Foundation on Apple TV - thoughts up to episode 108

Read the books a very long time ago and the details of the books are quite faded. People had said the books could never be made to film as the story spans centuries and character appear and disappear quickly. Thus, any adaptation to TV/film had to make adjustments and the show runners and writer's room have done so.

Have watched the first 8 episodes.

What do you think so far 8 episodes in? 

Spoiler free portion: the pace has picked up for the better and Lee Pace is the most interesting actor in this show’s galaxy. The story arc around the cloned emperors and their long time adviser Demerzel has been the strongest. The Salvor Hardin and Gaal Dornick arcs have been moving in fits and starts. The writer’s room has a lot of balls in the air and where do they take them to set up season 2? 

Spoiler containing comments below.

3

2

1 

My reaction so far has been mixed. With serialized story telling, you know they are putting out little bread crumbs here and there but as such the pacing is very uneven. Episode 7 moved things along nicely but many of the episodes leading up to it dragged on.

As with many science fiction shows there are "philosophy of mind" plot points. In the show, there is a discussion about whether clones have souls as highlighted by one faction in the Luminist religion. Whether is is a true "in universe" doctrinal point or whether it is a convenient political point by that faction's leader to justify opposition to the cloned emperors is hard to say.

Would clones have "souls?"

In one sense, clones are like identical twins except separated by age. No one who believes in the existence of souls would question whether identical twins have souls and as such would say future hypothetical cloned humans have souls.

The other "soul" question is in regards to the status of Hari Seldon's hologram. If I heard the dialog correctly, his thoughts were collected by a device and then transferred to a computer onboard his spacecraft. If all the functions of his mind can be transferred to a computer device then it would seem the writer's room believes the mind is purely a physical phenomena whether is it mechanical computer system or the biological computer of the brain. In which case there are no souls to transfer to a new body by either reincarnation or resurrection. However, the hologram does seem "glitchy." That could be due to a problem in the computer or there is more to Seldon's soul than just the electronic processes transferred from his biological brain to a computer processing/memory core or electronic "brain."

Of course, there is also the question of whether Demerzel, a robot, has a soul. The Luminist leader who called the cloned emperor soul-less seemed to think so!

Another interesting thing the writers are trying to do is portray the role of religion in an obviously high technology Galaxy spanning empire. The trope is normally that with the advance of science and technology, religious thought would disappear. However, the writers have largely placed the religions (the rulers on Synax and the Luminists) of the series in the context of their political influence as plot points. Observers of culture believe religious adherence is not likely to disappear as it provides a context for big picture questions of WHY while science and technology are good at How and What questions. And so in the show, the details of these faiths are sketched only to the level of detail needed to justify their political actions. Episode 8 is the ultimate example, where the emperor subverts, in a bold gamble, the religious ritual of the Luminists for his political ends proving his “soul” is a very dark and self-serving one.

Episode 8 can spur a conversation about the significance of religious ritual and the value of a “spectacular” religious experience. Religious faith is comprised of at least 4 components: beliefs (how and why thing are the way they are), a moral code, a community of fellow believers, and ritual (practices that advance the previous 3 aspects). 

And so the big story line in Episode 8 is the emperor going to the Spiral Pilgrimage. In the story, 50% of the pilgrims die in the ritual. My perspective is that religious faith calls its adherents to live out their faith as a lifestyle and that it may cost them in their lives literally (outright persecution) or figuratively (disadvantaged social minorities). However, carrying out a specific religious ritual to the point of death is not equal to a lifestyle.   

The other observation I’d make is that spectacular religious experiences are not required for authentic faith. Moses saw a burning bush but most believers have not had such dramatic experiences and yet would one doubt their commitment to belief? And so the dramatic conclusion of episode 8 says little actually about genuine belief and is mostly about the extent of the power hungry self-centeredness (in an old fashioned word, sinfulness) of the emperor.

COVID19 - a quick look at the numbers as of April 27, 2020

It is day 40 in California as the lockdown was declared on March 19.

Where are we now?

Here is a screen capture of the death per 1 million over at Real Clear Politics.

The first screen grab is a partial list of nations. Italy was hit hard very early and then Spain followed. Since Belgium is a rather small country it hasn't made the news, but relative to population, it has been hit very hard. The USA number though terrible indicate it could have been much worse. There undoubtedly will be many studies as to why some countries got struck so severely while others fared better. From media reports, the sense is that Italy was the "perfect storm" of the high density of the cities in northern Italy, the age of the population, and the slow initial response. Whether this set of circumstances will account for some of the other hard hit countries remains to be seen.

Meanwhile, in the USA, the states in the northeast had death rates comparable to Italy/Spain/Belgium with New York exceeding the worst of Europe. There will be many studies and second guessing as to what resulted in the calamitous march of COVID19 in the northeast USA in particular New York and New York City. Most pundits have cited the high density of New York City and the large numbers of international passenger travel.

The fatality rate of COVID19 remains a moving target. The number often cited for flu is 0.1% of people who get the flu die from the flu. Thus, in the USA, a nation of about 330 million, if 30 million catch the flu during a typical season, 30,000 may die of it. If you look at the CDC estimates, from 2010-2017, the range was 12,000 to 51,000. Flu viruses are constantly mutating and some years it is more dangerous than others. Additionally, in some years the mixture of strains put into the flu vaccine design is more effective and sometimes less so.

But what is the fatality rate for COVID19?

We don't know.

According to John Hopkins COVID19 dashboard as of April 27, there were 3 million cases worldwide with about 211 thousand deaths. That is a 7% fatality rate. However, it is generally acknowledged that testing is not robust enough at this time to really get a fix on the fatality rate. What happens is that the tests are generally given to people who have some symptoms or are at risk (medical personnel). Thus, the figure is very likely to be overstated.

Also, likely to lower the fatality rate is the hypothesis that a certain percentage (currently unknown) of the population got COVID19 but they either had no symptoms or the symptoms were mild such that they never got tested. This could explain how the disease spread so rapidly as people unwittingly passed it onto others.

As a government official setting public health policy, the fatality rate estimate - really a guess back in March - drove the decision making. If you need to decide for Los Angeles County, a region with 10 million people, what do you do?

If you think 10% of the population is going to catch COVID19; then, 1 million people could get sick. If you think the fatality rate is 1% (10x worse than the flu), then 10,000 people will die. If you are working with numbers in this range, you are going to lock everything down and hope for the best.

But if your public health team thinks that only 4% will get COVID19 as this very small study shows (1). Thus, 400,000 gets COVID19. And what if the fatality rate in your projection is only 0.2%, worse than the flu but not astronomical? This scenario yields 800 dead. If you think these are the "facts" on the ground back in March, you probably don't go for a total lock down (2)?

As of this writing, the LA County reports 942 deaths attributed to COVID19. LA County death per day is declining so the number will go up but not dramatically so. Thus, perhaps COVID19 infection rate might be a bit higher than 4% and the fatality rate might be a bit higher than 0.2% yielding a situation that is akin to a bad flu. But the government officials didn't know this back in March when the orders to lock down were issued. How much worse it would have been if there was no lock down is unknowable.

But what about New York City, I don't think anyone imaged it was going to get that bad!

New York City is currently estimating death at 17,000. New York City population is about 8.4 million. What happened there? How do you get that many fatalities? The population infection rate must be much higher in NYC? Perhaps, for some reason the fatality rate is higher?

