Author Archives: wellsdc

Thoughts on Game of Thrones: When Sansa Met Shae

Posted on by
Reply

(AGAIN WITH THE SPOILERS!)

Winter is ComingI spun this off into a separate post, because it just seems that important, somehow.

People hate Sansa Stark. Lots and lots of hate going around. Yet a Google search of “Sansa Stark hate” yields quite a few good posts in her defense. Her scene with Shae this week, to me, goes to the heart of this show’s overall conflict: people trying desperately to be themselves against the pressures of their regressive society.

Sansa Stark began the show, last season, as an entitled little shit. But she’s 13 years old, and has lived her whole life as the daughter of the Lord of Winterfell, with dreams of knights and heroes and princesses. She gets pledged in marriage to the king’s eldest son, meaning she will one day be queen.

Sansa StarkAnd the king she’s going to marry turns out to be Joffrey.

It is not fair to call what happens to Sansa a “rude awakening,” unless you consider waking someone up with a flamethrower to be “rude.”

Shae, in marked contrast to Sansa, is a whore. I don’t mean that as an insult–it’s her job. In a way, Shae comes into this story with more freedom than the “noble” characters. She’s a foreigner, and it is not at all clear how she first came to Westeros. She was a “camp follower,” but it appears as though she could have refused Tyrion’s original offer. Once she signs on with him, she is promised gold and the wonders of King’s Landing, and all she has to do in return is fuck the Imp now and then (okay, a lot).

ShaeOnce in King’s Landing, her life is in danger, considering Tyrion’s father specifically told Tyrion not to take her. Cersei will look for any way to gain an advantage over Tyrion, which is the more pressing danger to Shae’s life. Presumably because it would be too complicated in the television medium to hide her across town at Chataya’s, Tyrion hides her in plain sight in the castle. She avoids kitchen work by becoming Sansa’s handmaiden, except she clearly has no idea what she is doing.

Sansa treats Shae like shit. For someone as skilled at seduction (and therefore acting) as Shae, she is remarkably clumsy at filling the handmaiden role, treating Sansa without even a modicum of the deference Sansa has come to expect from servants. That’s the moment where a theme comes through: Sansa is being a shit to Shae, not so much because she is a shit, but because for one, shining moment, she can be a shit. This is a brief glimpse of Sansa’s old life coming through. Even if it was a life of snobbery and shallowness, it was a child’s life, and that was ripped away from her (cf. flamethrower reference.)

Septa MordaneIt reminded me of last season’s scene with Septa Mordane. She was answering a question for Sansa, when Sansa interrupted her to say she didn’t care. It was a callous, privileged, entitled, shitty thing for Sansa to do, and she did it because she could. As we all know, Septa Mordane marched directly into Lannister swords to allow Sansa to escape, even if Sandor Clegane caught her later. Septa Mordane gave more to Sansa than Sansa ever would have given to her. Shae would never do anything like that for Sansa. Sansa probably thinks she is a spy for the Lannisters (which she sort of is).

Sansa was a shit to Septa Mordane because she could be. She was a shit to Shae because, in her own way, she had to be, in order to hold onto a little bit of who she was.

If you are a Sansa hater, all I will say is this: don’t count her out just yet. She may never stop being a shit, but she represent us, the viewers, in quite a few ways. Honestly, how do you think you would respond if everything that has happened to Sansa happened to you?

Share

Ted Nugent: Still a Dick

Posted on by
Reply

Ted Nugent in concertTed Nugent is a dick. Let me be clear about the metaphor here. If you stroke Ted Nugent the right way, he’ll spout off all over the place, and the world will be messier for it. Make him feel threatened (or possibly cold), he will shrivel up and hide.

I would say Ted Nugent is a pussy, but that is not accurate for several reasons. First of all, it’s a gendered insult I’m trying to avoid. Second, as we have learned from a joke attributed to Betty White, pussies can take quite a pounding, far more so than Ted Nugent.

The Nuge was back in the news for his more-than-implicit threats to the President, sparking a Secret Service investigation. He is now saying that he has never threatened anybody’s life before. Not only is that not true, but he’s being a real dick about it.

I blogged a bit about Ted back in 2007, when he thought it would be a lark to brag about what he would have done in Vietnam, contrasting that to what he actually did during the war.

