Reactions this soon can be dangerous.

To misquote a little green guy: "If once you start down the spoiler path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will..."  Consider yourselves warned that spoilers (and speculations) do exist here.  Read with caution.

Okay, I know I probably shouldn't be doing this, but I've got to tell someone.

A couple days ago I saw The Force Awakens.  I stayed quite calm up until the lights dimmed, then the rush hit.  The music and opening that we've come to expect passed, and there was a planet being eclipsed by a dagger-like shadow.  I knew at that point that all the naysayers were wrong.

In all of Zahn's "Rebellion Era" novels, the opening pages take place on a Star Destroyer, just like all three of the Original Trilogy films.  To start with one of those giant war machines was for me the final piece of the "we're back" puzzle.  This wasn't a remake of Star Wars, it is Star Wars.

Now I've heard a lot of gripes about many things, some big and some trivial.  I've only got two, and I'm chalking them up to "not what I expected."

The music didn't immediately harken back to the Originals, or even the Prequels, but I'll admit I was so busy watching the plot that I wasn't paying attention to the score.  I did catch the "Force Theme" being used at significant events, which makes sense.  Also, since the old music was so little used (from what I recall), it kinda blows my theory that Rey is a member of the family.  It could still happen, but as of now all I can do is shrug and wait for Episode VIII.

The second thing was a few of the camera moves.  Now, in their context, they make perfect sense.  They just didn't feel like "Star Wars."  One was more "fantasy epic," a'la Lord of the Rings, while the other was more thriller, like Hitchcock.  I'm going to have to watch a few more times to get my mind wrapped around them and why they were used.  And I do intend on giving Abrams every opportunity to convince me his choices were right (they probably were).

So, besides a few almost slips in my willing suspension of disbelief, I have nothing bad to say about the film.  But I would like to discuss one occurrence that some are upset about.  However, I don't want to spoil it for anyone.  If you want to read what I think about it, you'll need to highlight the following section.  Warning: here be spoilers.

Han Solo dies at the hands of his son, Ben, who now goes by the name Kylo Ren.  Anyone familiar with the Legends (the old Expanded Universe) knows that Han and Leia's eldest son, Jacen, turns to the dark side.

In the movie, Ben had been trained as a Jedi by his uncle, but was corrupted by Snoke and kills all the Jedi but Luke.  This is why Luke is in hiding.  This also led to Han and Leia breaking up, and probably why Han lost the Falcon.

At the end of the movie, while Han and Chewie are setting up explosives to take out a critical portion of the enemy base, Han confronts his son.  Ben says he doesn't think he's strong enough to do what he has to do.  He makes a showing of handing his lightsaber to Han, but then stabs him and pitches him into a nigh bottomless chasm.  Ben had been told that to completely overcome the light side he had to kill his father.  (Now, I'm betting that isn't the last we hear of Ben's wavering loyalties.)

I wasn't surprised it happened.  The moment Han yell out his son's name I knew that there would be a confrontation, and only one would leave alive.  And since we know Han likes to shoot first, and we need a bad guy for two more movies, it was obvious who would die.  I was surprised that there were no reactions, no gasps, no cries, no screaming or throwing popcorn.  Maybe everyone else saw it coming too.

Some have said that it wasn't a "fitting" death for Han.  I disagree.  In "Vector Prime," Chewie dies.  The death, however, is quite spectacular, but that's not important.  The why is.  This was the first book in a new series, following the official end of the Galactic Civil War.  There were no more new bad guys or superweapons.  Then along comes an alien race from another galaxy who grow their technology and who cannot be felt in the Force.  At all.  And they destroy a planet by forcing its moon to crash into it.  To show that these guys mean business, it was only fitting that one of the most unstoppable characters be killed off.  If Chewie can die at their hands, is anyone safe?  Anyway, the New Jedi Order is a good read, so if you get a chance, pick them up (even if they are unofficial now).

Regarding Han's death, its the same idea.  When we first met Kylo, he stops a blaster bolt.  Not like Vader did, but actually freezes it in midair.  For a full minute.  While having a conversation.  And doesn't release it until after leaving the area.  The bad guy's powers have been ramped up since the last movie.  So here comes Han, hoping to use the love of a parent to save his son.  It worked for Vader, so it should work on Ben.  And it almost did.

I think Han knew it would happen, but he had to see it through to the end.  Ben was obviously scared of his father, since he was hesitant to speak of him with Snoke.  And by scared I mean afraid he had disappointed someone he used to look up to.  Han knew that he had one last chance to influence Ben, regardless of whether he lived or died.  He even seemed more surprised than angry that Ben killed him.  Chewie on the other hand....

I've heard that Ford is slated to be in Ep. VIII, but I don't see how, except in flashbacks or dreams perhaps.  We'll see.

Okay, spoiler and "crazy fan theory" over.  I'll probably switch that to "readable" sometime after February.  Actually the speculation is not entirely over.  The movie left with more of a cliff-hanger than any other, I think.  We still don't know who Rey's parents are.  I'm positive its not Han and Leia, since neither spoke to her in such a way.  But since they didn't speak to her as family at all, she may not be a Skywalker.  Though perhaps they didn't know.  The only things supporting her being a Skywalker, now, is the immense untrained Force power, the lightsaber "calling" to her, and the use of the "Force Theme" at key elements in her story.  Even the ending and her vision left it ambiguous. 

I'm willing to bet, though, that, based on her age, her father was training/training with the Jedi, and her mother went off on a mission, leaving her him an ally's care.  Things happened, and her parent/parents were casualties of the Jedi massacre.  So now its just a question of whether Luke is her father, or her parents' teacher.  And if he tells her the truth, or goes at it "from a certain point of view."  That's enough plot speculation for now.

The countdown to Episode VIII (coming May 26, 2017) begins.

Red 5, standing by...

As of now, there is just over a month between this post and the release of Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

I'll start this post off with the obvious: I was wrong.  See my post A Long Time Ago... for what was said, and compare that to what we know now.  The EU is now "legends" and basically nonexistent.  (bummer)

But, in admitting I was wrong, I've come to discover that these changes are good.  Now, instead of having to worry about the continuity of hundreds of thousands of storylines, a fresh take on Star Wars will be presented.  The spirit of the universe is the same, we've just traded up from a very well loved (if abused) sedan to a simpler (and cleaner) convertible.

I'll admit that I was ecstatic when the teasers came out.  And nearly hyperventilated after seeing the trailer.  In fact, I heard about the trailer being released, but since I had to work, my excitement was curtailed until the following day.

And it was worth it.  Everything, from the music, to the effects, to what little of the story was revealed, all of it was a massive nostalgia trip.  It isn't an homage or even an attempt at a sequel.  This is Star Wars.  The shot of the Falcon jumping into hyperspace was incredible.

Then the trailer for Japan shows up online.

Now, I've heard my share of theories, and even come up with a few myself.  For a while, I, like many, have been leaning toward Rey being the daughter of one of the main characters from the OT.  And the Japanese trailer seems to confirm that.  One of my wife's favorite movies is "Field of Dreams."  When it was released in Japan, the posters revealed the ending (spoiler): Costner's character reconciles with his deceased father.  This makes sense since Japanese culture considers family very important.  So, no surprise that the trailer/teaser for them includes a potential spoiler.

It also doesn't negate my personal theory that she and Kylo are siblings.  Notice her location and reaction at the end of the trailer.  She's looks distraught, like seeing two people close to her fighting.  And it looks like she's at the same location we see Kylo stalking around in, before Finn pulls out the Skywalker Lightsaber.  So, here's my guess: Rey and Kylo are brother and sister, and Kylo's real name might be Ben, if Abrams keeps that part of the old EU.

There, I said it.  I think Kylo is Luke's son.  ("The circle is now complete," perhaps.)

I also noticed that Kylo's saber sounds (and ignites) differently than every other saber.  Mostly I found it interesting.  But we now see him nearly behead Rey on a wooded world.  Same one where Han and Co. get captured?  Same one the stormtroopers are on when X-Wings show up?  Same one where Luke and R2 are camping out?  I don't know yet.

And what is the Falcon doing on Jakku?  Why isn't it with Han from the get-go?  Waiting patiently for that answer.

I am also assuming that Poe gets captured near the beginning, since BB-8 is supposed to be his droid. We have a scene of Poe being lead down what is likely to be a Star Destroyer, and a (likely) follow-up where Kylo is torturing him.  We see an SD orbiting a desert world (Jakku, probably), with a damaged TIE tumbling.  Maybe Poe got in a fight and had to eject, but BB-8 stuck with the ship and rode it down, only to be scavenged by Rey.  Wouldn't be the first time a desert dweller was called to adventure by a droid.

Which potentially means that The Force Awakens will follow the basic pattern of A New Hope.

Consider:
ANH opens with fight between blockade runner and star destroyer.
Assumption: TFA might open with fight between Resistance forces and star destroyer.
ANH has droids crash land on Tatooine.
Assumption: TFA has droid crash land on Jakku.
ANH has Lars homestead destroyed by Empire.
Assumption: TFA has Rey's camp site destroyed by First Order.
ANH has Luke, Kenobi, and droids meet Han and Chewie.
Assumption: TFA has Rey, Finn, and BB-8 meet Han and Chewie.
ANH has the Falcon fly to meet with Organa, then land on the Death Star.
Assumption: TFA has the Falcon fly to meet with Luke, then be captured by First Order.
ANH has Luke, Han, and Chewie rescue Leia.
Assumption: TFA has Rey and Co. rescue Poe.
ANH has fight between Kenobi and Vader.
Assumption: TFA has fight between Kylo and Finn.
ANH has the "trench run."
Assumption: TFA has a trench on the First Order's base world (Starkiller Base?)

Ridiculous?  Sure could be.  But, this is Star Wars.  There are thousands of possibilities.  That's what made the EU so great.  Around every corner was a new tale, waiting to be told.

Your fanaticism fills me with shame

Sorry its been a while, and that this is the topic to bring me back.

I was born in Nebraska, but I've only been to one Husker game.  Up until last year I had never owned any Husker apparel.  I am, in a word, apathetic regarding sports in general.  I usually don't care about organized sports, nor the fans who follow them.  People put too much value in something vastly unimportant and fleeting.

Which is why it disgusts me to hear Nebraskans treating football as a religion.  Every week season ticket holders make their pilgrimage to the "mecca of college football."  And this year, every week numerous "fans" are disparaging the team.  Why?  Because the fans have forgotten the purpose of football at UNL.

This will come as a shock to some, but it is true.  I really don't care if some people don't like it.  The cold hard truth is that UNL does not exist to support Husker football.  The Huskers exist for the benefit of UNL.

Think about it.  Every fan attending a game adds to the funds available to the university.  Funds that go into educational and research programs.  Programs that turn out intelligent young men and women who can find solutions to the next problem the world faces.  The football program itself recruits young men to be scholar-athletes.  They are being "paid" by getting a world class education.  On the field they are learning sportsmanship and teamwork, which are much more valuable lessons than how to orchestrate a blow-out.

I have heard too many "fans" saying, essentially: "if they [the players] can't do their job, then they should be replaced."  The "job" of these 20-something year old men is to be students.  If you refuse to accept that, then perhaps you should watch something else.

Now, I'm all for athletes striving for their best, which means winning more than losing.  And I've nothing against fans expecting the team they support to be the best.  But sometimes the other team is better.  And no matter what, a true fan supports the student-player, regardless.  That is what used to make Nebraska great.  Get behind the team and be patient.

(Okay, enough ranting.  Lets move on and get to some fun topics.  And, Husker fans, don't make this a routine posting.  I, and you, have more important things to do than bicker about a game.)

Comparing history and confusing apples for dynamite

Okay, its been a long while since I've written, but something said on the news has been bugging me.

I've been hearing a number of "talking heads" (mostly Democrats) comparing the "acceptableness" of a diplomatic negotiation with Iran regarding a nuclear weapon with the discussions between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

It is official: we don't teach enough history in schools.  We're a nation of people who understand useless things like football and quadratic equations but have no idea about the danger of isolationism and the pointlessness of diplomacy without the threat of military force.  Or, to be blunt, we are making ourselves stupid because we've placed math at the top and history at the bottom.

Education rant over, on to why POTUS and all his supporters are worse than wrong on this.

In the 1930s we, as a nation, were stupid.  Officially its called isolationism.  There were problems in the world in the name of Hitler, Tojo, and Stalin.  But those threats were across oceans, so they could "never" hurt us, so we buried our heads in the sand.  The "heroic" Charles Lindbergh was quasi-pro-Nazi, visiting Berlin and speaking with the architect of The Cataclysm.  We had a president who was extremely reluctant to aid Britain in the early portions of the war.  It took a dastardly attack to get us to wake up.

Right now we have a president who is emulating not Franklin Roosevelt (sadly) but Woodrow Wilson.  There is no doubt, when you read history (not what's in the textbooks, throw those in the recycle bin) it is painfully evident that Wilson failed.  He drug his feet to get the US to war, and had people in positions of authority who made stupid mistakes that left our boys ill-prepared for the trenches.  He went to Versailles, not with military or political advisors, but fellow law professors and marketing advisors with the goal to create a world "safe for democracy."  He preached the "14 Points," the League of Nations, and self-determination for nations.  (Note: of all the nations once part of the German, Austrian, or Russian empires, there were some nations who did not get to be part of this.  The nations of the Balkans were "gifted" to Serbia, the instigator of the war.  Yugoslavia would go on to cause trouble for the next century.  Thanks a lot Wilson.)  His lackluster participation in the intervention against the Soviet Union resulted in nothing.  In the end, the failing of the Treaty of Versailles is what established the Second World War.

Obama wants to be the next Wilson, thinking that "pen is mightier than the sword."  Other than the third Indiana Jones movie, pen's are not useful as weapons at all.  Diplomacy lead to the Munich Agreement, which was claimed to achieve peace.

Here's the quick version: British PM visited insane dictator who clearly stated (in a best selling book) what his intentions were.  PM is sure he can discuss with dictator as equals with common goals and values.  Dictator convinces PM that he and his people will behave.  PM says diplomacy works.  Dictator breaks his word.

Hmm... so far Obama is discussing with an insane dictator who has clearly stated (in everything) what his intentions are.  And Obama is sure we can discuss with dictator as equals with common goals and values.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to 1938.

And this is the where the uneducated master-degree-holding liberal political "scientists" say "well, Reagan negotiated with the Soviet Union.  Weren't the Soviets evil, too?"  They try to use the descriptions of the Iran regime and DAESH to describe the USSR.  But they do not want to allow anyone to explain what the difference is.  They think "oh, if I can convince people Reagan did it than Obama will be allowed to do it."

If Obama would do what Reagan did I'd be okay.  (Note: what Reagan did was enlarge the military and force the Soviets to run out of money trying to keep up.)

While there is some truth to the liberals' lies (as usual), they've left out the cornerstone issue: religion.

What is the difference between communism and Islam?  One is a political theory, the other is a religion.  This means that there are different rules to how you deal with each.  This is the same as the argument between science and religion or history.  (Those of you who think you can use science to "disprove" Christianity, note, you can't any more than a peashooter can take out a battleship.)

The methods, philosophies, and rules governing these two schools of thought are very different, and even mutually exclusive at times.  A diplomatic method that works for discussions between two political entities do not work when trying to discuss anything with a fundamentalist religion.  You have to play by the rules of the academic discipline.  What works to create treaties between two nations does not work regarding religion.

Suppose a religion believes that an alien made out of bacon told them that they can only wear wooden clogs on Tuesday, and that anyone who doesn't deserves to be flogged with a wet squirrel and beheaded.  No one should expect to have a calm and rational discussion with this religion's leaders.

We have a better chance to convince North Korea to give up its military than to diplomatically deal with Iran and convince them to delay their nuclear program.  That's one of the problems with diplomacy: compromise.  Diplomacy only works as compromise, either with both parties as equals (or near equals) or with one party who is stronger and the weaker party must concede something.  Regardless, both sides must be willing to compromise and negotiate.

Megalomaniacal dictatorships do not compromise.  The Soviets were willing to compromise, because they were willing to take the "slow path" to victory by spreading their political system through diplomacy and aid programs (and small proxy wars).  The Iranians are not willing to compromise because they desire to have victory now, through fear, terrorism, nuclear programs, and proxy wars.

What the president doesn't understand is that this is not about what the American people (along with most of the world) want.  It is what we don't want.  We don't want a bunch of lunatics who call themselves the leaders of Iran to be in possession of the most powerful military explosive or the ability to make one.  Not "no nuclear weapon but peaceful nuclear power."

Historically speaking there is no such thing as "peaceful nuclear power."  Chernobyl is a prime example of nuclear power gone wrong.  And which came first, the nuclear reactor to create electricity, or the atomic bomb?  If you can't answer that without looking it up, you obviously failed history class.

Our political leaders and their advisors believe that they can find a peaceful solution through diplomacy and compromise.  I'm all for peace, but I know more about international politics than Obama.  Any parent who believes in healthy discipline is smarter than Obama (and by extension the UN and Woodrow Wilson) regarding diplomacy.

Healthy discipline means I am not my child's best friend, or that I use appeasement (sticker charts, rewards) to convince him to do something.  And I do not compromise.  When I say "pick up your toys" there is no negotiations.  He must pick up.  Failure to do so results in consequences.

Obama is like the parent who is willing to say "okay, five more minute, then bedtime," each time the kids whine "but dad."  There is a place for healthy fear, and that place is especially obvious in politics.  Rogue nations who do not care for anyone's survival should be afraid that tomorrow an American carrier task force could be off their coast with planes loaded to strike.  They should go to sleep at night wondering which vital portions of infrastructure will be targeted by American cruise missiles.  They should be paranoid that we have listening devices in every meeting room and are recording every conversation.  They should wake up every morning thankful we didn't send troops in the night to liberate their nation.

We should be taking the same position in the world that the Jedi had in the Star Wars universe.  The Jedi were the "guardians of peace and justice."  One Jedi was enough to send countless thugs, criminals, and warlords running.  Those who did evil had every right to fear them.  Those who sought protection from evil saw the Jedi as heroes.

America used to be like that.  Our allies saw us as ready and willing to come to their aid against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  Our enemies rightly feared us.  Right now, though, our enemies laugh at us because they know that the American people are powerless to stop them.  And we are powerless because our elected elders have relinquished power in the name of diplomacy.

Suppose you travel to Africa on a safari and a lion starts to chase you.  Which one of these two items will be more likely to safe your life: a Hallmark card or a shotgun?

Right now there is some sort of sporting event happening.  But which is more likely to win a championship game: skilled cheerleaders or a talented team?  No victorious sports team has won because they spoke nicely to their opponents and compromised saying "you can have one goal, and we'll take two."  No, in sports you win by being better than the other team.  The better your players, the more you practice, the more likely you are to win.  (Yes, I'm not counting "underdogs," but only because the example is the norm.)

But regarding Iran and its desire for nukes, we don't want them to play nice.  We don't even want to play them "fairly" on the court.  We want them to sit on the bench and forfeit.