/Romance masterpiece, Farscape. While this not-particularly-good-natured teasing is very little about the show itself (few of these “friends” of mine have seen so much as an episode. In an unprecedented feat of being absolutely no fun at all, one claims to have seen an entire season and not found it enjoyable), I would not be writing this post merely to bitch about the means by which they cause me distress*. My worry in this matter is for their sake, and not my own; I fear that should they not already accept their petty fabrications as the honest truth by virtue of endless repetition, they soon will. More than anything I am distressed by the idea that these otherwise intelligent and humourous individuals would predispose themselves against the pure, unadulterated joy that is Farscape. It almost did it to myself, years ago, and I cannot in good faith allow them to do the same.

*I would be blogging about Star, were that my purpose here.

It was my mother, of all people, who first brought Farscape to my attention. I was actively disinterested in this low-budget australian muppety romance...thing, and can you blame me? The recommendation had come to my dear mum by way of a romance readers news group, for crying out loud! I'm not known for being a good sport, so I suspect it was a pointed reminder about the (flawless) track record of mom in recommending fiction in literature or on screen that had me grudgingly agree to watch an episode. It took maybe half of that episode for me to figure out that not only had I lost a potential counterexample for those times when my parents would bring icky, boring looking movies home to their infernally infallible chorus of “you'll like it!”, I had also discovered a kickass TV series. And so it was that Friday nights in our house became synonymous with Farscape...a glorious tradition that lasted until the bastard network execs canceled it for a “drop in ratings” in season 4**, leaving us among the legions of angry, heartbroken fans (Farscape's writing team having no warning to modify their final episode to achieve closure meant for Season 5 resulted in the most egregious cliffhanger finale EVER -spoiler After four years of torturous uncertainty and sexual tension, the main characters agree to be married. Also she is pregnant with his child. Also he has been forced to cut his one remaining connection to Earth (a wormhole) due to circumstances arising from flowers, careless words, and a small nuclear explosive...and then they, in their little rowboat are spotted by an alien starfighter and reduced to an equivalent mass of small, marble-sized pebbles by some esoteric weapon, THE END /spoiler)

.**I'm not a census bureau, but I know that the show became rather more arc-based in its final season, hence some casual viewers would have reason to balk. The third season was also marginally stronger, but it's not as if that's unique to Farscape.

The question you may be asking with regards to this post, besides “why bother?”, is probably something along the lines of “ok, but what was it that made Farscape so good?”. This is an excellent question, which is perhaps best answered by the show itself. As a Jim Henson production, Farscape was a fundamentally positive show. It was about the value of friendship (incidental note on the acting: this is from the episode where everyone is being driven mad, and not indicative of the acting in the series-at-large):

it was a work of subtle, intellectual humour:

A show that stressed the importance of nonviolence in all things:



...And which featured the best obligatory-episode-where-everyone-swaps-bodies of them all (note: at this point in the episode, Crichton (the human) inhabits Aeryn(the hot space Aussie)'s body):

I am somewhat constrained by what the fans have managed to upload so far, which seems to be a pretty random assortment, so what's there isn't really my ideal range of clips, but it will have to suffice for the moment. It's mostly fun and games above, but the show does shine equally in its silly and serious segments. Moreover, there really is a Jim Henson vibe to be found underneath the layers of twisted muppets, sex and violence. There is a real message about the value of peace, friendship, and love in a universe so full of evil things. It's perhaps more overt in the Peacekeeper Wars miniseries (a paltry 4 hours where Season 5 would have gone, but they made pretty epic use of those hours), but if you watch the series, it's there. The trademark Jim Henson glee is there, even in the darkest episodes. Farscape is a show where you cannot imagine that anyone on stage isn't having a blast at any given time, because they are acutely aware of just how awesome this thing they are part of is. You and I both know another show of which this is true, a show that you don't needlessly malign. A show that was also canceled well before it's time.

That's right, Drive – I mean, uh – Firefly, of course!

-LOUD!

PS. I suppose the one thing you could say against Farscape is that while Jim Henson could demonstrably get David Bowie to act in their stuff (Labrynth, for people who live under rocks), I don't recall ever seeing him on Farscape. Possible Explanation: it would have created a singularity of pure awesome and destroyed Television.

