Is President Bush a Cylon? Maybe not, but the parallels between Battlestar Galactica and the war in Iraq are still plentiful — and purposeful.
At the end of Season 2, Galactica took a major detour that stunk every bit as bad as After M*A*S*H. Two seasons of plot progression were scrapped by jumping one year ahead and plopping the remnants of humanity on a dirtball in the middle of nowhere, where they began scratching out a meager existence without running water or hair salons. The move was awkward, it was unjustified, and it did not smell like the Galactica viewers had come to appreciate.
The writers redeemed themselves with the Season 3 premiere, proving that the new scenario (Cylon occupation of a human colony) can be just as complex, conflicted, and intellectually stimulating as everything that came before it. (Whew — I’ll keep watching after all.) There’s a reason Time picked Battlestar Galactica as the top TV show last year, and the new plot direction reinforces the wisdom of that choice.
The premiere also suggested why the writers made such an abrupt U-turn: they’d devised a new political metaphor and were itching to explore it. What seemed at the end of Season 2 to be an unfolding analogy of Nazism and the Holocaust is instead a recasting of America’s presence in Iraq. Consider:
- Cylons take control of New Caprica in order to teach humans to improve their way of life. America took control of Iraq and replaced Saddam Hussein’s autocratic regime with a democracy.
- Baltar is a puppet president who heeds Cylon wishes. The government in Iraq is widely viewed as a puppet government that heeds American wishes.
- Cylons detain humans indefinitely without charges, abusing and torturing them for information. America detains terrorist suspects indefinitely without charges. Incidents of detainee abuse and torture have made headlines.
- Cylons debate their methods and question whether they’re accomplishing the purpose of instructing humanity. Americans debate our methods and question whether true democracy and self-rule will succeed in Iraq.
- The New Caprica Police recruits humans to serve in the place of Cylons; these recruits face hostility from human insurgents and are targeted for terrorism. Iraqi police are recruited in the place of American soldiers to establish security; they face hostility from Iraqi insurgents and are the frequent targets of terror attacks.
- Cylons free Colonel Tigh from detention, knowing that he will lead an insurgency that will justify Cylon crackdowns; Tigh’s insurgents engage in terrorism that includes suicide bombings. Osama bin Laden is widely rumored to have been allowed to escape capture by US forces, allegedly to justify America’s war on terror; he is now part of an insurgency leadership that disrupts American occupation through terrorism, including suicide bombings.
- In discussing suicide bombings, Roslin tells Baltar, “Desperate people use desperate measures.” The same rationale is widely given by American war protestors in order to defuse the abhorrence of terrorism that otherwise would fuel support for America’s war on terror. “What other choice do Iraqis have beside terrorism?” war protestors argue. “They’re desperate because America has made them desperate.”
Writers who use their craft to explore current moral and ethical issues should be appreciated. Viewers need to keep in mind, however, that Battlestar Galactica reverses the poles drastically. While it’s helpful for us to walk a mile in Iraqi shoes — Galactica entices us to do this by setting us up to identify with humans (Iraqis) instead of Cylons (Americans) — it must be noted that the Cylons replaced a functional democracy, whereas America replaced Saddam Hussein’s brutal dictatorship with democracy and self-rule.
It’s precisely this kind of twist, this balancing of opposite poles, that makes the questions raised by Galactica in every season so thought-provoking. Given an insidious, dictatorial occupying force (Cylons, not Americans), would suicide bombings against military-only targets be justified? In Iraq the question of such drastic terrorism is easily answered (Iraqi insurgents target civilians as well as military and support dictatorship). Galactica viewers, however, are tempted to empathize with those who use suicide bombings, which in turn helps us to probe the psyche of our Iraqi foes.
Sadly, some Americans will draw perfectly tight, unnuanced equations between Iraq and Galactica, suggesting that America is no better than the Cylons. Considering the writers’ increasing efforts to add dimension to Cylon motivations, some war protestors will even argue that a Cylon would be preferred to the purely evil George Bush. Such demonizing is the product of little minds and should be treated as such. The war in Iraq is complex, and Galactica is complex. We should respect artists who treat us to such intelligent and complex work by contemplating and discussing it, not rolling it up into a rhetorical bat to bash our political opponents.
