The Oncoming Hope

After reflecting on the return of Burt Macklin on Parks and Recreation, my mind turned to other characters who invent alternate identities for whatever reason (usually silly reasons).

Here's the top 5, in no particular order:

Andy Dwyer as Burt Macklin, FBI

What's brilliant about Andy's alter-ego is that it's all-purpose. Whenever he has a position of any importance, out comes Burt Macklin. This is in spite of Burt's death in his last appearance.

"You thought I was dead? So did the President...'s enemies..."

Michael Scott as Prison Mike

"The Convict" as not one of the best episodes of The Office. The only episode written by Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant, the tone and overt race-baiting in the episode did not fit into the tone of the American show. Gervais and Merchant wrote Michael Scott far more cynically than the American team did, and let's face it, David Brent does not fit into this show.

But taken on its own, the creation of "Prison Mike" was pretty genius. Pam makes a throwaway comment that prison sounds better than working at Dunder-Mifflin, and Michael attempts a "Scared Straight," featuring himself as "Prison Mike."

Phil Dunphy as Clive Bixby, Electronics Salesman

Oh Clive. The world's lamest would-be playboy. The Dunphys attempt to spice up their sex life by adding a little bit of roleplay to the mix. As you can imagine, things go pear shaped very quickly, leading to discomfort that sends the most hard-hearted viewer cowering into the sofa cushions.

Tobias Funke as Mrs. Featherbottom

"Mrs. Featherbottom" was a peculiar cross between Mary Poppins and Mrs. Doubtfire, with a magical dash of Tobias.

Like the films it draws from, Tobias feels alienated from his family and adopts a disguise to insinuate himself with his daughter. However, this being Arrested Development, the family recognizes him at once and has no qualms about continuing to exploit his service.

Moss as a "Real Man"

While the IT Crowd frequently sends Roy and Moss into roles of traditional masculinity for the sake of humor, the best occasion remains the first. Nerd's nerd Maurice Moss develops an algorithm to talk to working-class football fans. Roy, impressed with Moss's newfound manliness, suggests they test out their new tricks down at the pub. Things spiral out of control, and we run through poker games and football games and bank robberies until Roy literally ends up crying.

I've been mulling over Jaron Lanier's "The Local-Global Flip", a rather long piece in Edge about the stated intent of the creation of the Internet versus the actual shape of it, 50 years later. The crux of his argument is that the Internet has contributed to the downfall of the middle class, because it has failed to monetize content creation, and doesn't reward us for the products of our minds.

I'm not yet sure how much I agree with the bulk of his argument, but two things really stuck out to me:

1. The Loss of Provenance

Did you know that the original design of the Internet didn't have a copy function? Seems mind-boggling now, doesn't it?

But, as Lanier points out, copying should be unnecessary in a functional network. The original content goes up, and then you link to it.

Now, because you can copy, copy, copy (or share, share, share), you lose provenance. Ideally, people link back to the original when they copy content, but of course they don't always.

The result is that new information or different information is lost in the vast repetition of content sharing, where you get a million articles saying exactly the same thing, because there is no copyright of creation on the internet.

If you produce a video for Youtube, your reward is that it's shared a million times. If you write a thoughtful analysis of a film or a book, same thing. The worst thing is, even traditional print media can still your work with impunity, and get paid for it.

2. We are not the consumers, we are the creators

Follow the money.

We are providing the data to Facebook or Google, and they sell our data to advertisers. Which basically means we aren't even selling ourselves, we're giving ourselves away to these data aggegators, who package us and sell us on without even our knowledge in many cases. What's more insidious is that we have, in fact, consented to this. It's right there in the terms of privacy in Facebook and Google+. We agree to give them the rights to everything we share about ourselves.

And we're not getting anything in return, apart from a great time-suck.

Youtube makes money off of selling to advertisers. We spend hours on mashups and supercuts and we give it to Youtube for free. Again, we're providing the content to make someone else rich, and without pay.

I'll conclude with Lanier's own words, but you really ought to go read the article and come back:

But in this case we have this idea that we put all this stuff out there and what we get back are intangible or abstract benefits of reputation, or ego-boosting. Since we're used to that bargain, we're impoverished compared to the world that could have been and should have been when the Internet was initially conceived. The world that would create a strengthened middle class through what people do, by monetizing more and more instead of less and less. It's possible that that world could have never come about, but that was never tested. If we are absolutely convinced that this third way is impossible, and that we have to choose between "The Matrix" or Marx, if those are our only two choices, it makes the future dismal, and so I hope that a third way is possible, and I'm certainly going to do everything possible to try to push it.