It was 20 years ago today/

Morgentaler got the courts to say/

That abortion wasn't out of style/

And the feminists, it made them smile!

:)

I thought I'd do just a little something to celebrate the 20th anniversary of legal, safe access to abortion in Canada. It literally has to be "little", because I have to leave for class with all due alacrity, but perhaps I will add some more to it upon my return home. So, to all the women out there who still bother to read this, my condolences: it took our society until just 20 years ago to figure out that you had the right to reproductive freedom, so I expect today might be a little bittersweet when put in larger perspective. To the dissenters - the so-called "pro-life" camp - my condolences: it's 2008 and you still haven't figured it out yet.

On a final note, I still think it's best to just use brains and birth control to avoid unwanted pregnancy altogether, with special emphasis on the use of the former. This is not only proactive, I'm pretty sure it's less expensive as well.

You go, grrrrls!

-LOUD

Is this what we're fighting to save?

I Suppose We Already Knew This...

There are a few of those Microsoft applications that we all tolerate, but secretly despise. Windows is the most obvious, Internet Explorer was until Firefox liberated us all, and then there is Windows Live Messenger, the third. There are good alternatives, like GAIM, but the interface differences effectively present the same sort of barrier that stops me from moving straight to Linux. One of the things I really wouldn't miss would be the deluge of movie trailers, idiot stunts, and celebrity news that they decide to pipe into the bottom row of the main window, as if you'd ever click one of those links not by accident. Well, given the installed base of MSN, I suspect that even accidental clicks would be enough traffic that the advertisers would pay for the spots... Anyhow, today's story made me click on purpose, because the blurb was cut off, but if it was going where I thought it was (and indeed my initial assumption was correct), it was time to be upset about something.

The headline in question said that Paris Hilton had lost a significant portion of her potential inheritance, after her Grandfather declared he would donate a large portion of his wealth to Charity. I have to ask, since when did it become OK to frame this as misfortune for Paris fucking Hilton (hehe, how appropriate a turn of phrase to be applied there), and not a boon for whatever charities that her dear ol' Grandpa decides to become a (presumably) posthumous patron to? Bill and Melinda don't get any of this shit about their charity, nor even their decision to give their kids only a cool million or so (which I think might just save their children from being to silicon valley what Paris Hilton is to the internet and rich mens' penises). What I want to know is where this bajillion dollars or so will be headed, especially if the dude will be sponsoring some mad religious anti-choice pregnancy counseling services (I'm looking at you, puck bunnies), in which case it's high time to get protesting. What I want to know is what made this man decide to go the route of altruism, and what I want to know is if this will make Paris Hilton go away and stop being rich and annoying and generally the avatar of everything that is wrong with Western culture. I suspect the answer to the latter is "no", because she'll still be pretty fucking rich, and if not, she'll be dating someone who is and living off her celebrity and blowjobs (wow, I'm bitter today). If my theory is right, though, it goes farther than just "Paris sucks and I wish this would make her go away rather than be in the news". News is about things that change, and while being even much less filthy stinking rich is a change, see the part where I doubt this will affect in any way the notoriety or purchasing power of that little skank. What I'm getting at is that Paris Hilton losing this "potential inheritance" isn't actually news, because it doesn't really change who or what she is, unless this guy is really, really throwing ALL of his money into charity. The news aspect here is that money is going to charity, and that might actually change something, because it sounds like an awful lot will be spent here. If it is spent well, it could mean more medication to fight TB, or mosquito nets to fight Malaria. It's only a question of money in these cases, and it's not money that appears out of nowhere. Maybe I'm being unfair, maybe this money was expected to go to Paris, just like that, but am I wrong to suggest that a greater and more interesting change is likely to occur due to the charities gaining money, than from Paris not getting that same money to spend on more clothing and cellphones to have her contacts list stolen from (I think that happened not too long ago)?

I really, really hope that I'm not judged to be out-of-line here

And the winner is...[Game Name Here]!