On the other hand, war supporters might question Battlestar Galactica’s writers for creating a scenario in which we are led to frown on America’s efforts to promote democracy, and root instead for terrorists seeking to reestablish a dictatorship. But Galactica is bold enough to trust viewers to think more deeply than this. Despite its complexities, the reality in Iraq is clear: though humans despise Cylons for imposing dictatorship, the general Iraqi population does not despise democracy. If anything, the world has been inspired by Iraqi citizens who have turned out, despite terrorist threats, in astonishing and unpredicted numbers to exercise their new right to vote.
That spirit of resistance and optimism is the one captured by the human insurgency in Galactica, and the one we should all be cheering — both on TV and in Iraq.
October 7, 2006 at 8:04 am |
I doubt I listed all the parallels. What others did you notice?
October 7, 2006 at 10:30 am |
Excellent questions and analysis! As thought-provoking as BSG itself.
Definitely going to add a link to this in an update.
October 7, 2006 at 11:08 am |
I have only watched season 1, but I am getting season 2 this week. So I am playing catch up. I think I have mentioned this before, but I am definitely hooked. I love the show.
I really do like the artists (for that is what they are) attempts at exploring modern questions about Iraq. For instance the water boarding torture was quite provocative. It seemed to maintain a sense of objectivity while looking at the situation from both sides.
It is this supposed objectivity that bugs me though. In the end, I hate watching CNN in a sci-fi movie or program. I watch sci-fi to get away from that nonsense, not to relive a CNN’s reporter bias.
Another thing that bugs me about the show is quite often characters go out of their way to say or do things that simply don’t work with the show. The terrorism aspect as seen in the First Season simply doesn’t work.
I loved however the mystery of the Cylons. I didn’t however expect them to take on the imagery of the U.S.. There are other ways to go about that than to just mix the two altogether, while ignoring the glaring differences as you noted in your post.
I thoroughly enjoyed your post and thoughts. It has started to make me think about the show in perhaps a different light. As I said, neutrality is just simply nonexistent. Your post reminds us of the importance of art and its influence on or reflection of society.
God Bless
October 7, 2006 at 1:48 pm |
Modern day Iraq, or Vichy, France, in World War 2? (COMMENTS CONTAIN SPOILERS)
(or more importantly — carving fork or chopsticks???) Debate the various issues raised by the season 3 premiere of Battlestar Galactica in the comments! Update: A round up of some thoughts from around the blogosphere: Pissed off conservatives who think
October 7, 2006 at 9:59 pm |
Amazing
October 8, 2006 at 9:16 am |
To continue with your comments about BSG being drastically different from Iraq becauase the Cyclons replaced a democracy whereas the Americans are trying to bring one, I think the point is that it doesn’t matter. The Americans use the excuse that they are trying to bring democracy (a good thing) to Iraqis, to justify the occupation. However it doesn’t matter what the occupying force is trying to bring, what matters is that they are an occupying force and the people no longer can control and “sort out” their own future.
October 9, 2006 at 4:35 am |
A cogent analysis. However I do not aggree with your assesment that americas invasion, occupation and destruction of Iraq is being “demonised’ by “little minds” to paraphrase you.
Yes the war in iraq is complex, but the reasoning behind and the moral equation that comes out of it are not. The war is an absolute evil. It taints and corrupts everyone it touches.
All wars are evil to the extent that people die in them, however a war started purposely by a hegemonic power where no threat existed in order to subjugate the population and dictate their political future has no good points. Saddam is gone – great but so what? Things are infinitely worse now.
In this the americans are rightly viewed as no better than Nazis, Romans or the British empire. They came they saw, they raped the country and killed its people.
Americans have used forbidden chemical weapons in Iraq. In Falluja they carpet bombed whole urban areas with white phospherous bombs, an inhuman weapon which melts the skin or insurgent and civilian alike. They have performed many other atrocities and continue to massacre civilians.
Whether an individual soldier is a good person or not is not relevant. I am sure most american soldiers are good individuals – as are most American people in general. But collectively the actions of the united states in crushing the nation of Iraq cannot be exused in any way.
History will not be kind to America in this and I applaud artists like Ronald Moore who are not afraid to point this out.
America is not trying to bring democracy to iraq anymore than Britian was trying to bring civilisation to the americas. It is a case of conquest, of one nation forcing another to accept its will so that the former nation can benefit.