We're not going to be able to test tomorrow because we've gone down this path so far that it will be a decade's long project to begin to explore it, but we must find our way back. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a century after Ted Nelson first proposed this thought in 1960 that this is how the Internet should be. It might be a century before we even start to seriously try to do it, but that's how things go sometimes in history. Sometimes it just takes a while to sort things out.

It's National Poetry Day in Britain, which has led to an amazing amount of twitter spam of favorite lines from the twitterati.

For whatever reason, "Fire and Ice" was the first to come to mind for me. Coincidentally, two research teams, led by Saul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt and Adam Riess, have been awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for observing that the world will, in fact, freeze to death. The idea is that the universe will keep expanding and become more and more cold until the temperature reaches absolute zero, at which point all molecular motion will cease.

Uplifting stuff, huh?

This poem is unusually pessimistic for Frost, who usually adopts a tone of wistful nostalgia, and doesn't care to make general statements about humanity as a whole. Nonetheless, there's a neat progression from the bleakness of this poem to "Mending Wall," with the famous line "good fences make good neighbors."

I don't think I'm in a particularly pessimistic mood, but I'm certainly a little more concerned about the direction America is moving in, given the rampant illegality of the assassination of Anwar Al-Awlaki. When you allow the government to assassinate a citizen without due process, then where does the power of the government end?

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
and would suffice.

Basically, that which makes us human will lead us to destroy the world, one way or another.

Nikon runs an annual competition of microscopic photography, and this year's winners were just announced, and the winners include close-ups of dinosaur bones, microchips, cells and insects.

Igor Siwanowicz, of the Max Planck Institute of Neurobiology, won first place with his close-up (20x) image of Chrysopa sp. (green lacewing) larva.

The rest of the winners can be seen here, but check out a few of my favorites below. These images serve as a powerful reminder that no matter how creative the minds of humankind are, nature is many, many steps ahead. I think Terence Malick would approve.

4th Place: Robin Young, with a photo of liverwort (20x)

8th Place: Dr. Bernardo Cesare with Graphite-bearing Granulite (2.5x)

12th Place: Thomas Deerinck with HeLa cancer cells (300x)

Pretty awesome stuff, eh? Like I said, make sure and check out the full roster of winners and runners-up.

Spectacularly nerdy sexual roleplay.

Though we didn't get to see it (perhaps thankfully), The Good Wife flirted with dressing up as American revolutionaries. Which is, first of all, weird, and second of all, really difficult to imagine the mechanics of. But I imagine it being a bit like this:

Then, on a late season three episode of Parks and Recreation, we overhear a deliciously disturbing phone message that Ben and Leslie accidentally left on Ron's phone, where we learn that she plays Thatcher and he plays Reagan.

Feel free to share other instances of weird roleplay in the comments (let's keep it to television).

Until this episode, I'd thought the long game for The Good Wife would be that Alicia eventually gets back together with Peter. While I'm loving the Will/Alicia romance, I don't think that it will last, for a variety of reasons, not least of which his revelation to Kalinda last week about being a sociopath.

But now it seems that Peter is hell-bent on destruction, and I could not be more excited. While it was heartbreaking seeing Zach's face when he learns the truth about his parents' split, that scene reveals something important about Peter, that he is aware of who he is and what he's done, which he wasn't at the end of last season.

So it's all the more revealing that he not only knows the breakup is his fault, but still wants to take it out on Alicia. And he doesn't care who goes down with her. That's why he's kept Cary on. He needs a compatriot as invested in bringing down Lockhart Gardner as he is, albeit for different reasons.

I think that this season we're about to witness an intense battle of the minds, as the power struggle between LG and the state's attorney's office intensifies.

And you know what? Alicia can be just as brutally clever as Peter. She's never more alluring than when she's destroying people professionally, and I look forward to seeing that side of her turned on Peter.

But when the battle really gets going, I think Will and Diane are going to step out, and will not tolerate collateral damage. We're in an odd situation where Alicia has never seemed more powerful, and yet, in this quadrangle, she has absolutely no power, and any of the other three might destroy her.

That's where the fifth power player becomes invaluable: Eli. In a battle between Peter and Alicia, I think he'll side with Alicia. Peter's no good as a candidate without Alicia, but Alicia will make a perfect candidate.

