Let me clarify that these are not my views on politics; they are my views on arithmetic.
Deficit: "an excess of liabilities over assets"
I.e., spending more than you have. Until recently, we were talking about having "surpluses." Shall I define that one for you, too?
The current Administration has consistently lied about how "money works." Anyway money doesn't work -- people do. These people, typically middle-class, will be the ones who ultimately pay for the current deficits resulting from overspending and inadequate revenue exacerbated by tax cuts predicated on the supposed surpluses.
There are various reasons for the disappointing bleakness of our economic forecasts, but none explains the 1+1=3 math we've been getting lately. I'm not favoring one party over the other on this, either.
In fairness this speaking problem appears to be a family trait, at least for #41 and #43 (how does Jeb talk?). There was a (sort of) tongue-in-cheek article in TNR years ago entitled "Is President Bush Brain-Damaged?" and interviewing others about his various malapropisms. The consensus was no, his brain is intact, and he's just inarticulate.
Now, *Dan Quayle* -- 'nuff said. President Reagan is the most concrete recent case of a senior politician suffering from brain damage, but I acknowledge his Alzheimer's is tragic not funny.
IAAL, but no expert on this stuff. I can however agree that libel is a "disfavored action" which kinda means it pisses courts off and is difficult to win. Often a libel action results from a childish squabble, and sometimes it implicates free speech interests.
However, what the poster describes is much more worrisome because of the implied threat to his business and his privacy. This implicates additional torts such as interference with business relations, invasion of privacy, any monetary damages resulting from same, etc. which are much more readily actionable. If an action is begun, the plaintiff will have access to discovery, subpoena, etc. (Some of these claims may have criminal analogs, which may not get the DA excited but may help the harasser to sober up.) The ISP might oppose a subpoena, but probably won't.
In any event, anticipate spending thousands on litiagtion, or representing yourself and spending hundreds of hours on it.
It's an uphill battle, and probably not worth undertaking because of the costs and your ulcers. It would be important to objectively assess what threat this person poses, as opposed to how personally upsetting their actions are. It sucks, but one hopes your customers or business partners are smarter than to rely on something they heard from some anonymous person on a newsgroup.
My sympathies, I'm sure it hurts. But you may do well enough posting calm denials, or ignoring the person altogether. You might also -enjoy- a little informal detective work to determine who the person is (lure them into the open), but don't retaliate in kind or piss the person off even more.
I think we're getting the kind of accountability you describe, most critically through secondary sources with the expertise to put the facts in context; they're no longer as limited by funding in accessing and citing primary materials. There is also a quick-and-easy paper trail available that can be used to confront political flip-flops in nanoseconds.
I think the market (desire) for information will provide what you want. A nice example here in Northern Virginia was the defeat of a.5% sales tax hike to fund transportation improvements. A combination of anti-tax conservatives and anti-sprawl activists successfully opposed it while spending about 1/7 as much as the real estate developers who favored passage, critically using web sites and email viral campaigning.
One element that will be harder to predict is the reaction of the public. Perhaps informatgion availability will encourage a desire to be informed. I sure appreciate having candidate white papers and such at my fingertips.
Finally, and I should have written this first, the gov't does need to lift all roadblacks to the information getting out. A glaring problem cited repeatedly in recent years is access to the proceedings of Congressional committees, as well as other documents (example). Another I care about is the declassification and digitization of secret documents. I don't know how much progress has been made on these fronts.
This is an example of a "scary" experience with a fan he might not think to discuss, something more revealing than the typical stalker story. I'd love to see it brought up and have him say something more about it, and I can't find a reference to it online. It illustrates a positive aspect of Trek quite different from the you-inspired-me-to-be-an-engineer cliche.
The effects of Trek on "regular people" have been profound. One of my favorites I mentioned elsewhere here and which is recounted online, regards MLK encouraging Nichelle Nichols to stay with the show because of the role model she was to his own children. I think Shatner might me interesting in talking about these humanistic aspects of the show, as he is understandably tired of the "what was the combination of the safe in episode 26" questions. Also, he is himself decidedly not a geek.