Some scenarios:
40% infection + 0.4% fatality = 13,440 deaths
30% infection + 0.6% fatality = 15,120 deaths
50% infection + 0.4% fatality = 16,800 deaths
60% infection + 0.3% fatality = 15,120 deaths

It will take many more months of investigating to piece together what happened in New York City and places where the COVID19 swept in with such deadly force.

Given the limited information at hand, if I had to guess the fatality rate of SARS-Cov2/COVID19 will turn out to be higher than the typical flu, perhaps around 0.3 to 0.6% (3), and what will turn out to be the driver of fatalities is a high infection rate due to unique features of the locality in question.

UPDATES:
Decided to add a few things after thinking more about what I posted last evening.
(1) Some scientists have called into question the antibody kit used in the study as not fully validated and await better characterized kits and larger numbers in the test population. Will better test kits reveal higher or low percent infection in the general population?
(2) The "what if" we don't know is what the infection rate would have been without the total lock down? In Los Angeles County, if the number rises to 8% infection with 0.2% fatality, then you have 1600 deaths. If you are on the board of supervisors and that is what your public health people tell you, what do you do? It all comes down to the "best guess" at the time about infection rates and fatality rates and how many people is it "tolerable" to lose to the virus. Scale the infection percent and fatality percent to higher numbers and the impetus to lock down becomes very strong.
(3) One could also suspect specific vulnerable populations will be looked at. The fatality rate might turn out to be quite "low" for the population as a whole. But what is the fatality rate when it hits a nursing home? Or an apartment building with a higher percentage of senior citizens? And there will definitely be studies on health disparities in poorer communities that may have a much higher fatality rate. Populations aren't homogeneous. There will be more to the data than just simple density of people in a community.

Star Trek Discovery Season 2 Episode 1

Star Trek Discovery Season 2 Episode 1

Stylistically similar to season 1 in that the frantic pace and high production values is kept up in the season opener. But more importantly and positively, is the feeling of visiting old friends felt in season 1 continues in season 2. Saru, Tilly, Stamets, and Burnham are well played by their respective actors.

Will be interesting to see where the "red bursts" story line is going. Will be interesting to see where they are going with Spock/Burnham/Amanda/Sarek story line.

Huge hats off to Jeff Russo and the soundtrack he writes for the show. Check out the short behind the scenes videos. There are a couple focusing on the music of ST-Discovery.

Anson Mount as Captain Pike is a plus and an opportunity to explore a character we don't know much about from the Original Series (Menagerie/Cage) and two small parts in the Kelvin-verse films (Star Trek-2009, Into Darkness).

On Trek trivia, am curious to see if the "red shirt" motif will be transitioned to the "blue shirt" motif as you could see that fellow getting written out of the show the minute he started talking!

#StarTrekDiscovery

Star Trek Discovery Season Two - We shall see what the scriptwriters have up their sleeves!

My feelings about the first season: good performances by the cast and high production values; on the downside a few times where the plot got very confusing or inconsistent.

As for season two, we shall see!

The episode will be released tonight and so perhaps some of the mysteries will be revealed.

One thing that strikes me as a bit odd was assigning Captain Pike to take over the Discovery.

In the Star Trek "world," the Enterprise was a Constitution class starship that was top-of-the-line for a long time in Star Fleet. So why are the powers that be transferring Pike to what was a one-of-a-kind experimental-research ship in the Discovery?

From the trailers the mystery is the Red Bursts and the Red Angel. How many ships will the Federation dedicate to solving the mystery?

You would think you want to keep the Enterprise crew together with its Captain as part of that mission?

However, it appears that Spock has taken leave of the Enterprise to deal with how the message from the phenomena has thrown him into turmoil. But even so, you would think Pike would stay with one of the flagships of the fleet.

Of course, you might say that since Burnham has some connection to Spock, the bosses figure we need her as part of the team solving the mystery. In which case it would be easy enough to transfer Burnham over to the Enterprise.

Probably the only practical reason for moving Pike over to Discovery is that the crew still shell-shocked from their adventures in season one need a seasoned Captain to help them in this new mission. Perhaps, since the Discovery was a research ship, it might be stocked with more nerd types that will be needed for the newest mission.

Anyway, then the next question is who is the interim Captain on the Enterprise? I suppose "Number One" seen in the TOS "The Cage" and in the two-part "The Menagerie" that utilized "The Cage" footage would fill that role. And indeed, the show runners have brought in Rebecca Romijn to play that character. How much the series will spend on the Enterprise and how often Romijn will appear remains to be seen.

On another trivia note, according to IMDB, Julianne Grossman supplies the voice of Discovery's computer. Apparently, she is a seasoned voice actress.

UPDATE: Well, that was a rather simply solution to why Pike had to leave the Enterprise ..... they tried to hit control-alt-delete to reboot the Enterprise and couldn't! Or in Mac OS lingo, the Enterprise saw the spinning pin-wheel of death and they had to pull the power plug and tow it back to the Star Base! 

Homelessness and Hunger in Los Angeles

The Los Angeles Times recently ran a series of editorials on the issue of homelessness in Los Angeles.

Excerpts:
Homelessness burst its traditional borders several years ago, spreading first to gloomy underpasses and dim side streets, and then to public parks and library reading rooms and subway platforms. No matter where you live in L.A. County, from Long Beach to Beverly Hills to Lancaster, you cannot credibly claim today to be unaware of the squalid tent cities, the sprawling encampments, or the despair and misery on display there.
[.....]
Today, we are paying the price: The economically homeless are now estimated to make up more than half of L.A.’s unhoused — and it is their rising numbers that are fueling the unprecedented growth in that population. More than half of the people surveyed by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority last year said they were homeless because of an eviction, foreclosure, unemployment or “financial reasons.”
[.....]
Until the mayor and the members of the City Council treat the building of these 10,000 units of housing with the kind of extraordinary urgency this crisis requires — the kind that the federal and state governments bestowed upon, for example, the rebuilding of the broken Santa Monica Freeway after the Northridge earthquake — they simply will not be built. And they must be built. Supportive housing in particular — which offers not just a place to live but also access to job counseling and mental health and substance abuse treatment, among other things — is the best long-term solution for the chronically homeless, whose cases are the most difficult to solve. A substantial number of these housing units must be located in every single council district. They cannot just be concentrated in poor areas or in neighborhoods with less political clout. Already, a new report shows that even more housing will be needed than was estimated at the time HHH was passed.
[.....]
The largest psychiatric institutions in the United States are the Los Angeles County jails, the Cook County Jail in Chicago and Rikers Island in New York. L.A. County incarcerates thousands of mentally ill people. The Sheriff’s Department reports that more than 70% of inmates who enter jail report a serious illness, either mental or physical. The county is moving forward with a $2-billion-plus plan to replace the aging Men’s Central Jail with a new facility specifically geared toward mental health treatment — but still a jail. We’re back where we started, but this time even more literally than before: Mentally ill people are prisoners. It’s not that jailers want the new business. It’s a population, L.A. County Sheriff Jim McDonnell recently told ABC7, “that I would argue should not be treated in a jail facility.”
[.....]
Across the city, drivers exiting freeways routinely encounter homeless people on the off-ramps shuffling from window to window requesting money. Libraries, train stations and public parks have become refuges for homeless people. In many residential neighborhoods and commercial districts, encampments have become a seemingly immutable fact of life. As homelessness spreads across Los Angeles County — the official tally shows a 46% increase from 2013 to 2017 — it is drawing two conflicting responses, at times from the same people. There’s sympathy and a desire to help, but there’s also a sense of being invaded and perhaps even endangered — in terms of both physical safety and public health
[.....]
Yet such a czar would only be as powerful as the mayor who appointed him or her. And in L.A., the mayor lacks legal authority to override City Council members, who can and do frequently say “no” to proposed housing and mental health facilities in their districts. And neither the mayor nor the czar would have control over the county, which supplies the services, or the region’s other 87 cities. Czar-like powers would be possible only if council members were to relinquish some land-use and budget authority through something like an emergency declaration. And remember, they never did that. They gathered together and said they were going to do it, and much of the world’s media mistook that cleverly phrased promise to do it as actually doing it. You’ll find news stories saying they did it. But they did not.

