What's weirder? (TV Edition)

What's weirder?

A. Therapist Ellen Ladowsky explains why pedophiles seem to love the original Star Trek.

B. Happy Days creator Garry Marshall is turning the sitcom into a musical.

C. Omarosa (left) has a connection to the BTK serial killer case.

OK, maybe B. isn't weird, just sort of appalling. We've seen so many movies and so many pop stars' catalogues turned into musicals lately that a musical based on a sitcom was probably inevitable. With C., I'm willing to assume that Omarosa was simply displaying the business acumen and concern for others' well-being that have made her famous.

No, I gotta go with A., just for its willful misreading of the obvious. It's unfair for Ladowsky to single out Star Trek for its failure to depict healthy and lasting adult sexual relationships, not when, oh, every adventure tale in American literature has the same problem. (Clearly, Ladowsky has never read any Leslie Fiedler.) By Ladowsky's logic, The Dukes of Hazzard should have just as much appeal to pedophiles as Star Trek. (Bo and Luke went through strings of lovelies without settling down, too.) As for Ladowsky's conclusion, which attempts to link Star Trek to Michael Jackson (''It is unclear whether he watches Star Trek or just looks as if he does.''), well that's just gratuitous and mean.