Yup. Indeed, angel 1st class Gabriel announced Christ would be born. Lucifer of course was angel #1 until his fall from grace for leading a rebellion against you-know-who (Revelation? Isaiah?). There is some argument as to when the casting-down occurred; it may have been before creation of heaven and earth.
I'm (obviously) not a Christian but respect the Bible and serious scholars of it. But these clowns who hurl Bible verse around like rocks and get it wrong to advance their political causes are contemptible fools or liars. The citation of Bible verse in the arguments of fundamentalists to back creationism and other claims should be met with great skepticism. Even an agnostic can beat them on their own ground -- but never convince them (for example, creationists confronted with the fossil record either expound creative explanations or simply shrug and say the devil did it.
On the Web there must be a secular guide to the Bible designed not to ridicule its inconsistencies but to counter the claims of selective readers. I'm an attorney and fascinated by the difficulty of interpreting texts, and their sophistic abuse.
Gee, this has some connection to/. -- which I suspect has a very high concentration of atheists. Hmm. It is worth being aware of the frequent religious and mythological themes in literature and film, from the Chronicles of Narnia to "The Matrix."
First Interracial Kiss -- Koenig comment
on
Ask William Shatner
·
· Score: 2
If he is asked about the Nichols kiss -- I think Koenig commented in his book "Warped Factors" that there were actually six takes or so of the shot, and the execs were still unsure whether they were willing to go along with the kiss. Each take, Shatner kept kissing Nichols (I would have, too). In the last shot for the night (before the crew went on hyper-overtime pay), he assented and didn't kiss her -- but crossed his eyes in the close-up, which wasn't caught until it was too late to do over.
True story? His stroke for civil rights, or just general randiness?
How does Shatner feel about Wheaton's success selling T-shirts emblazoned "I'm William Fucking Shatner"? see wilwheaton.net
Tragically for Wil's semi-playful vendetta, he had a very pleasant encounter with Shatner at a television taping and, at least temporarily, suspended the jihad.:)
One of the few times I have seen Shatner sympathetically was in an anecdote he told in part of a video shown at the Smithsonian Museum of Air & Space's gratuitous Star Trek retrospective.
Shatner said he was picked up by a limo in the 70's to go to some function. The driver suddenly pulled over and said, "Mr. Shatner, I've been waiting a long time to talk to you." Shatner thinks uh-oh. "You see, I'm a Vietnam vet and was held as a prisoner of war." Shatner thinks, oh shit.
The vet goes on to explain that while he and his buddies were held under torturous conditions, they used Star Trek to stay sane. They could speak to each other in the darkness and would try to reconstruct the scripts from memory, one person playing Spock, another Kirk, and so on.
It was one of the oddest bits of Trek trivia I had ever heard, and related with sensitivity by a man infamous for being a dick in public and private. I still think he's an egomaniac, but not one incapable of turns of humanity.
It was a rhetorical question. (I don't know a smiley for rhetorical Q's.:)
The criticial thing with Microsoft is when it uses its monopoly to bootstrap itself into other areas with the hope to dominate them anticompetitively as well, such as Internet Explorer or Xbox. It's difficult to estimate how well Microsoft would do on nothing but the merits of its products. Office is good (note how they bundle the suite so the weaker get a lift from the strong er), Windows, well, gets mixed reviews, and most of the rest are experimental at best and many would have to be dropped by any less wealthy company.
Also, companies do spin off profitable divisions, for example HP spun off Agilent, AT&T spun off Lucent, and so on. The reasons vary, such as an effort to raise money or an overly diverse company to refocus on its "core business."
Hold on -- the problem with comparing the $300 list price with the 85% profit margin at first blush appears to be that, of course, copies are sold at every price from $300 down to whatever bulk OEM bundling deal might be hammered out.
However, that misses the point altogether of a margin: an 85% profit margin is always an 85% margin. 85% tells you what fraction of the take, and it's a big take, is characterized as profit. And 85%, especially given the VOLUME we're talking here, is staggering. 85% suggests you've either got a product that it unusual and special and hot and patented or hard to imitate, or that something fishy is going on.
