Why the Star Wars Universe Needed Jar Jar Binks

  Yep, another Star Wars post.  Takes my mind off of things to write this and I had a few hours to kill.  I might prattle here, and for that you have my apologies.  Happy New Year.  

   Like so many Star Wars fans, when I suffered through the character development of Jar Jar Binks, I was angry.  I actually took him personally.  I mean, HIM, his very being was, as far as I was concerned, was an affront to my childhood memories.  Seriously, I went back and looked at some of the older movies and really had to ask myself why in the name of all things Jedi George Lucas had inflicted the moronic-beyond-lovability Gungan on those of us who had spent decades waiting for the Star Wars prequels.

   Then, the other day (no, I haven't been dwelling on it for years, it just sort of settled upon my brow as I was watching the Big Bang Theory last week), I realized that the exhaustive and exasperating development of Jar Jar as a laughable stooge was necessary.  See, we had to see him as an idiot, as easily tricked and manipulated.  This made it far more believable when he filled his brief role in the second of the three prequels in which he is duped into motioning that Chancellor Palpatine be given the emergency powers.  That motion gave Palpatine the opening he needed that would eventually make his transition to Emperor logical, and thus allowing him to revive the Sith and its devotion to the Dark Side of the Force.

   See, we had to see Jar Jar as an idiot, as a dolt.  Good-natured and pure of heart, but a dolt.  After we knew him to be a dolt, his actions that, quite literally, put the galaxy spiraling on a course of darkness and loss, were really not to be laid upon his shoulders.  Honestly, a character more able to see reason and manipulation may well have sidestepped the disastrous manipulation that led to Jar Jar's suggestion that emergency powers be granted to the Supreme Chancerllor...but Jar Jar Binks was not such a character.  Jar Jar Binks was a trusting soul and a foolish one, which is what Lucas needed. George Lucas created a character who almost single-handedly destroyed the Star Wars mythos...but that same character actually proved pivotal in the creation of The Star Wars inverse.  The very lore to which he so nearly laid waste really came to its climactic "creation moment" because of him.  That's a kind of insane genius, Mr. Lucas.

   The Star Wars universe didn't just need Jar Jar Binks for some misguided comic relief, but also for its lynchpin; Jar Jar was the catalyst by which the universe was born.  Don't get me wrong, I still can't stand to hear him speak, but this does lend a new perspective to things...and isn't that what Star Wars did for science fiction films as a genré anyway?  Give SciFi a whole new perspective which it's still growing into?  Kinda makes one's head spin.

   The wagons rolls ever onward; thanks for riding shotgun; and, these aren't the droids you're looking for.

Year-Round School? Well, We Want Lifelong Learners, so why not Year-Round Teaching?

http://m.timesdispatch.com/content/tncms/live/#

   For so many years " Summer Break" has been part of out lexicon in America that the very idea of year-round school is so outlandish as to seem as laughable as America and Russia being trade partners.  Oh, wait, we are.   Why is that?  Because times change, folks.

   The break during the summer existed not to allow theme parks to hire our teens and families to revel to Disney World, but to allow the (in the Mid-Nineteenth Century) largely agrarian society of the United States to make use of its children as free labor in a work force needed to plant crops and get things ready for the fall harvest.  Later, schools in the southern region needed the break because air-conditioning was a luxury most didn't have.

   But, now we're over a decade into the Twenty-First Century...kids aren't helping plant family farms and most schools have some kind of air conditioning.  Those things being true, perhaps it's time some localities (most, perhaps) start thinking about year-round school (see the linked article).  I mean, there's no harm in considering the benefits, right?  Teachers no longer have to spend their first few days or weeks finding out what concepts have been lost over the summer and then reteaching those concepts in sort of a reverse cramming session as the prior knowledge that has been lost is rebuilt.  The fluidity of the attainment of concepts and their mastery can also be more effectively aligned in a year round setting, at least it is for me when I'm reading a book or trying something new, I'm better off if I stick to it until I master it, not if I arbitrarily stop what I'm doing because I've hit a magic date that indicates a deadline has been reached.

