Random Rants from a Space Nut

Since October 21, 2015 -- the date Marty and Doc visited in the future of Back to the Future II -- IDW has been publishing comics extending the Back to the Future saga.  They're even co-authored by Bob Gale, the writer of the original trilogy, so you can consider them canon if you want. In addition to original stories, the comics have concerned themselves with fleshing out and deepening the stories we already know -- showing what led to some of the plot points, or what other characters might have been doing while we watched the main cast.  Thankfully, they've steered clear of trying to explain the mechanics of time travel.  That's a relief, really, because the original story was entertaining thanks to its characters.  (Honestly, its approach to the mechanics or consequences of time travel weren't all that consistent in the original trilogy anyway.  I still love the story, though.) So I'd like to try to write up a review of the different "volumes" co

It shouldn't be surprising that I am interested in the intersection of faith and power, and that I remain convinced that the two should not exist in the same entity. This article explains why, rather starkly.  I see two ways to understand what's going on in situations like this: 1. Fernandinho Guarabu's Evangelical church is irrelevant to changing evil in the lives of men, or impotent to do so. 2. This form of Evangelicalism is actively toxic -- it creates , fortifies, and legitimizes evil in the lives of men. I'd really, really like a third possibility. Of course, we Americans are generally bad at empathy; we fail to see trends or actions in other countries as relevant to anything we might be doing.  With that in mind, consider this episode of Dateline . Evangelicalism isn't a trivial element of this story.  It's present in every detail -- the way the shooter and his accomplice talk to one another in police recordings, and the fact that the murde

Some things about the original Blade Runner that deserve some speculation and discussion: No one ever really talks about why the Voight-Kampff Test is the way that it is.  Consider that it's a series of questions -- impossible questions with impossible answers.  And that the point of the test isn't even related to the questions or the answers, but about having empathy -- as long as that empathy is for the right things, the things that society approves of as "human".  If you don't have empathy for the right things, the penalty is death. There is a moment where Deckard hesitates before he fires as he chases Zhora.  In that moment, he has a decision to make: Should he fire into a crowd of innocent people to "retire" someone who isn't really a person?  That hesitation speaks volumes -- about the society, about Deckard, and about the choices we all make when it comes to how we treat the marginalized. After all, the only reason replicants get ki

What we do well when we tell the story of Joseph (Genesis 37-50): Remember that even when we think life sucks and is completely unfair, that we don't know the end of the story. What we do poorly when we tell the story of Joseph (Genesis 45-47, Exodus): Remember that it's a cautionary tale about believing your own hype and forgetting your own mortality, and that every villain believes he's doing the right thing (and can even invoke God to prove it). Joseph, after all, conducted the work of Empire.  He sought political solutions to spiritual problems.  By that, I mean that he had an opportunity to be a blessing to people -- to give them dignity and hope, using his political office as a tool -- and instead used it to increase Egypt's social and political sway, using his spiritual folklore as justification.  That, it seems to me, is why God is often referred to in the First Testament as "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob", not "the God of Abraham, Isaa