'Trek' Revisited

From Variety.com

Trekkies have a new leader 'Star' treatment for J.J.
By DAVE MCNARY

J.J. Abrams is becoming the next Gene Roddenberry.

Paramount is breathing life into its "Star Trek" franchise by setting "Mission: Impossible III" helmer J.J. Abrams to produce and direct the 11th "Trek" feature, aiming for a 2008 release. Damon Lindelof and Bryan Burk, Abrams' producing team from "Lost," also will produce the yet-to-be-titled feature.

Project, to be penned by Abrams and "MI3" scribes Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, will center on the early days of seminal "Trek" characters James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock, including their first meeting at Starfleet Academy and first outer space mission.

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

The good news is, the Trek world is returning to me. The bad news is that it's returning the wrong way.

The series' chief problem is that it keeps trying to recapture Kirk/Spock and Co. instead of creatively expanding the Trek universe.

"Voyager" tried to give us Captain Kirk in a skirt. "Enterprise" tried to give us the whole original series crew redrawn, including the Vulcan science officer second-in-command. (Who did look much better in tight outfights than Leonard Nimoy.) Both failed.

"TNG" and "DS9" gave us something a lot more original. Although still TOS-style planet-of-the-week adventure for the most part, the complex characters which made up the crew was a refreshing change from the generally expected, up to having the brash American play second fiddle to a French captain. It worked, and extremely well.

I gave "Emterprise" points for trying to be fresh, and in its last season it actually got there, but by then it was too late.

What's fresh with the proposed movie? Little if anything.

Let's start with where everyone in the TNG/DS9 universe is right now. The TNG movies, with the notable exception of the one with the Borg and Zephram Cochrane in post-WW3 Montana, made the same mistake the TOS flicks did. No one went anywhere. Here you have a shipload of assertive, dynamic people and no one ever gets promoted or transferred. Everyone ends up waddling around covering up middle aged spread and grey touches in the hair. It's silly.

The cast should have changed. A few characters go, a few new charqcters come in, with the old characters referenced in the story for continuity's sake, and to play on the "where are they now?" angle.

Here's LaForge coming in to the scene in command of his Starfleet Engineering ship, here's Admiral Picard in charge of a major diplomatic initiative working with Captains Riker of the Enterprise and Data of some other ship. Meanwhile, former Bajoran Colonel, now Starfleet Commander Kira uncovers evidence of a plot involving renegade Romulans and Cardassians to assassinate Federation President Kathryn Janeway, and has to rely on Cardassian political security chief Elim Garak to deal with it, but Garak, it seems, has his own agenda. Bring it all together without looking back. Time, man, it marches on. Yet it rarely does in a fantasy universe where time travel adventure seems to happen to everyone almost all the time. It makes no sense.

But no, we're going to get Kirk and Spock in diapers, played by actors who certainly won't be Shatner and Nimoy, which will make it laughable as well as disappointing in terms of creative direction.

Sigh. I'd become a Battlestar Galactica freak but it's too dark for just before bedtime. I'm too old for nightmares. My saving grace is my TiVo and the pick of five hours of Star Trek's DS9 and TNG I can record from every weekday for my tuck-myself-in cup of warm milk and fantasy. While the cinema may let me down, cable, where nothing ever truly dies, still knows what I want. It's there for me.

Written in honor of TV Turnoff Week, a despicable un-Trekkie event which the Articles of Federation compel me to turn off and ignore.

Down Home Politics

COMMENTARY: Utah Senator’s Contributions Come From Alcohol, Tobacco, Gambling?“ (from the Interfaith Alliance)

For almost 30 years, Orrin G. Hatch has been an influential representative of Mormon-dominated Utah. Yet he has accepted campaign contributions from wealthy sinners in the alcohol, tobacco and gambling industries -- a fact that may surprise some residents.

These have not been token contributions. We're talking serious money, enough to put Hatch among the top recipients from these industries. In 2000, Hatch received $20,500 from the tobacco industry, putting him in eighth place in the U.S. Senate that year. This year, he received $17,000, putting him in fifth place (but, of course, the year is young).

Representatives of the beer, wine and liquor industries gave Hatch $34,600 in 2000 and $26,000 this year, putting him in 10th and fifth places respectively. The gambling industry contributed $19,182 in 2000, putting Hatch in sixth place in the Senate for gaming dollars… "Religion need not become an issue for public servants because what really matters is how one casts his votes while in office. And sometimes personal beliefs must be set aside in the spirit of compromise, or as a matter of law.” (Daily Herald, “Hatch's donors of ill repute,” 04-21-06)

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

Good point. As the old Texas saying goes: if you can't drink their beer, smoke their cigars and (fornicate with) their women and still vote against them, you don't deserve to be in politics.

