My son was born last week at 2:52am in the morning. We then spent three and a half day in a hospital room waiting for Amy to recover from both a perineal tear and a c-section scar (the poor woman pushed for 3 hours before deciding a c-section would probably be the way to go). Charlie, to me, looks like an Asian version of his mother. His expressions and temperaments are sometimes the splitting image of my wife, but mostly, he's a baby who is coping with being alive as well as we can expect. I have not lost as much sleep as people have told me I would lose, but it's still early; Once Charlie starts teething or really growing we'll probably be up 24 hours.

But for now, we are content just to be a full family unit. And he's just so adorable when he smiles:

Amy and I went to see Tales from Earthsea last night in a preview showing. Overall it was 2 out of 4 stars. The story is the stereotypical Japanese boy coming to age while forced into a precarious situation. The art is beautiful, full of wide spanning vistas and colorful characters. The rich backdrop of Earthsea works to keep the audience's attention; both Amy and I were willing to buy into the film in order to find out more about the setting. And that is really all of the positive things I can say about it. The actual plot is both skimpy and attempts to do too much. Although the main protagonist is Arren, he is used solely as a plot device to move the story forward - ninety-nine percent of the film is about the side characters. After an hour and a half of watching things happen to Arren it occurs to me that there is very little the audience can invest in him. Compared to the other characters, Arren is a clean slate. We only know two things about him and that never changes, right up to the end of the movie. When your main character can be replaced with a dog or a magic talking book and the movie can remain unchanged, that should raise a red flag. His motivation is also opaque; *SPOILER* We are told that Arren kills his father because he is terrified of death. How does that make any sense? /*END SPOILER*. It would have made more sense either to expand Arren's story or just eliminate it completely and expand on Sparrowhawk's. The side characters have so much history that when the story actually moves forward it feels like a giant inside joke that the audience is left out of. I can only listen to Theru mention off-handedly the crazy adventure she went on with Sparrowhawk so many times before I lose interest.

The irony is, despite the side characters' deep history, their motivations are just skin deep. By the time the end credits start rolling we are able to sum up each character in one sentence. The big discovery the audience gets when they leave the theater is that each character is just a talking head representing a morally defined philosophy. Each character, that is, except for the main protagonist.

There are other problems with the film; Pacing is terrible, mood is constantly being disrupted by superfluous scenes and poorly translated dubs (e.g. the scene where Haitaka needs to jump to a ledge as she and Arren races to save Sparrowhawk is unnecessary; Cobb's cackling toward the end disrupts what should be a tense and sad scene). And the climatic battle at the top of the tower makes absolutely no sense. If Cobb is afraid of the light and what it represents, why does he race to the pinnacle of the castle? Because the story needs a symbolic rising sun at its climax, that's why.

I don't know if Tales from Earthsea can be fixed, but a re-edit could not hurt. As it stands, I would not pay money to see it.

The New Year started off well, what with me being engaged now and sporting both a new TV and (soon) new phone (P.S. Everyone expect a text message from me with my new phone number). Besides figuring out what to get Amy for her birthday and playing Torchlight, I've been thinking primarily about math. We are doing good financially, not living from paycheck to paycheck, but the shopping season has done a doozy on us. To be fair, we spent less than some of our friends (two friends we spoke with spent about 40% more than we did, and we spent a good amount), but with me being sick for two weeks and extra expenses I've been spending a lot of time playing catch-up accounting (Is that the correct word? Is it both a noun and a verb?). Also, I've been doing some game-theories regarding relationships. Specifically, optimal behavior for a cheater in a monogamous relationship.

This whole train of thought actually started many years ago, when Mike broke up with one of his girlfriends. When I asked him if he would ever consider forgiving her and taking her back, he thought through the circumstance carefully and answered, "No." Mike, being the logical man that he is, had a very good reason. All cheaters can be put in one of two groups: people who cheat on purpose and people who cheat without having intended to. If you look at the first group, these are people who break the unspoken rule of monogamy with disregard toward both their mate and the relationship they entered. If Mike's girlfriend fell into this group then there is no reason Mike would want to forgive her; she obviously does not care for him. If you look at the second group, these are people who for one reason or another willingly yielded when the temptation of sex arose; since they have 'no control' over what occurs (whether or not that is actually true is besides the point) there is no reason it would not happen again. One can make the argument that for some people in this situation it is a one time mistake; But unless the cheater is raped it just does not stand up to scrutiny. There are many different points the cheater could refuse the advances of temptation - No when flirting begins. No during flirtation. No when touching begins. No during touching. No when leaning in to kiss, No during the kiss. No when undressing begins, No when undressing is done, No when penetration begins, No during penetration. At each interval, the cheater has a choice; deny the temptation for consideration of the mate or yield to the temptation for the sake of the self. A single act of infidelity is really a long series of broken promises.

In both cases there is a realization that the cheater cannot be trusted, and so the answer is always no. Hence, the lesson is an unfaithful person is a person you do not want to have a monogamous relationship with. Open relationships are complicated so we will not discuss them.

That got me thinking; Armed with this knowledge, is the age old adage "Honesty is the best policy" really optimal behavior for the cheater? Especially when love is involved? I submit to you:

Given:

-People are capable and would sometimes love more than one person at once.

-Some people put themselves in positions where it is very likely they would fall in love with more than one person at a time.

-People in love would not intentionally hurt those they love.

-Discovery of cheating would cause a lot of pain to loved ones

Conclusion:

If a cheater is in love with his or her mate, he or she would deny any wrongdoing, real or imagined, of cheating. If he or she is dropping clues or being careless, that is signal that they no longer care for the mate. Assuming that two people agree to go into a monogamous relationship together, they agree with the unspoken rule that no cheating would be allowed. If Girl finds out Boy has been cheating, her mentality would be "He has broken the unspoken rule when I have not. He does not want a monogamous relationship with me as much as I want a monogamous relationship with him." She then breaks it off. If Boy cheats, he in turn thinks "If Girl finds out I cheated she will assume I do not want a monogamous relationship and break it off with me, because she would never cheat on me." Therefore if Boy wants to keep his relationship with Girl, he must above all else deny the unspoken rule was broken. He assumes anything that implies the rule was broken would end the relationship, and denies it until he decides he wants to end the relationship. That would appear to be the optimal path. But what about the cheaters who are wracked with guilt over their mistaken fling? Isn't it better to come clean? That would be subject to a cost/benefit analysis, but even in that case, the cheater would confess not out of love for the mate, but to alleviate his or her own guilty mind.

To end the entry, I have a riddle:

A wealthy eccentric places two envelopes in front of you. She tells you that both envelopes contain money, and that one contains twice as much as the other, but she does not tell you which is which. You are allowed to choose one envelope and open it. Then she offers you the chance to switch for the other envelope. Do you switch? What if she told you the most she'd put in an envelope is $1,000?

The full analysis for this riddle can be found here.