Kowabunga

I am doomed. Compliance with the unconstitutional invasion of my privacy by the Census Bureau's American Community Survey is mandated by law. Worse, this is going to replace the census form beginning in 2010. By then, it may even be more intrusive.

Why does this bother me?

Well, for one, what business is it of the Census Bureau to know what I drive to work? And far I commute? Or how much my mortgage is? Or how much my utilities cost? What about my income? From all sources? Who do these people think they are? The IRS?

But wait, on the cover, in big friendly letters, it claims "Don't Panic! We're the government and we're here to help!" (wrong book) They claim that this data is necessary to local officials to plan budgets, decide where new schools are needed, and so on.

Let's see, now. My township, where I serve as a Supervisor, does not use any such information to plan budgets, schools, etc. Maybe this is due to our size. However, even school districts and other local taxing authorities do not use this kind of data to levy taxes. Sure, they use property valuations with household numbers to determine tax levies, but they don't get it form the Census Bureau. They already have that.

Yet, the Census bureau is bound and determined to have this information, at the cost of my privacy.

If you have not seen this survey, then you can download from census.gov as ACS.pdf. Download, read it, and remember, if this thing isn't stopped, you too will have to fill it in 2010.

This will be an ongoing series of articles, so please stay tuned.

Posted by Sqotty at 9:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I have received the Federal demands for my personal and private information from the Census Bureau. In it, it demands I tell them very specific information about my home, its value, how much it costs me, including power and utilities, about my employment and details about my income from all sources.

I am outraged by this clear violation of my rights to privacy. This survey, which levies legal penalties if I do not respond, is clearly a violation of the U.S. Constituion.

I have contacted my Congressman and my Senators. I do not know what they will do to help.

Posted by Sqotty at 7:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Stardate, oh wait, that's pajama boy talk.

It was a slow week, the surf was unusually glassy, and we were fresh out of torpedoes from the Duras Sisters, so we put into port at DS9 and I headed down to Quark's Place for a few rounds as a prelude to a dinner date over at Tunok's Grill. I should have known better.

The place was quiet, however, happy hour hadn't started, so I was early.

Quark sidled up to where I sat at the bar and said, "let me guess...the usual?"

I nodded.

He returned a moment later with a pint of Guinness and a shot glass of Tribble Sweat. I picked up the pint and took a mighty gulp, draining half of it before setting the tankard down on the bar. Quark was looking at me intently.

"Okay," I said, "what's up?"

"Nog was here on leave recently. I'm worried about him," Quark said.

I nodded, remembering that his nephew, Nog, had joined Star Fleet for some unfathomable reason. Quark had good reason to worry. I thought about what Star Fleet did to Woof, or Wuf, or whatever that slacker warrior wanna-be's name is. Talk about creating a basket case.

Quark continued, "they are really brainwashing him, filling him up with all kinds of strange ideas. This time when Nog came up, he ranted on and on about what a good thing Social Insecurity is."

"I think they call it 'Social Security'."

"Yeah, right, whatever. Any rate, he went on about what a good system it is for the workers as they never have to worry about retirement. The Federation taxes the snot out of them, then decides how much they can have if they live to retirement age. Which is currently something on the order of 95."

"They've raised it a few times since the original concept was implemented on Earth several centuries ago," I said, just so Quark would know I knew something about the system. "It never worked very well as they kept having to delay retirement age, reduce benefits, and raise the amount workers were taxed. There were some attempts to privatize the system, but many were lead to believe that doing so would cause the whole system collapse."

"Right," Quark agreed, "so they ended up having to keep doing as you said, raise the taxes, and reduce the benefits. Privatizing the system would have been much smarter, but, the point is, this the kind of tripe they have been feeding Nog. He's going to end up worse than Worf!"

That's his name! Worf! I remembered him well, now.

"Any rate, what Nog was spouting off about was that by paying into this system, you are guaranteed to get something back. When I pressed him how much, he said that once he retired at 115, they raised the age limit again, he would get roughly 200 credits per month for the rest of his life. So I asked him, how much per month does he put into the system. Do you know what he said?" I had a blank look, so Quark supplied the answer. "250! Each and every month. Now Nog is only 25, so by the time he is able to retire at 115, in 90 years, assuming they don't bump it up, I asked him how long he expected to receive benefits. He said for the rest of his life. And smiled like he was really getting something good. When I asked him what the life span for a Ferrengi is, he said 90. Now the last time I checked, he can expect to be fully in the ground 25 years BEFORE he gets to receive any benefits. His defense: They have to keep raising the retirement age because the Vulcans live so much longer. 'Besides,' he went on, 'it's all in an individual account' with his name on it. Then I asked him, when he dies, does the money in this account go to his heirs. He said no, it goes to pay those receiving benefits already, and when he retires, the people putting money into their accounts will be in fact supporting him. Now, I looked at him and said, if the money you put in to the system goes to support those already getting paid by the system, then you really have nothing saved in an account for yourself. That, and he would have to live to, what, 228 before he started receiving positive returns, getting more out of the system than he put in! Talk about a bad investment!"