You almost want to ask, why don't they spin off the Windows division? Well, we know that the Windows division bankrolls other, future plans of the Microsoft Corporation as it casts about trying to provide for its ongoing viability.
As for the relevance of monopoly, easy, it raises the highest price that the market will tolerate by imposing illegal constraints on the market finding something better. It's the essential reason that a monopoly is desirable. Think of it as getting a higher price from your customer with a handshake and a gun than a handshake alone. Simple as that, and just as illegal.
Heh-heh -- aren't you on the mailing list, Halloween is also way evil. I was just reading a booklet by some fundie -- in cartoon format -- about the evils of Halloween, a holiday argued to be designed for Satan's recruitment drive.
Christmas -- whoa -- many credibly argue it is a pagan holiday spruced up by Christians looking to grow their market share. Others are harsher; as one explains: "[T]he unvarnished truth is that Christ never was in Christmas and it is not Jesus, but Satan who is the reason for the season."
Then there are the sects that forbid the celebration of any holiday.
Now, Easter's cool -- no wait. That Easter bunny may have horns under those ears.
I'm not making fun of the religious, but I am continually amazed at the "interesting" splinter groups Google can introduce you to, and it's these groups with showy book burnings and the like who color perception of the rest. One thing Christians are not -- nor Muslims nor most -- is monolithic.
No this isn't off-topic --/. is something of a cult, too! Lots of pagans here! Repent!
The errant Weyoun may have been #6. Was it Weyoun-7 whose neck Worf casually snapped for making a smartass remark -- giving dour Dumar a rare joke opening? Maybe it was Weyoun-7 who kept getting on the Founder's nerves so much she threatened to have him executed? I wonder whether he really was a limited edition. Weyoun made the Breen seem "warm" by contrast.
Weyoun was like the little dogs in "A Fish Called Wanda."
In its own way DS9 had the best (dark) sense of humor. And some of the fans, too -- one evidently thought Weyoun attractive. Ewwwww. I think/hope Vortas were way beyond mating.
In all events, it's nice that HP has little kids and certain 20-somethings reading books!
Yeah, Star Wars tends towards monarchistic themes ("Princess Leia" isn't just because she's prissy) with a vague nod toward representative democracy in the vile (IMHO) prequels. But then monarchies are the stuff of romantic legend, and Star Wars is very romantic. Luke is the lost knight, etc.
Star Trek always *acted* like it was a meritocracy (kind of like America) but I had to wonder. Rarely did we get to see a washout, and while we were assured everyone was the best of the best they didn't seem to work at it very much -- too many adventures to take. Yet they were always innovating things in the field that "had never been done before" even by the weenies back at the labs.
Also, did you ever notice how everybody in the power circles knew each other, even though they were flung across the galaxy? It seemed very buddy-buddy. Don't tell me there wasn't an elitist component, and that Starfleet ran in families without the effects of influence.
Well, uh, back to Harry Potter -- what happened to all the wizard-wannabes "not good enough" for Hogwarts or its sister schools? Do you really want a bunch of magic school dropouts hanging out and causing trouble? Rowling should lok at this more in a later novel -- "Sorcery and its Discontents." At least in HP, unlike SW or ST, you really do see people STUDYING!
HP has monarchistic themes, too. Dumbledore seems very much like the King, McGonagal the window-dressing Queen (I think Dumbledore is gay;-), "Lord" Valdemort the pretender. It is symbolic that chess was so central to the first movie.
How does Christianity fare in these three epics? Poorly. No wonder the fundies are holding bookburnings. (Really, the religions ought to be strong enough not to worry what isn't said about them in these fables. It's just for fun.)
I figure TNG and DS9 each had recurring Asian actors (the nurse and O'Brien's annoying wife). And of course there was Sulu/Takei who, like Chekov, was mostly silent but had a fine episode half-naked (even more skin than Kirk) in "The Naked Time."
