Episode III: We Have A Title

The third and last episode in the Star Wars saga now has a title: The Revenge of the Sith.

The title was announced today at the San Diego Comic-Con (which I was attending, though I didn’t go to the Star Wars presentation). It also appears on the official Star Wars website. Also announced was more DVD news.

The long fan guessing game about what title Lucas would go with is now over. The ensuing debate about whether it is a good title now begins.

For my money, this is a good title. Better than the title of Episode II (“Attack of the Clones”), and much better than the hopelessly obscure title of Episode I (“The Phantom Menace”).

The title for Episode III needed to have some reasonance with the title of Episode VI (“The Return of the Jedi”), which it does. The Episode III title also should hopefully do something to clarify the title of Episode VI, which is otherwise obscure. Does “the Jedi” mean an individual Jedi–Luke? Annakin?–or the Jedi as a class? (One friend a few years ago thought the Ep VI title should be parsed to simply mean “Luke’s Back!”). The new title clarifies matters. “The Revenge of the Sith” balances “The Return of the Jedi,” and so by symmetry, it makes “the Jedi” a class.

There are a few other titles I would have been happy with (“Birth of the Empire,” “Return of the Sith,” “Fall of the Republic”), but after the less-than-happymaking titles of Ep I and Ep II, I was concerned Lucas would come up with something smilarly unsatisfying.

Let’s hope the trilogy–and thus the series–ends with a film as strong as its title.

Here's A Thought . . .

babywalkingI was just thinking: You know how you are sometimes falling asleep–or are asleep–when your limbs suddenly jerk autonomically (by themselves)? At least, I experience that sometimes, and I assume that you do, too (if you’re attentive).

That limb jerk might have a purpose. Here’s what occurred to me:

When babies are in the womb, they often “kick,” though sometimes the kicks might actually be “punches.” In any event, they move their limbs in a jerky manner that causes their mothers some discomfort (while simultaneously providing delight to the mother, who can feel the child within her, and to others who place their hands on her stomach).

The reason that babies jerk their limbs in this way seems to be that they need to do it: It plays a useful role in their development. By moving their limbs around, the babies are ensuring that their joints work. Our joints–particularly at our shoulders, elbows, hips, and knees–are ball joints that could lock up if the bones grew in the wrong ways. Motion keeps the bones from growing in this way, and if the babies didn’t move in the womb then their bones might grow in ways that would cause their joints to lock up. But by moving them, they make sure that their joints remain fluid and flexible, so that when they emerge from the womb, they can move their arms and legs properly.

So here was my thought: Maybe the limb jerk that we experience when asleep or falling asleep is a survial of the prenatal limb jerk we all have. Maybe it’s a remnant of the reflex that causes our bones to grow right.

If any readers are doctors or others who have info on this, lemme know.

Here’s A Thought . . .

babywalkingI was just thinking: You know how you are sometimes falling asleep–or are asleep–when your limbs suddenly jerk autonomically (by themselves)? At least, I experience that sometimes, and I assume that you do, too (if you’re attentive).

That limb jerk might have a purpose. Here’s what occurred to me:

When babies are in the womb, they often “kick,” though sometimes the kicks might actually be “punches.” In any event, they move their limbs in a jerky manner that causes their mothers some discomfort (while simultaneously providing delight to the mother, who can feel the child within her, and to others who place their hands on her stomach).

The reason that babies jerk their limbs in this way seems to be that they need to do it: It plays a useful role in their development. By moving their limbs around, the babies are ensuring that their joints work. Our joints–particularly at our shoulders, elbows, hips, and knees–are ball joints that could lock up if the bones grew in the wrong ways. Motion keeps the bones from growing in this way, and if the babies didn’t move in the womb then their bones might grow in ways that would cause their joints to lock up. But by moving them, they make sure that their joints remain fluid and flexible, so that when they emerge from the womb, they can move their arms and legs properly.

So here was my thought: Maybe the limb jerk that we experience when asleep or falling asleep is a survial of the prenatal limb jerk we all have. Maybe it’s a remnant of the reflex that causes our bones to grow right.

If any readers are doctors or others who have info on this, lemme know.