I couldn't help but agree with Quark. He may not know much about surfing, but he does know finances. I finished my first pint, and knocked back the shot of Tribble Sweat, setting the glass on the bar gently so as not to cause ringing in Quark's oversized ears.

"Think they'll privatize it?"

"Well, it's doubtful. so long as so many Feddies are hoodwinked into believing that they'll do better on such a system than thru private investing. Why can't they be more like us, or you Klingons, who are self-sufficient, and take care of your own finances. Taxes are so much lower in either the Klingon Empire or on Ferringanar. Why, even the Romulans have a private system."

Quark set a second round on the bar in front of me. "Thanks, Kahuna. I feel better now. At least I know I'm not the one going crazy. Next time Nog comes in, I half expect him to go on about how great the Federation is with their excise taxes on Dilithium."

Quark is an interesting character. Sometimes, when he gets going on a subject, he just won't stop.

Kahuna

Posted by Kahuna at 7:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

It has been a full day since the "filibuster deal" has been brokered, and one nominee, Priscilla Owens, has been confirmed. Much has been said and written about this deal, still it is open to debate as to whether it is a "good" deal, or a stinker. The jury, so to speak, is still out.

One point that is consistently made is that this deal has pretty much nuked John McCain's presidential aspirations, not just for 2008, but for good. He and six other Republican Senators have pulled a Neville Chamberlain on us, making this agreement not for the good of the country, but for political expediency, hoping to gain brownie points with the media and other leftist groups in order to advance their political careers.

The agreement stipulates, in part:

Future Nominations Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United State Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

But leaves "extraordinary circumstances" left to individual interpretation. The return of the filibuster is on the horizon, and probably closer than one suspects.

Rules Changes In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109h congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.

And changing the rules interpretation to end this abuse of power by the Democrats, who insist on playing partisan politics at every turn (and then blame the other side), so as to get an "up or down" vote for nominees is now nothing more than an idle threat, and never to be acted upon by Republicans.

We believe that , under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word "advice" speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President's power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of the government to consult with members of the Senate, both democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.

Doesn't the President already receive advice on judicial appointments from the Senate? This is as I always understood it. And there is nothing in the constitution that states the President must accept the advice from the Senate.

From Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution:

...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law

When you think about what these 14 Senators have said about advice and consent, they expect that all nominees will come from a list that they shall provide as being acceptable, stripping away part of the President's power. The President is under no obligation to accept nor act upon any such list of recommendations. Second, it says that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate," not "with the Advice and consent of the Senate, he shall nominate.

Time for a little Hamilton, specifically, Federalist No. 66:

It will be the office of the President to nominate, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint. There will, of course, be no exertion of choice on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of the Executive, and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves choose, they can only ratify or reject the choice of the President. They might even entertain a preference to some other person, at the very moment they were assenting to the one proposed, because there might be no positive ground of opposition to him; and they could not be sure, if they withheld their assent, that the subsequent nomination would fall upon their own favorite, or upon any other person in their estimation more meritorious than the one rejected. Thus it could hardly happen, that the majority of the Senate would feel any other complacency towards the object of an appointment than such as the appearances of merit might inspire, and the proofs of the want of it destroy.

Clearly, the intention of the Founders was that the role of the Senate is to debate and vote on nominees, not blockade cloture on a vote, or usurp the power entrusted to the President for their own political gain, which is what this "deal" is attempting to do: shift the power of judicial appointees from the President to the Senate.

Gotta love the Founding Fathers. They knew what they where about. And most of them were not interested in political careers, but serving their country for a time then returning to private life. I wish we had people like them around today.

Posted by Sqotty at 7:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

On my commute home I was dismayed to learn, while listening to the Hugh Hewitt Show, that the President and CFO of PepsiCo, Indra Nooyi, compared America and Americans to the middle finger.

Here's an excerpt from the speech Nooyi made at Columbia Business School:

This analogy of the five fingers as the five major continents leaves the long, middle finger for North America, and, in particular, The United States. As the longest of the fingers, it really stands out. The middle finger anchors every function that the hand performs and is the key to all of the fingers working together efficiently and effectively. This is a really good thing, and has given the U.S. a leg-up in global business since the end of World War I.

However, if used inappropriately --just like the U.S. itself -- the middle finger can convey a negative message and get us in trouble. You know what I'm talking about. In fact, I suspect you're hoping that I'll demonstrate what I mean. And trust me, I'm not looking for volunteers to model.

Discretion being the better part of valor … I think I'll pass.

