I blogged about this show after season one ended, and now that the season 2 finale shows this Sunday, it’s time to plug it again. I’ll copy the basics from my earlier post and add what’s new since then.

It’s not often I blog about a movie or TV series unless I find one that’s either controversial or one that I think is underrated and I want to share. It’s the latter with AMC’s original series Breaking Bad.

Break Bad (v.) 1. to challenge convention 2. to defy authority 3. to raise hell

Chemistry: the study of change. Meet Walter White, a high school chemistry teacher sleepwalking through life when, boom, a terminal diagnosis changes everything. Liberates him. Empowers him to use his chemistry skills anew: to man a rolling drug lab and finance the future for his struggling family. It’s an uncontrolled experiment with the American dream. And it finally wakes him up. Breaking Bad: Change the Equation.

It stars the great Bryan Cranston, from Malcolm In The Middle, but this time in a more serious role. More specifically, he uses his knowledge of chemistry to bake meth, while trying to deal with his terminal cancer diagnosis, various family issues, still teach, and work with his not-so-smart of a meth dealing partner.

At first I was very skeptical of the show. Numb3rs didn’t work for me, as I felt the inclusion of math as a way to solve crimes seemed forced into the script. And this is coming from someone who likes math and loves to learn more. The chemistry used in the plot for this show, however, flows very easily. Doesn’t seem forced or like they’re trying to teach people stuff for the sake of teaching people stuff. The Register even thinks it may help save chemistry and make it cool again. Although it’s not airing over there, except on FX.

Which is where the internet comes in. You can get season one on DVD from various sources, or download the entire season from iTunes or also Amazon.

One cool thing is that since the popularity of the show has taken off, there are a lot of extras on the website. Videos, forums, and my favorite, Hank’s blog.

I couldn’t see where season 2 will be repeating on AMC yet, but I would think it would be repeating, if nothing else, before season 3 starts.

Technorati tags: breaking bad, chemistry, amc tv

Just in time for bikini season, Marvel is releasing TWO comic titles which feature an all woman heroine cast! But because we can’t have a female hero, super or otherwise, be something other than an object for teenage boy’s and men’s entertainment or a woman in a refrigerator, both titles are sexified up!

Via SeeBelow*, first up is Models, Inc.. Let’s let Marvel themselves tell us about it:

Fashion Week is always a hectic time for models, and this year is no exception. Between escaped wolves, robbery attempts, and overly friendly police officers, Mary Jane Watson, Patsy Walker, Jill Jerold, Chili Storm and Millicent (Millie the Model) Collins are testing the limits of their endurance. But when a brilliant young set designer is found murdered with three bullet holes in his back, and Millie proves to be the prime suspect, the models are forced to play detective in order to save one of their own!

Yeah. Just what I was looking for when I wanted a strong female character driven comic. Models who fight crime. Think the description is bad, just take a look at the cover, complete with the typical crap that goes with “women’s” magazines, like how to lose fat or articles about makeup.

As a female comic fan, those covers would not make me want to read them. And while I find them insulting, it’s the second comic that makes me stabby. Meet the Marvel Divas! Because nothing says superhero like “hot sexy fun”!

“The idea behind the series was to have some sudsy fun and lift the curtain a bit and take a peep at some of our most fabulous super heroines,” says Marvel’s Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa, “In the series, they’re an unlikely foursome of friends–Black Cat, Hell Cat, Firestar, and Photon–with TWO things in common: They’re all leading double-lives and they’re all having romantic trouble. The pitch started as “Sex and the City” in the Marvel Universe, and there’s definitely that “naughty” element to it, but I also think the series is doing to a deeper place, asking question about what it means…truly means…to be a woman in an industry dominated by testosterone and guns. (And I mean both the super hero industry and the comic book industry.) But mostly it’s just a lot of hot fun.”

Who, exactly, is this for again? There’s the implication that we get to see them naked in the shower. The “naughty element” and “hot fun”. It doesn’t sound like a comic that is geared toward a largely female readership to me. Besides, I can’t imagine that if you wanted to get into what it truly means to be a woman in a male dominated industry you’d hear them talking about their romantic lives instead of talking about the sexism, discrimination, and frustrations actual women who do work in a male dominated industry deal with every day.

As if that alone wasn’t enough, Marvel’s editor in chief Joe Quesada had this to say about the criticisms:

If you’re [a] Marvel reader and truly feel we’re sexist, then why are you reading our books? Now, perhaps you’re not a Marvel reader, then if that’s the case, I’m not quite sure what you’re criticizing if you don’t read our books?

You get that? He doesn’t think they are sexist, otherwise why is he addressing the reader as thinking that way, and even if they are, he doesn’t care. Especially if you don’t read their books, then he doesn’t want to hear your opinion. He’ll do whatever it takes to make money, even if it means insulting and alienating readers. His idea of a strong woman and feminism is someone who can kick ass while looking sexy. Because it’s all about how a woman makes herself look for the pleasure of others, not what she accomplishes or even just what she wants for herself.