The Rutland Herald had the story back in 2006:

The 57-year-old rocker also “told it like it is” during the Vietnam War. Here’s Ted on what he would have done if he went to Vietnam:

“… if I would have gone over there, I’d have been killed, or I’d have killed, or I’d kill all the hippies in the foxholes … I would have killed everybody,” he told the Detroit Free Press in an interview published July 15, 1990.

Fortunately, for our hero, Ted didn’t go to Vietnam.

And how Ted managed to avoid the draft makes President Bush look like a war hero.

In that 1990 interview with the Free Press and from information collected from the Chickenhawk Web site, Nugent told about how he avoided the draft: “He claims that 30 days before his Draft Board Physical, he stopped all forms of personal hygiene. The last 10 days he ingested nothing but junk food and Pepsi, and a week before his physical, he stopped using the bathroom altogether, virtually living inside his pants caked with excrement and urine. That spectacle won Nugent a deferment.”

It says volumes about the character of a man who calls himself the Motor City Madman. The Detroit native went out of his way to avoid the defining experience of his generation, then has the gall to talk about how eagerly he would have killed, “if” he had served.

Remember this the next time the Nuge tries to act tough. He had the opportunity to serve his country and do all those things he spouts off about doing, but when he had the opportunity to do so, he literally shit himself. What a dick.

Photo credit: ‘Ted Nugent in concert’ by Lenny Francioni [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.

Share

Thoughts on Game of Thrones: Balon Greyjoy Blues. Also, Boobies.

Posted on by
Reply

(WATCH FOR SPOILERS!)

Sorry I’m a bit late on this post. I’m sure folks have been waiting eagerly….

A few rhetorical housekeeping matters to get out of the way about Season 2, Episode 3:

Tyrion Lannister and Friends

I do love me some political intrigue. Playing Pycelle, Littlefinger, and Varys off of each other was handled brilliantly.

Balon slaps TheonTheon Greyjoy

The slapping of Theon Greyjoy is a good thing. Not as good as the slapping of Joffrey Baratheon, but a good thing nonetheless. As much as we are supposed to hate Balon Greyjoy, it was pleasant to watch Theon get slapped by his father and smacked down by his sister.

That said, Balon Greyjoy is a dick for reasons extending beyond his demeanor, and Theon is absolutely right. The show has given Theon a depth of character that I feel was missing from the books. The conflict between his almost life-long wardship with House Stark truly conflicts with the primal desire for his father’s love, but his father has no right whatsoever to criticize what Theon has become. It was Balon Greyjoy’s rebellion that caused the deaths of his two other sons and Theon’s wardship with the Starks. Then again, it is asking quite a bit to expect that level of emotional introspection from any Greyjoy, let alone Balon. Continue reading →

Share

A hot high school teacher is accused of sleeping with a student. Commence pearl clutching in 3, 2, 1…

Posted on by
Reply

Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader Sarah Jones after an NFL game on Sept. 3, 2009, in Cincinnati. Credit: AP Photo/David Kohl [Fair use]

Including a picture will help with page views.

When a teacher is accused of inappropriate relations with a student, we as a society have a tendency to react differently depending on who occupies which position on the victim/perpetrator scale. Let me be abundantly clear here that sexual relationships between high school teachers and their students are bad. Unequivocally, uniformly bad, mmmkay? We tend to uniformly condemn male perpetrators who allegedly prey on anyone, long before the trial even starts. When the alleged perpetrator is a woman, though, we are sometimes less certain how to respond.

When the alleged perpetrator is an attractive woman, our notions of gender roles get all befuddled.

When the alleged perpetrator is a former NFL head cheerleader, we go into full-on slut-shaming mode.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

More than anything else, I want to smack that reporter in the face until he admits that he does not work for TMZ.

I don’t know what went on between Sarah Jones and her alleged, unnamed victim (justifiably unnamed because he’s a minor). Prosecutors in Kenton County, Kentucky say they have e-mails and other correspondence that proves the existence of a sexual relationship sometime between October and December 2011. Jones denies any inappropriate relationship. So does the alleged victim, or so we hear. Interestingly, joining the chorus of support for Jones is the alleged victim’s family. Whatever is going on in this case, it is getting interesting.