What is most crucial to my analogy of the five fingers as the five major continents, is that each of us in the U.S. -- the long middle finger -- must be careful that when we extend our arm in either a business or political sense, we take pains to assure we are giving a hand … not the finger. Sometimes this is very difficult. Because the U.S. -- the middle finger -- sticks out so much, we can send the wrong message unintentionally.

What she has done, through the use of carefully chosen words is America is flipping off the world

As a shareholder of PepsiCo, I am greatly disturbed by this analogy, that America, once again, is the great, belligerent of the world.

Her non-apology:

As part of this illustration, I assigned five of the world's continents to the different fingers and thumb. I refer to North America and particularly the U.S. as the middle finger because it is the longest and anchors every function the hand performs. The middle finger also is key to all the fingers working together effectively. That is how I view America's place of importance in the world.

The point of my analogy was to emphasize America's leadership position. Equally critical is the need for each of us as citizens to take a constructive role in whatever we choose to do in life to ensure the U.S. continues as the world's "helping hand."

Unfortunately, my remarks at Columbia University were misconstrued and depicted in a different context as unpatriotic. Although nothing could be further from the truth, I regret any confusion or concern that I may have inadvertently created. As I shared with the audience at Columbia, this country that I am proud and honored to call home is a "promised land" that I love dearly. I would never say or do anything to detract from our great nation and its people who have done so much for so many, including myself.

So far, this is a non-apology, as she claims that her statements were taken out of context, she has yet to show any regret for having made such outrageous remarks.

There will be great fallout against PepsiCo as Americans cease buying their products. Maybe PepsiCo can weather a 2-5% dip in revenues, maybe more. Revenues impact a stock's performance, and a company's relative strength in the market place.

If I were to have done as she has in a speech, while representing my employer, I would be fired.

This is what needs to be done to Nooyi.

Her actions will cause a dip in PepsiCo revenues, and if that does not wake up the board, and terminate her contract, then Pepsi deserves to take a serious loss in the market.

Had she taken a different tack, and instead made an analogy showing the good works of America and Americans, whether we are taking the liberation of millions of people in the Middle East who had for decades lived under tyranny, or the relief efforts for tsunami victims, not to mention all the other nature disasters that America has helped other regions, such as earthquakes, or the many famines in Africa and other regions that America has helped to feed., there would not be the outrage we see today.

If the powers that be have been monitoring what consumers are saying, they need to take action. As for shareholders, don't hesitate, contact PepsiCo and let them know what their shareholders think. Also: Shareholder Contact Info.

Technorati Tag Pepsi

Posted by Sqotty at 7:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Well, it's not everyday that my State Rep calls me at home, however, tonight he did. Mostly because he's a friend of mine, and also to let me know why he voted on the Transportaion Amendment/Bill, that included a 10 cent per gallon gas tax.

Okay, he gave me his explanation, and I'll live with it.

On othere topics, he told me that concealed carry passed the State House and is now on it's way to the Governor.

Hope it lasts longer than the last one.

Posted by Sqotty at 9:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Endless debate. On and on. Never ending. That has become the status quo on President Bush's nominees to the Federal Appellate Courts. Bush puts forth a nominee, the nominee gets through the Judiciary Committee, and, in utter contempt for the U.S. Constitution, the minority party (Democrats), use a Senate rule to block cloture.

This in from Fox News.

Senate Republicans will begin debate on the judicial nomination of Priscilla Owen (search) on Wednesday morning, hoping to break a Democratic block on the candidates and holding off until next week any efforts to abolish judicial filibusters.

Always next week, and maybe we'll do something about breaking the partisan blockading of Bush's Constitutional power to appoint justices to the Federal bench. The Senate is only authorized the power of "advise and consent" on judicail nominees, which means that once a nominee reaches the Senate floor, it is time to have an up or down vote, not never-ending "debate" through Senate filibuster rules. And in truth, it isn't even debate. The Democrats are using the filibuster rules to prevent an up or down vote, something that has never been done before President Bush took office.

"The filibuster is the last check against abuse of power in Washington," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid (search) said Tuesday.

Yet the only way to check the abuse of power by Democrats using the filibuster in this manner, and yes, this is an abuse of power, is through the implementation of a rules change. Come on, Senator Frist, it is time to get off the dime and show some leadership and get these people an up-or-down vote, not roll over and play dead because you lack the you-know-what to get things done.

Posted by Sqotty at 9:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

When I ran across the commentary piece, Selective Outrage on the LA Times website, I thought it would prove to be an expose on how main stream media has botched it again, in response to the recently retracted Newsweek hit piece on our military in regards to the alleged flushing of a Koran down the toilet. The Newsweek piece was retracted as it had been proven that this incident never happened.

I was proven wrong about the piece. It turned out to be yet another example of main stream media elites banding together to protect their own, and blame America and our military in the process.