October 9, 2006 at 8:26 am |
From Rhys:
I bet you think I’m going to disagree. Surprise — I won’t (for the most part). You raise a good issue, Rhys: whether a democratic government can succeed when it is imposed by a foreign power. What does “self-rule” mean when it is enforced by others? This is a dilemma, a good question worth examining.
Toward that end I will suggest a few angles of approach. Should foreign powers and/or the United Nations simply sit back and watch dictatorships quash attempts at establishing democracy? Do the “inalienable rights” declared in the US Declaration of Independence apply only to Americans? Would the American Revolution have succeeded if Tory colonists had employed the same tactics (attacks on civilians, abductions, beheadings, suicide bombings) that Iraqi insurgents are using? If not — if those crown-loving terrorist Tories had succeeded in subverting the American Revolution — then today would we call this “self-rule”?
These aren’t rhetorical questions, and I am not suggesting any of them has an easy, snappy answer. My empathy for the ordinary Iraqi who participated in the elections makes me reluctant to quickly accept your suggestion that our occupying presence is in the wrong thing to do.
But as you point out, occupation is certainly no beautiful solution. No one’s saying it is, not even Bush, which is why I appreciate Battlestar Galactica’s effort to explore it.
October 9, 2006 at 8:50 am |
From Wisdo:
Thank you!
That phrase was a little provocative, I admit. I apologize.
Your assessment simply isn’t accurate. No one’s saying Iraq is a perfect success, not even Bush. On the other hand, some people argue, as you do, that Iraq is a perfect failure. Between the two poles, I’d go with Bush’s position because it is the more dimensional. If you conceded more — for example, the fact that far more Iraqis have participated in elections than we predicted, despite terrorist threats against them — and yet argued why your main points are still valid, you would be more persuasive.
“The war is an absolute evil. It taints and corrupts everyone it touches.”
“Things are infinitely worse now.”
“In this the americans are rightly viewed as no better than Nazis …”
These quotes don’t strike you as absolutism?
If this is true, then I will join you in condemning such an attack.
A gracious concession.
Funny, I’d say it takes more courage today to speak out in favor of the war than against it!
And I side with Condi Rice on this one. We don’t know yet how Iraq is going to turn out. Imagine if democracy really does take hold — a fifty-year perspective will prove interesting.
This doesn’t take into account the considerable efforts we are putting into building Iraq back after Hussein scuttled it when we invaded. Should America benefit from the new Iraq? I don’t see why not, as long as Iraq is benefitting first. What room is there for quibbling if a partnership between our two countries were to develop, something akin to our partnership with Japan?
October 9, 2006 at 2:13 pm |
“Sadly, some Americans will draw perfectly tight, unnuanced equations between Iraq and Galactica, suggesting that America is no better than the Cylons. ”
Quite right! Allegory should be banned. People simply cannot be expected to differentiate between reality and the symbolic characterizations of fiction. I myself was forced to read Animal Farm in high school and as a result I would always associated Communists with pigs. I’ve only recently overcome my aversion to pork. When I think of all the bacon-eating pleasure I missed out on due to Orwell’s misleading and confusing allegory it makes me so angry!
October 9, 2006 at 2:58 pm |
Funny, IntransigentPatriot. I’d say actually that Battlestar Galactica, as it played out in the season three premiere, is operating closer to the mode of Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings rather than Lewis’ Narnia. Lewis intended Narnia to be an allegory, but Tolkien shuddered at that word, considering allegory to be too simplistic. He argued that his stories strove instead for applicability — general principles that can be applied to multiple situations. I think that’s more of what the Galactica writers are after — and indeed, some are arguing that the premiere was a closer echo of WW2 France than current Iraq.
October 9, 2006 at 8:13 pm |
Here’s a note I sent to SciFi regarding the Galactica premire. Am I wrong?
——————————————————————————–
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 22:22:43 -0500
To: scifiweekly@scifi.com
Subject: The Worldviews Of SG-1 and Battlestar Galactica
Friday night’s two hour season premier of SciFi’s flagship show, Battlestar Galactica was a thinly veiled comment on the United States’ handling of the war in Iraq. In the episode (spoilers follow) the valiant colonial insurgents waged a guerilla war against the occupying Cylon forces. The Cylons believed in the nobility of their occupation, their purpose being “to bring the love of God” to the humans. It sounded very similar to the Bush administration’s claim that the goal of the Iraq occupation is to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people. By telling the story of an occupation through the eyes of our heroes, Ron Moore and David Eick presented a story that was thought provoking, challenging and “politically correct”.