As an individual, there is little one can do against such massive needs. But we can be faithful to what we can do. Like most Angelinos, I voted for Measure H and HHH. I also donate to Union Rescue Mission and Salvation Army and Venice Family Clinic, three organizations that have been providing help for many years.

I'm a research scientist not a social worker. I'd have no idea how to help the people in these situations. Each person and family has a story and hats off to people who have the heart, knowledge, and skills to help them. And so I support the three organizations mentioned above. I'd encourage you to find a group or two to support. And maybe all of us together helping in some small way can begin to help turn the tide of this crisis.

Star Trek Discovery Episode 14 - relationship status: "Its complicated" and other things

Episode 14 was a break from the shot-em up action of episode 13 and soon to drop season finale episode 15 on Sunday that will probably have a fair amount of shot-em up.

Thus, it was a time for some heart-to-heart talks among the cast and crew.

At the center of it all was Tilly. She talks to Tyler and others join in. She talks to Burnham to get Burnham to talk to Tyler.

Meanwhile, Saru continues to grow as a character as he is now the captain of the ship and shows his blend of getting the job done in the opening when he quickly sized up the situation in the transporter room. He also exhibits compassion as she filled Burnham in on Tyler's condition. He continued to display his generosity and firmness in the sickbay conversation with Tyler.

Stamets took center stage for a scene with Tyler and his response was what you would anticipate from the character we have seen develop through the series. Well done by Rapp. He also steps in with his engineering acumen with the terraforming the dead moon to grow his beloved spores.

However, the script-writers really dropped the ball for the lines they fed Anthony Rapp when Cornwell asked him to jump to Starbase 1. Stamets says something like: Starbase 1 is 100 AU from earth and a little over a light year from our current position.

If I heard that right, the science consultant on the screen writing team should check his or her astronomy notes!

In our world, 1 light year might as well be a 100 light years as it is simply too far to travel. But in Star Trek world 1 light year is like crossing the street! If you are visiting star systems in various parts of the Alpha Quadrant, you have to be traveling hundreds of light years in a matter of hours or days. So 1 light year is nothing and the nervousness about traversing that distance doesn't make sense.

As for 1 AU, that is an astronomical unit, the distance from the sun to the earth. Thus, 100 AU is beyond the Kuiper Belt. This means Starbase 1 is not very far from earth. Discovery arrives at Starbase 1 to find it has been taken over by the Klingons. If the Klingons are that close to the earth already, that is pretty bad for the Federation! This would be like the tanks circling around Paris in World War II. This is equal to the Allied Armies closing in on Berlin. The earlier comment of having lost 20% of Federation territory is bad but to have the Klingons pounding on the front door of earth is very very very bad.

We shall see if episode 15 reveals the "deal with the devil (mirror Georgiou) that Sarak and Cornwell have made. Sarak has a wonderful scene with Burnham as he leaves ship. Well played by Frain and Martin-Green.

The premise of mounting an attack on the Qo'noS, the Klingon home world, may make for good drama, but in terms of military tactics that would be somewhat unrealistic. It would be like trying to launch an massive attack on Berlin prior to D-day. Of course, the Allied air forces were able to launch night bombing raids on Berlin and other German cities but there is a huge difference between air raids and sending in ground troops and tanks.

Discovery sneaking in there to map out Qo'noS and gain other intelligence data is fine. They can sneak via the spore drive technology. But the rest of the fleet would have to get there the old fashioned way and would(!) (should?) be detected on the way there.

One would assume the Klingons have good defenses at Qo'noS and would have robust layers of defense around it. Perhaps, the 24 Klingon houses are so divided that they don't bother to defend their home world? Perhaps, only one of the houses defend the home world? Dunno.

But the premise of attacking your opponent's home world is unrealistic unless you have some aspect of military superiority that the Federation at this point do not have.

Anyway, will see where episode 15 leaves us. I suspect there will be a cliff hanger to set up season 2 so more surprises to come.

Episode 14 ends with the delicious irony of mirror Georgiou taking the bridge with only Cornwell, Saru, and Burnham knowing the real truth. Episode 1-2's arc had Burnham taking matters into her own hands against Georgiou to the dismay of Saru. This time around Saru and Burnham may need to team up to prevent mirror-Georgiou from leading the Discovery and the Federation into a disaster.

Star Trek Discovery - episode 12 - spoilers ahead

I know I am behind schedule. Episode 13 has already dropped and I'm still catching up on episode 12!

The Engage podcast guys had guessed that Lorca might have been mirror universe Lorca and that is the big reveal in this episode. Thus, everything we have seen from him was all to get himself back into the mirror universe. There now remains two questions for the screenwriters to work out in the next few episode: (1) how did he get to the good-guy Federation universe? (2) what are his intentions in the mirror universe?

Certainly, it appears that he wants to seize power in the mirror universe. However, is it merely a power play in which he is the next one up to run the Terran Empire until someone else kills him off or is it that he turns out to be the lesser of numerous evils and becomes the catalyst for future change? Might mirror Lorca have some ties to the rebellion? Or is he purely an evil-hatted character with no redeeming values at all?

We shall see.

As for how he got to the good-guy Federation universe ...... an open question. The ST-TOS episode "Mirror, Mirror" accomplished the feat during a transporter malfunction during an ion-storm. I think DS9 did the feat by transporter as well. So perhaps Lorca had a transporter accident.

The other (perhaps more likely?) is that he has been working with mirror-Stamets and their tinkering around with the spore-network resulted in an unplanned (or perhaps planned?) transfer to the other universe? Lorca may have made the transition counting on Federation-Stamets to eventually (unintentionally) help Lorca figure out a way for Lorca to get back to he plans for the mirror universe.

We shall see.

The Burnham-Georgiou interaction was ..... grim but interesting. Burnham, out of cards to play, goes with the truth and manages to stay alive. However, the deal to hand over the spore drive technology in exchange for help to get the ship and crew back to the other universe may prove to be a deal she will have to find a way out of later on in the game of cat and mouse. Also, will Burnham back Georgiou in a power play against Lorca?

We shall see how that plays out.

Doug Jones continues to amaze with his acting even if he isn't on the screen a lot. Mary Wiseman didn't have too much to do this episode but am sure she will have some key scenes in episodes ahead.

Meanwhile, am totally confused at how the script-writers created Voq-Tyler! If I heard the dialog right, it is Voq's body surgically altered to be human, Tyler's DNA is slapped onto Voq's cells to fool the Federation doctors, and Voq's personality covered over by a fabricated Tyler personality.

What a mess! The script-writers wanted the Voq-Tyler vs. Mirror Voq moment of confrontation so much that crafted this crazy mix and match of body parts, DNA, and personality!

