I really, really wish the SG-1 writers had taken a hint from SGA fanfic and gone all-penguin all the time instead. Seriously. Vala's Penguin Baby. An idea whose time has come.

Re Katie's idea re spoiler: Ooh! Medea! Vala could sprinkle the child's disjointed remains through the Stargate to slow a vengeful Daniel down!

If she didn't know Adama's phone call was to tell Kara to kill her, she's a much poorer judge of character than I assumed.

Well, it turns out that Adama's phone call wasn't to tell Kara to kill her, so it turned out okay, didn't it?

Do you really think her second in command had a quarter of her steel or resolve? I never got the impression she thought anyone at the time could do her job, though I'm sure she'd loved to have had the chance to groom Kara.

I love how Kara was impressed and stuff with her, but when Big Daddy said shoot, she was willing to follow his order. Or at least try.

But edgy as BSG is, I didn't think any of ours would get their hands that dirty.

But edgy as BSG is, I didn't think any of ours would get their hands that dirty.

Yeah. And isn't it nice that, in the crunch, Roslin fights dirtier than Adama?

I never got the impression she thought anyone at the time could do her job, though I'm sure she'd loved to have had the chance to groom Kara.

Me neither. In fact, I'd bet hard money that her bonding/drinking with Kara was insurance just in case Adama was planning to have her killed. (In a "if we're friends she won't shoot me in the head" kind of way. Or maybe she was planning to give Kara the Galactica. Or maybe "don't flinch" is her pre-battle speech to all her CAGs.) I'm not sure why she backed down, except that in the aftermath of the battle, she just didn't really feel like it anymore. Or maybe when she saw that Adama had backed down from his end, she decided it wasn't necessary to take him out.

isn't it nice that, in the crunch, Roslin fights dirtier than Adama?

See, I thought she gave an order in part 1, and then said "How nice you didn't have to do that thing you wanted to do," and backed right off it in part 2.

Which is...even dirtier, really.

Betsy, we can only dream. But I'm having bad flashbacks to Xena and Gabrielle and the Hope arc.

Okay, yes, but the part where she made Kara promise not to flinch?

I don't think I understand. She's speaking generally. This is what she says at the end:

Let me tell you something. I've had to watch a lot of kids be put into body bags. They're covered with flags and they float out that airlock. You think I don't understand his feelings towards his men? Sometimes terrible things have to be done. Inevitably, each and every o­ne of us will have to face a moment where we have to commit that horrible sin. And if we flinch in that moment, if we hesitate for o­ne second, if we let our conscience get in the way, you know what happens? There are more kids in those body bags. More kids floating out that airlock. I don't know why... but I have a lot of faith in you. And I want you to promise me that when that moment comes you won't flinch. Do not flinch.

The fact that there is subtext doesn't mean every sentence has a specific hidden meaning. I think when she says "Don't flinch when that happens," she means, "Don't flinch when that happens."

See, I thought she gave an order in part 1, and then said "How nice you didn't have to do that thing you wanted to do," and backed right off it in part 2.

True. Very true. Um... can we blame the drugs?

Strega, but I really did read that as "Sometimes you have to do terrible things, and I want you to promise me that you'll DO them." So "Don't flinch" means "don't flinch", and can also mean "If you have to kill me, don't miss.

Inevitably, each and every o­ne of us will have to face a moment where we have to commit that horrible sin. And if we flinch in that moment, if we hesitate for o­ne second, if we let our conscience get in the way, you know what happens? There are more kids in those body bags.

Let me state for the record, because I am autistic in this way, that the quoted portion here is a logical fallacy known as the "false dichotomy." Either you commit an atrocity or you let people die -- why is this a universal either-or statement, when there might be many other potential outcomes? The answer: crappy/underhanded rhetoric.

(Crappy in the sense that some people can't think their way out of perceived dichotomies; underhanded in the sense that "Why do you hate America?" is considered a legitimate form of argumentation nowadays. I don't have a strong opinion as to whether Cain was crappy, or underhanded, or both, or something else -- because I'm not sure what the writers intended.)

This rhetorical analysis brought to you by Citizens for Elegance in Argumentation, the Corporation for Clear Rhetoric, and the letter Q.