From the aforementioned editorial:

According to chaos theory, the flapping of a single butterfly's wings can trigger a hurricane halfway across the globe, a phenomenon known as the "butterfly effect." Now the Bush administration thinks it has detected something that might be called the "Newsweek effect." It says the magazine's publication of an item in its May 9 issue, alleging that U.S. guards flushed the Koran down a toilet in order to humiliate prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, was a cause of riots in Afghanistan and Pakistan last week that left at least 14 people dead.

Let's see, Newsweek publishes a report alleging that our military desecrated a Koran by flushing it down a toilet, and the riots in Afghanistan and Pakistan that erupted in direct response to that article's false allegations is, according to the LA Times, unrelated. Despite the fact that all reports on the riots have stated that they were due to the erroneous, and ra^ther wrong article published by Newsweek on May 9th. From International Herald Tribune

The Afghan authorities, U.S. military and residents said outside instigators seemed to be stirring up the violence and taking advantage of student and public protests over reports that U.S. interrogators desecrated the Koran at the Guant�amo Bay detention center for Taliban suspects. Student demonstrators were demanding that the U.S. interrogators who are alleged to have placed copies of the Koran in the toilet to upset detainees, and in one case reportedly flushed the holy book down the toilet, be arrested and tried by a Muslim court.

And also, this off of Yahoo News/Reuters:

Afghan police opened fire on protesters on Wednesday killing four and wounding dozens after violent demonstrations over a report that U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay had desecrated the Koran.

Let's see if I have my facts straight: Newsweek publishes a falsified account (later retracted) of a Koran being flushed down the toilet; riots erupt in Middle-East as a direct response to the article published by Newsweek; people are killed during the riots caused by the Newsweek article. Yet, according to the LA Times, it's America's (or more accurately in the eyes of the press, Bush's) fault. Maybe they should suggest that the president change his name to San Andreas, then at least he would have a fault. Back to the LA Times piece:

The more interesting question may not be how Newsweek goofed, but why the Muslim world is so ready to believe the story. For all the administration's huffing and puffing about Newsweek getting the story wrong, it has produced such a catalog of misdeeds at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo that almost any allegation is instantly credited abroad. The administration itself has said that 11 soldiers have been disciplined for abusing prisoners at Gitmo.

Okay, let's face it, there are many people in the Middle East that hate us, and will jump on any excuse to celebrate attacks against our country and people, as seen throughout that region on 9/11/2001, and riot in response to any alleged outrage, even when proven false. Why they would believe the falsely made allegations that Newsweek published is a no brainer: THEY HATE America! A better question would be is why are the leftist-leaning main-stream media outlets so ready to believe the allegations that Newsweek published in the first place? Oh, wait, I know, see the answer to the preceding question. Selective Outrage: The mainstream media, whether it's represented by Newsweek, the LA Times or CBS are all suffering "selective outrage." If America or the Bush Administration can in anyway be blamed, so shall they blame. It's never the fault of the rioters; it's never the fault of terrorist thugs who continue to operate inside of Iraq, murdering civilians and soldiers alike, not to mention the many attacks on patriotic Iraqis who want nothing more than to rebuild their country; it's certainly not the fault of journalists who twist the facts, or make things up (like soldiers flushing a Koran down a toilet) to sell a story. Naw! They'd ra^ther blame Bush and America.

The LA times piece closes with a push to shut down the prison at Guantanamo, giving the prisoners legal protections. The LA Times may be naive enough to believe that this will help the U.S. where world opinion is concerned.

Okay, if these prisoners are to stand trial, separate them into two groups: those from the Afghan War and those form the Iraq War, and try them in those countries respectively. They'll find that they wished they had stayed in Guantanamo.

No doubt that if that were to happen, they would find the means to blame Bush for that as well.

Incredibly, they have yet to show any outrage towards their favorite heroes, Clinton and Carter, for giving the world a nuclear armed North Korea.

For another look at this piece, check out the Anti-Strib's take on the subject.

Posted by Sqotty at 7:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Stardate, oh, wait, that's pajama boy talk.

We finally laid our hands on a new load of torpedoes from the Duras Sisters. We had plenty of Mr. Zog's S.. Wax on hand as I had traded 10 barrels of blood wine and a case of Romulan Ale with the Doctor. The Doctor had decided that surfing supernovas was a bit hard on his TARDIS. However, he did insist on coming along for the ride. It was time to surf!

All that was needed was an out of the way destination, like Vogosphere.

Okay, I admit it. That spineless buffoon in a bathrobe put us up to it. Something about his home world being demolished by a Vogon Constructor Fleet to make way for a hyperspace by-pass. Never mind the fact that this not-so-hoopy non-frood's planet was replaced with a new, exact to the minutest detail, planet. And he didn't even want to come with us.

His loss.

And it was fairly well out of the way.

We set up on the outskirts of the system, and prepped the torpedo, and were about to send it on its way when we spotted another vessel. Sleek. Black. So black you could barely discern it against the back drop of space, as though it had a new fangled cloaking device that defied all logic. And it was headed right into the Vogostar. With any luck, we wouldn't need to use a torpedo to get a nice ride.