Lastly, we get to see the meeting of minds between Stamets and mirror-Stamets inside the spore network. He finds out the the network is dying and perhaps it is mirror-Stamets' tinkering with it that has caused problems. Of course, it is possible that Stamets using the network isn't good for the network either. After all, presumably they are both using the network because they injected themselves with some Tardegrade DNA. The Tardegrade was fully optimized to travel in the network. A human-Tardegrade hybrid might be "sub-optimal" just like the Men In Blazers duo. So perhaps Stamets guiding Discovery through the network and who knows what crazy stuff mirror-Stamets is doing with the network in combination has made the whole thing sick and wanting to vomit them out.

In terms of character development, Stamets and Culber get some good lines as Culber re-appears much like Obi-Wan Kenobi giving advice to Luke Skywalker. Culber's lines are vaguely like Kenobi, "The Force is an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together." Substitute the Force with spores and mycelial network binding the universe(s) together. Wonder if someone is putting a TV show or movie pitch merging the Star Wars and Star Trek universes in some fusion of the force's midi-chlorians and Discovery's spore-mycelium.

Anyway, the Stamets' wake up and are able to return to their respective universes or ..... did they swap?

We shall see how that plays out. I hope the fact that Stamets runs immediately to check on the health of the spore forrest indicates it is the correct Stamets in the correct body. Meanwhile mirror-Stamets dashes out of his interface chair in search of his collaborators to explain the new information he has gathered.

Will mirror Stamets turn out to be working with Lorca? Will his brief interaction with Federation-Stamets change his ways?

We shall see how all the crazy threads play out.

Overall, the serialized story telling is an addictive approach. Each thread has had many good moments. The character development and acting has been strong. The pacing of the episodes and production design have been solid.

The weakest components have been the story devices that didn't really pass the "it sort of makes sense" perspective - not that anything in science fiction really has to make sense - but still sometimes there have been some big asks in terms of suspension of disbelief.

Examples:
(1) The Voq-Tyler set-up was the weakest and I have been harping on that from the start.
(2) The technological premise of the spore drive was also a very huge hand-wave.
(3) Various occasions when things happen that don't seem plausible: leaving valuable technology onboard the Shenzou, the stupid way Landry was killed off, Lorca getting kidnapped, Cornwall walking into a trap, Cornwall being left for dead but not being dead, L'Rell being left for dead but not being dead, failure of the medical teams to really check over Tyler until it is too late, failure of the medical team to really check over Stamets until it is almost too late.

Star Trek Discover Episodes 10-11 - spoilers ahead

Nice thing about the streaming format is that you can watch at any time.

Am playing catch up and am not actually current as episode 12 dropped last Sunday and I haven't seen it yet

Season 1.5 started with episode 10 and the cast and crew in the "mirror" universe introduced in ST-TOS episode, "Mirror, Mirror." I believe this concept was only re-visited in Deep Space Nine and in Star Trek Enterprise. I don't recall any episodes in Star Trek Next Generation or Star Trek Voyager that used this setting.

Stamets remains in his confused state but at the end of episode 11, we get the "cliff-hanger" of him meeting his mirror self in the forrest where the spores grow. Will see how that develops in the remaining episodes.

The death of Dr. Culber was a shocker but unlike the death of Security Chief Landry, it was a plausible development within the story arc.

Lorca doesn't get to do too much in episodes 10-11 as he spends most of the time in the agonizer booth. But he gets in a few lines and is likely to have more screen time in upcoming episodes. The guys at "Engaged: The Official Star Trek Podcast" suspect maybe Lorca is actually the mirror Lorca ... we shall see. The guys on the Podcast did come out strongly in favor of the Voq/Tyler plot twist that turned out to be exactly what the writers went with.

In regards to that plot twist, it is a good story device and paid off in the dramatic showdown between Tyler/Voq and mirror Voq in episode 11. However, there were many holes in the details of how they set it up.

First of all Tyler/Voq was produced by elaborate surgical alteration that Dr. Culber detected in Episode 10. You would think other doctors would have picked it up right after Tyler and Lorca escaped from the Klingon prison ship. Released prisoners of war would/should get pretty thorough medical exams!

Second, a full on personality overlay of a Star Fleet officer onto a Klingon is a stretch. How would the Klingons have that level of detail about the life of Tyler who was a real Star Fleet officer presumably killed in the Battle of the Binary Stars. Not only did they have his personal life details to create false memories they were able to craft his personality components such that Star Fleet medical personnel did not detect something strange was going on.

Third, there is the matter of DNA! Voq would have Klingon DNA and you would think in the 23rd century, every Star Fleet officer has her/his DNA on file. To pull off the Tyler/Voq scheme would mean they would have altered Voq's DNA to perfectly match Tyler's DNA.

So even if the storyline has a nice dramatic payoff, the gymnastics to get there was beyond implausible.

I continue to be a huge fan of Tilly and Saru and they both deliver some fantastic moments in episode 10-11. At some point, I'll probably have to check out Youtube to see if there are clips of the actors Mary Wiseman and Doug Jones talking about how they prepare for their roles.

Meanwhile, Burnham as a character continues to grow on me. SMG's acting chops in playing the good Burnham playing the bad mirror Burnham without losing her identity paired with the performance of SL's good Tyler/bad Voq acting as mirror Tyler with a disappearing good Tyler as the bad Voq emerges was quite the drama. Although, I was a bit surprised that Burnham wasn't more suspicious when Tyler/Voq tried to kill mirror Voq! I suppose Burnham was somewhat "blinded" since Tyler was her only link to her own universe.

The big reveal at the end of episode 11 was the return of Michelle Yeoh as the mirror universe Emperor Georgiou!

All in all, great production values, interesting characters, and the serialized story telling format does leave you wondering what is next?

Was Lorca really the mirror Lorca all along as suggested by the Engage podcast guys?

Will mirror-Stamets turn out to be a good guy and Stamets and mirror-Stamets team up together to help their respective crews return to their correct universes and perhaps plant more seeds (spores!?) of revolution in the mirror universe?!

How will the Burnham vs. mirror Georgiou conflict play itself out?

Will season 2 be a continuation of Discovery in the mirror universe? Or will they be back in their own universe by the end of season 1?

Will there be an episode where the cast and crew will play their mirror-selves in the opposite universe?

Four episodes to go to wrap things up or to wrap most things up but leave some threads for season 2!

Live long and prosper!

Larry Shapiro and John Lennox in conversation "Is there truth beyond science?"

A lively, honest, and friendly conversation between a classical Christian (Lennox) and an atheist (Shapiro) held at the University of Wisconsin.

People engaged in our current political discourse could learn a lot from these two gentleman and scholars about how to talk about things where there is disagreement.

In our 21st century world, there are people who don't think there is even such a thing as truth. On this point, they both agree that there is such a thing.

On the question of whether truth can be found outside of science, I think they would both agree on that point as well. They both point out that science as a method is very good for understanding the natural world. However, our lives have aspects that are more than just the natural world - morality, purpose, meaning, etc.

Where they do part company is whether or not God is in the equation of our grasping of truth. Shapiro does not think there is enough (or perhaps even any) evidence for the existence of God. In an interesting segment, he asks how would one distinguish "god" from a powerful alien from another planet or a "flying spaghetti monster."

Lennox's response was that the claims of Christianity exist within a long historical narrative framework that can be assessed by human reason.

The podcast is about 90 minutes and a worthwhile listen if you are interested in such things.

P.S. If you find these types of conversations interesting, be sure to check out Bishop Robert Barron (Catholic Christian) and Professor William Lane Craig (Protestant Christian) discuss faith, science, and society. In this discussion there was much more agreement between the two speakers (compared to Lennox and Shapiro) but the same friendly honest approach. There was a short segment on the differences between Protestant and Catholics but both emphasized that the common ground is so large. One could also see some differences in emphasis and style but the centrality of Christ was the guiding light in their presentations.