Cat vs. Bunny: Bunny Wins!

tinycatgiantrabbitThis cat looks bigger than this bunny, right? Well, appearances can be deceiving. In fact, if you saw the bunny next to the cat in real life, it would be apparent that the bunny is much, MUCH larger than the cat.

In fact, the bunny is nine times larger than the cat!

The bunny is a two-year old Continental Giant rabbit from Holland that already weighs 27 pounds and may grow larger yet. It is believed to be the world’s largest bunny.

The cat, by contrast, is believed to be the world’s smallest cat. It is already full-grown and weighs only 3 pounds. The vets who own it say that they think it has a genetic defect. (Some might prefer to say it is “differently gened.”)

So, despite the fact that cats normally prey on bunnies, in this case the cat had better not let his predator instincts get the best of him. In the resulting dust-up, it would be Bambi Meets Godzilla.

Standing Round The Altar & Validity

A reader writes:

This question has been asked to me and I did not know the answer, so I am going to ask you. During the Mass if the Priest invites people to come around the altar during the consecration would this make the consecration invalid, I know that only Clergy is allowed in the sanctuary during the consecration.

The presence or absence of anyone from the sanctuary has no bearing on the validity or invalidity of the consecration. What is required for validity is the required intent, form, and matter. The required intent is the intention to do what the Church does (i.e., to celebrate the Eucharist). The required form is that the priest express “This is my Body” and “This is . . . my Blood.” The required matter for hosts is matter that in the reasonable estimation of men would be regarded as wheat bread and, in the case of the cup, matter that in the reasonable estimation would be regarded as grape wine (with the caveats that unleavened wheat bread counts as bread and mustum counts as wine). Additional items are required for liceity, but not for validity.

That’s a pretty minimal list of requirements for validity, which is how God intended it. He didn’t want it to be easy to invalidate a sacrament.

Who is in the sanctuary has nothing to do with the subject.

Standing Round The Altar & Validity

A reader writes:

This question has been asked to me and I did not know the answer, so I am going to ask you. During the Mass if the Priest invites people to come around the altar during the consecration would this make the consecration invalid, I know that only Clergy is allowed in the sanctuary during the consecration.

The presence or absence of anyone from the sanctuary has no bearing on the validity or invalidity of the consecration. What is required for validity is the required intent, form, and matter. The required intent is the intention to do what the Church does (i.e., to celebrate the Eucharist). The required form is that the priest express “This is my Body” and “This is . . . my Blood.” The required matter for hosts is matter that in the reasonable estimation of men would be regarded as wheat bread and, in the case of the cup, matter that in the reasonable estimation would be regarded as grape wine (with the caveats that unleavened wheat bread counts as bread and mustum counts as wine). Additional items are required for liceity, but not for validity.

That’s a pretty minimal list of requirements for validity, which is how God intended it. He didn’t want it to be easy to invalidate a sacrament.

Who is in the sanctuary has nothing to do with the subject.

9/11 Commission Questions Cold War

From The Drudge Report:

The 9/11 commission report offers a broad critique of a central tenet of the BushEisenhower administration’s foreign policy–that the attackstensions with the Communist Bloc have required a ‘Cold War on Terrorism‘… The report argues that the notion of fighting an enemy called “terrorism”of a war being “cold” is too diffuse and vague to be effective. Strikingly, the report also makes no reference to the invasion of IraqVietnam War as being part of the Cold War on Terrorism, a frequent assertion of President BushJohnson and his top aides… Developing…

SPAIN: What Al-Qa'eda Hath Wrought

You remember when al-Qa’eda attacked Spanish rail lines just before and their recent national election and caused the incumbent party to lose power for its support of the U.S.-led War on Terror.

Now the consequences of that loss of nerve by the Spanish public are coming home to roost.

The way things work in countries with a parliamentary system of governance (like Spain) is that whichever part is in charge of the government basically runs the show and is able to enact sweeping changes in the law, to which opposition parties can put up far less resistance than the opposition party typically can in the U.S. Congress.

Now that the socialists are in power in Spain, they are conducting a thoroughgoing political campaign to restructure major Spanish social institutions. The changes are so sweeping that Spain’s leading churchman, Cardinal Antonio María Rouco, has accused the new government of taking Spain back to Moorish times, when Muslims ruled the country.

It’s a sad story.

Read it.