FYI, here's Hatch's voting record, via Project Vote Smart. Among other things, he was consistent in his love of agonizing misery, either through alcoholic poisoning or debilitating illness, expressed through voting down funds for AIDS drug assistance in 2005.

What a man.

The Fall (GOP-style)

There will be calls that the party has lost its way. The party, we will hear, has lost its way. It has lost its connection to the American public, and must suffer the consequences if it doesn’t find new vision, a new commitment to its principles. There will be calls for new leaders to step forward to re-ignite the fire of principle tied to action, to build a new path to political glory. Or else.

The funny part is that they’ll be talking about the Republicans this time.

As a result, the GOP race for the White House looks a helluva lot more entertaining than the Democrats’.

The Dems will have the usual lineup of several moderates, and one or two fire eaters from the left. One of the fire eaters will catch fire with the activist wing, but primary voters will go for “electability” and select someone who will then spend the rest of the year running as far from the fire eaters as possible. And people wonder why MoveOn.org is so successful.

The GOP, on the other hand, will be looking at an intriguing battle for the presumed soul (cold and dark as it is, it’s still in there somewhere) of the party’s principles and nothing’s more brutal than a holy war among holy warriors. Fiscal hawks will fight war against chickenhawks; social conservatives against “limited government” conservatives; moderates will call for reason and get bum rushed out of the door. It’ll be bloody; it’ll be cruel and for a liberal Democrat, just loads of fun.

The skirmishing has already begun. George Will has written extensively on the party’s need to re-affirm its principles. In 1995 he gushed over the radical changes the House Republicans would bring. Political newbies for the most part, they didn’t have the “go along to get along” personal ties to the Washington establishment to hold them down. Oh no, they were going to get things done, or get un-done as the case would be.

Ah, but then … temptation, sweet temptation.

Like all folks who feel they’ve been deprived of power for far too long, the soft chairs of the Big House proved too soft for them to resist. All those billions and billions of nice federal dollars just sitting there. Why shouldn’t the hard working men and women who command American business get their fair share? After all, they’re so generous in patriotically answering our call for support for campaign dollars to win power; they’ve certainly shown their public spirit. Service needs to be rewarded, and business certainly knows how to spend those billions and billions better than mere public employees could.

Perhaps the new GOP logo should be a serpentine Halliburton standing in Eden’s garden handing a nice golden(for money) apple to a naked elephant.

What the GOP doesn’t see is that the larger issue on spending and taxes is the larger issue we Californians are forced to look at. Simply put, Americans like more services than they’d like to pay for. The public service pie doesn’t get bigger because it’s being forced on a poor undesiring public. It’s the collective wishes of what that public wants. So you have even conservative wingnuts like my nearby Rep. John Doolittle saying that the GOP should be appreciated for supposedly holding down spending but don’t say we’re throwing the widows and orphans out on the street because we’ve actually expanded funding for them.

In short, people like spending on widows and orphans. They just don’t want to see the bill. That’s the conundrum in a democratic society where one party constantly hammers at the social contract, yet underneath it all, people still want it because they fundamentally recognize that we need it. Years of GOP hammering at the social insurance network has ended up tying the party into an ideological and governance knot it can’t get out of.

This is why it’s easier to be a nice tax-and-spend liberal. We don’t have to go through all this. Not that I have any sympathy for the Republicans on this one. They brung it on themselves. If they were true and pure they’d tell the public that there’s a gap between our hearts and our pocketbooks and that we need to find ways to bring them into harmony. But pounding on “government”, even when it’s them, and giving tax breaks to the rich are too tempting short term gains, and we see how weak the Republican spirit is in dealing with temptation.

So I get to watch them twist and turn and punch and kick and scream and shout over the next couple of years. Who knows, they may still end up back in the White House in 2009. Odder things have happened. But they’ll be picking over their own scabs after it's all over, which will serve as my consolation prize. I win, whether my party wins or loses.

Rendering Unto Caeser

COMMENTARY: Jesus Was Original Proponent Of Church/State Separation
“There is no such thing as a "Christian politics." If it is a politics, it cannot be Christian. Jesus told Pilate: "My reign is not of this present order. If my reign were of this present order, my supporters would have fought against my being turned over to the Jews. But my reign is not here" (John 18:36). Jesus brought no political message or program. This is a truth that needs emphasis at a time when some Democrats, fearing that the Republicans have advanced over them by the use of religion, want to respond with a claim that Jesus is really on their side. He is not. He avoided those who would trap him into taking sides for or against the Roman occupation of Judea. He paid his taxes to the occupying power but said only, "Let Caesar have what belongs to him, and God have what belongs to him" (Matthew 22:21). He was the original proponent of a separation of church and state.” (New York Times, “Christ Among the Partisans,” 04-09-06)

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

Mr. Wills makes some interesting points in his commentary. But this isn’t a question of church/state separation. It’s a matter of political philosophy.