I haven't seen a lot of lists (actually, there's just one video, but I have to say it's pretty lame. Toms' Hardware really needs to get its act together with their video content. Using beer to water-cool is awesome, but seriously, a lot of those "second take" videos are kind of pointless. Take lessons from Yahtzee if you want to entertain), but let's face it. CoD4? Bioshock? I've played the latter, and while it would likely take the "best writing" award, it's just not GotY material*. Usually, I would accept that there will always be legitimate dissent on this matter, but here there is not.

Portal is game of the year. That's the alpha, and the omega.

Why?

Because it wasn't over-hyped

Because it didn't trade graphics for gameplay or vice-versa

Because it made non-violent gameplay fun again

Because it had logical, intuitive puzzles; Guess-and-check, not Guess-and-check-a-walkthrough

Because it was brilliantly written, not overwritten

Because it was three hours of gameplay, and you wanted more without feeling cheated

Because you can watch someone play it in one sitting, and see them feel the same sense of satisfaction and wonder that you felt the whole way through

Because it's the one game that EVERYONE wants to play when they come here. It's the game my non-gamer PARENTS want to play. When we get a dog, I bet it too will want to play Portal!

Now, one could say that the broader appeal of Portal would make it more akin to non-Manhunt Wii games, or Peggle, that it really doesn't represent "hardcore gaming". I think you'd be full of shit! Portal has its appeal for similar reasons, namely the lack of hardcore violence, and the aforementioned intuitive nature of the puzzles, but when is it not hardcore? If the campaign doesn't float your boat, they have PUNISHING advanced maps and challenges to push things to the max. Portal will challenge you, unless you come from the future where portals exist, and were born in zero-gravity, developing a perfect 3-D kinesthetic sense from birth. Just because you can't murder legions of identical thugs/mercs/aliens/mutants over and over again does NOT mean that Portal is some kind of casual time-waster!

If you can justify another game taking this spot, I can't wait to hear the rationale!

* I'm really sorry, Bioshock fans. The thing is, I adore the atmosphere of Bioshock, the characters, the writing, the little details, but I just don't think the gameplay lives up to the coolness of the world-building. There is a good third of the game in which the combat is fun (at the start you have too few plasmids and weapons, at the end the enemies have too much health, and you can't really appreciate the power of your upgraded plasmids, no matter how cool they look), but for the rest you end up hearing splicers and dreading the annoying combat to follow. You think I'm just bad at the game? I will have you know that late-game splicers survive being set on fire with at least half of their health left, and being on fire doesn't stop them from shooting you. It would be ok if the fire didn't kill them, but it should at least take them out of commission long enough for you to deal with their buddy before returning to finish them off! Perhaps this is a function of lag (I disliked the original Halo on PC more than I should have, and having now run it at buttery-smooth framerate on a much better computer realize that it's still just mediocre, but it's at least playable) so I could just need to turn down the settings, and I will suddenly be able to move and react fast enough to enjoy the combat, but I expect the splicers will be just as annoying, as will the instant-kill rivet-gun that the "Rosies" carry around (speaking of which, why can't it be a weapon for the player, considering that they can already carry the grenade launcher and chem thrower, neither of which are small)

It's 2:30 now, which is later than I wanted to be on the computer. Also, I have an email to write.

- LOUD!

<3 The Princess Bride

phiLosOphical? VErily!

Over in the land of Fog and Castles, I read an interesting treatise on the non-presence of (True) Love in modern society. Something - I suspect it was reading this particular piece after having written a PolySci essay on Feminism - tripped a switch in my head, and suddenly I saw politics. I saw power: social power, political power, economic power. I saw hints of religion and culture. I saw that Love does not conquer all, but is instead conquered BY all, like some unfortunate border province in the middle of a warzone. Love is what society makes it; it is power, it is pain, it is community, it is pleasure, and so on.

In a Tyranny, Love is tricky to pin down. Marriage exists as a power-play, to form strategic alliances. The individual is capable of Love - an unfortunate byproduct of their humanity - but it is the head of the household (be it a Grandfather, Mother, or fratricidal Uncle) who decided what marriages are to be allowed, and what forms of Love are unseemly. In an Orwellian dystopia, all interpersonal Love is seen to interfere with Love for Big Brother, and so is forbidden. Other systems may not be so extreme, but they do share a certain Machiavellian element with IngSoc (which I will get to in good time). For those confident enough to get away with taking a Mistress or...Mister (correct term? Tee-Hee!), adultery might allow a romantic escape from the confines of Royal marriage. Those forms of Love which are condoned under Tyranny are tainted all: The Love of power, which so dominates all other Love that families effectively sell their children for power; and the Love of God, King, Pharaoh, or Big Brother which - in accordance with the Machiavellian ideal - is coincident with equal and opposite fear of their wrath.