Update: found the video for embedding (1/25/2018)

Star Trek Discover Episodes 5-6 (contains spoilers)

I think what makes a TV show work is that you find the characters interesting enough to want to find out more about them and to see what happens to them. I think they are doing that. Tilly is no longer one dimensional. The writers are filling in Burnham's backstory in an interesting way. Saru continues to get some great scenes. Lorca remains a question mark to me. Sisko had his "In the Pale Moonlight" episode. However, Lorca, appears to be going farther off the reservation. Is he simply overzealous win at all costs? Or is there something pathological about the guy? Am thinking the writers want us to sit in that tension.

As far as plot points, especially in science fiction, you do accept some things that are implausible. However, if the writers make too many mistakes within the narrative world they have created, it can get pretty annoying pretty fast. Thus, for this review of Star Trek Discovery Episodes 5-6, I have complaints on that front.

The narrative arc of episode 5 is to have Captain Lorca captured by the Klingons so that they eventually escape with the help of prisoner (a subject of internet debate) Lt. Ash Tyler and be rescued by the Discovery using the spore drive under the control of Lt. Stamets instead of the poor dying tardigrade. Also, we get hints of the problem with the spore drive with the time shifted mirror image of Stamets at the end of the episode.

All fine and good but the whole episode rests on getting Captain Lorca kidnapped by the Klingons!

The Federation military knows that the Klingons have cloaked ships. Thus, Klingon ships can travel undetected until the last moment when they appear just before taking offensive action. Knowing this, you probably don't want to be sending one of your top military leaders (Lorca) in a lightly armed shuttlecraft to attend a meeting. Rather, you rely on your encrypted secure communication systems! You don't sending him in a rinky-dink puddle jumper with just one other armed soldier on board.

Of course the other problem is that even if you were stupid enough to send Lorca in the equivalent of a Cessna Piper Cub to attend the high level confab, how did the Klingons know his exact route and exact time he would be traveling? This would suggest there is a mole in the Federation providing such valuable intelligence data. Perhaps, that will be revealed in future episodes.

In any case, the various developments we get from episode 5 rests on an implausible premise.

As for the narrative arc of episode 6, the key is Sarek's diplomatic mission to assess peace feelers from the Klingons. This leads to the revelation of a radical faction within the Vulcan political system as its operative attempts to kill Sarek and sabotage the mission. With Sarek injured, Burnham senses his agony leading to some interesting character development as the story unfolds.

We know from Star Trek Enterprise that the Vulcan's had their share of political intrigue and even with the recovery of Surak's foundational teachings (episode arc in Enterprise season 4), bad habits are hard to put away fully. Nicely played by the writers here linking that with the Sarek/Burnham relationship.

If the episode ended there, things would have been fine. But instead, we are "treated" to the plot twist of Admiral Cornwall taking up Sarek's mission and getting kidnapped by the Klingons.

UGH!

First of all, Sarek, a seasoned diplomat, would not have arraigned a meeting at a location where either side would have had an easy opportunity to set up an ambush.

Second, even if Sarek was willing to take the risk of being caught or killed, as a Vulcan diplomat, he would not have detailed knowledge of the Federation's military plans and thus would not yield valuable information under torture.

Instead, we have the sorry spectacle of the highest ranking red shirt (Admiral Cornwall) ever getting into a situation that isn't going to end well. No one in her right mind and no aide/advisor to Cornwall would have allowed her to go on such a mission. She is way too familiar with both the political and military situation of the Federation. She would be an intelligence treasure trove of information should she break under torture.

Finally, there is the internet storm about the Tyler/Voq conspiracy. It is quite possible that this fan theory is correct. However, if the writers have gone down this path, they did not do their continuity with canon work with much care. We know from TOS, the Trouble with Tribbles that a Klingon can be modified so that one could appear human. In the story, Darvin, a staff aide to a Federation development official, has been placed as a Klingon spy to poison a grain shipment. However, his secret is blown in Act 4 when the tribbles squeak and squawk at Darvin. Since the only other time the friendly cuddly creatures reacted that way was around Klingons, everyone is suspicious. At this point, McCoy runs a quick medical scan of Darvin and announces, "Heartbeat is all wrong, his body temperature is ..... Jim, this man is a Klingon!"

Thus, if Tyler is really Voq engineered to be human, they did an incredible job. The effort would have been so good as to fool the Discovery medical team that would have examined Tyler head to toe as a victim of months of torture and possible brainwash. If the ST-DSC writers have gone down this path, they will have to "break canon" to make it work. Of course, maybe, it is all just a big head fake to drive up the fan based conspiracy machine!

Star Trek Discovery episodes 1-4

Yes, I am a Star Trek fan.

I’ve seen all the movies. I’ve seen most if not all the episodes of all the flavors of the show. Therefore, when CBS decided to launch the latest edition of Star Trek on their streaming service, I signed up.

My impressions thus far after 4 episodes: production values are very high, characterizations show great potential, story line is wait and see what they will make of it since it is serialized storytelling.

(spoilers ahead) 

Episode 1 begins with the “4th act” of a previous episode that has Burnham and Georgiou bantering while going about saving an indigenous species by restoring their water supply. Hard core Trek fans might cry foul as it would be a violation of the Prime Directive. However, in various flavors of the show, the Prime Directive rule was often set aside in these kinds of situations. Clearly, the writers wanted to establish a mentor/mother figure in Georgiou which they did well.

Enjoyed the opening title sequence and music!

In the episode 1-2 story package, they also introduced us to the lively relationship between Burnham, Georgiou and Saru. I think they did a fine job here as well and sadly I wonder if this is a missed opportunity to have built the show around that relationship?

Burnham’s crisis quickly arrives as she makes the decision to take matters into her own hands in trying to get the first shot at the Klingons. Some critics have felt this was way too abrupt. She is human trained in the way of Vulcans so she may have in some ways the best of both worlds and the worst of both worlds. Nonetheless, we have to recall Vulcan’s can be very determined about a course of action once they are convinced of its correctness. Think of Spock’s actions in TOS episodes: The Menagerie, The Galileo Seven, Paradise Syndrome, and The Tholian Web and in TNG episode Unification. Also, recall Tuvok in Prime Factors. Lastly, in the entire series run of Enterprise, we find the Vulcans quite pragmatic in their diplomatic relations. As such, I’m willing to grant this premise to set in motion Burnham’s story journey into episodes 3 and beyond.

The attempt to capture T’Kuvma was not consistent with what we know about the Klingon warrior ethos. They believe dying in battle is honorable and to be captured a dishonor. Thus, the rationale used for this ill-fated mission to use his capture as a bargaining chip would not be sufficient grounds to get the Klingon’s to negotiate.

In episode 3 we are introduced to the Discovery and a new set of characters. We shall see if the triangle of Lorca, Saru, and Burnham will be a good one. Certainly, as I had mentioned, the Burnham, Georgiou and Saru could have been good to build a show upon.

Tilly as a character has great potential though I thought they may have overplayed her wide-eyed enthusiasm a bit too much.

The “spore drive” concept seems a bit much. Science fiction by nature has to resort to deus ex machina to some extent. But this new way to travel in this episode was invoked in rapid succession (1) spores as tying into the fabric of the universe allowing near instantaneous travel (2) the unusual tardigrade that can interact with the spore/network and (3) the invention of a device that can tap into the mind of the tardigrade and control its actions and (4) that this could be connected to the Discover and Glenn starships.