A personal decision to go down and volunteer in the storefront soup kitchen down on Skid Row because it’s what Jesus would do is just as valid as if the decision were based on Rousseau’s notion of the social contract or if it’s a nice day and there’s nothing on teevee, so why not? The underlying value which motivates the charitable act is a personal decision everyone has and should have the right to come to by whatever route they see fit. That’s one of the underlying foundations of the First Amendment’s protection of both religion and expression.

That’s the reason both protections sit on top of each other in the Constitution. There is what you value, one’s personal religion, so to speak; it can metaphysics or simple personal charity. There is also the consequent political expression which comes out if it. It can’t and shouldn’t be separated. How and what basis one reaches decisions regarding social and political behavior is a deeply personal matter, and must be respected in a free, democratic society. The Constitution does just that.

The issue is purely where, how and when the government should act for the common good in response to individual and collective expressions of values. The best guideline comes from Revolutionary War propagandist Thomas Paine, who held that your freedom to swing your arms ends at the tip of his nose. The government has the right and duty to step in and protect his nose but no further. Everything must be measured against this guideline. Is the act under question a matter of “arm swinging” or “nose defense?”

Now, proponents of various restrictions, including some feminists who hate girly mags, build ridiculous links between a specific act and social harm. The Socialist Right has us all clusterloving squirrels in the public square on Wednesday if gays are allowed to marry on Tuesday. The answer is just to rebut such silliness with sound argument. But that is the proper guideline to use.

Democracy is essentially an agreement to disagree without killing anyone over the disagreement. Americans have been remarkably tolerant politically over the life of the nation (yeah, we’ve had a couple of Red Scares and all but the overall record is pretty good compared to the rest of what was once called the First World) and I think that a lot of it has to do with the religious freedom provided by the First Amendment. When you agree to disagree on God and the nature of reality, disagreeing on who should serve in the state legislature and whether the road should go this way or that is a lot easier to handle.

I don’t dis the Socialist Right for bringing religion into the discussion. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, did that and quite well. And we liberals right properly consider him a hero. I dis them because they’re ideological hypocrites regarding the role of the state and because they don’t see that they’re just being duped by Republican and conservative forces in a massive play to distract the public from what’s really at stake. Most of their ideas are silly too, but I can handle that as long as they aren’t allowed to implement any of them.

So, in the ongoing war over whether or not God and Jesus belong in the public square, I say that that’s not the question. They question is how far we let them swing their arms after they get there.

Now Batting: A Nice Colored Guy

I don’t think Barry Bonds is being picked on just because he’s black. I don’t think the feds and the media and all that are snickering to themselves, “we’ll get that black guy, heh, heh, heh …”.

I do think he’s getting more heat because he’s black, though.

Not directly. Indirectly.

Barry Bonds is an immensely self-involved critter who insists on having it his own way and living by his own rules. White guys can do this and get away with this because it makes ‘em look like cowboys, rugged individualists, real men, guys who do it –their- way.

Black guys act this way and it’s cluck, cluck, tsk, tsk, what kind of role model is that for Tyrone in the ‘hood, oh for shame …

There’s just no room for the black cowboy in our culture or any kind of “rebel, I do it my way” black image. If you’re black and a public figure you’re supposed to be warm, approachable, charitable, gosh darn it, someone the Average (White) Person wouldn’t mind living next door to. Dr. Cliff Huxtable, in other words.

There’s no middle ground. If you’re not Dr. Huxtable you’re Thug Rapper Deelite, a potential threat to all that’s good and decent. And what about poor Tyrone in the ‘hood?

Barry knows this, I can tell. That’s probably one reason why he can blow off the media criticism. He knows it wouldn’t be nearly as rough if he was Scooter Bonds instead of Barry.

Opening Day

One of the many things I just love about Northern California is that we know how to keep things in proper perspective. We know what's really important.

From the local papers, covering the SF Giants Opening Day:

"Anything short of murder or kidnapping", said Bay Area attorney Peter Rendstrom, echoing the sentiments of the majority of the fans in attendance "and we're going to support one of our own. If you're a Giants fan, you're a Barry fan."

"They ain't talking about rape or selling crack, so it ain't nothing", says another fan.

Cary Belzner, 38, was holding one of those signs up as he walked around the outfield wall. It read: "Keep Barry -- trade the media." The word "media" had an asterisk beside it ...,

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

Play Ball.

April Fool

So my seven-year-old son decided to play a late April Fool's prank on dear old Dad.

What did he do?

He changed my password on my Windows XP login.

I sat there tapping away at the keyboard over and over, wondering what the heck happened.

He started laughing. He shouted "April Fool!" and laughed some more.

So I went in to his login and took away administrator privileges.

That'll show him. Spare the rod, spoil the child, the Good Book says.