The omissions are odd because, remember, Roddenberry was incredibly enlightened by 1960's standards even to cast Nichelle Nichols (whom, yes, he was reportedly dating at the time), let alone to broadcast TV's first interracial kiss. Perhaps he just didn't evolve much. At the time I think it had been just a year since the Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws in 15 states. Like the other team-of-5 actors Nichols wasn't given much to do, but neither was she singled out. She relates that she was tempted to quit the show out of frustration, but was persuaded to stay partly by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who told her Star Trek was one of the few TV shows he would let his children watch.
As for American Indians, well that's a little tough. I'm not one myself, but I sometimes questioned whether Chakotay and his religion were entirely flattering portrayal. At least, I wanted to jump out a window when Wesley went on his viscion quest.:) (Having read some on wilwheaton.net, I am more sympathetic to Wesley, and Wil has some great gossip.)
Off-screen, by all accounts, Stewart has the best non-virtual personaility. (Avery Brooks might be the most intense.) I came across dozens of anecdotes of people happening upon Stewart -- and he must be one of the most recognizable characters -- and his being the perfect gentleman. This was a guestbook entry, mostly about Shatner:
I don't have a Shatner story, however a co-worker of mine,who is a huge Star Trek: TNG fan, waited on Patrick Stewart in our shop. He was very amicable. As it turned out, my associate ended up going out to Stewart's house to do an in home estimate and then installing an entertainment system for him. He was beside himself that he had Capt. Picard's phone # in his cellphone. He had to restrain himself from calling Mr. Stewart and checking up on it every other day. One day he swung by again to make sure everything was working. Patrick Stewart opens the door, looks my friend in the eye and says (with his trademark delivery)...
"I do believe you've gone beyond the call of duty."
Needless to say, my buddy Shatnered his pants. Not a Shatner story, just an affirmation of how a Starfleet officer should conduct himself.
On the other hand, should Stewart be forgiven for participating in "Lifeforce"? The jury's out.
Her breasts weren't *that* large, I think that bizarre suit they whipped up for her was responsible for half of it. As a sex symbol (an icy one) she was OK, but I intensely disliked the ridiculous high heels they had her wear. (Look like I'm not the only grump about this point. One fan insists the heels are "irony":)
I just read Koenig/Chekov's book "Warped Factors" from the library. It's fairly entertaining and talks some about Roddenberry's influence/ One comment, there or elsewhere, was that his relationships with women tended to be physical rather than intellectual. However, I get the sense from Majel Barett that she is not an airhead. I also sensed that Rick Berman was a strong influence in later years, and perhaps a bit of an asshole.
Yes, I agree Sisko was a somewhat uneven character (as was Picard, at his worst in any number of season 1-3 episodes, and at his best in "The Inner Light" wherein via a probe's intervention he lives a lifetime as a member of a dying civilization -- I can't imagine ever being the ame after such a wrenching experience). FWIW Avery Brooks appeared ambivalent about playing the role. My wife loved the deep space "Hawk" -- not a person to fsck around with.
Welll... I'm not totally sure. Sisko was perceptive about people and certainly knew what Garak was about -- an Obsidian Order alum whose allegiances and possibly slightly morals had changed. In the final confrontation between the two, IIRC, Garak accuses Sisko of knowing, perhaps subliminally, that only on course of action remained. Sisko may have understimated Garak's ruthlessness (and cleverness), but he lost his deniability when he signed on for the escapade. Sisko just didn't want to think himself capable of authorizing such a think. Finally, he not attempt to punish Garak, rather the two apparently remained friends and Garak became of the more twisted Trek heros as the Dominion War wound up.
Besides, the Romulan was an asshole.:)
And, yes, a very good episode. How nice not to see the ending coming from a mile away. Another was the one where Miles finds everyone treating him strangely, including his (annoying) wife, and sinks into desperation, until (SPOILER) it is revealed at the last moment that he was actually his clone.
Um, sounds great, we'll, er, be sure to visit, uh, real soon.