The plot point of having T’Kuvma ship be stalled out and needing to steal the Shenzou’s dilithium converter to get repaired was sloppy plot planning by the writers. The writers had established that the Federation does destroy its technology to avoid losing it by destroying the Glenn (episode 3) when it had its malfunction. The Federation would have scuttled any and all of the abandoned vessels lost in the Battle of the Binary Stars (episode 2).

The killing off of Landry was another sloppy plot twist by the writers. Yes, you want to establish that major (or potentially major) characters can get killed off but these should happen within the plausible structure of the characters and the plot line. Landry is a high ranking officer and would probably not act in such an ill considered manner.

Anyway, we shall see what future episodes bring! Perhaps, more commentary is ahead?

The Battle of the Burgers

Posted started on March 3, 2016 and will be updated periodically.

Like many people, I've reduced my red meat intake for health reasons. And am also making some effort to source conscientiously any meat item (poultry and fish included) at the market when I do. Am by no means hard core (i.e. not vegan/vegetarian) and can't afford to always buy stuff at Whole Paycheck (i.e. Whole Foods). Having said all that, I confess I still go for the occasional burger. With the reduced intake of meat products, my system really can't handle a big steak any more. But a nice burger is still a treat.

I confess I am a fan of In-and-Out Burgers. When on a road trip, I'll often make a note of where they are along the route and if it makes sense to take a lunch or dinner break at one of their outlets, I'll almost certainly stop there. So in my rating system, In-and-Out gets the A rating.

But what about other burgers out there?

Here is my highly subjective views on burgers at other places.

Denny's (B-). Sorry, I have tried the burger there and realized I should stick to having the breakfast items at the venerable chain diner.

Marie Callender's (B-). Meh, just didn't seem that appetizing.

Five Guys (B+). I have to say I'm surprised at the solid fan base. Definitely, they do have a lot of options in terms of fixings to the burgers so hats off for that. But the burger itself? Not sure how come it has gained such a cult following. Don't get me wrong, I think it is a decent burger and deserves a solid B+ rating. A+ though on the fried potatoes!

Carl's Junior (A-). I think their all natural burger is their best. The others ones are okay but slip into the B/B+ range.

Apple Pan (A+). Going to the Apple Pan is like stepping into a time machine. Wonder how long that kind of store can survive and how many other places like that still exist in the 21st Century!

McDonalds (B-). Haven't had many in recent years. Now, if I stop here at all, I just get the breakfast items at the famous old chain that started the mega-chains. In foreign countries, I may visit one when I need to see something familiar!

Jack-in-the Box (B-). Haven't had many in recent years. I just get the breakfast items if I ever enter their stores or swing by the drive through. In fact, their top seller are tacos!

Fatburger (A). Great burger. Give the edge on the fries to competitors In-and-Out and Five Guys. But the burger is competitive. A Los Angeles institution founded by Lovie Yancey. Eventually, the chain was sold but the formula remains the same in terms of how the burgers are made. The current investor group has opened stores in unusual locations world wide.

Mooyah (A). Great Turkey Burger! Hope to eventually try one of their beef burgers. Also, loved their fries.

Burger Lounge (A+). Conscientious turkey (free-range) and beef (grass-fed) burgers. Enjoyed it very much! Loved their fries too. Does this qualify as a "snooty" burger place?

There are plenty of "snooty" burgers these days in addition to chain ones. I'll be updating this page now and then as I visit some more places.

"Snooty" burgers

Umami Burger (A). It's hip and the burger I had there was pretty good.

Blue Cow Kitchen (A). Trendy DTLA (downtown LA) location. We ordered from the Happy Hour menu and split the House Burger, Al Pastor Shrimp Tacos, and Crispy Glazed Brussels Sprouts.

Ranking the Star Wars movies

I'm one of those who likes both Star Trek and Star Wars. As a blogger, I had to have a list ranking the Star Trek movies. Now, it is time to rank the Star Wars movies.

Episode 5 - The Empire Strikes Back
Episode 4 - A New Hope
Episode 6 - Return of the Jedi
Episode 7 - The Force Awakens
Episode 3 - Revenge of the Sith
Episode 1 - The Phantom Menace
Episode 2 - Attack of the Clones

As a cultural moment, one can't beat Episode 4 - A New Hope. At the time, in 1977, the film was simply Star Wars. It was only because of its unbelievable box office success that the other films were made. For strength of story telling, I have to give the top prize to episode 5. The franchise was so strong that even though Episodes 1 and 2 were panned by critics and fans alike, the Star Wars property persevered.

In the years ahead, the films will expand to include a set of films Episodes 7-8-9, the newly released Rogue One that I haven't seen yet, and a set of films around Han Solo. Who know what else they have planned for what appears to be a cash cow for Disney!

Ranking the Star Trek Movies

Everybody is making lists so why can't this pajama wearing blogger who watched every film at least once! Also have seen all the TV shows though some via Netflix after the fact. At the time, I didn't quite get hooked into DS9, Voyager, or Enterprise during their live run on TV. But upon viewing on Netflix, have found each has its own strengths.

Onto the list of films .....

From best to worst FWIW IMHO .....

Star Trek II - the Wrath of Khan
Star Trek IV - the Voyage Home
Star Trek (2009)
Star Trek - First Contact
UPDATE: Star Trek Beyond
Star Trek Into Darkness
Star Trek VI - the Undiscovered Country
Star Trek III - the Search for Spock
Star Trek - the Motion Picture
Star Trek - Generations
Star Trek - Nemesis
Star Trek - Insurrection
Star Trek V - the Final Frontier

UPDATE: Here is the opinion the IGN people ....

RIP Steven Stucky, Nov 7, 1949 - Feb 14, 2016

Was reading the LA Times over breakfast and saw the news of the passing of composer Steven Stucky.

As a subscriber to the LA Phil since 1999, I was aware he had a professional relationship with the orchestra but didn't really know much about the details. Swed, in his piece remembering Stucky's impact on the LA Phil, provided the story.

Some extended excerpts from Swed:

I first met Steven Stucky at Yaddo, the arts colony in upstate New York, in the summer of 1988. He was a 38-year-old composer just beginning to emerge on the national scene. He had been named composer-in-residence of the Los Angeles Philharmonic, and I had come to interview him for his first major newspaper profile. A native of Kansas who had grown up in Abilene, Texas, and taught at Cornell University, he agreeably combined an academic's inner dry wit with a courteous aw-shucks veneer. [......] Who knew that this affably backward-looking, backwater nerdish composer appearing unworldly even in the Victorian setting of Yaddo would play an indispensable role in making the L.A. Phil the hippest and most progressive major orchestra in America? I didn't. He certainly didn't. Previn couldn't possibly.

In fact, Stucky, who tragically died Sunday, turned out to be an essential ingredient in the secret sauce of the Southland's new music ascendancy nationally and internationally. Death from an aggressive brain tumor seems hard to imagine, not for a brilliant brain like his that luxuriously processed information and allowed him to take delight in details the rest of us easily overlooked [......] Stucky's formal involvement with the L.A. orchestra continued for 21 years, and he remained a member of the L.A. Phil family after that. Clashing with the administration over the direction of the orchestra, Previn resigned in 1989, and the appointment of Esa-Pekka Salonen made it seemingly out of the question for Stucky to remain. The orchestra wanted a new, non-Previn image. And no one seemed less likely a colleague for a young Finnish modernist than a Cornell-based Kansan known for aping Viennese waltzes. [.....] Stucky did live in our time. He admired Witold Lutoslawski above all of his contemporaries and wrote an important book about the Modernist Polish composer. Proving conventional wisdom once more wrong, Stucky bonded with Salonen, who also looked up to Lutoslawski. The two young Luto-ites became and remained close friends. As a composer himself, Salonen obviously didn't need a composer-in-residence, but he did need someone to guide him through the American and the L.A. scenes, and Stucky was his man.

