Monthly Archives: May 2009

Star Trek

Posted on by

I attended a late afternoon showing of the newly-released JJ Abrams-directed (TV series “Lost” amongst others, and affiliation with movies such as Mission Impossible III and Cloverfield) film “Star Trek” on Saturday and, frankly, was prepared to completely despise it up to, and including, walking out.
Instead, I found myself riveted to my seat, smiling, laughing, enjoying the character interplay and the dazzling special effects for two hours and six minutes.
There are a few iconic areas in my life — things I held dear whilst growing up — and one of them was, no surprise, Star Trek. I can clearly recall the years 1966 to 1969 quite specifically because I was watching the original series, every week, during that time. I loyally followed the series, held the cartoons quite at arms’ length and hated them, read and collected all the James Blish paperback adaptations, David Gerrold’s The Making of Star Trek, purchased a script copy of “Amok Time,” then attended every Star Trek movie produced. As the television series and iterations expanded I watched when I could.
I suppose I could summarize the film this way: it isn’t what you would expect and, further, if you’ll only accept past iconic images you’ll be disappointed. This movie’s “original” Enterprise is much-modified from the 1966 version, to include essentially every aspect of that age’s technology. Logically, this should come as no surprise. Produced by ILM, it is likewise no surprise the special effects are frequently breathtaking — when they’re in focus and the camera isn’t shaking.
And there’s my one rub with JJ Abrams. Yes, from the first opening second to the last, this film is essentially non-stop action. Little time to catch your breath. And there were portions when I just wanted a few moments to do precisely that, grab the camera operator and pin him to the floor. But this is part of Mr Abrams’s style. If you don’t mind this aspect, I doubt you’ll find much with which to object in Star Trek.
Yes, you know the characters. Yes, they are easy to pick out. And, quite luckily (or purposely so) their interplay is much like you would want: they seem to readily assimilate and mold themselves into a group prepared for great adventure. I particularly enjoyed the work of Simon Pegg as Scotty, and Karl Urban as Dr McCoy. Zachary Quinto (Sylar from the TV series Heroes) is physically close to Spock but the voice will have to grow on me. Likewise, I’ll have to work with Chris Pine as James Kirk. Casting Bruce Greenwood (you see him, you’ll instantly know him) as Captain Chrisopher Pike was a stroke of brilliance.
At my advanced age, I’m occasionally smart enough to know that nothing can stay the same and to embrace change when that change is actually positive. I entered that dark room with like thoughts. And I exited refreshed and hopeful.
Yes, this is yet another iteration of the Star Trek franchise but, in my opinion, is well worth allowing for its own path and its own set of adventures.
Go see it. Imax should be incredible.
BZ
P.S.
Click on the photographs for much larger and detailed images.
 Share

Who’s The Liar, Speaker Pelosi?

Posted on by

The CIA, or you?

Did you actually think that when you essentially labeled the CIA a pack of liars, that they wouldn’t react?

Intelligence officials released documents this evening saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was briefed in September 2002 about the use of harsh interrogation tactics against al-Qaeda prisoners, seemingly contradicting her repeated statements over the past 18 months that she was never told that these techniques were actually being used.

In a 10-page memo outlining an almost seven-year history of classified briefings, intelligence officials said that Pelosi and then-Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.) were the first two members of Congress ever briefed on the interrogation tactics. Then the ranking member and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, respectively, Pelosi and Goss were briefed Sept. 4, 2002, one week before the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

So apparently, Speaker Liar Pelosi, you were one of the very first two persons fully briefed on tactics used, not proposed.

Go here to see the released 10-page document under the Freedom Of Information Act.

And so, with her lies dragged from the shadows into the light of day, then would it not follow that if the Obama Administration determines to prosecute those lawyers who drafted opinions under Bush regarding enhanced interrogation, shouldn’t Speaker Pelosi likewise be so prosecuted?

BZ
P.S.
I want to know whose red, bulky, lizard-like and elderly “man hands” were inserted into this photograph because, after all, they couldn’t belong to the coy and demure female Speaker of the House — eh?
 Share

Campaign Monetary Reform: Changing FCC & Media Rules

Posted on by

As I recently wrote, directly due to overall disappointment with the Republican Party, some persons are advocating the creation of a Third Party.

But even before we consider any kind of third, fourth or fifth major party, we must somehow wrestle with the vast amounts of money necessary to run various political campaigns, on each of these levels:
  • Local (city, county, etc.)
  • State
  • Federal
Most everyone insists there is little if any real solution to this problem: the fantastic, corruptive amounts of cash necessary to run everything from the most minimal of competitive political races on up to the federal level — is relativistically staggering.

I submit: by the time anyone — and I mean anyone (with so damned few exceptions!) — has reached a national level they are so completely subsumed with corruption that they primarily exist to play the system for their personal, sole benefit.

How we can bring reality and proportion back into the political equation on every level, for — I submit — isn’t this our ultimate goal?

Further, how do we attract those persons who have stellar ideas, who have the requisite training, education and experience to compete in politics — but yet exist on a fiscal level far below that necessary to even throw their hat into any political ring?

I also suggest that each and every one of us know persons who could Make A Difference — if only they could “compete” and if only we could level political campaign playing fields.

Which is why I propose this solution:

Make our national and local media, by way of the FCC PSA (Public Service Announcement) mandate, serve as the primary medium of information for political candidate dissemination.

In other words, make the media that try on so many levels to be “biased” or “contained” or “limited” in their actual coverage of various political endeavors — to be actually RESPONSIBLE, within fiscal reason, for the broadcast of candidates’ statements, platforms, debates, prior to an election.

Level the playing field. Make everyone equal. Isn’t this the ultimate goal of the Demorats and Leftists?

And oh, how they’ll howl at my suggestion.

As will the various media outlets involved from television to radio.

At this point most PSAs are broadcast on Sunday when fewer people are listening and these media outlets can still fulfill their mandates. Broadcasting PSAs on Sunday is the standard because media outlets know that the fewest number of persons are listening or watching and yet, at the same time, they are fulfilling their obligations.

I submit this, then, for your consideration:

When political issues emerge on any one of the three above levels (local, state, federal), local and national broadcasters, dependent upon the venue, both radio and television (and their cable variants) are OBLIGATED to provide a certain and specifically delineated amount of FREE TIME — equal for everyone — devoted to the expression of candidates’ views, debates, platforms, solicitations.

The more we can reduce the publicity stress, the more we can level the playing field on every side, the more fair our politics become for those with new, unique, uncorruptible, altruistic and philosophical views.

On both sides of the aisle.

What do you think?

BZ
 Share

“Joe The Plumber” Leaving the GOP?

Posted on by

The Huffington Post indicates that Time magazine says Joe Wurzelbacher, famously known as “Joe The Plumber,” is apparently leaving the Republican party.

An edit from the Time article:

Samuel Wurzelbacher, better known as Joe the Plumber, tells TIME he’s so outraged by GOP overspending, he’s quitting the party — and he’s the bull’s-eye of its target audience. But he also said he wouldn’t support any cuts in defense, Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid — which, along with debt payments, would put more than two-thirds of the budget off limits.

Is he proposing an alternative at this point?

Joe isn’t saying.

It’s worth examining. With one realization:

WITHOUT changing the ENTIRE WAY we, this nation, CONDUCTS ITS POLITICS, without complete fiscal upheaval and governmental restructuring, without changing any number of laws, ANY party, third, fourth or fifth, runs the risk of getting sucked into the same heady morass in Washington that has corrupted good men and women.
PLUS, you must also change politics and its structure at YOUR OWN local level. I say, and you know it’s true, that your own city council or county board is its OWN “Bootcamp For Corruption.”

Yes, it’s wonderful to theorize about our ideal philosophies. But without REAL and viable POLITICAL CHANGE in terms of the infrastructure of politics, these desires are almost pointless. Along with party or philosophical change there must also be, simultaneously, fundamental structure change.

We somehow have to discover some way to ensure truth in bills (one topic per bill), limit donations, demand and enforce accountability, responsibility (by LAW), balanced budgets (by LAW) and any other number of reforms.

Because what happens locally is only MAGNIFIED in terms of corruption each governmental level climbed. At the local level, for example, a city council member just might like the “take home car” and will do ANYTHING to keep it. That’s just one perk. Imagine a world of nothing but perks and Rock Star, limo, face-time, extremely deferential treatment — with, further, exemptions from rules and strictures enforced upon the electorate. A simple cesspool of corruption.

We can create a third party or embrace a third party. But without all these other measures in place, in time (a shockingly SHORT time) they’ll come to love their own personal plate of steaming corruption and you’ll be left with what you have now: disappointment and the withering and crumbling of our very core fundamental tenets as written in our Constitituion and Bill of Rights.

If we embrace a new party or the same party, our structure MUST CHANGE. Free Cheese is simply, otherwise, too compelling, too alluring, without limits and discipline in place.

So I posit to you all:

IS it time for a Third Party?

BZ
 Share