I know that it makes me a hopeless nerd, but one of the highlights of my week is watching Warehouse 13 on Tuesday nights and then re-watching the episodes over the course of the week to see what I missed the first go-round.
Warehouse 13 is a show that airs on the SyFy channel during the summer. It is about government agents whose job is to track down artifacts with unusual powers and bring them back to the warehouse for safekeeping. While the artifacts can be used for good or evil, they all have unintended side effects. For example, in one episode, a mild-mannered coffee shop clerk picks up a pair of trunks at a yard sale which turn him into a superhero. The problem is that they work by altering the density of his body and will eventually cause him to become so dense that he collapses in upon himself and becomes a black hole. Oops.
I enjoy the show because of the cast and the stories.
The ensemble cast has six main characters. Myka Bering (Joanne Kelly) and Pete Lattimer (Eddie McClintock) are Secret Service agents recruited to work for the warehouse. Pete is a carefree go with your gut kind of guy who enjoys comic books and B-movies. Myka is more of an uptight read the manual type whose tastes run to Shakespeare. The chemistry between the two of them is great. They bicker constantly but have a fierce loyalty to each other as partners. Their contrasting attributes help them to solve problems. In Season Two, Pete's knowledge of B-movies helps him figure out that their town is being overrun by scenes from a Raymond St. James movie marathon, while Myka's photographic memory of a manual she read allows them to fix a camera which allows them to change the programming and avert destruction.
Artie Nielsen (Saul Rubinek) is the keeper of the warehouse. He sends Pete and Myka on their missions and tries to keep them from destroying the warehouse. He is a fussy type who is constantly telling his young charges "don't touch that" but gets in trouble with his superiors for bending the rules. Artie's character is haunted by a former partner turned rogue agent.
Claudia Donovan (Allison Scagliotti)is a teenage computer geek who hacked into the warehouse computer system in order to kidnap Artie and force him to rescue her brother who was trapped in another dimension by an artifact. Because she knows too much, she is willingly banished to the warehouse as a junior agent. She says dude a lot and the streak in her hair changes color every episode. She is a foil to Artie just as Pete is to Myka. She is constantly trying to improve the warehouse's gadgets without permission.
Mrs. Frederic (CCH Pounder) is the link between the warehouse and the shadowy regents who oversee it. Played with stone-faced gravitas (think of a female James Earl Jones), she is the responsible adult who chastises the warehouse agents, particularly Artie, and protects them as well.
Leena (Genelle Williams) is the new age-y proprietor of the bed and breakfast where the agents live. She also helps out at the warehouse.
The cast is an interesting mix of young (Pete, Myka and Leena), younger (Claudia) and older (Artie and Mrs. Frederic) characters. It is interesting that four out of six of the main characters are female and two are black. However, the show does not pander to political correctness. While a black authority figure could be seen as a nod to Barack Obama, there is no mistaking the tightlipped Mrs. Frederic for the wordy president.
The stories are a mixture of whimsy and seriousness. The most recent show was a cross between Miss Congeniality and the Portrait of Dorian Gray. Myka must go undercover in a fashion show to find out why teenage supermodels are dying of old age. Despite her trim, athletic figure, Myka is ridiculed as "the fat girl" and is offered diet pills to "lose that last five pounds." The pants-wearing jockette must parade down the catwalk in six inch stiletto heals and not much of a dress. These parts are humorous. However, the story becomes deadly grim when Myka collapses in Pete's arms and rapidly ages 60 years. Fortunately, the artifact (a sinister camera) is found and Myka is saved. Other episodes are more tongue in cheek. When the agents are called to Detroit to investigate a vigilante, Pete instantly recognizes the do-gooder as The Iron Shadow, a cartoon character. Myka must don a form-fitting suit which looks suspiciously like leather to battle the superhero. (Pete wanted to wear the mysterious material until he learned that it induced sterility in men). Myka defeats the superhero by pulling down his superpowerful trunks.
While most of the episodes are self-contained, there is usually an over-arching story line. During season one, it was James McPherson, Artie's former partner turned rogue agent who wants to sell warehouse artifacts for profit. He nearly destroys the warehouse and Artie in the cliff-hanger ending to season one. In season two, the new super-villain is Helena G. Welles (who knew that H.G. Welles was an attractive woman who was bronzed and stored in the warehouse). In the first episode of season two, she offs her one-time partner McPherson and escapes with something taken from a super-secret section of the warehouse.