The twist in this case, at least culturally-speaking, is this:

(1) Sarah Jones is kind of a slamming hottie, particularly when she is all done up in her cheerleader garb. Your typical high school boy, again, culturally speaking, would have rather clear feelings about that. That would not justify a relationship in any way at all, because even a horny kid is still just a kid. The complication for the boy is that a great many people might be tempted not to view him as that much of a victim. This puts the kid in the untenable position of being a victim who is expected, in some circles, to be proud of his victimization. At times, this makes cases like these very difficult to prosecute. At other times, it could make prosecutors very eager to go after such a case, based on an assumption that the victim will not want to talk about it. Or will want to talk about it. If we could just deal with the case based on its particular facts, wouldn’t it be a great world?

(2) Sarah Jones is kind of a slamming hottie, particularly when she is all done up in her cheerleader garb. Some circles of our society (see the TODAY video above) may view her hotness and her choice of skimpy garb as evidence of her guilt, whether they realize it or not. The fact that Sarah Jones once earned supplemental income as a cheerleader has exactly zero to do with the question of her guilt or innocence. But damn if we don’t view that as somehow suspect. Here’s what would tend to go towards proving her guilt: (a) a confession; (b) direct evidence of sexual contact between her and the alleged victim, in the form of DNA, photographs, overt written or recorded references, or eyewitness testimony (which usually comes from one of the two parties to the relationship); or (c) indirect evidence, in the form of cell phone records, sightings of the two in public, the defendant’s car at the alleged victim’s house at 3:00 a.m., and so forth. Here’s what would not tend to go towards proving her guilt: (a) being a cheerleader; (b) wearing short skirts and skimpy tops; (c) getting paid to wear short skirts and skimpy tops; (d) being a young, hot high school teacher who also works as a cheerleader.

If she did it, she should go to jail. If she didn’t, everyone shut up about the cheerleader outfit. Actually, either way, everyone shut up about the cheerleader outfit.

'Lafave' by FL DOC [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Possibly the best mug shot in the history of law enforcement (a fact that was irrelevant to the question of her guilt.)

It might be tempting to think that women get some sort of….not free…but easier pass in cases like this. Debra LaFave only got house arrest and probation, for example, for her tryst with a 14 year-old. This is not the whole story. Remember that for every convicted female perpetrator that gets a seemingly light sentence, there is a male victim that isn’t really viewed as a victim. This is because of two cultural stereotypes: (a) dudes want to do the nasty, and (b) girls are delicate flowers who can’t really hurt us. That may turn out a lighter prison sentence for one female perpetrator, but the rest of humanity–male, female, trans*, and so forth–is worse off for it. It involves negative stereotypes on both sides, but the one against women (that they can’t really hurt men) easily feeds into the stereotype that they can’t really do many things. Then the dudes step in to do things for them.

What I am really saying in that last paragraph is, if you try to use this as an example of how men are the real victims in society, I will mock you. Mercilessly. Possibly using gay porn. Because I know you’d hate that. (Or would you???)

Photo credits: ‘Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader Sarah Jones after an NFL game on Sept. 3, 2009, in Cincinnati,’ AP Photo/David Kohl [Fair use], via CBS News; ‘Lafave’ by FL DOC [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Share

Soon, you will call me master…

Posted on by
Reply

Relampago BSB 12 2006 zoom 8082Introverts run the world, says Susan Cain at CNN:

The theory of evolution. The theory of relativity. The Cat in the Hat. All were brought to you by introverts.

Our culture is biased against quiet and reserved people, but introverts are responsible for some of humanity’s greatest achievements — from Steve Wozniak’s invention of the Apple computer to J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter. And these introverts did what they did not in spite of their temperaments — but because of them.

As the science journalist Winifred Gallagher writes: “The glory of the disposition that stops to consider stimuli rather than rushing to engage with them is its long association with intellectual and artistic achievement. Neither E=mc2 nor Paradise Lost was dashed off by a party animal.”

I haven’t written any bestselling book series (yet) or invented any groundbreaking computer systems, but my power is gathering…

Photo credit: ‘Relampago BSB 12 2006 zoom 8082’ by Mariordo Mario Roberto Duran Ortiz (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

Share

The Congressman who Cried “Menace to Civilization”

Posted on by
Reply

JackassMissouri Republican Representative Todd Akin had some fun zingers recently in Columbia.

Why hasn’t Congress impeached President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder? Rep. Todd Akin says it’s simply a lack of votes. But he says that may change eventually.