   Economics and vacations play roles here, too.   You want a cheaper vacation rental?  Well, yeah, who doesn't?  If you have year-round school, you get an extended break more than twice a year and that means you have a chance to get a better rate at the beach or mountains or whatever because you're going to rent during the " off season."  How about vacations?  When I was in college, my folks took us to Disney World one more time as a family.  It was Christmas when we were down there and there seemed to be more than a few people down there who, like my parents, wanted to see blinking lights on Palm trees during their Yuletide.  After several hours of standing shoulder-to-shoulder with people of questionable hygienic practices, I asked one of the ladies at the monorail station at the main entrance/exit of the Magic Kingdom what the best time of year was for a visit to Mr. Disney's testament to America's love of make believe and six dollar hot dogs.  Without missing a beat she told me it was around President's Day.  A more sub-tier holiday I can't imagine, except maybe Arbor Day.   But, my point here...if you're looking for a good time to go on vacation, how about a time when most people have their kids in school and can't go away?  I mean, that's just a side benefit to the idea.

   Now, I know I'm going to make some of my peers less than thrilled here, but teachers may be some of the most vocal in opposing year-round school (like the atricle cites at the opening of the blog states, teachers and administrators who don't like the year-round schedule can request a transfer).  If teachers balk at the idea of year-round because it messes with their summer, then I must be frank in saying that perhaps those teachers are the ones who give credence to the old joke that teachers'  only teach because of their three favorite things, which are, "June, July, and August."

   Now, lastly, I'll say this, when I was getting my Masters I was in a cohort with some folks who worked at a year-round elementary school.  They loved it.  The kids there loved it, and so did the parents.  And, what impressed me the most was that the school (the only one one the county with a year-round schedule) had the highest SOL scores in the division each and every year that I kept up with my cohort s in the program.  That's the most important thing, isn't it?  When you're a school, the most important thing is student achievement...and it was high in this system's school with the year-round schedule.

   You can draw any conclusion you want to if you spin enough data, but it seems to be that when I stop trying to find a spin, I see just a positive result, and that's the bottom line for me.

   The wagon rolls on...thanks for riding shotgun.

   

The Coattail-Riding Name-Dropper or the Orwellian?

A cryptic title, but one which is accurate, in my opinion.  Virginians vote tomorrow, and never in my memory since turning eighteen have I had a less clear choice to make than between Terry McAuliffe or Ken Cuccunelli.  It's unclear because neither choice makes sense.

Now, I'm a staunch conservative (not Republican, saying all Republicans are conservatives is like saying that all tires are suitable to mount on your car, but they sell tires at Petco, don't they?), so you'd think I'd be all pro-Cucinelli...but Cuccinelli seems to be more focused on some sort of make-everybody-have-the-same-moral-doctrine-as-me platform than on making real leadership change.  I don't know that I can get on board with that.  I wasn't sure if Cucinnelli wasn't my real choice until he had the Duggars from the reality show (is it 19 and Cointing now?) with all the kids come stump for him.  That kind of sealed it for me.  It's not so much that I feel like the Republican Party may have hitched their wagon to the wrong horse here as much as they gave said horse the reigns and let it pick the road down which to trot blindly while the folks in the wagon try to figure out how to raise tolls behind them before the dust settles from their passing.

Then I look at Terry McAuliffe who has all the morals of a Clinton and none of the political marks on his belt to back it up.  He's quick to point out his connection to the Clinton's and his undying support for Obamacare (and it's good that his support is undying because, if it were sick, he'd never get it looked at under the Affordable Healthcare Act).  If it were Reconstruction, McAuliffe would likely be refered to as a "carpetbagger."  But, it's not, so he isn't.  But he is a man driven by profit (as are most people, no judgment on that, but here comes my frustration) while telling Virginians he is interested in them.  Unlike so many of his liberal peers, I don't see home as a socialist, I see him as a profiteer.  I don't trust him and can't see casting a vote for a man I don't trust.