My wife would have a stroke at more than one spider at a time. I've talked her down a bit -- I kind of like them because they eat things I really don't like, and are beautiful -- but they are still escorted outside. Here, inside and outside are still distinct, though there was that raccoon I had to chase off a few days ago....
Slashdot Mirror
You know the old expression, "Do what I meant, not what I said!!"
Let me clarify that these are not my views on politics; they are my views on arithmetic.
Deficit: "an excess of liabilities over assets"
I.e., spending more than you have. Until recently, we were talking about having "surpluses." Shall I define that one for you, too?
The current Administration has consistently lied about how "money works." Anyway money doesn't work -- people do. These people, typically middle-class, will be the ones who ultimately pay for the current deficits resulting from overspending and inadequate revenue exacerbated by tax cuts predicated on the supposed surpluses.
There are various reasons for the disappointing bleakness of our economic forecasts, but none explains the 1+1=3 math we've been getting lately. I'm not favoring one party over the other on this, either.
In fairness this speaking problem appears to be a family trait, at least for #41 and #43 (how does Jeb talk?). There was a (sort of) tongue-in-cheek article in TNR years ago entitled "Is President Bush Brain-Damaged?" and interviewing others about his various malapropisms. The consensus was no, his brain is intact, and he's just inarticulate.
Now, *Dan Quayle* -- 'nuff said. President Reagan is the most concrete recent case of a senior politician suffering from brain damage, but I acknowledge his Alzheimer's is tragic not funny.
Hey, we would be paying off the deficit or not worsening it so much, if only...
:)
oh never mind....
But wasn't that brief period of euphoria wonderful. Something to tell the kids about.
Of course Comdex is dying -- what a boring name! It sounds like a competitor to Rolodex®.
IAAL, but no expert on this stuff. I can however agree that libel is a "disfavored action" which kinda means it pisses courts off and is difficult to win. Often a libel action results from a childish squabble, and sometimes it implicates free speech interests.
However, what the poster describes is much more worrisome because of the implied threat to his business and his privacy. This implicates additional torts such as interference with business relations, invasion of privacy, any monetary damages resulting from same, etc. which are much more readily actionable. If an action is begun, the plaintiff will have access to discovery, subpoena, etc. (Some of these claims may have criminal analogs, which may not get the DA excited but may help the harasser to sober up.) The ISP might oppose a subpoena, but probably won't.
In any event, anticipate spending thousands on litiagtion, or representing yourself and spending hundreds of hours on it.
It's an uphill battle, and probably not worth undertaking because of the costs and your ulcers. It would be important to objectively assess what threat this person poses, as opposed to how personally upsetting their actions are. It sucks, but one hopes your customers or business partners are smarter than to rely on something they heard from some anonymous person on a newsgroup.
My sympathies, I'm sure it hurts. But you may do well enough posting calm denials, or ignoring the person altogether. You might also -enjoy- a little informal detective work to determine who the person is (lure them into the open), but don't retaliate in kind or piss the person off even more.
I think we're getting the kind of accountability you describe, most critically through secondary sources with the expertise to put the facts in context; they're no longer as limited by funding in accessing and citing primary materials. There is also a quick-and-easy paper trail available that can be used to confront political flip-flops in nanoseconds.
.5% sales tax hike to fund transportation improvements. A combination of anti-tax conservatives and anti-sprawl activists successfully opposed it while spending about 1/7 as much as the real estate developers who favored passage, critically using web sites and email viral campaigning.
I think the market (desire) for information will provide what you want. A nice example here in Northern Virginia was the defeat of a
One element that will be harder to predict is the reaction of the public. Perhaps informatgion availability will encourage a desire to be informed. I sure appreciate having candidate white papers and such at my fingertips.
Finally, and I should have written this first, the gov't does need to lift all roadblacks to the information getting out. A glaring problem cited repeatedly in recent years is access to the proceedings of Congressional committees, as well as other documents (example). Another I care about is the declassification and digitization of secret documents. I don't know how much progress has been made on these fronts.