NPR also had an article about Stucky.

Extended excerpts:

The classical music community has marked two sad passings of major composers this month: first the death of 93-year-old Pulitzer Prize winner Leslie Bassett on Feb. 4, and now the untimely death of another Pulitzer winner, Steven Stucky, one of the most widely admired and collegial figures in modern music.

The composer's wife, Kristen Stucky, said in a statement that he had been diagnosed with a fast-moving brain cancer in November, and that he died at their home in Ithaca, N.Y. on Feb. 14.

Whether he was writing for orchestra, vocal ensembles, solo musicians or chamber groups, Stucky balanced his taut constructions with a richly pigmented palette.

In 2005, Stucky won the Pulitzer Prize for his Second Concerto for Orchestra, and was also the winner of Guggenheim and National Endowment for the Arts fellowships, among many other honors. Along with his work as a composer and academic, he was also a well-regarded conductor and author who won the ASCAP/Deems Taylor Award for distinguished music writing for his 1981 book Lutosławski and His Music.

Back in 2004, I had the opportunity to hear Second Concerto for Orchestra. (that later won a Pulitzer Prize). At the time I wrote the following:

What I enjoyed most about the work was most notable in the second movement: how the music utilizes the full variety of the instruments in the orchestra. It seemed like every section of the orchestra at one point or another got to lead with the melody and everyone else harmonizes or responds to that section. Because of the close proximity of my seats to the orchestra there were many moments where I felt the sounds coming at me from different directions and you get the sense of the instruments dialoging with each other. New music is very hit and miss to me. I've been a subscriber since 1999 and some of the new compositions are quite forgettable and the audience is sometimes left granting polite applause with looks ranging from apathy to puzzlement to a vague sense of alarm. As for me, upon it conclusion, I thought to myself, I would like to hear it again and explore it some more. I also found myself wondering if it would be as enjoyable at a less acoustically clear and bright hall? The work highlights the dynamic range of sound an orchestra can make and Disney Hall is lively enough to make that fuller appreciation possible. Interesting, in the post-performance question and answer session, Stucky remarked, I'd hate to think how that would have sounded in the old Dorothy Chandler! And all the music fans said, "Amen." Okay, we didn't actually say it but I imagine most of us thought it!

As I read the news of his passing, I felt the spark of remembering that particular concert and that I wrote about the experience of hearing it nearly 12 years ago. As I read more about his life story, his contributions to the LA Phil and the American music scene, it is clear he will be missed and remembered fondly.

At the Movies: Peanuts Movie and the Martian

Loved both those films!

The Peanuts movie is nostalgic to a simpler time. How many movies are rated "G" these days? The characters are as comfortable as a well worn sofa for people of a certain age who grew up reading the comic strip and catching the occasions special film. The Charlie Brown Christmas has become iconic of the season here in the USA.

The update is in the technology of the animation (3D look even in non-3D projection) and some of the music. Overall though, the production team still kept it connected to the old style with its general look and feel and the heart warming story line.

Will this revive the franchise and thus more films?

I don't know what the financial figures are from the film and I do wonder if the new generation of film goers brought up on much more sophisticated animation and "darker" and "complicated" characters will welcome the earnest simplicity of the Peanuts gang. As for me, I enjoyed it.




The Martian is a wonderful adventure, survival, science-fiction/fact film!

Love that the "nerds" get to be on center-stage as the heroes of the story.

I had to check on google about whether one can really grow potatoes on Mars. Perhaps so according to this item!

The film does highlight how technically demanding going to Mars would be and how harsh an environment it is. Going to the moon in a decade was the challenge of the 60s and quite the feat. In fact, a feat that hasn't been repeated in over 40 years. I suspect going to Mars is going to be the challenge of the 21st century and without some significant technological breakthroughs not likely to happen in my lifetime.

In addition to the science of the film was some of the human dimensions of the story.

Commander Lewis' (Jessica Chastain) collection of disco music was probably used to be able to have the chance to play "I will survive" in the film. For some I'm sure it was a groaner but for others it was the right type of humor and connection to audience members who grew up following the NASA manned program (NASA has not directly launched people into space for a few years now and aren't likely to for a few more years). Though Matt Damon is clearly the star of the film with lots of screen time, I'd say most anyone would be happy to have Lewis in charge of any mission.

Some of the action in the film does remind me a bit of Gravity in terms of straining credibility but it is the movies so some suspension of belief is required. Nonetheless, it was a good attempt at trying to keep as much of the film grounded on plausible technology.

Ingmar Bergman - The Seventh Seal

Photo is of the beautiful rocky beaches at Hovs Haller (May 2015) where some scenes from the Seventh Seal were filmed.

In the continuing effort to become more acquainted with Swedish culture, went to iTunes to rent the classic film The Seventh Seal by Ingmar Bergman. There are spoilers below!

The film was a vehicle to touch upon the modern (and timeless) angst felt by Bergman and many people in regards to the intersection of the harshness of life and (un)belief in God.

The Knight is a believer who is facing doubt and his squire side-kick has long since abandoned faith. The Knight meets Death and offers a game of chess as a "delaying tactic" that permits the rest of the story. Along the way, these two comment from their perspectives about the various people and situations they encounter. The film catalogs examples of the bad side of the Christian faith: the discussion about fear as a motivator in the artist's drawings in the church, the hypocritical seminary graduate, the bizarre pageant of the Cross and self-flagelation, and the burning of the girl.

The mostly bleak story set in the plague endemic Middle Ages has moments of humor and a beautiful small slice of life scene when the Knight enjoys a respite of milk and strawberries with Jof, Mia and their infant. Is it a "eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" moment? Or is it the kind of joy and gratitude that comes from the simple faith that Jof and Mia appear to have and that for a brief moment the Knight reclaims?

Don't think it would be much of a spoiler to say that Death wins the chess match. The ending of the film is intriguing and open to interpretation. Death leads the band of travelers in a dance. But to where?

Each character in the film responds to the intersection of the harshness of life and (un)belief in God in their own way. Beyond the Knight's overt struggle between faith and doubt and the squire's welcoming an abandonment of faith, there is the girl who says almost nothing in the film, the actor who does whatever he wants, the bickering married couple, and the stoic Knight's wife. This undoubtedly mirrors the variety of human responses to the realities of life.

From what I have heard, Bergman did not have a positive outlook about the Christian faith. How much of that was from seeing bad examples and how much his own worldview? Sadly, it is easy to say bad things about the Christian faith by pointing to bad examples of the Christian faith as they are all too common.

Since movies are often the visions of the creative force behind them, one wonders which of the characters in the movie did Bergman identify with the most?

One would guess Max Von Sydow's Knight.

Interestingly, the Knight feels he must do something to earn peace of mind and he latches on to the chess game to delay death and preserve the lives of Jof, Mia, and their infant. Did Bergman feel his film(s) were a way to earn peace of mind and make use of his time while the chess game with death plays out to its inevitable conclusion?