In a Capitalist society (I omit the terms "Free" and "Democratic" for good reason), Love is commerce. Love is Hallmark^TM and Jubilee fine jewlelers^TM and Chanel no.5^TM. Valentines day isn't even about Love anymore, it's more like an in-class Halloween! "Bring Valentines for everyone" is a good sentiment, sure, but it doesn't really say anything about Love. Being the Charlie Brown of the class came with a lesson, at least. I can put it no better than the Dread Pirate Roberts, who famously said "Love is pain, highness...anyone who says different is selling something.". It's a holiday that is either meaningless consumerism, or pointless heartbreak for some poor kid. The former is slightly more benign, and so we choose it, and we teach each generation that it's REALLY about the impeccable suit, the box of chocolates, and the bouquet of flowers. For the University-and College-goers, there is a significant period in which these more elegant tools of the trade are replaced by Cocktails and Condoms. The result is best expressed as it was by a very good friend of mine: "Girls spend money on clothes and make-up. Boys spend money on Girls.". When Love isn't being bought, perhaps we are competing for it. The social-Darwinist aspect of the Capitalist ethic would certainly propose that humans competing for the most desirable mates would work to the benefit of humanity. Of course, it's not quite the same game as the horny battles of mountain goats or deer, but it's close enough. A romantic poet just happens to have horns in the form of his skills with pen, paper and voice. The relationship structure that results from this process of natural selection is generally exclusive, and it's telling that "cheating" is the name we have given to the practice of seeking emotional or sexual gratification elsewhere. If Love is to be bought, sold, and competed for in Capitalist society, are we - those struck by Cupid's Arrow®- not competing for a contract, made microcosms of the dominant economic ideal?

Love, as it might exist in some post-Feminist Collectivist utopia, could be entirely the opposite. Exclusive Love is hardly helpful if one wishes to socialize Citizens into a system which abhors private property. At the most cynical level, the means of (re)production cannot be controlled by any one entity, and must instead be managed by the larger community. This is not to say that women would be stripped of reproductive freedom, but that the process of parenthood would be much less of an individual affair. Children would be born to the community, and raised by it; nowhere would you hear "MY toddler could speak before yours!", any early inequalities might even be looked on as a tragedy by the community. Sex-for-pleasure would be subject to the same philosophy, the ideal being that any two people could upon choosing have sex together without guilt, or jealousy on anyone's part. Maybe the Milkman *is* your dad, but at least whoever else your mother was gettin' with at the time was cool with it! (Note: "your" in the generic sense, before someone kills me for disgracing mum's name and honour, etc.!). Society would be a complex network of entirely open relationships. This is no Huxley-esque dystopia, mind you: there is a difference between polyamory and promiscuity. The denizens of the Brave New World did not make the distinction between Sex and Love, so if you "Loved" someone you fucked 'em. Here I apply the fundamental principles of collectivism to Love, to discover what the Romantic ideals of some as-yet-unrealized Marxist paradise might be. I find the results to be conceptually attractive, although I suspect that the lack of enduring commitment would run against the well-set grain of my Romantic side. I think that this sort of friction between the ideal of how we should be and how we are would tear such a system apart. While gender equality is essentially realized, there is the eternal issue of pregnancy - which may some day be made independent of sex through technology - and the commitment faced by a woman that the biological Father might not have to share in such a system. Would swinging males treat women as pleasure receptacles, and nothing more, leaving them to raise children communally as they go off in pursuit of their next conquest? I would hope not, but there are always some who defy normalcy in a negative way.

What Did I Learn?