I have to admit that I love this stuff. It probably doesn't count as serious science fiction. However, it is fun to watch.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Same Song, Second and Third Verses
Earlier today, I wrote about a Christian lawyer who wanted to prevent Muslims from exercising their freedom of religion on property they own in Manhattan. However, the attraction of trying to stifle people we disagree with is hardly limited to Christians or right wingers. If there is an idea or a person who we can dislike, there will be someone trying to silence them. Verses two and three of this song concern a Catholic teacher fired for teaching Catholic doctrine in a class on Catholic doctrine and an outrageous preacher hit with a monumental judgment for offensive protests at military funerals.
Dr. Ken and the Catholic Class
Dr. Kenneth Howell was an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois. One of the classes that he taught was Introduction to Catholicism. In that class, he discussed the Catholic Church's teachings on moral issues, specifically on homosexuality. In his words:
To try to help his students understand the difference between utilitarianism and natural law, he sent them an email. This caused problems. Again in his own words:
After the email was forwarded to the University's Office of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered Concerns, his Department head told him that he would no longer be allowed to teach at the University. In response to the backlash, the President of the University has stated that the matter is under review. In his words:
Thus, he was told that he could not teach any more, but has not been dismissed and no decision has been made about who will teach his class in the fall. It may be that the University will back down and give him his position back or perhaps he will just remain in a state of limbo where the review remains under review indefinitely. However, it seems pretty clear that the controversy arose because someone didn't like the fact that he discussed Catholic moral teachings in an Introduction to Catholicism class.
You can read more about it on the Save Dr. Ken Facebook page.
The Protesting Preacher and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
I have to admit that I am much less sympathetic about this next case. Fred Phelps is the Pastor of Wesboro Baptist Church, a church consisting mostly of his family members. Rev. Phelps believes that God is punishing America for tolerating homosexuality. To express that view, his church protests at military funerals. In the case of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, the Phelpsians:
Snyder v. Phelps, No. 08-1026, (4th Cir. 9/24/09), slip op., p. 5. The protest was held in compliance with local ordinances and was not seen by the parents until they saw news coverage of it.
They then ran an "epic" on their website www.godhatesfags.com in which they claimed that Lance Cpl. Snyder's parents "'taught Matthew to defy his creator,''raised him for the devil,' and 'taught him that God was a liar.'" The Phelpsians had never met Lance Cpl. Snyder or his parents.
The Snyders sued. The jury returned a damage award of $10.1 million (which the judge reduced to $5 million). In its charge to the jury, the court told the jurors that:
The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the First Amendment does not allow persons to be sued for speech, even if it is "vulgar, offensive and shocking."
The case is now pending before the Supreme Court.
It is hard not to sympathize with parents who fought back after some strange people claimed that we should "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and claimed that they raised their son to defy God. The problem here is that once you allow people to sue for speech that is "vulgar, offensive and shocking," where do you stop? A law professor whose blog I follow has filed a friend of the court brief in which he suggests that allowing suits based on speech which is "vulgar, offensive and shocking" would encourage college speech codes. You can read the brief here. This leads right back to Dr. Ken's non-firing. If the First Amendment allows free speech unless the speech is vulgar, offensive or shocking, then any controversial speech can be censored and punished, since if it's controversial, someone will find it vulgar, offensive or shocking. At that point, free speech is gone.
What does it all mean? If you believe in the First Amendment, you have to go for it all the way. That means allowing Muslims to build mosques in Manhattan and allowing crazy preachers to picket funerals. We may not like it, but if we protect freedom at the margins, we protect it at the core as well.
Dr. Ken and the Catholic Class
Dr. Kenneth Howell was an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois. One of the classes that he taught was Introduction to Catholicism. In that class, he discussed the Catholic Church's teachings on moral issues, specifically on homosexuality. In his words:
Every semester in that “Introduction” class, I gave two lectures dealing with Catholic Moral positions. One was an explanation of Natural Moral Law as affirmed by the Church. The second was designed as an application of Natural Law Theory to a disputed issue in our society. Most of those semesters, my chosen topic was the moral status of homosexual acts. I would happy to explain more fully the Catholic Church’s position on this matter but, for the sake of brevity, I can summarize it as follows. A homosexual orientation is not morally wrong just as no moral guilt can be assigned to any inclination that a person has. However, based on natural moral law, the Church believes that homosexual acts are contrary to human nature and therefore morally wrong. This is what I taught in my class.
To try to help his students understand the difference between utilitarianism and natural law, he sent them an email. This caused problems. Again in his own words:
To help students understand better how this issue might be decided within competing moral systems, I sent them an email contrasting utilitarianism (in the populist sense) and natural moral law. If we take utilitarianism to be a kind of cost-benefit analysis, I tried to show them that under utilitarianism, homosexual acts would not be considered immoral whereas under natural moral law they would. This is because natural moral law, unlike utilitarianism, judges morality on the basis of the acts themselves.
After the email was forwarded to the University's Office of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered Concerns, his Department head told him that he would no longer be allowed to teach at the University. In response to the backlash, the President of the University has stated that the matter is under review. In his words:
I think it important to reserve judgment until all facts are in and the review is complete and I hope you agree. I also believe it is important to correct misinformation being reported by many media outlets and Internet web sites. Prof. Howell has not been dismissed from the University, as misreported on the Internet and by several media outlets. He continues to hold his appointment as an adjunct professor. No decision has been made regarding the appointment of an instructor for the course Prof. Howell previously taught in the Fall semester; and no decision will be made until the review is complete.
Thus, he was told that he could not teach any more, but has not been dismissed and no decision has been made about who will teach his class in the fall. It may be that the University will back down and give him his position back or perhaps he will just remain in a state of limbo where the review remains under review indefinitely. However, it seems pretty clear that the controversy arose because someone didn't like the fact that he discussed Catholic moral teachings in an Introduction to Catholicism class.
You can read more about it on the Save Dr. Ken Facebook page.
The Protesting Preacher and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
I have to admit that I am much less sympathetic about this next case. Fred Phelps is the Pastor of Wesboro Baptist Church, a church consisting mostly of his family members. Rev. Phelps believes that God is punishing America for tolerating homosexuality. To express that view, his church protests at military funerals. In the case of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, the Phelpsians:
carried signs which expressed general messages such as "God Hates the USA," "America is doomed," "Pope in hell," and "Fag troops." The signs also carried more specific messages, to wit: "You’re going to hell," "God hates you," "Semper fi fags," and "Thank God for dead soldiers."
Snyder v. Phelps, No. 08-1026, (4th Cir. 9/24/09), slip op., p. 5. The protest was held in compliance with local ordinances and was not seen by the parents until they saw news coverage of it.
They then ran an "epic" on their website www.godhatesfags.com in which they claimed that Lance Cpl. Snyder's parents "'taught Matthew to defy his creator,''raised him for the devil,' and 'taught him that God was a liar.'" The Phelpsians had never met Lance Cpl. Snyder or his parents.
The Snyders sued. The jury returned a damage award of $10.1 million (which the judge reduced to $5 million). In its charge to the jury, the court told the jurors that:
Speech that is vulgar, offensive, and shocking . . . is not entitled to absolute constitutional protection under all circumstances.
The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the First Amendment does not allow persons to be sued for speech, even if it is "vulgar, offensive and shocking."
The case is now pending before the Supreme Court.
It is hard not to sympathize with parents who fought back after some strange people claimed that we should "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and claimed that they raised their son to defy God. The problem here is that once you allow people to sue for speech that is "vulgar, offensive and shocking," where do you stop? A law professor whose blog I follow has filed a friend of the court brief in which he suggests that allowing suits based on speech which is "vulgar, offensive and shocking" would encourage college speech codes. You can read the brief here. This leads right back to Dr. Ken's non-firing. If the First Amendment allows free speech unless the speech is vulgar, offensive or shocking, then any controversial speech can be censored and punished, since if it's controversial, someone will find it vulgar, offensive or shocking. At that point, free speech is gone.
What does it all mean? If you believe in the First Amendment, you have to go for it all the way. That means allowing Muslims to build mosques in Manhattan and allowing crazy preachers to picket funerals. We may not like it, but if we protect freedom at the margins, we protect it at the core as well.
More Crazy Talk On The Radio,
The other day I was surfing across the radio dial while driving back from Waco when I came across a ranting preacher talking about the Ground Zero mosque. Then I realized it was Jay Sekulow, someone I used to respect. A little explanation. Jay Sekulow is a constitutional lawyer who specializes in representing Christians in freedom of religion cases. His American Center for Law and Justice is a Christian version of the ACLU.
However, on the day that I tuned in, Jay was not advocating freedom of religion and he was not demonstrating the logic that I would expect from a constitutional scholar. Instead, he was ranting about plans to build a mosque at Ground Zero. He claimed that the muslims wanted to build a mosque overlooking Ground Zero to celebrate their victory over America, just as the Dome of the Rock was built over the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. He compared it to removing the USS Arizona from Pearl Harbor and building a monument to the Japanese Kamikazis who died in the attack.
I had already begun to sour on Sekulow and the ACLJ based on their persistent phone calls asking for money. However, this rant caused me to lose all respect. Here's why:
1. He got his facts wrong. By stating that the mosque was being built on Ground Zero and that it would overlook Ground Zero, he made it seem that the government was incorporating a mosque into its plans for developing the site. You could understand why people would find that insensitive. However, the fact is that a muslim group bought a building two blocks away from Ground Zero. As another blogger pointed out, the mosque would not overlook Ground Zero because there is another building in the way. The mosque would actually overlook an Amish Market. You can read about it here.
