Star Trek v2.0

I have to admit that I approached this film with great trepidation. The idea sounded way too much like Harve Bennet's Star Fleet Academy idea from years ago. It also smacked of "muppet babies" to me where you take an established set of characters and dumb them down for a younger audience.

I started to hear buzz though that it was much more than that. The clincher for me was reading the prequel graphic mini-series Countdown which laid out the back-story for the future altering events that take place at the opening of the film. The plot was well written in this piece and felt like Star Trek to me.

So last night my wife and I saw the film in IMAX. I have to say that I enjoyed it a lot even though there are a number of things that nag at me as a lifelong Star Trek fan. Changes that occur in the film that just make this version dramatically different from the series I grew up with in the 70’s (I was way to young to have watched them in the 60s).

The movie was very entertaining though, and I found myself liking this story and these characters all over again. Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, and especially Karl Urban make Kirk, Spock, and McCoy come alive again for the first time since the end of the original series, even more so than the original actors were able to do for me in the movie era.

The film is action packed, and the special effects are top of the line and the sets were beautiful.

There are still a few things that bother me about the film. One of them involves Uhura and another character that just doesn't work for me, but overall it is an excellent reboot of the series and I am looking forward to seeing these characters again in a film that doesn't have to spend so much time setting everything up and can jump right into the action.

I would hate to see worst and dimmest!

"[...]we cannot attract and retain the best and brightest talent to lead and staff the AIG businesses — which are now being operated principally on behalf of the American taxpayers — if employees believe that their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury." -- AIG Chairman and CEO Edward Liddy in a letter to Treasury Secretary Geithner.

AIG is seriously telling us that the best and the brightest are employed by AIG? The financial services division had dragged AIG down to the point of losing more than $60 billion dollars in a single quarter. How much would they have lost if they didn't pay millions of dollars in retention bonuses for the "best and the brightest?"

Rule of Law

So just one day after President Obama reminded us that the Constitution was set forth by our Founding Fathers to protect the rights of man and the rule of Law we have United States Senators who are holding up the confirmation of the next Attorney General of the United States because they want him to promise not to prosecute people who might have committed a crime? Is this really what they believe is in the best interests of their states and the country? Trying to lobby the next head of the Justice Department to NOT follow the law?

And He Gets it on Day 1

Following up on my rant against former President Bush's misunderstanding of his task as President of the United States I give you a quote from President Obama from his inaugural address:

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. -Barack Obama 1/20/2009

He gets it. Our Founding Fathers didn't craft our Constitution to apply only when things were going well. Like my marriage vows the rule of law applies in good times and in bad. We cannot jettison our ideals in the face of adversity.

He Still Doesn't Get it...

After nearly 8 years in office, most of it after the world changing events of 911, President George W. Bush still doesn't understand his responsibilities. In a recent interview he insisted again that "The most important job I have had -- and the most important job the next president is going to have -- is to protect the American people from another attack,"

His complete disregard for his real top priority to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" has been evident constantly throughout his administration. One cannot defend the Constitution by violating it. Protecting the lives of American Citizens around the world is an important job of the government of the United States. It is not however the top priority. What good is life without liberty? We cannot sacrifice the very foundation that others have died to protect in the name of preventing criminals from attacking us. The loss of life is always a tragedy. But without liberty you have a pale imitation of what life is about.

The founders didn't include the words to be spoken by the President upon taking office by accident. They didn't intend for the president to ignore them as his primary responsibility.

We have countless law enforcement officials, intelligence organizations, diplomatic corps, and military personnel who do have very important responsibilities to protect us from harm. The President, while trying to keep us as safe as possible, must answer to a higher standard. He must put the law before individuals. He cannot sacrifice our Constitution in order to save lives. As cold and harsh as it sounds it cannot be any other way for the Constitution to have any meaning. If we give up our beliefs for safety we have lost already.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin 1755

"All isn't well with the world"

I recently read Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451." This dystopian story is about a world where books are outlawed and firemen burn books instead of putting out fires. It has often been misinterpreted to be a book about government censorship. Its real message is that modern media simplifies complex topics to the point of making them meaningless.

In the story Shakespeare is reduced down to a one page summary in order to hold the attention of the audience. This example is chilling considering the number of 3-5 minute recap shows that are cropping up everywhere on regular TV these days. If you can show me everything that I should know about a 44 minute episode of "The Shield" in 3 minutes why did you bloat it to 44 minutes in the first place? (The cynical answer is advertising revenue but thats for a different rant)

I appreciate the "previously on.." recaps at the beginning of a show because they don't attempt to show you everything that has happened they are meant to give upcoming events in the story context that otherwise would have to be done with boring exposition. Recapping every episode in a few minutes though is dangerously close to the nightmare that Bradbury envisioned with complex and vivid dramatic works reduced to lifeless bits of imagery.

In Defense of Early Voting

I watched a video today of Conservative Commentator Fred Barnes suggesting that Early Voting had to be stopped.



His rationale seems to be that if you vote early you might miss out on important information that would change your mind at the last minute. He gives as examples The Reagan-Carter debate one week before the election and the 2004 last weekend disclosure of G.W. Bush's DUI arrest.

It is hard to take this seriously. DUI was a non issue as it should have been. The Debates are a different story and I would certainly advise anyone who still had doubts as to who to vote for to wait until the last possible moment or until they have made up their mind. I wouldn't however suggest that they should just keep waiting until the last moment in case someting comes up. What if it comes up at 9pm on Election night and you've already voted? What if some amazing relavation comes out on Wednesday afternoon? The October surprise syndrome is one of the most destrutive trends in national politics. We have been watching these two candidates for nearly 2 years now. If you don't know enough to pick one of them by all means wait another 3 days. If however you have already seen what you need to see, go and vote if your state allows early voting. The more people who vote early the less issues there will be with lines and issues on election day.