All frequencies were picking up the blast of heavy metal music, and we spotted off in the distance a group of ships that comprised the concert fleet of Hot Black Desiato and the Disaster Area. If sound waves could travel through the vacuum of space, we would be in for one wild ride just on the output from the concert. At least when Desiato's "Sun Ship" hit's Vogostar, we should see a spectacular novel and be on the receiving end of some awesome waves as the exploding star spews forth its entire mass into the vast reaches of space.

Soon enough, the Sun Ship smashed into Vogostar, and the race for good waves on, as we deftly maneuvered the Kowabunga into the wild surf.

Hailing frequencies opened.

"Hey, Kahuna, get off of my wave!"

It couldn't be. Could it?

"Yeah, Kahu-u-u-una," came a very familiar voice. It was.

We picked up the Winter Soldier on screen, just ahead of us, being tossed by the tremendous shockwaves thrown off by the exploding like a rodeo bronco throwing it's rider. The Winter Soldier narrowly avoided colliding with the Heart of Gold, which also picked up the same choice wave.

"By Zarquon, #$@$#*!"

I opened up communications, "Is that you, Flipper?"

"Yes, now get off my wave! Locals only, dude!"

"Now, wait a minute, Howlie, you aren't from around here!"

"I bought the system, so, in fact, yes I am," came Flipper Kerry's response. "I needed to do something to get my mind off of losing the election!"

Just great, nothing is sacred.

"Dude," I called back, "when you stop being a poser and actually learn to surf, let me know, otherwise, this here is my wave!" I closed all frequencies, except for the channel that poured in the Disaster Area's concert, which caused the Kowabunga to shake and rattle more than the waves of energy thrown off by the super nova.

And we got it on tape. Quark is going to love this.

Kahuna

Posted by Kahuna at 7:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Orson Scott Card, in his piece, Strange New World: No 'Star Trek' asks many questions, and provides a disturbing view of Trek Fandom (and Fandom in general). The piece starts off with:

So they've gone and killed "Star Trek." And it's about time.

Well, if he is talking about the end of Star Trek: Enterprise, I couldn't agree more.

The piece goes into the generally accepted beliefs behind the success of Star Trek, reminding the reader that the Enterprise first took to the airwaves before VCRs. Once it was canceled after three seasons, the only way to see it was when a local station opted to buy the series in syndication. A tough sell for a relatively short lived series. However, it proved a gold mine to those stations that did pick it up.

A little person history, and disclosure: I have never read anything by Orson Scott Card. I am also a long time fan of the original Star Trek series, and have attended many (well over a hundred) Science Fiction and Star Trek conventions. I have also been a member of numerous clubs, from S.T.A.R. Fresno and S.T.A.R. San Diego, the Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society, as well as the Klingon Assault Group. I am also the Kahuna of the Klingon Surfer Dudes. I guess one could say I have a vested interest in refuting some of what Card wrote in his opinion piece.

In it, Card writes:

They tried it before, remember. The network flushed William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy down into the great septic tank of broadcast waste...

And I have to go back to Inside Star Trek by Herb Solow and Bob Justman, which has the inside scoop from what NBC was trying to get out of the fledgling Science Fiction series. Solow was an NBC executive at the time, and he has the straight poop there. For one, RCA owned NBC and during the first two seasons (at least) Trek was one of the top rated COLOR television shows. It may have been at the bottom of the ratings heap for television broadcasts over all, however, when you drill down in the data and see that is at the top of the heap for shows being broadcast in color, and the powers that be, meaning RCA in this case, want to sell more color TV sets, what are you going to do? Solow points out that Trek was in little danger of being cancelled during its first two seasons.

Card also hits on the quality of the show, and writes:

As science fiction, the series was trapped in the 1930s - a throwback to spaceship adventure stories with little regard for science or deeper ideas. It was sci-fi as seen by Hollywood: all spectacle, no substance.

Which was a shame, because science fiction writing was incredibly fertile at the time, with writers like Harlan Ellison and Ursula LeGuin, Robert Silverberg and Larry Niven, Brian W. Aldiss and Michael Moorcock, Ray Bradbury and Isaac Asimov, and Robert A. Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke creating so many different kinds of excellent science fiction that no one reader could keep track of it all.

Little of this seeped into the original "Star Trek." The later spin-offs were much better performed, but the content continued to be stuck in Roddenberry's rut. So why did the Trekkies throw themselves into this poorly imagined, weakly written, badly acted television series with such commitment and dedication? Why did it last so long?

The show was pitched by Roddenberry as a wagon train to the stars (Making of Star Trek), and had writers from the SF genre including the aforementioned Harlan Ellison, as well as Robert Bloch and Theodore Sturgeon.

