That one day of March 2014 when I first visited this webcomic was a good day.
What I want to say you've probably heard quite a few times now, but Octopus Pie has been an inspiration.

As Eve, Hannah, Will, Marigold, Jane et al. stumbled through their young adult years,
trying to find their footing, as they found themselves either pushing back or working towards their own growth, I often found a lot in common with my own experiences and choices and it caused several moments of introspection.

It still happens to this day while I re-read my OP copies when I'm home, or online when I'm not.

Your work is helping me become a better me.

Thank you Meredith for Octopus Pie, looking forward to see more of your moving and insightful writing in Perfect Tides.

-Saffron??? Are you kidding me? Bacon and eggs are a luxury item on the station yet Zach think the cafeteria food might be casually flavored with the most expensive spice on Earth?

Who knows? Maybe Crocus sativus really likes Ragesh III's climate, so much that saffron has become cheaper than boring old pepper!

Ah, my bad. I didn't remember this bit of the conversation. It's true that Garibaldi was aggravating the whole time, which only made her more defensive. I still think her views on the duties of the soldier are absolutely wrong. I'm sure her hands were still clean after the civil war (again, Sheridan vouched for her), but her actions during it should've been more explored. And I definitely could've done without the applause at the end of that scene, and most of them came from soldiers who fought Clarke no less!

I could believe that there were instances of officers, soldiers, entire crews (or any civil servant for that matter) refusing to comply with an illegal order from the Clarke government, and not being arrested or worse. The regime probably couldn't afford to make more enemies than what they believed they could handle, so maybe they focused on fighting those who actively fought back, and left the others to be purged later.

I could believe this happened to Lochley, as it would fit her values. But if that had been the case, I also think she'd have explained that to Garibaldi. Something like "My ship was ordered to bomb a rebellious colony and I refused, taking full responsibility." But we since we got none of that during that scene, I think it's clear she was just lucky to never have been given the choice between murdering innocents or rebelling.

Lo and behold, I too can see it again! And it's shown up on my IntenseDebate profile as well. I blame the gremlins! I'll edit my first comment, thanks for confirming I didn't hallucinate submitting it! ;)

This is my third attempt at posting this comment. The first time it stayed on the page for a couple hours (and I know other readers saw it) before disappearing. So I pasted it from a copy I previously made and submitted it again. It worked, but then disappeared as soon as I refreshed the page! Is IntenseDebate having a fit?
I had a similar issue the last time I posted a comment in the review of S02E22 Learning Curve, but it seemed to work after a few tries, let's hope it does again this time!

-----------------

Ugh Lochley. So, I actually like her usually but man, her justitifications of her choice to stay with the (officially) legal Clarke governement always get on my nerves...

"I was on the side that says it's not the role of the military to set policy or depose presidents or fire on our own ships."
Sure, anybody reasonable would agree. But when the government orders you to follow illegal orders, what do you do? Many members of the military refused or outright rebelled, she didn't. Maybe because she never faced that situation directly?

"I don't understand the ethical structure of the universe and I don't think it's my place to tear up the constitution I swore an oath to protect."
There's the problem : Lochley decided to follow Clarke. Even though he had issued orders that we can safely assume were contrary to the very spirit of the constitution. Clarke was the threat to her oath, he was the enemy betraying the set of principles she'd swore to protect. Her loyalty was to the constitution first, not the governement. Her duty was to defend it. Since she failed to do so, she effectively lost her honor in my opinion.

I don't mind having her being a former member of the Clarke-loyalist faction. But come on, her line of thinking is flawed! It shouldn't have ended there. I know for sure that Sheridan would have never suggested Lochley for commander of B5 if she'd commited any crimes during the civil war, but I'd have loved a scene between her and Sheridan were they discussed this in detail. I think John could've made her see through her faulty "my country, right or wrong" logic.

If you wonder why I posted the same comment twice, it's because IntenseDebate messed with me again. That or gremlins developped a penchant for annoying me! ^^

---------------------------

Ugh Lochley. So, I actually like her usually but man, her justitifications of her choice to stay with the (officially) legal Clarke governement always get on my nerves...

"I was on the side that says it's not the role of the military to set policy or depose presidents or fire on our own ships."
Sure, anybody reasonable would agree. But when the government orders you to follow illegal orders, what do you do? Many members of the military refused or outright rebelled, she didn't. Maybe because she never faced that situation directly?