And that is my theory for the new long game: by the end of this show, Alicia will be running for office.

OTHER THOUGHTS

This may be the only time in history where I ask for more exposition. I know absolutely nothing about British law (though I'm familiar with the Trafigura case that inspired this storyline), so I would appreciate a little more context to the quirks of British law.

Will is fantastic in this episode, reacting to Eddie Izzard's OTT ridiculousness the best way possible: laughing in his face. That, combined with his naked lust for Alicia, makes him the person of the episode. "Intimidation is not a sonnet."

Sam Gellman, an award-winning photographer, just went to the Mass Games in North Korea and returned with some absolutely stunning photos. As a borderline obsessive on the weird time warp that is North Korea, I'm fascinated by any insight we get on that country. To me, it seems like a place that almost negates the need for time travel; cross the border and you're in another era, but one without roots in any known history.

Seriously, go to his flickr account now and browse through the photos. When you're done with that, go to www.samgellman.com and have a poke around.

As you are doubtless aware by this point, Mitch Hurwitz and the gang announced that not only are they planning an Arrested Development movie, but a 9/10 episode series to build up to the film.

I have no doubt that in the run up I will be writing about Arrested quite a bit, but any serious thoughts will have to wait until I'm finished doing this:

What an October 2nd. What an early birthday present. I was deep in the throes of Pauline Kael's legendary tale of Citizen Kane, when @hadleyfreeman live-tweeted the news from the New Yorker Festival. Soon after, we got confirmation from the Bluths's mouths.

I know the actual logistics such as network and airdates haven't been announced, but I have no doubt it will happen. Even if Fox doesn't take it, NBC will. NBC is desperate, after all. And the ratings that AD was cancelled with are much higher than any of their current properties.

The best part? I can rewatch the series (again) with intent, not just nostalgia/sadness. Now excuse me while I enjoy some honey. Which came from...BEES!

In a nutshell, the finale was highly unsatisfactory. But I don't want to drown in negativity, as there seems to be plenty of that going on around the internet. Instead, I bring you 5 questions, along with theoretical answers. And like Jeopardy, many of the answers will come in the form of more questions.

1. Who is Madame Kovarian?

She came, she giggled maniacally, and she died, and yet we know nothing of her but her name. They made far too big a deal about her to just kill her off without a second word. We didn't even get the obligatory "when the Silents rule the Universe, I will be their sheriff!" scene.

2. Now that I mention it, what do the Silents actually want?

They seem to roam the Universe menacing people without any actual purpose in doing so. Do they really want to kill the Doctor just so he won't say "Doctor Who?"

3. Can asking "Doctor Who?" really be the question?

Methinks Dorium is pulling a fast one. As you may recall, the question has been asked MANY times, especially in Moffat episodes. One might say the question was both asked and answered by Reinette in The Girl in the Fireplace, we just weren't privy to the answer. Also, it's a really stupid question. There's no answer to be given that doesn't completely pull the rug out from under 50 years of continuity and character building. Making some grand statement would be incredibly cheap.

Steven Moffat needs to ask himself the same question that the Doctor asks himself when faced with the opportunity to prevent the Daleks from existing: "Do I have the right?"

4. If the Doctor's death is really a fixed point, how could he not die?

The answer is simple: it's not really a fixed point. To put it another way, the rumors of his death are greatly exaggerated, and always have been.

The only way this resolution isn't mind-numbingly pointless is if someone has been playing an extremely long game, convincing the entire Universe that the Doctor's death is a fixed point in time. Maybe it's the Doctor who's playing the long game.

Of course, as this is a time travel show, the only way that faking his own death could work is if he actually does manage to disappear forevermore. Perhaps he just travels around in various Tesselecta bodies henceforth. Well, that's one way of getting around the regeneration limit.

Also, according to the internal mechanics of this episode, the sudden "flattening" of time can't actually have anything to do with the Doctor's death, especially if he just has to fake his own death for time to be set right. That almost definitely proves there's another party involved who actually caused the flattening of time.

It could even be something as simple as River's astronaut uniform setting off the flattening of time if River fails to kill the Doctor, so he just needs to fake out the suit.

5. Who are the Ponds?

Post-episode, my fellow watchers were extremely confused by the timeline of the Ponds.

My problems with these two as characters are well documented, and I'm not going to rant about it further here. Instead, I offer an alternate explanation.

But to quickly recap: these characters either die, have their memories erased, have their realities reset, forget every lesson they've learned in previous adventures, and generally do not behave consistently like human beings.