Okay, even I have to admit that the third season of the original series was comprised of a lot of turkey episodes. But the first two seasons had many high marks, like "Balance of Terror" and "Space Seed". Not to mention the best loved episode, "The Trouble With Tribbles," written by SF great David Gerrold at a time when he was just starting his writing career.

Even Niven got into the act, writing an episode for the very short-lived animated series.

Fans wanted more, and not the animated series. That just didn't cut the mustard.

Yet Card continues, and isn't satisfied with slamming what was at the time a darn good television series, he slams the fans:

They started making costumes and wearing pointy ears. They wrote messages in Klingon, they wrote their own stories about the characters, filling in what was left out - including, in one truly specialized subgenre, the "Kirk-Spock" stories in which their relationship was not as platonic and emotionless as the TV show depicted it.

Mostly, though, they wrote and wrote and wrote letters. To the networks. To the production company. To the stars and minor characters and guest stars and grips of the series, inviting them to attend conventions and speak about the events on the series as if they had really happened, instead of being filmed on a tatty little set with cheesy special effects.

Sure, there are people who dress up in Trek outfits, and put on ears, and ridges, and call it FUN! It's a hobby, nothing more. And, yes, guilty as charged. The vast number of fanzines, including the "Kirk-Spock" stories did (and do) exist. Can't say I have read any of the later...nor do I want to. Yeech!

Letter writing took place, including a campaign to have the first space shuttle named Enterprise, a write-in campaign that was successful.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this piece, I have been to quite a few conventions, mostly on the left coast, from San Diego to Sacramento, lately in the Mid-west, and I have seen many of the actors and actresses, from the mainline stars, to the guest stars and the actors filling supporting roles. Never have I heard or seen any behavior such as card describes, where fans actually believed that the show was real...unless they were under the age of five. Only in the portrayal of some fans in the movie Galaxy Quest have I seen such behavior as Card has described.

Maybe he gets his facts from the movie Trekkies, which from what i have seen, went out of its way to highlight the wackos and not focus on the fans who lead normal lives.

And still more...

Here's what I think: Most people weren't reading all that brilliant science fiction. Most people weren't reading at all. So when they saw "Star Trek," primitive as it was, it was their first glimpse of science fiction. It was grade school for those who had let the whole science fiction revolution pass them by.

This is a good one. Yes, he may be right that Trek was for many their introduction to science fiction, yet, with few exceptions, they read and read. And not just the books based on the series, but Asimov, Herbert, Ellison, Silverberg and a host of others. By the time I finished Sixth Grade, I had read nearly every book Ray Bradbury had written at the time. In Junior High School, I read Heinlein and Asimov, and followed them up with Brunner, Zelazny, Herbert, Ellison, and a host of others, including many books outside of the SF genre.

The same was true with my friends, reading much of the same kinds of books, and digging back into the older stuff, including the likes of Robert E. Howard and Philip K. Dick.

Trek fans have grown up to become engineers, programmers, scientists of all sorts, as well as business leaders, lawyers, fire/rescue/police, defenders of our country thru military service, and yes, even a few politicians.

The original Star Trek series may not have been great science fiction, and not great television by today's standards, however, we're talking about a series that has been around for nearly 40 years, and put in its time and place, the late sixties, and throughout the seventies in syndication, it was better than a lot of the tripe being put on the airwaves, and to this day is better than much of what is pushed on the airwaves by Hollywood.

The question that Card should have been asking is not why did it survive so long. We're talking about a series that has been, and still is, immensely popular, and hugely successful, with six television series and ten movies. Some good, some bad. Okay the last couple of movies were turkeys, however, several have been absolutely great: ST:II, IV, VI in particular were awesome pieces of Trek.

The question should be "why did the latest installment fail so miserably?" Maybe I am the only one to realize it, but the vision of ST:Enterprise departed from what made the original series great. Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the others were heroes. The character of Captain Archer was that of a criminal. Kirk and Spock, when trapped in time, used their brains to survive, Archer committed grand theft auto and bank robbery to survive, and had no remorse over doing such. Archer beat up defenseless prisoners and subjected others to torture by tossing them into an airlock and depressurizing it. How can you expect fans to accept someone who would commit such despicable acts as those as being a hero?

Add to that the fact that the executive producers of Trek had lost their way. Mass marketing and special effects took the place of good stories and interesting characters. They introduced characters and situations of a more "adult" level, skin tight costumes on well-endowed females, in order to boost ratings.

ST: Enterprise needed to end. And end it did, albeit the powers that be forced yet another season on the airwaves in order to get to the magic number of episodes for syndication. It should have ended sooner.

Voyager was also in many ways a failure, with few episodes really worth watching.

DS9 didn't catch fire until it introduced a long term story arc with the Dominion War, and this was done in order to compete against the far superior series, Babylon-5, whose success put a fire under the you-know-what's of the production staff for Trek.