Contrast that with Stargate:SG-1’s pro U.S. military position and the series’ recent story line in which the galaxy is being invaded by a vastly superior force of religious fanatics whose message is “convert or die”. The comparisons to the present “war on terror” are inevitable, show such a war to be purely defensive in nature and that military strength and advanced technology are the means to suppressing this threat. This is the position of the Bush administration, and other conservatives. To those on the political left, those views are considered ‘politically incorrect”.
One show, Battlestar Galactica, is thought of quite highly by SciFi/NBC and the other, SG-1, has recently been cancelled. Both shows are similar in that they are science fiction, but in terms of tone and worldview, they’re on opposite ends of the spectrum. Could these differences be the reason why SG-1 was cancelled?
October 10, 2006 at 2:43 am |
[...] I have only seen the first series of the new Battlestar Galactica on DVD, but the sheer intelligence and relevance of the stories it tells has struck me like no other show. It seems I’m not the only one – people are talking about the value of BSG as social commentary at Crooked Timber, seedlings, and even Entertainment Weekly. The analysis of the conflict between Colonials and Cylons as it relates to the United States, Iraq, terrorism and World War II is a testament to the contribution good television can make to the level of debate in our society, and is a refreshing break from the overload of reality TV and the expanding rotation of “another week, another crime” police procedurals (remember when John Munch was a character?). Ron Moore has created a setting that starts with a fairly basic and well-trodden premise (machines turn on their creators and war between the “races” ensues) but is using it as a platform to examine a sophisticated set of issues. Anyone who likes science fiction probably already watches it, but the fact is that anyone with a brain should get into this show. [...]
October 10, 2006 at 7:51 am |
Personally I think they should have used a more literal interpretation of the Iraq analogy and have the human on human violence explode after the takeover. If you look Iraq the Iraqis themselves seem to be doing most of the killing.
I think it would have been interesting to see society on New Caprica deteriorate after the Cylon takeover as the humans turn on each other.
Of course the Cylons would be occupied fighting a war with some unseen enemy so the number of Centurions available for peacekeepping would be only a few hundred.
It would be interesting to see Colonel Tigh emerge as a Sadr Mushtaq type figure. Commanding his own rag tag army and operating in open view of the cylons.
If the Cylons were the Americans I would cast them as the unwitting good guys trying their best to stop the colonists from killing one another.
The whole theme for the decent into chaos and anarchy would be the sudden collapse of the government. Adama and the colonial military have been chased away and the Cylons keep Baltar in charge.
Baltar would be an excellent metaphor for the disgraced Iraqi premier Chalabi.
Of course some high level Cylon bureaucrat a Grace Park type Cylon tells the Lucy Lawless Cylon that the remnants of the colonial military must be dissolved. This puts soldiers like Starbuck out on the street without food or income. Just like Paul Bremer.
The Lucy Lawless character is told that she must control the humans with only a few hundred centurions. Law and order slowly begin to disintegrate as the various New Caprica factions turn on one another.
With only a few hundred Centurions at her disposal Lucy Lawless is tasked with a truly impossible mission of keeping order against humans who hate Cylons and each other even more.
Starbuck goes crazy and becomes a hit run terrorist terrorizing both cylons and humans.
President Rosalyn could reprise the Ali Sistani role. The quiet king maker whose support is vital to prevent New Caprica from spinning out into total violence bloodshed and mayhem.
Of course New Caprica could be a huge colonial arms depot giving the colonist an ample supply of weapons to settle their grudges.
At first the Cylons try rebuilding but the lack of resources and the tensions between colonial groups creates a cycle of chaos and violence. Soon the Cylons are viewed as nothing more than another faction on New Caprica with humanoid Cylons working feverishly to maintain the Centurions.
Humans would eventually become more a threat to one another and Starbuck in particular would lose it badly and start going after other humans.
Ironically if the plot bore a closer resemblence to the situation in Iraq it could have far more nihilistic , convoluted and introspective with the humans becoming their own worst enemy.
This could have been an awesome episode.
October 10, 2006 at 8:04 am |
Wow, Alex — great ideas. Glad to hear you’re not afraid of political overtones in science fiction. Look at that list!