It’s crap like this that drives me to read good comics that can take issues, tell good stories, and often have beautiful artwork.

Technorati tags: marvel, comics, sexism

Like many people, my initial reaction to the California Supreme Court’s decision about Proposition 8 infuriated and saddened me. Their decision created a group of about 18,000 gays and lesbians who are more equal than all the rest with regards to marriage.

However, as I read more about the decision and the protests that followed, I began to suspect this wasn’t something to get so upset about. Were all the protests and anger justified? Sure, I’d never say someone doesn’t have the right to get angry or not protest. But if we look deeper into the written opinions by the judges, something becomes clear. Seneca Doane at Daily Kos read the decision and found that on page 36, Prop 8 may be more of a loss for the bigots than for marriage equality.

Today, the court unanimously upheld the substantive fundamental right. Liberal to conservative, they all now accept it. They construed Prop 8 as narrowly as possible: as a initiative that addressed what we would label these relationships that we normally call marriage. The voters said that we can’t call these relationships “marriage” when they involve same-sex couples.

…

Voters thought that they were putting an end to gay couples being able to take a legal step that gave them the privileges and immunities of marriage. They thought that they were undoing In re Marriage Cases. [The decision last year that gave same-sex couples the right to marriage] What the Supreme Court said, essentially is: “OK, public, we will give you the ground that we technically have to cede — and not a millimeter more. Except for the one thing that you have specifically forced us to change, In re Marriage Cases stands as we wrote it. Except now it’s not a 4-3 decision, it’s 7-0.”

And the verifying part was found on pages 36 - 37:

Here the new constitutional provision (art. I, § 7.5) provides in full: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” By its terms, the new provision refers only to “marriage” and does not address the right to establish an officially recognized family relationship, which may bear a name or designation other than “marriage.” Accordingly, although the wording of the new constitutional provision reasonably is understood as limiting use of the designation of “marriage” under California *\37 law to opposite-sex couples, and thereby modifying the decision in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757, insofar as the majority opinion in that case holds that limiting the designation of “marriage” to the relationship entered into by opposite-sex couples constitutes an impermissible impingement upon the state constitutional rights of privacy and due process, the language of article I, section 7.5, on its face, does not purport to alter or affect the more general holding in the Marriage Cases that same-sex couples, as well as opposite-sex couples, enjoy the constitutional right, under the privacy and due process clauses of the California Constitution, to establish an officially recognized family relationship. Because, as a general matter, the repeal of constitutional provisions by implication is disfavored (see, e.g., In re Thiery S. (1979) 19 Cal.3d 727, 744; Warne v. Harkness (1963) 60 Cal.2d 579, 587-588), Proposition 8 reasonably must be interpreted in a limited fashion as eliminating only the right of same-sex couples to equal access to the designation of marriage, and as not otherwise affecting the constitutional right of those couples to establish an officially recognized family relationship.

Ok, let that sink in. It took me a couple of reads before it clicked, but Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster, Seneca is right. The court, which before only had a majority that believed same sex couples had the same marriage rights as hetero couples, now unanimously believes they do. And that while Prop 8 is still in effect, denying those rights is unconstitutional. So while gays and lesbians can’t get “married”, they can get “civil unioned” or “hitched” or whatever they want to call it as long as it’s not “marriage”.

Wow. That’s pretty sneaky and clever, really.

So what now? Well, there’s still the issue of getting rid of Prop 8, and hopefully in 2010 or 2012 another ballot initiative will be introduced and pass. For those interested, Join The Impact has been great about getting info out about protests and what people can do to help Reject Prop 8. And for those of us in Oklahoma? We can donate time or money, or find a LGBQTI friendly organization and see if they have any plans for protests or need help fighting for equality here.

It will be a long and hard battle at times, but marriage equality will and is winning.

Technorati tags: proposition 8, marriage equality, civil rights

My first Christmas I learned the horrors of robots. But I never would have guessed how truly terrifying they could be until after my last visit to the zoo.

When Mommy and Daddy told me we were going to the zoo, I was really excited. I like seeing all the animals, and was told this trip we’d also see some dinosaurs! I love going to see the dinosaur bones at the Sam Noble.

After walking around and seeing a lot of animals, we went into a big white tent. I saw some dinosaur bones, but something wasn’t quite right. There was a loud roar that filled the tent, and when we came around the corner, I saw where it was coming from. A huge robot dinosaur. I quickly went behind Daddy and told him we needed to go back this way, pointing to where we just came in. He picked me up and tried to tell me it was ok while he took me to the robot dinosaurs. I kept telling Mommy and Daddy that we needed to go back, but they insisted it was ok, and pointed to a big Triceratops. It was as big as Mommy’s car! But it was the robot dinosaur with the long neck that moved that really scared me. I began crying and saying “No!!! Go back that way!” over and over, and only after then did Mommy and Daddy take me out. But not after we had to walk by a dinosaur that was bigger than our house.

We finally got outside and I began to calm down. Mommy and Daddy said we were going home, and I was relieved to find Mommy’s car.

Even though I didn’t see the robot dinosaurs anymore, I had to tell them “Don’t bite my fingers and toes, robot dinosaurs! You’ll go to time out and call your mom and dad!” You never can be too careful when it comes to robots. They’ll be the end of us, I’m convinced of it, and it will be people like Mommy and Daddy who aren’t scared enough that will be our downfall.

Technorati tags: baby grrl, roboapocalypse

Sometimes families take pictures that are good, and sometimes families take photos that make people who see them say “WTF were they thinking!!!?!?!?!” The site Awkward Family Photos is of the latter. It really would be hard for me to pick just one favorite. But to give you an idea, here’s a couple. Apologies for the small thumbnail, but yes…you do see a walrus penis and a family dressed in cosplay Pooh. Click through to their site and see the large version:

It’s easy to waste time there, just going back through to see all of them. Like I did when I found the site. And if you want to keep up with the new pics they post, either subscribe to their RSS feed, or follow them on Twitter!

Technorati tags: full of fun fridays, awkward family photos

(Yes, I’m apparently about 12 when it comes to my newest crush on Zachary Quinto as Spock.)

*sigh*

I’m really not surprised. I mean, when I first heard about the 10 Commandments monument, I had a glimmer of hope that Governor Henry would realize it’s unconstitutional, but come on…this is Oklahoma after all. He signed HB 1330 yesterday.

But see, what gets me is that Rep. Mike Ritze keeps referencing Van Orden v. Perry in Texas as a basis of HB 1330 being constitutional. There is a major difference though. The suit against the monument there didn’t happen until after it had been on display for 40 years. In addition, there are other monuments on display, which doesn’t put the focus on Christianity. Like I said in my original post, “this law and display sounds more like the Kentucky case McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, which was ruled unconstitutional.”

The ACLU in Oklahoma is waiting to find the result of a similar situation in Haskell County, where they have a Ten Commandments display on government property, before filing a lawsuit on this bill. (See Green v. Haskell County for a PDF of the court papers.)

I’m disappointed in Governor Henry, but at least I can hope that he’ll keep vetoing the anti-abortion crap that keeps getting voted through. Until we end up with Mary Fallon as Governor anyway.

UPDATE Kind of related to this bill, is indeed a Senate Resolution to change the Oklahoma state motto to “In God We Trust!”, including the exclamation point. But as Dwight said:

I think God would like it more if there were way too many exclamation marks and it was in caps: IN GOD WE TRUST!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It has it’s 2nd reading today, so it’s still very early in the process. Let’s hope it dies in committee. It’s not like anyone would be caught voting against GOD!

Technorati tags: ten commandments, oklahoma, separation of church and state

Taking a rare opportunity of a Baby Grrl free couple of hours, hubby and I went to see the new Star Trek movie. We agree that it was ‘Fun, Watchable‘, and to borrow from Wil Wheaton, “It was awesome. I loved it.”

I’ve been a geek for a long time, and while I grew up watching TOS in syndication with my mom, I was really more into TNG and DS9 (Well, until they started getting heavy into Sisko being the Emissary of the Prophets). So while I really wanted to see the new movie, I wasn’t in OMG STAR TREK!!!!1!one!! mode. But then we saw it, and WOAH! It’s one of my top movies this year. Not above Watchmen, but still one I want to see again.

What was so great? The easter eggs were definitely a plus. There were plenty of little things put in for fans that didn’t feel forced or out of place, and I want to see it again to find more that I know I missed. For some reason, the one easter egg I *really* got a kick out of was seeing everyone on the bridge abruptly lean to one side during one of the battle sequences, just like in TOS. It was only for a second, but if you’ve seen TOS, you know exactly what that looks like. I’ll bet you can just see Kirk, Chekov, Sulu, et al leaning to one side to simulate the ship being hit. But the big thing that made the movie for me was that the acting was beyond good. Karl Urban as McCoy was by far the best channeling I’ve seen in a long time. He nailed the character. I also loved that they showed Uhura as a strong and smart female character. But my two favorites ended up being Scotty and Spock. I went in knowing that I’d love Scotty, if for no other reason because of Simon Pegg. He is one of my favorite geeks, and I’ve seen just about everything he’s been in. You could just tell that he was having a geekgasm by just being in a Star Trek film. Even though it is an odd numbered one.

As for Spock, Zachary Quinto took me by surprise. While I’ve never really thought much about him, I honestly thought I wouldn’t be able to get over seeing him as Sylar instead of Spock. Boy I was wrong. He did a great job with even small, subtle facial expressions to bring depth and complexity that captured me completely. A little more than half way through the movie I realized how….hot he was. And I’ve never really had a thing for either Zachary or Spock, but now I may need to find a new wallpaper for my computer at work, and blast some NerfHerder’s “Mr. Spock”.

Technorati tags: star trek, geek