TNG was a welcome and refreshing extension of the original series, picking up some years after the time of Kirk and Spock, yet even it was lacking, and rehashed some of the same plots, as well as bringing us Wesley Crusher, the most hated character in Trek history. Hated by the fans, that is.

Is there opportunity for Paramount and Viacom to rebuild the Trek franchise and satisfy the fans desire for good SF on television? You bet there is. Trek needs to return to the values that made it great: heroes not criminals, honor and integrity, not committing crimes for expediency.

As for fans, well, maybe Orson Scott Card should actually get out of his parents basement and go to a few good conventions and see what the fans are really like. Maybe have a few pints with them, and find out what makes them tick, why they like Trek. Trek fans are not the way he depicts them in his hit piece on Trek Fandom. Well, except, maybe, those under the age of five, however, that's to be expected.

Oh, and Card, the best science fiction film of all time is 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Posted by Sqotty at 8:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The May meeting was another great success for this regularly scheduled gathering of Conservatives and Libertarians, and discussion this month was a rollicking good time. If you haven't been to one of these yet, be sure to check out the schedule at the meetup website.

Fearless leader made mention that the Townhall meetup group may be splitting off from Meetup.com. Meetup.com has been a good facilitator, however, they are too heavily tied to leftist organizations. No big surprise there. Also, townhall.com has been making great improvements to their website, which will enable the many townhall meetup groups to split off and run off of the main site, and not rely on outside organizations who support opposing views (and want our money). Add to this that Meetup.com does not remove inactive groups, it causes confusion as how many times have you shown at a scheduled meetup and found no one there? I have, a couple of times.

Townhall meetup has been different, as it has been growing in size, and has a core of 10-12 folks who show up at nearly meeting for discussion, food and suds. And every month there are one or two new faces, some come back for more, and then there is our leftist infiltrator, earlier this year, who has yet to return (come on back...it was fun!).

This month we had a special guest who came in and talked about his experiences dealing with the City Council of Minneapolis. He owns the last gun shop in Minneapolis, and they are trying to zone him out of business. This problem is rampant throughout the country. Oakland did so successfully shortly before I left California for greener pastures. It is interesting to note that gun dealers can (and frequently are) instrumental in getting illegal weapons OFF OF THE STREETS, by working with law enforcement to verify arms brought in for resale are not stolen, and getting those in possession of such brought to justice, making the streets safer for all. Yet this fact is clearly ignored by the media and the rabid anti-gun zealots that infest our country.

One of the regulars read, and then passed around, a letter he sent to Governor Pawlenty, recommending that he veto the minimum wage increase in the State of Minnesota. This brought to mind the email message I sent to the Governor. The more such messages he receives, the better. However, it is speculated that the increase is a done deal for political reasons.

It did generate some discussion, as there are those who think that the impact will be minimal at worst. I disagree as many union contracts are tied to minimum wage increases. And there are many other reasons as well. If this thing is signed into law, we will have handed the DFL the tools they need to win the Governorship in 2006 when Pawlenty runs for reelection. Tax increases, here we come.

The hottest and longest topic of the night was Social Security reform, and the need to privatize, and some ideas on how to achieve this. Reactions to this are mixed. Everyone there is well aware how Social InSecurity works, that it is nothing more than wealth redistribution from those still working to those no longer in the work force.

Some points that were made:

• The Democrats have had 70 years to hone their skills at defending the status quo on Social InSecurity.
• Republicans have yet to provide a unified front at pushing reform.
• Many Americans still believe, wrongly, that there is an account with all that money (plus interest) with their name on it.
• Any plan for privatizing will cost big bucks to finance. How to pay for it?
• The left-wing media that controls what people read and learn is firmly in the court of the Democrats (as always).

In the event privatization becomes a reality, every working American will have a piece of the Wall Street action, creating a whole new investor class, just as the introduction of 401k plans did. Many of these people figure out that by supporting Conservative views and Republican candidates will continue to fair better under such privatized systems than leaving it in the hands of people who claim they know what's best for all Americans (i.e. politicians).

How to tackle getting reform through? Do we play a game of give and take and hope to squeak some intro to reform through, or push for the whole shebang? Do we develop a game plan that tackles the problem in increments, phasing in pieces over a period of years, and hope that the enemy of choice don't shut it down and reverse it out?

It is interesting to note that over 5 million Americans are not in the Social Security system, but in private investments. Many states and municipalities, are opted out, not to mention that every elected official has the option to opt out of the system (I'm still in it...the compensation I receive for the office I hold is too miniscule to justify the added administrative work needed to opt it out of Social Security).

Many have tried to argue that putting our Congress critters (all of them) on Social Security will motivate a change. Don't count on it! Many of them are exceptionally wealthy, and don't need to worry about ever collecting a dime from Social Security. Also, Social Security taxes are only applied to the first XXX of total income from all employment sources.