You may be disappointed in that premiere, but that’s just one episode. As the season progresses I would be surprised if we don’t see many of your suggestions play out — particularly the human-on-human violence. This was explored previously with the Marine-on-civilian shooting that occurred under Tigh’s command, and the layers of tension are being set now as Tyrol and others express their hostility against New Caprica Police collaborators. Yes, we should expect to see such tension explode. As the season progresses it’ll be fun checkmarking the number of your predictions that unfold.
One interesting thread you didn’t mention was the fact that cylon-vs-cylon tension is also being explored. The Sharon from Galactica, a known cylon, is now a colonial fleet officer — a human collaborator, if you will — and Caprica Six was shot dead for her resistance to coercing Baltar to sign an execution order. Cylons themselves are beginning to choose sides. It’s becoming less a racial struggle (human vs. cylon) as it is an ideological struggle (peace vs. oppression).
October 12, 2006 at 10:55 am |
Lol I simply took the existing headlines and put some new names in!
Although Battlestar Galactica certainly has some very creative writing I feel that in some ways its deficient and much of the drama is manufactured. For example the political tension between Adama and Rosalyn in season 1 makes absolutely no sense.
Look at our example of George Bush after 9-11,which in absolutely and relative terms was a much smaller event than the destruction of the thirteen colonies. For over a year George Bush had a free hand to do practically whatever he wanted and even Democrats were quick to sing his praise.
Now imagine after something like the destruction of the thirteen colonies. The colonists would be absolutely shaken and would naturally turn to Adama as the leader. Not only because of the psychological trauma but because of neccisity. At that point the colonist could not afford to “kick the bums out” if political leaders such as Baltar exercised bad judgement. There may not be another election or even voters if the colonists chose a bad political figure so it would be absolutely vital for the colonists to have stable leadership. Adama would probably have far more respect than is portrayed in the show just because the colonists situation is so desperate.
I think Rosalyn’s challenge would not be viable. The colonists could stick with a leader who has kept them alive or go with Rosalyn on a crazy quest. I think the answer should be obvious.
Whether the colonists liked it or not I think for the sake of sheer survival the colonies would have to evolve into a more patriacal and authoritarian society. Unlike the world we live in they don’t have the luxury of “blowing it” and waiting for the next election cycle with the cylons in hot pursuit.
As far as the cylons are concerned I think there motives as presented in the TV show are quite convoluted and inconsistent. Being the avid reader of evolutionary biology I think the cylons should be motivated by two things: surivial and evolution.
Survival. If the cylons were faced with fighting a two front war with the humans and some other alien race destroying the colonies would simply seem like a logical and prudent action, the sort of decision you would expect a machine to make.
Evoluton. I think as the show presents them the cylons seem to show an implicit interest in evolving. If the cylons were interested in evolving, keeping the humans “contained” in a small colony would certainly serve that end. With the humans bottled up they could no longer harm the cylons. Thus later allowing the Cylons to use human DNA for their purposes.
Although the show is promising I think small refinements would definitely make the storyline far more interesting.
October 15, 2006 at 8:55 pm |
[...] The show is quite good and has very solid acting and a great plot. While I was watching the first episode of season three I was struck with the thought that the show was essentially an allegory for the war in Iraq (and apparently I wasn’t the only one, here’s another). I’m not sure how long they can run with that plot line and I’m not sure how I feel about it (I find I’m getting Iraq fatigue just reading/watching the news) and it would certainly be easy to swerve off into being preachy or patronizing but so far it’s handling the challenges very well. [...]
November 4, 2006 at 9:19 pm |
I have just watched the first episode of Galactica season 3, and I am modestly disturbed that Galactica is taking on a very pressing, current, and election season issue at this very time, drawing parallels that are, at least as far as this first episode are concerned, are very superficial in nature. Galactica never used to do superficial.
Galactica writers have shown themselves to be intelligent and capable story tellers, yet I wonder if we are too clost to US/Iraq events in history for them to do anything meaningful with it… Minus their understanding of events in Iraq in a clearer historical perspective, they may just jumble and muddy everything.
I found the first episode to be very dissatisfying because of the idea that the parallels are superficial in nature, and that many of the issues are 180 degrees outside of the reality if the situation in Iraq, as was noted in the article above.
For the common Galactican, their greatest fear might be that the Cylons never leave them.
For the common Iraqi, their greatest fear might be that the US leaves. Chaos, death and a *true* war in Iraq would be the result.