I think that the reason that there is no Love in our society is that there never has been. Society colours "Love" to suit its purposes, but I think it's clear that the concept of that powerful, magnetic force between people never really changes. My friend who wrote on this lack of Love in society was also writing a paper, in which he argued that remorse exists in Humans because we are the crossroads of Divine Reason and the Impulses of the Beast (in response to a St. Augustine quote, in case you're wondering why an Atheist would argue such a thing...). I propose that Love must then belong to the Beast. Reason applied to Love leads to the societal construction and ideals thereof, but it CANNOT change the base nature of Love itself.

In the Bedroom, the Mighty Bedroom...

I'm getting a little tired by now, but I promised to include a review of the very topical Insight Theatre premiere.

It was really, really awesome. I get more and more comfortable with the source material every year, and now it's just FUN to hear these people yelling "the ERECT MALE PENIS" or "My VAGINA is too dry, whatever shall I do?" (the answer is "Lube", by the way). They don't actually say the latter in that form, but there is a skit which goes down like that. Yeah, it's fun now. I like the ideology, I like how they try to make it approachable, but when they use the vernacular they're self-consciously silly. Nothing is worse than someone who thinks that they can actually say "Yo, you should get tested fo' STDs, DAWG!" with a straight face. No, all the slanginess is played for laughs, and rightly so.

I must give EXTRA-SPECIAL props to my woman-on-the-inside of this year's production, who delivers a fantastic performance throughout. There is a scene in which this fantastic female portrays a girl who may have had sex, and may or may not have wanted it (Alcohol plays a role in the narrative, you see). There are a lot of skits that end on a sedate and somber note, but her incomparable voice lends such credibility and gravitas to the scene that she might as well be the only person on stage here (although the guy does do a good job of his lines).

Go see the show already, although I don't suggest you sneak into some random high school to do so. These endless false-alarm lockdowns seem to have everyone on edge...

One sad note is that the coolest song ("In the Jungle", but with Masturbation instead of a Lethargic Lion) was cut from the performance. I don't understand, but hey, show's still awesome.

-Loud!

Volcanic

I’ve Had Enough Of:

UNENLIGHTENED ATTITUDES TOWARDS SEX.

This one speaks for itself, but I have a recent example. In the latest New Scientist, there is a comment upon plans in Texas to blanket-vaccinate pre-pubescent girls against several types of HPV. The argument was that increased testing services would be more cost-effective in terms of saving lives, but that’s not what I want to dispute. I want to talk about the “heat from religious groups and concerned parents” stemming from the proposed immunization policy. Before you scroll to the bottom of this post, and make the obligatory comments (ie. “Parents/Religious groups will NEVER learn”) let it be known that I am aware of this situation. I don’t expect those two sorts of people to condone the proper course of action. I DO expect that someone will eventually find a way to muzzle them, and get on with what must be done.

I doubt that most parents are ecstatic at the prospect of their child(ren) exploring their sexuality. I’m not the only one who sees the only real answer: remove the ‘experimentation’, by giving children detailed, complete information. I’m sure it can be proven that young adults who have had extensive sexual education will not only be more responsible in their choices (which is what parents SHOULD want, because I sincerely doubt you can stop teens from following their, uhhh....noses, yeah.), but those individuals will also enjoy their first experiences more. Anyhow, I’m sure I’ve said this before, but every time I hear something about know-nothing jackasses trying to raise children in ignorance, it makes me furious!

Encouraging young people not to have sex is one thing. Leaving them unprotected because they “shouldn’t be having sex” is criminal neglegence, to my mind. Vaccinations, tests, access to contraception, it doesn’t matter to me how the protection angle is handled. I just wish grown-ups would stop acting like children.

APPLE “PC vs. MAC adds”

Ok, I’m not going to waste time on this one:

5. PC is not synonomous with Windows

4. 3^rd party software can do most things OSX can do, oftentimes for free

3. Macs don't get malware because they don't have enough market share

2. If Macs are for fun, where are the fucking Mac games?

1. You can't really upgrade a Mac.

DRAMA (the sort which is liable to strike within social circles)

I'm not sure if I mean this one. For all the strife it brings, it can certainly be amusing...but then very often it isn't. All in all, it's at least something to talk about, something to work through. As if we didn't have enough puzzles to solve anyhow. Right now I am leaning towards the side of “not a good thing”, mostly because of certain events on the way home today. Being less of an active participant, I'm not going to speculate, but suffice it to say I have a bad feeling about this. More later, if anything comes of “this thing”.