2. He was using demagoguery rather than logic. In his call to action, he equated the group proposing to build the mosque with the 9/11 terrorists. However, you can't say that all muslims are terrorists. Most muslims in the United States reject extremism and embrace American values. Both the victims and the first responders at Ground Zero included muslims.
3. Finally, and most importantly, he rejected fundamental America values. What two values do American conservatives hold most valuable? Most would say freedom of religion and freedom of property. However, Mr. Sekulow, who made a career out of defending Christians' right of freedom of religion would deny that same freedom to another religion. That is hypocrisy and it is un-American. Our freedoms mean nothing unless we grant them to people we don't like.
4. I know that some people will say that Muslims can build a mosque in Manhattan when Christians can build a church in Saudi Arabia. It's true that muslim countries are radically intolerant of other faiths. However, that's what makes America a better country. Our founders believed that we had certain inalienable rights. Some of those rights are included in the First Amendment which guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of petitiion, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of religion and freedom from a state-sponsored church. We allow those freedoms because we believe that they are inherent rights. We also allow them because not afraid of what people will do with them. In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez recently demanded to know why the owner of the largest opposition media outlet was not in jail so he had to flee the country. In Tehran, thousands were arrested for protesting a stolen election. Weak countries suppress freedom, while strong ones allow it.
5. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said:
"46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?"
Matthew 5:46-47.
I think the same principle applies here. If we grant rights only to those who agree with us, how are we better than any tinpot dictatorship? I would like to see the US of A held to a higher standard than Cuba or Iran. It's a shame that Jay Sekulow doesn't.
However, on the day that I tuned in, Jay was not advocating freedom of religion and he was not demonstrating the logic that I would expect from a constitutional scholar. Instead, he was ranting about plans to build a mosque at Ground Zero. He claimed that the muslims wanted to build a mosque overlooking Ground Zero to celebrate their victory over America, just as the Dome of the Rock was built over the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. He compared it to removing the USS Arizona from Pearl Harbor and building a monument to the Japanese Kamikazis who died in the attack.
I had already begun to sour on Sekulow and the ACLJ based on their persistent phone calls asking for money. However, this rant caused me to lose all respect. Here's why:
1. He got his facts wrong. By stating that the mosque was being built on Ground Zero and that it would overlook Ground Zero, he made it seem that the government was incorporating a mosque into its plans for developing the site. You could understand why people would find that insensitive. However, the fact is that a muslim group bought a building two blocks away from Ground Zero. As another blogger pointed out, the mosque would not overlook Ground Zero because there is another building in the way. The mosque would actually overlook an Amish Market. You can read about it here.
2. He was using demagoguery rather than logic. In his call to action, he equated the group proposing to build the mosque with the 9/11 terrorists. However, you can't say that all muslims are terrorists. Most muslims in the United States reject extremism and embrace American values. Both the victims and the first responders at Ground Zero included muslims.
3. Finally, and most importantly, he rejected fundamental America values. What two values do American conservatives hold most valuable? Most would say freedom of religion and freedom of property. However, Mr. Sekulow, who made a career out of defending Christians' right of freedom of religion would deny that same freedom to another religion. That is hypocrisy and it is un-American. Our freedoms mean nothing unless we grant them to people we don't like.
4. I know that some people will say that Muslims can build a mosque in Manhattan when Christians can build a church in Saudi Arabia. It's true that muslim countries are radically intolerant of other faiths. However, that's what makes America a better country. Our founders believed that we had certain inalienable rights. Some of those rights are included in the First Amendment which guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of petitiion, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of religion and freedom from a state-sponsored church. We allow those freedoms because we believe that they are inherent rights. We also allow them because not afraid of what people will do with them. In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez recently demanded to know why the owner of the largest opposition media outlet was not in jail so he had to flee the country. In Tehran, thousands were arrested for protesting a stolen election. Weak countries suppress freedom, while strong ones allow it.
5. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said:
"46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?"
Matthew 5:46-47.
I think the same principle applies here. If we grant rights only to those who agree with us, how are we better than any tinpot dictatorship? I would like to see the US of A held to a higher standard than Cuba or Iran. It's a shame that Jay Sekulow doesn't.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
New Online Scam
Lately I have been getting a lot of offers to receive a free gift card if I would just fill out a survey. I counted fourteen of these emails in the past two days. However, if you look carefully they all say "Participation Required." After you take the survey, you find out that you have to purchase a certain number of gold and silver offers before you become eligible to receive the gift card. The email addresses are also suspect. Why would an offer for a Kohl's giftcard come from the email address info@captainbivalve.com? If you receive an offer for a free gift card that says "Participation Required" just hit delete.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