Because impeachment has never, ever backfired on Republicans…

“I think some of the thought was, he’s coming up at this point for election and the best way to impeach him is the ballot box,” Akin said. “So I think that’s the thought, because you’re never going to get something through the Senate. That doesn’t mean that at a certain point you just say enough, I don’t care enough about the Senate, duty calls us to just get up and just impeach this guy. And maybe he’s not quite gotten to the point where you’ve got the Republicans — basically all the Republican bloc is not quite mad enough for that.”

Well, that’s saying something.

I suspect this is just some shameless pandering to the unwashed masses. Still, Akin has been the Congressional representative for Missouri’s 2nd District since 2001, and he’s been something of a nut for far longer than that. He has a masters of divinity supplementing his “management engineering” degree, and I can’t even think of an appropriately snarky comment regarding divinity degrees. I feel as though someone who has written extensive fan fiction mashing up Star Trek, Doctor Who, and Grey’s Anatomy ought to receive a comparable degree.

Anyway, Akin really doesn’t like the President. He doesn’t much care for liberals, either:

Rep. Todd Akin, a Republican, was discussing NBC’s recent removal of the words “under God” from a clip of the Pledge of Allegiance during coverage of the U.S. Open.

“Well, I think NBC has a long record of being very liberal, and at the heart of liberalism really is a hatred for God and a belief that government should replace God,” Akin told radio host Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. “This is a systematic effort to try to separate our faith and God, which is a source in our belief in individual liberties, from our country. And when you do that you tear the heart out of our country.”

Akin, who is running in the GOP primary for Missouri’s senate seat, released a statement Tuesday apologizing for his comments.

Akin, a Christian, expressed that he and his family would never “question the sincerity of anyone’s personal relationship with God. My statement during my radio interview was directed at the political movement, liberalism, not at any specific individual.”

Getting back to the point of this post, he seems to be saying that impeachment could be an option in the future. The Constitution allows impeachment as a remedy for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a term that still has no clear definition after roughly 225 years of constitutional jurisprudence. We know it can include getting/lying about blowjobs in the White House. It can also cover the high crime of, uh, being Andrew Johnson. What has President Obama to merit this most extreme of acts?

Still, Akin said he had plenty of relevant concerns: Obama, he said, “ignores the Constitution, he ignores the laws, he wants to impose all of the czars, he completely ignores the train wreck of the economy, which he’s causing with trillion-dollar-plus deficits every year you go along.”

Translation: if Obama does it, it’s impeachable. At least Akin advocates waiting until after the election, if applicable. If Obama gets re-elected, he will either lose all his hair by 2016, or it will all turn some sort of super-gray.

Seriously, though, Rep. Akin is talking about impeachment, the Congressional attempt to remove the President of the United States from office outside of the usual electoral process. It requires sober reflection and dispassionate consideration. What say you, Rep. Akin?

“He is a complete menace to our civilization,” he said. “The question is what’s the best way to get rid of him, I think probably at the ballot box next election, we need to get that done.”

Our civilization??? Yeah, this is going to be a long election season.

Photo credit: ‘Jackass’ by Izmaelt (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.

Share

This will be my last (and only) post about Rick Santorum, because talking about him now makes Mitt Romney look good, and that’s bad

Posted on by
Reply

'Le masque du clown (Comedia dell’arte)' by David JAGER on FlickrWith Rick Santorum’s “suspension” of his campaign yesterday, Mitt Romney is all but guaranteed the Republican nomination for president now (sorry, Newt) (oh, Ron, are you still here? Sorry, I didn’t see you way over there.)

Here’s my brief take on Romney: he is an out of touch buffoon, and the kind of elitist that Republicans usually love, unless they’re tryin’ to be folksy. He is also quite good at telling people what they want to hear. He morphed from a somewhat-centrist conservative to a faux-right-wing wackjob over the course of a few months, and presumably now he is going to try to dial it back. For my part, at least, I hope everyone remembers that Mitt Romney passed a bill much like Obamacare first, but at least Obama had the cojones to stand up for his version of health care reform.

I will say this for Santorum: he is principled, and he is (mostly) disciplined in standing up for those principles. I won’t call his principles “psychotic,” because mental illness is a real problem that deserves attention and care. Santorum’s principles are regressive, authoritarian, divisive, antiquated, unrealistic, misogynistic, racist, ethnocentric, heteronormative, homophobic, fearful, cowardly, inconsistent, hypocritical, elitist, ignorant, insensitive, oppressive, boring, prudish, and just plain wrong.

An article this morning at The Daily Beast by apparent-crazy-person Patricia Murphy purports to highlight Santorum’s strengths and outline how Romney can emulate them. It is a virtuoso performance of misused words:

As Santorum showed during his speech earlier, and Romney reinforced later, the GOP field has lost something very important with Santorum’s departure—a passionate conservative who speaks from the heart, talking not only about his own life, but the lives of people across America who face the same struggles. The GOP is now left with Romney, a man at odds with his party’s base, but more important, a likely nominee at arm’s length from his party’s heart and soul.

I really hope she defines “the same struggles,” because Santorum tends to speak for the dwindling evangelical white ostensibly-conservative faction of America, and few others.

Even as he withdrew from the race, Santorum framed improving the economy as a fight for a country like the one his grandfather left Italy for, when the American Dream was still possible, a country “willing to raise us up instead of trying to provide for us and do for us what we can better do for ourselves.” He also talked about people who have been left behind during the downturn: “Those who are out there paddling alone, who are feeling left behind and in some respects feeling hopeless.”

At first, I just assumed he meant that he had a grandfather who fought on the Italian campaign in World War II. Oh snap! World War II reference brings instant voter support, right? Actually, through the power of Google and an investment of fifteen seconds (less time than it took to type this paragraph), I learned that he probably means his grandfather Pietro Santorum, who left Italy for America in 1920. This was before Mussolini came to power and during the time the United States was gearing up for the Great Depression. I don’t know what the elder Santorum endured as an immigrant in the United States, but he probably had to deal with demagogue politicians seeking to exploit immigrant populations to score political points. That sort of politician is still around today. Let me think of an example…..Rick Santorum comes to mind.

With a set of core beliefs, it has been easy for Santorum throughout the course of the campaign to stay consistent. While Romney has been defined by the changes in his positions over the years, Santorum’s speech Tuesday was remarkably like every town hall he held in Iowa and like the speech he gave to kick off his campaign nearly a year ago.

There is nothing inherently wrong with changing positions on an issue, but it should be for a valid reason, i.e. new information or evidence, changing circumstances, etc. Romney, by and large, has not had good reasons for changing his positions, unless “this is what I think you want to hear” is a good reason (SPOILER ALERT: It’s not a good reason). Santorum, on the other hand, has had good reasons to change his position on many issues. For example, he would be entirely justified in changing his position on contraception on the grounds that it is the 21st century (or the fact that there are no valid non-Biblical grounds for opposing the legality of contraception, and even the Biblical ground is shaky).

As we all learned, painfully at times, from the George W. Bush administration, being steadfast and resolute does no good if you are wrong.

In June 2011, with his family by his side again, he spoke about his grandfather and the American Dream. He talked about “moral currency,” gas prices, the Obama administration’s record on federal spending, and “the rest of America out here trying to survive.”

It was that line, about “the rest of America,” that made Santorum’s campaign different from the others’ including Romney’s, then and now—an element of compassion that voters recognized and responded to and connected with.

“I was smart enough to figure out that if I understood and felt at a very deep level what you were experiencing across America and tried to be a witness to that, tried to be an interpreter of that, that your voice could be heard and miracles could happen and it did,” Santorum told his supporters as he left the race.

Related to an earlier question, who does he mean by “the rest of America?” Does it include all women, not just evangelical ostensibly-conservative ones? Does it include even a single lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, or trans* person? What about blah people? Surely Rick Santorum has not forgotten about the blah people.

Rick Santorum never had a concrete idea for the economy, jobs, foreign policy, or anything else except regulating what happens inside the American people’s skivvies. Don’t give me any crap about compassion. He may feel things very deeply, but don’t believe for a microsecond that he has remotely the same degree of care or compassion for people who don’t look and think like he does.

The bad news for Romney is that many of Santorum’s strengths are hard to learn. Romney is never going to be born the grandson of a coal miner, and he’ll never struggle to succeed or survive the way so many Americans do.

But like Santorum and like Barack Obama before him, Romney can talk to people who are going through the fire, who feel alone or hopeless, and he can listen to their stories, understand their lives, and infuse his campaign with the humanity that has been missing so far.

If I had a bit more time, I would Photoshop Santorum’s face onto a picture of Loretta Lynn with the caption “Coal Miner’s Grandson,” but I’m not going to do that.

It’s still more than six months to the election. Barack Obama is far from perfect, but then any human being is far from perfect. Mitt Romney is below the median point of perfection and has been steadily digging himself downward. Still, it could be anyone’s ball game seven months from now. I don’t have an especially high opinion of people in large groups, as a review of anything I’ve ever written or said throughout my life will demonstrate. There is a good chance that the electorate going to the polls in November will include at least some portion of the people who did not know the movie “Titanic” was inspired by a true story.

Photo credit: ‘Le masque du clown (Comedia dell’arte)’ by David JAGER on Flickr.

Share

Secular High School Student Refuses to Attend Graduation in a Megachurch

Posted on by
Reply

'Solid Rock megachurch' by Joe Shlabotnik from Forest Hills, Queens, USA (King Of Kings) [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

This is not the same megachurch, but it gives you the idea

Here’s a fun story from Decatur, Georgia: Nahkoura Mahnassi, a 16 year-old senior at Southwest DeKalb High School is refusing to attend her own graduation on May 25 because the school is holding it at a church. Now this is a public high school, and they did not pick just any church. They picked New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, a megachurch whose pastor, Eddie Long, is apparently no stranger to controversy. After a series of scandals, he had himself crowned “king” during a service one Sunday a few months ago.

Back to the case at hand: Mahnassi reportedly has a 3.8 GPA and is described as a “star student.” She also claims no religious affiliation and does not think it is appropriate for a public high school, where students have a diversity of backgrounds, to hold its graduation in a location that is so overtly sectarian:

In this case, it’s what she doesn’t believe in and that’s her school’s decision to have their graduation ceremony at Eddie Long’s New Birth Missionary Baptist Church.

When her peers ask why, she tells them, “It’s kind of a long story, but I don’t like churches or New Birth so I’m not going.”

The school district issued the following statement to the media:

The school district is holding commencements this year at a number of locations throughout the community, including school district stadiums and the Georgia Dome. Each year, the school district looks to find spaces big enough to host our largest graduating classes. This year, Southwest DeKalb High School is holding its graduation at a faith-based organization in the community. This is based on a previous agreement that expires this year. We will continue to work to find the best and most appropriate venues to accommodate our students as they celebrate such an important milestone.

The problem here is that it is exceedingly difficult to hold a public school event in a religious facility while keeping the two separate. This is doubly, triply, or even quadruply true when it comes to a controversial establishment like New Birth. The school district’s position seems reasonable. If the concern really is for finding a venue large enough to handle the size of the event, that speaks to a different problem. Communities ought to have a public venue that people can use regardless of faith or lack thereof. A building is not always just a building, as Mahnassi’s mother, Alisha Brown, noted:

[The school] said, ‘Well, it’s just a building,’ and of course I posed the question if it was a Satanist church I’m sure the Christians would be up in arms and say, ‘No, no, no. We’re not going to go there.’ So it’s not a matter of ‘It’s just a building.’ That’s totally not true.

It’s an overblown example, perhaps, but it is still spot-on.

It is important to get this story out there because, although it does not seem to have happened yet, the hate may start piling on. The only other news article I could find on this story was at the Christian Post, and the author and the commenters have been quite restrained (so far). If this turns into something like what Jessica Ahlquist had to deal with, then the internet needs to step up.

Photo credit: ‘Solid Rock megachurch’ by Joe Shlabotnik from Forest Hills, Queens, USA (King Of Kings) [CC-BY-2.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Share

Thoughts on Game of Thrones: Seriously, what’s with all the shagging?

Posted on by
Reply

(SPOILERS COMING AT YOU LIKE A GELATINOUS CUBE)

(SPOILERS ONLY APPLY TO THE TV SHOW. FOR THE BOOKS, WATCH OUT FOR TANTALIZING HINTS)

The Night is Dark and Full of Terrors

Sunday night’s episode, “The Night Lands,” felt like a very long set-up to…..something. I am coming to the realization that I do not know for certain what that something might be.

Before getting into the nuts & bolts of the episode, I feel a bit of a mea culpa coming on about the books. I’ve read the first four books, twice. I started reading the first book, A Game of Thrones, in the summer of 2007, and I finished my first reading of book 4, A Feast for Crows, in roughly December 2008. When discussing the TV show with others, I often feel a need to interject sentences beginning with “But in the book they…” When discussing the books, I tend to feel the need to point out that 2007 to 2008 time frame.