In regards to the Knight, might that be part of the Knight's folly? After all, is it possible that on this particular occasion Jof, Mia, and their infant weren't on Death's visitation list? Thus, the Knight's efforts may have had no actual effect on their situation? The "extra time" was meant really for the Knight to sort through his own life? Thus, did the Knight miss the "Amazing Grace?" Amazing Grace is not earned, rather it is received and accepted with humility and gratitude and joy.

The contrast of the Knight's grim predicament is quite striking compared to Jof, Mia, and their child who exude simple joy which seems to grow out of their faith. One might wonder if Bergman longs for that simple faith but finds himself as Van Sydow's knight looking for answer and seeking to earn peace of mind and missing out on that simple joy?

On the other hand, is Bergman, in some ways mocking Jof, Mia, and their baby's idilic but ultimately naive life?

Don't know which way Bergman was going with that contrast.

But going back to the film's narrative arc which catalogs the failing of people who claimed to have faith.

My response would be to acknowledge the failings of Christian people (can't deny the obvious). I would also point out that God, if we believe he exists, isn't going to be fooled by such people who claim faith but live in destructive ways. I would also go forward and point toward good examples of the Christian faith - indeed, one can find them (e.g. Mother Teresa, individuals and organizations that fought slavery and do so today in fighting human trafficking, etc). And, of course, one must look at the central figure of the Christian faith - Jesus. A reading of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) shows Jesus facing the central struggle of humanity - the intersection of the harshness of life and belief in God. His righteousness, compassion, servanthood, and obedience through it all results in the injustice of death on the Cross and the vindication of resurrection!

The Knight, in his confession in the church to the shadowy figure whom he thought was a priest but was actually Death, says he wants God to reach out his hand, show his face, and speak to him.

To which again, one must look at the central figure of the Christian faith - Jesus. John 1:14, And the Word abecame flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

God has reached out his hand, shown his face, and spoken to us: through Jesus!

Ross Douthat - Interview with a Christian

Saw this interesting item over at the New York Times.

The premise of the essay is what would happen if Ross Douthat were interviewed by a typical reporter in regards to religious freedom.

He tackles the question of whether discrimination is ever permissible.

Excerpt:

Seriously? Shouldn’t businesses have to serve all comers? 

I think they should be able to decline service for various reasons, religious scruples included. A liberal printer shouldn’t be forced to print tracts for a right-wing cause. A Jewish deli shouldn’t be required to cater events for the Nation of Islam.

He goes on to address most criticisms raised in the same-sex marriage vs. religious freedom debate.

Read the whole thing.

On a related note, I heard that the Oregon bakery that refused to provide services for a same-sex wedding has been fined $150,000 essentially putting that baker nearly out-of-business.

My gut feeling is (1) is the discrimination in this particular case truly illegal and (2) if so, does the punishment fit the crime?

For instance, suppose someone declines to provide services on a clear cases of discrimination: the customer is of racial group X. How much should they be fined?

In this Oregon bakery case, the discrimination is not against a person but a refusal to participate in an event involving that person. Thus, one can't cite animus against a person if one will provide services for that person when that person is purchasing services as an individual.

Other examples where one can ask is this illegal discrimination or not?

A pro-environmentalist caterer is asked to provide food for a trade association meeting of oil drilling equipment manufacturers. Can they legally refuse to provide this service without being charged with illegal discrimination?

A pro-Palastine photographer is asked to photograph the red-carpet guests at a pro-Israel film. Can they legally refuse to provide this service without being charged with illegal discrimination?

A pro-abortion videographer is asked to produce a 2 minute commercial for a pro-life non-profit organization. Can they legally refuse to provide this service without being charged with illegal discrimination?

A Jewish artist is asked to produce posters for a movie that promotes the Blood Libel. Can they legally refuse to provide this service without being charged with illegal discrimination?

Association and separation?

In life, we rarely find ourselves in 100% agreement with people. We may share similar faith perspectives but disagree on some political matters. We might side with one political party in most issues but not all issues. We might hold certain doctrines of the Christian faith with greater firmness and less on others. On lighter concerns, like sporting matters, a Dodger fan probably could not root for the SF Giants with the possible exception of the Giants vs. NY Yankees!

We face the social dimensions of this question on the bigger issues: when do we associate even if we might disagree? When do we separate because the issue of disagreement is too large.

How do we provide a framework of choosing?

In USA political life, there are two major parties and though one can be a member of the myriad of small parties, realistically, the only candidates getting elected come from the two major parties. Thus, one chooses a party based on which is most inline with one's views. No party matches us 100% so we live with this association but separate on particular issues.

The same would be true for aspects of the Christian community.

A simple example is the divide over infant vs. adult baptism. Some Christians feel very strongly on this point and would use that as one factor in selecting a church to be a part of. While others don't feel so strongly and it isn't a consideration in the choice of a church to associate with.

I am still working out frames to analyze the issue trying to balance ideals and practical realities.

Here is where I am at right now.....

On issues of broad social interest I think the net of association should be pretty broad. As an example, the battle against human traffic draws people from many points-of-view. On this issue, Christians, Jews, atheists, agnostics, secularists, feminists, liberals, and conservatives can all work together to fight this.

When it comes to the overall peace and prosperity of our city and nation, I would support the capable candidate regardless of their individual faith/non-faith. Thus, I'd rather vote for a capable atheist than a sincere but in-over-their-head Christian to be mayor of my town or whatever the post might be.

If the audience and concern is a bit more narrow then I would cast a narrower net. For example, a group of Christians are gathering together to have a conference on how to communicate the value of faith to youth. On this matter, my filter for association might be as broad as does the group and individuals in the group subscribe to the Nicene Creed or the Apostle's Creed. I might add that I would want participants to hold that the Scriptures are a trustworthy and authoritative guide to doctrine and practice. Beyond that we might have differences in points-of-view on other more specific areas of Christian faith and practice.

Where I am beginning to see some clouds in this analysis in that there are Christians who would probably affirm the Nicene/Apostle's Creed but demure on the high view of the Scriptures. Additionally, there are a number of "denominationally distinctive" issues. In some cases, disagreement on one issue might be discomforting to me personally but not a cause to break association. As an example, I think adult baptism makes the most Scriptural sense but I would not separate from a church that practices infant baptism over that issue. But what happens when there are a multitude of issues? At what point is there too many disagreements leading to a need for separation?

New Apostolic Reformation Movement - Beware?

Have occasionally heard of churches and organizations that claim they have modern day prophets and apostles. My immediate reaction is skepticism. I confess that this is an "occupational" hazard of anyone who is trained in the sciences.

Nonetheless, my concerns are two-fold, these apostles/prophets would be authority figures who could (1) potentially abuse their authority and (2) teach "novel" doctrines inconsistent or opposed to Scripture.

Have dug around a little bit and have discovered that the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) Movement is actually quite large and count some notable figures see the Wikipedia article for a quick run-down.

My first in-depth exposure to the movement was a Stand to Reason Podcast on 2/24/2015 when Greg Koukl interviewed Doug Geivett who co-authored two books on the subject. Am in the process of listening to a two-part interview by Michael Boehm of Geivett's co-author Holly Pivec.

When you hear of some interesting churches or organizations or movements that seem novel and spectacular, look closer. Some might say I'm violating 1 Thessalonians 5:19, Don't quench the Spirit. Indeed, but don't over look verse 21-22, test them all hold onto what is good reject every kind of evil.

Pivec describes why she thinks people are drawn to the movement and why they leave the movement.