When the greatest fears Galacticans/Iraqis are flipped end to end, it certainly is leaves one to wonder if something interesting can be done with it… but it will take special care and handling by the writers, and very intelligent story direction to make it seem anything buy a conflicting mess that offers no real insights into our world.
November 4, 2006 at 10:00 pm |
Rhys Says:
[...] To continue with your comments about BSG being drastically different from Iraq becauase the Cyclons replaced a democracy whereas the Americans are trying to bring one, I think the point is that it doesn’t matter. The Americans use the excuse that they are trying to bring democracy (a good thing) to Iraqis, to justify the occupation. However it doesn’t matter what the occupying force is trying to bring, what matters is that they are an occupying force and the people no longer can control and “sort out” their own future. [...]
I think you have a few elements mixed up, which is why I think that even good work by the BSG writers will not really come to mean much this season.
Americans do not occupy Iraq, for example. At most, they live side by side with the Iraqi people, with aims to leave as soon pracitcal. They have tried to bring a measure of security, much like the police try to bring a measure of security to our lives at home. Of couse we don’t claim that the police “occupy” our communities. America has offered to leave when asked to go. That is not an occupation, not by a long shot.
Nor is “bringing Democracy” an excuse for the (non) occupation. Rather, the US simply wants to see that Iraq steers clear of a civil war as a result of taking down Saddam.
The US took out a dictator, as they promised they would, if he failed to meet the conditions of the cease fire agreement to allow inspectors to keep tabs on his WMDs. He broke the conditions of the cease fire, armed conflict resumed, and he is now out of power as a result.
Following this first order of business, America had two choices… leave Iraq, letting the chips fall where they may, or staying in hopes of leaving a government behind that was better than a dictatorship. The US chose to try to piece together a stable government that incorporates some elements of equality, human rights, and a voice for the people… as they exit, wishing Iraq “good luck” on the way out. No US authority has ever promised western style democracy as far as I have been able to find.
You also make the claim that Iraqis can “no longer” control or sort out their future. Of course this mischaractorizes what living under a dictatorship is like. “No longer”? What has in fact happened is that Iraqi’s are only now in a position to sort out their future. It may take a horrific and bloody civil war for them to sort it out, but that is who and what they are.
If it takes a dictator to keep Arabs from descending into war between themselves, then the Cylon question concerning if humanity even deserved to live starts to become quite the interesting consideration. If they wish to kill themselves, do we think we should try to stop them? If so, who should do it? Would you support such an effort? Or would you let the blood flow as fate would have it?
January 25, 2007 at 12:12 pm |
[...] Yes, I thrilled when Time named Battlestar Galactica 2006 TV Show of the Year. I didn’t know anyone else who watched, and therefore couldn’t join in the workplace chitchat – but at least Time confirmed that I wasn’t crazy. The show’s writers were crafting something intelligent, something gripping and edgy – so much so that at the beginning of season three I broke one of my self-imposed blogging rules to write my only-ever entertainment review. [...]
June 12, 2007 at 9:20 am |
I’ve finally caught up enough on BSG back-watching to read this post — great analysis! You caught many parallels I did not. Now to start on the comments…
Matt Groening, commenting on Futurama said (paraphrase); “I’ll tell you a secret about science fiction — it’s not about the future”
June 12, 2007 at 11:00 am |
Ahh, yes — but it’s a slider, isn’t it? Drag the slider to the left, the story appears more and more like our own reality. Drag it to the right, the story becomes more fantastic and escapist.
No story, no matter how buried on the right the slider becomes, departs entirely from reality — otherwise it’d be entirely incoherent. The question then is, where along the scale do you enjoy the slider most?
December 17, 2008 at 12:20 pm |
Just caught up to season 3. Good post–I noticed many of the same correlations. I remember you telling me years ago that I would like the show. My husband and I are addicted. Unfortunately, I am at the point of obsession, feeling as if the fleet and the cylons are real people. I was happy all day Thursday after seeing the season 3 episode where Starbuck and Apollo finally get together. I know…they’re not real people, but I felt like two of my best friends fell in love. I have a problem. Anyway, I love the moral duplicty of the show. There is no black and white, and it makes you really think about our own society, which is what good sci-fi should do.
I hope all is well in middle school land. We still miss you. Let me know if you have any more posts on BSG that I should read…