"I don't understand the ethical structure of the universe and I don't think it's my place to tear up the constitution I swore an oath to protect."
There's the problem : Lochley decided to follow Clarke. Even though he had issued orders that we can safely assume were contrary to the very spirit of the constitution. Clarke was the threat to her oath, he was the enemy betraying the set of principles she'd swore to protect. Her loyalty was to the constitution first, not the governement. Her duty was to defend it. Since she failed to do so, she effectively lost her honor in my opinion.

I don't mind having her being a former member of the Clarke-loyalist faction. But come on, her line of thinking is flawed! It shouldn't have ended there. I know for sure that Sheridan would have never suggested Lochley for commander of B5 if she'd commited any crimes during the civil war, but I'd have loved a scene between her and Sheridan were they discussed this in detail. I think John could've made her see through her faulty "my country, right or wrong" logic.

The Allies in the 30's didn't form a unified diplomatic front against Hitler from the get-go. We didn't stop him when he ordered the rearmament, when he remilitarized the Rhineland, when he annexed Austria. Agreeing to his demands yet again convinced him once and for all that the Western democracies were pushovers.

I know a lot of that is hindsight. But whenever I hear about French and British policy regarding Germany in the 30's, two words always come to mind: "misguided" and "ineffectual".

By forming a true diplomatic opposition against Hitler, and making strong alliances with countries like Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia, and especially the Soviet Union before Hitler could, we would've made up for our militaries' shortcomings early in the war and for our poor strategic position, thanks to Belgium's (suicidal) neutrality forcing us to wait for the germans to invade it first before we could do anything.

This would've certainly prevented the devastating war we endured. Compared to the Allies, the German army during the Rhineland crisis was a joke and it was still weak until the Munich agreement gave them Czechoslovakia to loot.

Like epicurius said, every time Hitler had challenged the Western powers until then the german military high command was skittish at best, when some of them didn't outright plot to overthrow him to prevent a war they knew would only bring devastation to Germany.
It was our failure to check his power that convinced them these attempts were hopeless, until the war started to get bad for Germany, when millions had already been killed.

The Sudeten crisis was our last shot at stopping Hitler with minimal loss of life and destruction, and we blew it. Signing the agreement at Munich doomed millions of people around the world.
Yes, the whole world, as Japan likely never would have gone to war to get the oil, rubber and other ressources its economy needed if the British, the French and the Dutch who possesed them hadn't been busy fighting Germany.

So, while I agree backing down at Munich gave the Allies more time to re-arm, at the same time it made the conquest of nearly all of Europe by the Nazis inevitable. And from a French point of view, my country didn't have the luxury of having the Channel sea to protect it while reaping the benefits of the time gained...

... I'm dreadfully sorry about the long rant, history nerd here. And this (along with my country's supposed innate cowardice during WWII) is kind of a tiny, wee, little, small pet peeve of mine! :D

Anyway, I have been around since Mark started watching Avatar. But I thought I'd create a new account just for this, complete with a shiny, more current username to boot, heh.
Now, onwards with season 3!

I'll try to recreate most of it here, but basically I agree with epicurius' comment.

-----------------
I'm going to have to take some issue with those statements about Chamberlain and the whole Munich "agreement". Now, I get why some of the more lucid French and British supporters of the agreement decided to buy time to prepare. And they certainly did so by choosing to abandon Czechoslovakia to Germany.

But I think that people who believe Munich was a success in the long run are looking at it backwards. Think of the huge amounts of weapons Germany got for free, (including some critical pieces of military hardware) and it came with the enormous industrial powerbase producing them. This is something the leaders of France and Great Britain must have known, and something Hitler was very happy to publicly gloat over after the signing. Those weapons, that equipment, made a significant portion of Germany's arsenal during the invasions of Poland, Denmark & Norway, the Low Countries and France. Munich helped Germany get ready for war sooner that they ever could have without it.

And compound that with the Allies' obsolete military doctrine early in the war, where we thought we'd fight another WWI with just more firepower, more modern tanks and planes and with a rigid, methodical way of conducting battle so as to minimize losses. Versus Germany's combined arms tactics which gave their officers in the field a lot more freedom to accomplish their objectives the best way possible, much faster.

At Munich, we gave Hitler just enough guns to make him believe he could start the war when he wanted and win, i.e. : before France and Great Britain could be ready, and before the Soviets could be ready.

(Continued below)

Uh? I'm pretty sure I'd clicked "submit", but my previous comment doesn't show up even on my account history. Was it too off-topic? If I've done something wrong, please let me know moderators! :S

EDIT: Nevermind, it was probably just way too long, curse my tendency to write massive posts!