It's not off-topic to the parent. :)
This is an example of a "scary" experience with a fan he might not think to discuss, something more revealing than the typical stalker story. I'd love to see it brought up and have him say something more about it, and I can't find a reference to it online. It illustrates a positive aspect of Trek quite different from the you-inspired-me-to-be-an-engineer cliche.
The effects of Trek on "regular people" have been profound. One of my favorites I mentioned elsewhere here and which is recounted online, regards MLK encouraging Nichelle Nichols to stay with the show because of the role model she was to his own children. I think Shatner might me interesting in talking about these humanistic aspects of the show, as he is understandably tired of the "what was the combination of the safe in episode 26" questions. Also, he is himself decidedly not a geek.
Yup. Indeed, angel 1st class Gabriel announced Christ would be born. Lucifer of course was angel #1 until his fall from grace for leading a rebellion against you-know-who (Revelation? Isaiah?). There is some argument as to when the casting-down occurred; it may have been before creation of heaven and earth.
/. -- which I suspect has a very high concentration of atheists. Hmm. It is worth being aware of the frequent religious and mythological themes in literature and film, from the Chronicles of Narnia to "The Matrix."
I'm (obviously) not a Christian but respect the Bible and serious scholars of it. But these clowns who hurl Bible verse around like rocks and get it wrong to advance their political causes are contemptible fools or liars. The citation of Bible verse in the arguments of fundamentalists to back creationism and other claims should be met with great skepticism. Even an agnostic can beat them on their own ground -- but never convince them (for example, creationists confronted with the fossil record either expound creative explanations or simply shrug and say the devil did it.
On the Web there must be a secular guide to the Bible designed not to ridicule its inconsistencies but to counter the claims of selective readers. I'm an attorney and fascinated by the difficulty of interpreting texts, and their sophistic abuse.
Gee, this has some connection to
What!?! The Founders didn't backup their work?!? ;-)
Nooooo, he was just kidding ... except about YOU.
If he is asked about the Nichols kiss -- I think Koenig commented in his book "Warped Factors" that there were actually six takes or so of the shot, and the execs were still unsure whether they were willing to go along with the kiss. Each take, Shatner kept kissing Nichols (I would have, too). In the last shot for the night (before the crew went on hyper-overtime pay), he assented and didn't kiss her -- but crossed his eyes in the close-up, which wasn't caught until it was too late to do over.
True story? His stroke for civil rights, or just general randiness?
NOTE!: (insert disarming smile to parent)
Mr. Shatner, were you as relieved as we were when your doppelganger Captain James Tiberius Kirk was killed in Star Trek: Generations?
How does Shatner feel about Wheaton's success selling T-shirts emblazoned "I'm William Fucking Shatner"? see wilwheaton.net
:)
Tragically for Wil's semi-playful vendetta, he had a very pleasant encounter with Shatner at a television taping and, at least temporarily, suspended the jihad.
One of the few times I have seen Shatner sympathetically was in an anecdote he told in part of a video shown at the Smithsonian Museum of Air & Space's gratuitous Star Trek retrospective.
Shatner said he was picked up by a limo in the 70's to go to some function. The driver suddenly pulled over and said, "Mr. Shatner, I've been waiting a long time to talk to you." Shatner thinks uh-oh. "You see, I'm a Vietnam vet and was held as a prisoner of war." Shatner thinks, oh shit.
The vet goes on to explain that while he and his buddies were held under torturous conditions, they used Star Trek to stay sane. They could speak to each other in the darkness and would try to reconstruct the scripts from memory, one person playing Spock, another Kirk, and so on.
It was one of the oddest bits of Trek trivia I had ever heard, and related with sensitivity by a man infamous for being a dick in public and private. I still think he's an egomaniac, but not one incapable of turns of humanity.
Thank you! That was where I saw the comic strip format on Halloween.
Don't make fun of them. It just convinces them that they're right. Although the anti-Catholic stuff is worthy of the Klan.