That's it for tonight. I'll be on the lookout for more to rage about tomorrow. I think it's a David Warren day in the paper on Saturdays, so the outlook on that front is pretty good.

If it makes no sense I blame 4AM

Conquista-Porn

....Was a very funny punchline in a Questionable Content comic from a ways back (when Steve and Ellen are either just about to, or just finished getting it on for the first time, If memory serves). But the concept of women as conquest is shitty. I know that there is a certain amount of status conferred upon a guy who has a girlfriend, although I mostly got incredulity when people found out I was dating Star. Thanks a million, guys. However, I do not - to this day - brag about it to gain respect or admiration. If you ask in the interests of frank discussion (as some have), you will get as much of an answer as is required. I reserve the right to ignore your questions if I suspect you have seen this post and want to bug me.

As you may have read on her blog, La Petite Mort has done an excellent job of tackling the sexual side of an issue brought up in last Friday's Citizen, and I could not have said any of it better myself...I don't even know if I could do "on-par". Anyhow, I want to address another side to the same issue which bugs me, namely Sports, and other activities that are supposedly recreational....well, they are recreational, but only when victory is not your primary concern.

I know that any professional sports player will tell you they do it "for the love of the game", but last year's NHL salary drama puts paid to that fallacy. I know people who really work for the love of the job: teachers. Two of the best teachers I have ever had left higher-paying jobs (Lawyer and Banker, no less!) to teach, and did so with great enthusiasm. Even suggest that players take a salary cut, and you're looking at a strike! Like the stars of the movie and music industries, professional sports players are the aristocracy of our world, created to give us mere mortals a glimpse of the Divine. So what does this have to do with sexual double standards and my anger? Read on...

It all begins with the glorification of the victor, the big cheese, the guy who sits down at the end of the day to write those history books. From the bedroom to the classroom to the boardroom, it's always about who is best. And there can only be one; wouldn't you feel cheated if - at the end of the day - Superman and Lex just shook hands, and said "well played, my good man"? We know from experience that the gold metal tastes sweetest (you've seen the Olympians bite 'em, to see if it's the real deal, no?) when you - or your team, I suppose - stand alone at the top of the podium. We know that the vicarious experience is always better when the 'good guys' win unilaterally. Even Yoda said "Do, or do not. There is no 'Try'". You can't escape it, perhaps not in any culture. I know I'm petrified that one day, I'll stop hearing people saying good things about what I write here, that I will cease to publish quality material. Incidentally, should such a day arrive, I want to know. I write to provoke thought, and perhaps entertain. There is no need for a superfluous blog in this vast sea of tubes :P

We have words for people who are indifferent to victory: slacker, underachiever, living-in-your-mom's-basement...the guy from "Pygmalion", who loves Eliza, but hasn't any ambition. A cousin of mine decided a while ago that she didn't want the rat race of a consumer society, and I believe she went to pick fruit as a migrant worker in BC...something to that effect, at any rate. My parents didn't condemn her for it, but I heard in my mother's voice a tone usually reserved for fathers who wonder why their son or daughter sees anything wrong with eating meat. A tone usually reserved for the kind of person who deplored the antics of those 'dirty hippies'. On the other end of the spectrum, we have words for people who value victory too much: Cheaters, scoundrels, hackers, crackers, no-good scum. We demonize these people, and wonder what drives them to these extremes...all the while telling our children that they have to win, they have to want victory more than anything else in the world if they're going to get anywhere in life.

Of course, there are people who will say that the only person you have to beat, the only person who matters in success is you. I wonder how many actually mean it. I know myself that I am not the best, not at anything....and I make peace with myself in that knowledge, eventually. There are a few reactions to defeat, but internally there are only two: Either you are content with your own performance, or you hate yourself. In the latter case, you can pretend that your actual disposition is the former, you can direct the blame externally, you can contemplate seppuku, and so on. It's all eventually forgotten, because life has to go on, but the memory of defeat stays, on some level.