Here's the conundrum for me, I can't tell you how important I believe it is to vote.  Those who don't vote and then complain are, in my humble opinion, no better than the people who yell at the screen during movies; their opinions and advice are irrelevant and they annoy the rest of us.  For years as a teacher I have stressed the importance of voting and I will continue to do so...but I have no real definitive choice here.

Well, what to do?  Vote Libertarian?  Sure, and also see if Peter Pan or the Tooth Fairy are running for office.  Here's what I'm gonna do in as meaningless a gesture, I'm going to write in my dad, Paul Elliot Moss, Jr.  Dad's the finest man I know and he, more than the two gubenatorial candidates who seem bent on drawing my attention away from The Big Bang Theory, deserves my vote.  Will he win?  No, but that will mean he's like every other Virginian tomorrow.

The wagon rolls on, folks, and I plan on building no new tolls behind me.  Thanks for riding shotgun.

"Yes, I'll bet you have..."

   Those famous words were spoken by Corellian smuggler Han Solo before he blasted Greedo in the Mos Eisley Cantina.  The laconic (up 'till that point, anyway) Solo tosses a coin to the bartender, makes an ironic apology for the mess left at the table, and departs for docking bay 94, where the Millenium Falcon awaits.  The Falcon and its captain, along with the Wookie, Chewbaca, had just been contracted by an old man (little did we know the impact said old man, Obi Wan Kenobi, would have on that galaxy far, far away) and a farm boy whose cargo was themselves, two droids, and no questions asked.  So began a journey that would introduce us to countless worlds and species while renewing our hope in ourselves and our ability to be redeemed no matter how lost to the dark side we believe ourselves.  But, such is not my point.

   In the original classic from the 1970s, Greedo confronts Solo as he is leaving the cantina.  He tells Solo that there's a bounty out for him that no bounty hunter will ever be able to resist.  Solo distracts the Rodian thug while he surreptitiously unbuckled his own blaster holster under the table.  While the green-skinned bounty hunter goes on about his luck in stumbling across Solo, our reluctant anti-hero draws his weapon and then, when Greedo makes a comment about Jabba taking Solo's ship, Han blasts him, leaving a smoking corpse on the other side of the table.

   Now, here's the thing, in the special edition, Lucas' special effects wizards at Skywalker Ranch add an errant laser blast from Greedo's pistol that craters the wall behind Solo before the Corellian pilot blasts him.  Soooooo...why?  I have my theories; well, theory.  See, when George Lucas originally directed/producer Star Wars: Episode IV, A New Hope, he was a free-wheeling bachelor.  He didn't have a care in the world, didn't have any young lives to be concerned with as far as parenting.  When he decided it was time to re-release the films with some additional footage, he had three foster kids and perhaps the character of Han Solo needed to have a different kind of entry into the Star Wars story arc than as a cold, calculating killer.  I mean, now he had his own kids to think about and maybe, just maybe he didn't want them idolizing a killer.  Of course, the other possibility is that Lucas was thinking that Han Solo, in general, was a much different character by the end of Return of the Jedi than he was at that cantina in Mos Eisley spaceport.  Maybe Solo's evolution was simply too great for Lucas, the kinder, gentler filmmaker.  Or maybe he did it to make blogs like this one wax thoughtful about the change.

   The question had been asked many times, who shot first, but in the first release, there was only one shot fired, a "solo" shot, if you'll pardon the pun (I wouldn't pardon a pun that bad, actually).

   If you want to consider this and more Star Wars musings, I suggest you check out the documentary Jedi Junkies.  I thought I was into Star Wars trivia and memorabilia, but learned I am a mere Jawa among Stormtroopers.

   The wagon rolls on, thanks for riding shotgun; strap yourselves in, I'm making the jump to light speed.