In short, I was into Game of Thrones before it was cool.

I just needed to get that off my chest.

Most of my thoughts on this week’s episode involve specific characters, and how they either met my expectations or made me stop and ponder.

Jaqen H’ghar: Remember the three guys locked in the cart in the group going to the Wall? Arya hit one of them with a stick after he demanded ale? Jaqen is the polite one who speaks entirely in the third person (“A girl has more courage than wits”). He did not look at all like how I pictured him, but his mannerisms are exactly what I imagined. I hope they do something cool with him.

“i will not fail you, blood of my blood.”Rakharo: So, I guess they’re not shipping Daenerys and Rakharo after all. Nice bait and switch. This one seriously threw me, because this does not happen in the books, and it actually throws off some of Daenerys’ story. The scuttlebutt is that the actor playing Rakharo got a movie role and had to leave the show, so they gave him a moment of tender screen time with his khaleesi.

Truth be told, Daenerys’ three bloodriders (Aggo, Jhogo, and Rakharo) aren’t exactly deeply-developed characters anyway. I was surprised last week that they went so far as to cast all three roles and make a point of teaching us their names, but now I think I know why. (They combined Drogo’s three bloodriders into one character last season.) Daenerys’ bloodriders are mostly just a sort of bad-ass Huey, Dewey, and Louie, so maybe the loss of one of them will lead to further development of the other two characters.

On an semi-related spoilery note, I really like the actress who plays Doreah.

Tyrion Lannister: Did anyone else notice that he moved up in the billing on the show? While Janos Slynt, captain of the City Watch, did not look at all like how I pictured him–he was described, as I recall, as being jowly, so I pictured someone like Maury Chaykin–the scene where Tyrion sends him to the Wall was still a thing of beauty. His interactions with Cersei and Varys were interesting to watch. The cat-and-mouse games depicted in the book must be hard to translate to a screenplay–I expect there to be more slapping, stomping, and slamming of doors in future episodes.

Continue reading →

Share

Living in a Blue Law Bubble

Posted on by
Reply

Unidentified white wine in glassWe went to Easter lunch today at my aunt & uncle’s house. As we were preparing for a drive to the land of my birth to commemorate the fact that we used to celebrate Easter, it occurred to us that we should bring something. It is, after all, customary to contribute something when you are a guest in someone’s home. After consulting with other family members, it became clear that we should keep it simple and just bring wine. Everyone likes the person who brings wine. It requires no effort, and who doesn’t like wine? (I don’t drink, but even I appreciate a visually-appealing wine bottle.)

Being the lazy fellow that I am, I waited until this morning to buy a bottle of wine. The big grocery store, H.E.B., was completely closed. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised by that. We went to the nearby Walgreens, grabbed a bottle of white (my aunt and uncle like white wine), and headed to the register. It was 10:30 a.m.

“Um, I don’t think I can sell this to you right now,” said the clearly sympathetic clerk.

Yes, in the secular bubble that is Austin, Texas, I had completely forgotten that Texas blue laws prohibit the sale of alcohol before noon on Sundays. The sale of distilled spirits of any kind is prohibited entirely in Texas on Sundays.

Because, as we all know, Texans like small government, and what better way to limit government’s pernicious influence over us than to allow it to dictate when we can and cannot buy booze? At least we know that no one will buy a box of wine, get drunk, and accidentally……do something that we, as a people, have a right to prevent people from doing when drunk on a Sunday morning. I’m sorry, I can’t even think of a sarcastic example of what this law might legitimately prohibit. It’s just that stupid.

The only reason these laws exist is to enforce some sort of religious standard that hasn’t existed in many communities for decades, if ever. Yet many of these laws apply statewide. Some Texas counties are “dry,” which often just means that you can’t buy alcohol unless you buy a “membership” to a restaurant. I’m not sure where that membership fee goes, although it would not surprise me if some part of it ended up in the county’s coffers. So the church-going folk get to pretend their community adheres to their own antiquated notion of morality, and the county (possibly) pockets a little extra change. Winners all around, right?

Except that it makes us all look like assholes.

Photo credit: ‘Unidentified white wine in glass’ by Basheer Tome (originally posted to Flickr as White Wine) [CC-BY-2.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

Share