Groupthink

There were three ATM’s in a row on the side of the bank, situated on the side of a busy community shopping center parking lot. There was one line of average folks waiting to use them. I noticed that the ATM in the middle of the three wasn’t being used, although it was clearly open for business. So I took my place in line, fourth from the front and awaited further developments.

One of the ATM users finished his work, put away his wallet and strolled off. The next person in line promptly took his place at the ATM on the right side of the three. The person in line behind him took one step forward and waited for another ATM to become available. The unattended ATM in the middle still sat there, waiting. The new person in the front of the line made no move toward it, nor did the person behind her make any comment about the open and available ATM.

The ATM on the left became then available, and the aforementioned person moved up to it and started to do business. The ATM to the right of them, the one in the middle of the three, was still unattended. The next first person in line made no move toward it.

The person at the left ATM got some quick cash and stepped off. The person in front of me stepped forward and took her place. I stepped forward to the middle ATM, entered my card and started punching buttons. The person at the ATM to my left looked at me curiously, looked at the ATM, then went back to finish what she was doing with a quizzical look on her face.

As I tucked my own wallet away, the person who stood behind me in line said, “Hmm, I thought that ATM was broken 'cause no one else was using it.” He looked at it, looked at me and then stared at the ATM's paneling, including the green "open" tag, even more closely, pondering the many apparently deep mysteries of what he'd just seen and experienced.

I’m just glad no one in front of me in the line wanted to walk in front one of the many cars driving by. It would have been ugly.

Where I Hope to Be in Fifty Years

Toward the end of the service, the Minister asked, "How many of you have forgiven your enemies?" About 80% held up their hands.

The Minister then repeated his question. All responded this time, except one small, elderly Lady.

"Mrs. Jones?" asked the Minister. "Are you not willing to forgive your enemies?"

"I don't have any," she replied, smiling sweetly.

"Mrs. Jones, that is very unusual. How old are you?"

"Ninety-eight," she replied. "Okay, Mrs. Jones, would you please come down in front and tell usall how a person can live ninety-eight years an not have an enemy in the world?"

The little sweetheart of a lady tottered down the aisle, faced the congregation, and said:

"I outlived the sons of bitches."

The Book of Daniel

Georgia Bible Bill Heading For Governor’s Desk

“Public school students will be able to take state-funded courses devoted to the Old and New Testaments under a bill that received final legislative approval Monday, making Georgia the first state in the nation to legally sanction Bible classes. "I am confident that the course will pass constitutional muster," Senate Majority Leader Tommie Williams (R-Lyons) said after the Senate approved his proposal 45-2.

"We cannot live in fear of possible lawsuits every time we pass a piece of legislation." If Gov. Sonny Perdue accepts the bill, the State Board of Education must adopt curricula for two high school electives — "History and Literature of the Old Testament Era" and "History and Literature of the New Testament Era" — no later than February.

Local school systems then could decide if they want to offer the classes, which would be optional for students in ninth through 12th grades.” (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Bill for school Bible classes sent to Perdue,” 03-28-06)

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

This is not a bad idea.

My sister-in-law attended a Catholic girls school (by her choice) and says that one of the great things she got out of it was a deep knowledge of world religions. Her curriculum included study of all the major world beliefs as an important part of knowing human history, which the Catholicy educators considered critical. Today, years later, she finds it amazing how little most Americans know about -any- religious faith.

"Try telling a conservative Christian that Jesus didn't speak Roman or Hebrew", she says. "Well, what else would he speak?", they ask.

You really can't understand American culture without understanding the role religion played in its development, both good and ill. The Puritans weren't necessarily looking for "religious freedom" as we understand it. They wanted a place they could practice their own little theocracy without bother. Good for them but bad for anyone who wanted to live near them. On the other hand, the basis of the ideal of human equality comes from the ideas that when God judges on the last day, he'll do it evenhandedly, that all are "equal" in God's eyes, so why shouldn't governments work the same way?

This is also why American slavery could be so brutal. Africans couldn't be "men" without compromising the idea. Besides, the Bible seems to tolerate slavery, right?

The religious right is easily the worst offenders. The Bible proscribes homosexuality, right? It also says that you can kill anyone who works on the Sabbath. So if you're just raring to knock off that noisy neighbor, just catch him in your gunsights while he's mowing his lawn some Sunday and you're doing the Lord's work. (Numbers 15:32-36)

So a little jumpstart here couldn't hurt. The challenge then becomes extending it to other world religions. Even the Muslims. After all, they have something in common with extreme Christians. Many object to pictures of the Prophet. Extreme Xtians don't want anything more than pictures of the Messiah. As the producers of the short-lived TV series Book of Daniel found out, anything more than that brings down fire nd brimstone. So there should be enough for even a fair academic to find common ground between our homegrown religious nuts and those around the world.

"Comparative Jihadism", the course could be called. Yeah, that'll work.