It was a rhetorical question. (I don't know a smiley for rhetorical Q's. :)
The criticial thing with Microsoft is when it uses its monopoly to bootstrap itself into other areas with the hope to dominate them anticompetitively as well, such as Internet Explorer or Xbox. It's difficult to estimate how well Microsoft would do on nothing but the merits of its products. Office is good (note how they bundle the suite so the weaker get a lift from the strong er), Windows, well, gets mixed reviews, and most of the rest are experimental at best and many would have to be dropped by any less wealthy company.
Also, companies do spin off profitable divisions, for example HP spun off Agilent, AT&T spun off Lucent, and so on. The reasons vary, such as an effort to raise money or an overly diverse company to refocus on its "core business."
Hold on -- the problem with comparing the $300 list price with the 85% profit margin at first blush appears to be that, of course, copies are sold at every price from $300 down to whatever bulk OEM bundling deal might be hammered out.
However, that misses the point altogether of a margin: an 85% profit margin is always an 85% margin. 85% tells you what fraction of the take, and it's a big take, is characterized as profit. And 85%, especially given the VOLUME we're talking here, is staggering. 85% suggests you've either got a product that it unusual and special and hot and patented or hard to imitate, or that something fishy is going on.
You almost want to ask, why don't they spin off the Windows division? Well, we know that the Windows division bankrolls other, future plans of the Microsoft Corporation as it casts about trying to provide for its ongoing viability.
As for the relevance of monopoly, easy, it raises the highest price that the market will tolerate by imposing illegal constraints on the market finding something better. It's the essential reason that a monopoly is desirable. Think of it as getting a higher price from your customer with a handshake and a gun than a handshake alone. Simple as that, and just as illegal.
Heh-heh -- aren't you on the mailing list, Halloween is also way evil. I was just reading a booklet by some fundie -- in cartoon format -- about the evils of Halloween, a holiday argued to be designed for Satan's recruitment drive.
/. is something of a cult, too! Lots of pagans here! Repent!
Christmas -- whoa -- many credibly argue it is a pagan holiday spruced up by Christians looking to grow their market share. Others are harsher; as one explains: "[T]he unvarnished truth is that Christ never was in Christmas and it is not Jesus, but Satan who is the reason for the season."
Then there are the sects that forbid the celebration of any holiday.
Now, Easter's cool -- no wait. That Easter bunny may have horns under those ears.
I'm not making fun of the religious, but I am continually amazed at the "interesting" splinter groups Google can introduce you to, and it's these groups with showy book burnings and the like who color perception of the rest. One thing Christians are not -- nor Muslims nor most -- is monolithic.
No this isn't off-topic --
Good point! An upside to cloning.
The errant Weyoun may have been #6. Was it Weyoun-7 whose neck Worf casually snapped for making a smartass remark -- giving dour Dumar a rare joke opening? Maybe it was Weyoun-7 who kept getting on the Founder's nerves so much she threatened to have him executed? I wonder whether he really was a limited edition. Weyoun made the Breen seem "warm" by contrast.
Weyoun was like the little dogs in "A Fish Called Wanda."
In its own way DS9 had the best (dark) sense of humor. And some of the fans, too -- one evidently thought Weyoun attractive. Ewwwww. I think/hope Vortas were way beyond mating.
In all events, it's nice that HP has little kids and certain 20-somethings reading books!
;-), "Lord" Valdemort the pretender. It is symbolic that chess was so central to the first movie.
Yeah, Star Wars tends towards monarchistic themes ("Princess Leia" isn't just because she's prissy) with a vague nod toward representative democracy in the vile (IMHO) prequels. But then monarchies are the stuff of romantic legend, and Star Wars is very romantic. Luke is the lost knight, etc.
Star Trek always *acted* like it was a meritocracy (kind of like America) but I had to wonder. Rarely did we get to see a washout, and while we were assured everyone was the best of the best they didn't seem to work at it very much -- too many adventures to take. Yet they were always innovating things in the field that "had never been done before" even by the weenies back at the labs.
Also, did you ever notice how everybody in the power circles knew each other, even though they were flung across the galaxy? It seemed very buddy-buddy. Don't tell me there wasn't an elitist component, and that Starfleet ran in families without the effects of influence.
Well, uh, back to Harry Potter -- what happened to all the wizard-wannabes "not good enough" for Hogwarts or its sister schools? Do you really want a bunch of magic school dropouts hanging out and causing trouble? Rowling should lok at this more in a later novel -- "Sorcery and its Discontents." At least in HP, unlike SW or ST, you really do see people STUDYING!
HP has monarchistic themes, too. Dumbledore seems very much like the King, McGonagal the window-dressing Queen (I think Dumbledore is gay
How does Christianity fare in these three epics? Poorly. No wonder the fundies are holding bookburnings. (Really, the religions ought to be strong enough not to worry what isn't said about them in these fables. It's just for fun.)
The omissions are odd because, remember, Roddenberry was incredibly enlightened by 1960's standards even to cast Nichelle Nichols (whom, yes, he was reportedly dating at the time), let alone to broadcast TV's first interracial kiss. Perhaps he just didn't evolve much. At the time I think it had been just a year since the Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws in 15 states. Like the other team-of-5 actors Nichols wasn't given much to do, but neither was she singled out. She relates that she was tempted to quit the show out of frustration, but was persuaded to stay partly by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who told her Star Trek was one of the few TV shows he would let his children watch.
As for American Indians, well that's a little tough. I'm not one myself, but I sometimes questioned whether Chakotay and his religion were entirely flattering portrayal. At least, I wanted to jump out a window when Wesley went on his viscion quest.
Off-screen, by all accounts, Stewart has the best non-virtual personaility. (Avery Brooks might be the most intense.) I came across dozens of anecdotes of people happening upon Stewart -- and he must be one of the most recognizable characters -- and his being the perfect gentleman. This was a guestbook entry, mostly
about Shatner
On the other hand, should Stewart be forgiven for participating in "Lifeforce"? The jury's out.
Her breasts weren't *that* large, I think that bizarre suit they whipped up for her was responsible for half of it. As a sex symbol (an icy one) she was OK, but I intensely disliked the ridiculous high heels they had her wear. (Look like I'm not the only grump about this point. One fan insists the heels are "irony" :)
I just read Koenig/Chekov's book "Warped Factors" from the library. It's fairly entertaining and talks some about Roddenberry's influence/ One comment, there or elsewhere, was that his relationships with women tended to be physical rather than intellectual. However, I get the sense from Majel Barett that she is not an airhead. I also sensed that Rick Berman was a strong influence in later years, and perhaps a bit of an asshole.
Yes, I agree Sisko was a somewhat uneven character (as was Picard, at his worst in any number of season 1-3 episodes, and at his best in "The Inner Light" wherein via a probe's intervention he lives a lifetime as a member of a dying civilization -- I can't imagine ever being the ame after such a wrenching experience). FWIW Avery Brooks appeared ambivalent about playing the role. My wife loved the deep space "Hawk" -- not a person to fsck around with.
Welll ... I'm not totally sure. Sisko was perceptive about people and certainly knew what Garak was about -- an Obsidian Order alum whose allegiances and possibly slightly morals had changed. In the final confrontation between the two, IIRC, Garak accuses Sisko of knowing, perhaps subliminally, that only on course of action remained. Sisko may have understimated Garak's ruthlessness (and cleverness), but he lost his deniability when he signed on for the escapade. Sisko just didn't want to think himself capable of authorizing such a think. Finally, he not attempt to punish Garak, rather the two apparently remained friends and Garak became of the more twisted Trek heros as the Dominion War wound up.
:)
Besides, the Romulan was an asshole.
And, yes, a very good episode. How nice not to see the ending coming from a mile away. Another was the one where Miles finds everyone treating him strangely, including his (annoying) wife, and sinks into desperation, until (SPOILER) it is revealed at the last moment that he was actually his clone.
Um, sounds great, we'll, er, be sure to visit, uh, real soon.
My wife would have a stroke at more than one spider at a time. I've talked her down a bit -- I kind of like them because they eat things I really don't like, and are beautiful -- but they are still escorted outside. Here, inside and outside are still distinct, though there was that raccoon I had to chase off a few days ago....