So let's apply Occam's razor. Maybe they aren't human beings.

I offer an alternate theory: perhaps they've been assigned by some interested third party to keep an eye on the Doctor and follow his many manipulations of time. After all, only Amy and Rory (though now it seems like only Amy) remember the various erased and reset realities apart from the Doctor (and maybe River?). Perhaps the Timelords are returning and have ordered the Ponds to keep track of the Doctor's crimes against time. Or maybe they've been assigned as guardians to keep him safe (which seems more probable, and explains how they could magically create a military base in the middle of a pyramid).

If such a thing were true or possible, I'd further propose that the Ponds are Eternals, a race introduced in Enlightenment and mentioned to be hiding out in the void in Doomsday. The race are a bit like the Q Continuum, in that they've long ago lost touch with their humanity and engage in "petty amusements" to distract them from the eternal nothingness of their lives.

So perhaps these two are like intergalactic immortal Emma Peel and John Steed, charming their way through the Universe and resetting their relationship to new fantasies of romance whenever possible. It's just their way of keeping things fresh, switching around who's the needy one, switching out who's got the upper hand in any given episode.

Maybe the Doctor has even cottoned on to who they are, and it's the Ponds he needs to convince of his death, so he can escape their watchful eyes.

River, of course, would be an accidental by-product of the "today we're going to pretend we're parents!" roleplay. Which would explain why they aren't overwhelmed with parental concern.

I accept that these theories might be complete bollocks.

Play in the comments!

THE ONE MINUTE VERSION

Fringe turns into yet another completely new show, and this may be the best yet. I didn't even miss Peter what with all the FunLivia times and gripping standalone mystery.

THE FIVE MINUTE VERSION

Walter infodumps all over our faces, but it's ok, because in Walter's mind, Fauxlivia's biggest slight is that she bought her way in with his precious pastries. "No! Not the pastry vagenda!" Additionally, Walter has learned new ways to misremember companion names (Cleveland! Clinton!). I wonder how many Presidents Walter will get through? I'm guessing about 14. Though if he calls Lincoln "Taft," I will be impressed. No one remembers that guy.

Over at the Bridge, it's time for some Olivia on Olivia action. I dream of a sitcom called My Two Olivias, with the two Olivia's bickering incessantly and Broyles attempting, and failing to keep the piece. Every episode ends in a fistfight.

But I digress.

The plan is for Olivia to bring Our!CreepyScientist to Earth Prime to give insight into Alt!CreepyScientist. Nothing can possibly go wrong with this plan.

Fauxlivia goes blonde, wherein we all learn that Ourlivia will definitely end up dating Alt!Lincoln, which is fine by me. Again, I take pause to note that Anna Torv may be the best actress on television today.

Meanwhile, Walter moonlights from Fringe to travel to a classic Memorex ad:

Memorex! Allowing mentally ill scientists to communicate beyond the grave since 1953!

Back at the House of Nothing Can Possibly Go Wrong, Fauxlivia leads the profiler through his Alt!House. Alt!Profiler continues to kidnap people for his own...amusement? Happiness? Dark passenger? I miss Dexter.

Penny's in the air...and penny drops. Our friendly profiler realizes that all is not kosher with this profiling gig when he spies a photo of his father.

Daddy issues! This means it's OurLivia time.

Alt!Broyles, who is somehow alive, lacks a sense of humor about, well, anything, but especially the fact that our friendly profiler ran away to find himself. Literally.

Our intrepid heroes find them just in time, but not before the killer steals the memory of Marjorie, the one person who kept him from crossing over to the dark side.

And thusly we learn that even if people are gone from our memories, the lessons they taught us will always remain. I'm sure this has no relation to the ongoing story arc whatsoever.

BUT SERIOUSLY, FOLKS

Olivia killed her father in this reality, presumably because she never met Peter as a child, and the abuse became worse. But more importantly, we learn that Fauxlivia's childhood was not just different in certain details, but in totality. Because she never had the brutal stepfather, she was never in Jacksonville, was never in Cortexiphan trials and therefore, doesn't have Olivia's magical healing powers.

This episode was a master-class in how to do a standalone episode while still incorporating elements of the larger arc, and functioning well as both. Are you listening, Doctor Who? While Walter obviously thinks he's going insane, what if the harassment by ghost Peter actually leads to some sort of psychotic break? Asteroid doesn't seem able to calm him, and Olivia barely does.

Carry on in the comments, folks!