Our sexual attitudes happen here. We are either content to be where we are, in or out of a relationship, or we brag. We feel inadequate, and we make up tales of sexual exploits...in the case of the article, where the writer quotes some boys discussing a conquest (where one boy was the 6th to "have her"....*shudders*)...I wonder if some might even play along, make themselves believe that objectifying women like their peers will make them 'cool'. See exhibit: Grease for related proof. If degrading sex is 'victory', then all the indoctrination and instinct grips us, and bids us to seek it, revel in it, and boast about it to enhance our standing.

(I apologize if this has been hard to follow; my mind is a tangled web on the best of days, and refused to untangle when I decided to write a post on this subject.)

Bringing this to a close are some examples. One is a show I saw on TV recently, about kids in sport, and their parents. These parents, although well-intentioned, are the most pitiless motherfuckers on the planet, forget 'queen bees' and third-world despots. I have never bought the "this hurts me more than it hurts you" sort of argument here. I am aware that kind, fluffy concern is the stuff of affluence and excess, but I get the impression that the parents see the uniforms and the goals, and not their child. There is everything right about supporting a dream, there is EVERYTHING wrong with living it vicariously through your child! A parent can scream a thousand times for their kid to pass the puck, block the punch, stick the landing, follow through, etc. It's easy, because they don't have to do those things. Ever seen someone on a computer, being directed by other people? Ever NOT seen the 'other people' yell? It's always easier when the pressure is on you, but not the heat of the moment, the passion of the here and now.

The kicker was the girl who was not allowed to have a boyfriend, unless she could produce "one good reason" why she should have one. I would hope that she's tried "I want to feel like somebody needs me as more than a player on a team, as more than a number on a jersey", so I wonder if anything at all would wash with her mother. Even if early relationships can lack a certain amount of depth, are singles in their 20s and 30s instantly able to form lasting relationships? I don't think so. It's a mix of experience, good and bad, coupled with a lot of luck, and - very often - good friends. But I digress. If someone is being denied a basic part of their own maturation process (I recall that girls in gymnastics supposedly go through puberty later than average, although if this is the exercise or artificial, or both, I do not know), one has to question: WHY? Why do we munchkin (for want of a better word) our children, leaving them socially underdeveloped? If taking gold in, say, figure skating means few friends, long hours of practice, etc...is that REALLY worth it?

Maybe I just don't understand, or maybe I'm bitter because I was never pushed into anything, never became the champion at anything. Maybe not, though. I have lots of friends, and I am slave to no coach, no psychotic parent. I take ballroom dance lessons most sundays, but they are always fun, and the pressure is manageable. Plus, we get good breaks, and there is coffee and a European import grocery store nearby. Again, I digress. What I was hoping to explore here (and feel very free to tell me if I have done this at all well or not) is one aspect of unhealthiness in our culture. I seem to recall reading a headline where a mother had assaulted a coach or referee for what she considered to be a "bad call" or somesuch. I definitely remember the story where a father inadvertently poisoned several of his daughter's opponents in a sabotage attempt (spiked their gatorade with something unfriendly, I think). These may be isolated incidents, but it is terrible that they happen at all. Something has to be done, because we know that if Og has Shiny Thing, Ug may very well club Og to death to get it. This is what we teach our children, this is what we know ourselves. So the next time a mother brags how soon her child learned to read, or use the toilet, you walk up to them, and you say "That's great...so have you taught HIM/HER to brag about it yet?"

Serial Killer

No, my Sci-Fi story isn't dead, but I haven't taken the time to properly plan and write out a chapter yet, so I apologize. With many untold hours of vacation before me, I hope to devote substantial time to the project. Once I have momentum, it should be a little easier with each passing chapter. At the moment, I'm trying to find something to HAPPEN in the story.

Movin' On

I have it on several trusted authorities that salvaging my mostly-failed relationship with Star would be a waste of time and energy. After late last week, I am inclined to agree. To some extent, the enigmatic nature of woman is a pleasurable torment for us guys. An extent which I think Star has long exceeded. I can understand issues, I can understand that it is not ever easy to deal with them...but I am not therapy, I am not a punching bag, and I am not going to be your plaything!

Will I look for someone new? I don't know yet. I'd like to feel wanted again. I think I'll have to wait, despite what I may want. A few friends have recently found solace in others, and I don't want this to be a "me too" thing. Besides, going on the rebound is never a great pretense to be dating. Time will tell.