Fearless leader of the group came up with one interesting proposal where the cap (the threshold above which additional income is not subject to the Social Secur

"What?" the NRCC asked in a press release: "Has someone notified the Social Security Commissioner? The President? The Congress? All this time we've been wrong about this?" exclaimed NRCC Communications Director Carl Forti.

"Most everyone familiar with Social Security in any capacity understands that the current generation of workers finances the benefits of the current generation of retirees-making Social Security a pay-as-you-go-system," Forti said.

Is San Fran Nan merely confused, as I suggest, or is she being genuinely ignorant of the facts, or, as Forti suggests: "But now we're seeing her blatantly misrepresent the basic facts on the way the system is run..."

Maybe if we forced Congress onto the same system that we've been condemned with, they might change their tune. But then pigs might fly as well.

Posted by Sqotty at 8:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The movie version of The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy has finally hit the theaters after many years of waiting. I first heard about movie plans for the Guide over ten years ago, and it is good to see that they have finally delivered it to fans at long last. There are elements of the old mixed with the new. The cast is different and special effects technology has advanced such in the years between the original BBC broadcast and today, not to mention a much bigger budget, and results in a much different experience. If you are expecting the OLD HHG, you won't get it here.

The film opens just as the original, with Arthur Dent trying to prevent his home from being demolished, and Ford Prefect comes along and takes him down to the pub, when the Vogons arrive in their construction fleet.

Fast forward to their being ejected into the vacuum of space to be picked up by Zaphod Beeblebrox and Trillian, and we're off to a very different telling of the Hitch Hiker's saga.

With the Vogons in hot pursuit of the Big Z, Zaphod begins his quest for Magrathea to find the Ultimate Question to the Ultimate Answer and looses his head enroute. At least one of them, that is.

Overall, the film is less British and more American than the BBC production, probably so as to appeal to a wider audience, and it has been reported to be a test bed for how well the new Doctor Who series may do in the U.S.

Good things about the new HHG: most of the actors do a good job, the makeup and costuming, especially the Vogon's, who play a more significant role than in the BBC broadcast, is stupendous. Even the original Marvin puts in an appearance. Much of the new material and look worked well. The special effects were excellent. The ultimate weapon is a threat to all mankind (but, oddly enough, not womankind).

Not so good things: Allen Rickman as Marvin, the paranoid android, comes off being way too cheerful and happy. I kept thinking he sounded more like Marvin the Martian, than Marvin the Robot with real people personalities. And I like so much of Rickman's work, however, he just didn't seem to fit the role. Slartibartfast also seemed to be weak. My opinion. Feel free to disagree. Also, the film ends way too early in the story line, but the length is probably about right for movie theaters. a lot of emphasis on special effects at times detracted form the overall story.

Overall, a darn good film, and a must see in the theaters.

Posted by Sqotty at 9:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Are you ready for tax increases, higher unemployment and higher prices at the cash register (inflation)? If not, then you better call Governor Pawlenty and let him know what you think of the minimum wage hike.

At stake is a dollar increase to the minimum wage, which those on the left and their lackeys claim will attract people to Minnesota, and stimulate the economy. What they fail to tell you is that by increasing the minimum wage, prices will go up as business owners pass the added cost of doing business on to consumers. Or they will eliminate jobs. This is what historically happens. The fast food industry (McDonald's, etc.) is likely to be hardest hit by this part, as most of their employees are either at or just above the minimum wage, and are also generally high school students. Restaurants will also be hard hit as many of their wait staff are paid between minimum wage and slightly better as they live mainly off of their tips. Restaurant owners will be faced with two choices: eliminate staff and provide degraded service or raise prices, both of which will result in loss of customers and revenues.

Then there are the union workers whose wages are tied to the minimum wage. We're talking people making $15-20 an hour, and frequently more than that. Frequently more. And an increase in the minimum wage means that they get an automatic wage increase due to their union contracts. This will further increase the cost of doing business. Not only that, but most government workers in the state are also unionized, and will realize an automatic gain in wages at tax payer expense, meaning tax hikes will be soon to follow.

Personally, I don't know anyone over the age of 18 who earns only the minimum wage. And the minimum wage was set up to guarantee a certain amount for entry-level labor, whether it is digging a ditch or schlepping bagels into a bag. It is a stepping stone for new workers, and in every instance where the minimum wage has been increased, it was accompanied by high unemployment, inflationary price increases, tax hikes, and all the while decreasing opportunities for the poor as they are less able to get that need first job.

Don't wait, act now! Contact Governor Pawlenty and tell him "NO!" to minimum wage increases and tell him why.

Mailing Address: Office of the Governor 130 State Capitol 75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155

Telephone: (651) 296-3391 or (800) 657-3717
Facsimile: (651) 296-2089
E-mail: tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us

Posted by Sqotty at 7:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions