Letters to the Editor
-
@Paul Rosenberg
>>Pistols at 50 paces, girl.
Best. Star Trek. Ever.<<
You must be joking. How can Jean-Luc Picard be compared with anyone?
The reason I said the DS9 episode wasn't so relevant is because it's inserted long after the zeitgeist of Star Trek was already long-established, whereas the book was published right in the middle of that establishment.
I would say we're slightly talking at cross-purposes, but we're talking about Star Trek. How much can it matter? :-)
-
"How much can it matter?"
It is only Star Trek, after all, and I don't have nearly the depth of knowledge that you two do.
However, I have to agree that no one else can compare to Jean-Luc Picard. Before NG, I never even really cared for Star Trek. Shatner just was not my cup of tea back then. Patrick Stewart is another story.
-
@Karen M
>>I don't have nearly the depth of knowledge that you two do.<<
Me, I'm a Trekkie from childhood, when all I had was Kirk on a 10-inch fuzzy black and white screen, but my knowledge is all faked, I promise. It involves hurrying through Web sites while drafting a response ;) But I'm glad to hear you're with me on Patrick Stewart.
-
I think you're smoking from the same crack pipe...
...that the white house is.
There is one fundamental truth that guides the way this country operates - large corporations own and operate every aspect of this country - elections, courts, the press, wars, health care... That's not bound to change anytime soon.
Also, the Democratic party is owned by the same people that own the Republican party. They get swapped back and forth to simulate change so as to keep the masses from growing agitated.
-
IntrovertGirl... you could have fooled me ;~)
You might enjoy this link to one of my favorite bloggers:
http://blogs.salon.com/0003522/2005/06/06.html#a576
I've thought about going back and watching the old episodes with Shatner after reading in another post that Birdie had rented them for her sons via Netflix, and how much they had learned about ethics, etc., discussing them later. I have a grandson about the same age as her sons, but I don't know if he'd like them as well. I finally signed up for Netflix last month during March Madness (cable-less, I couldn't take it any more!).
I still haven't added any Star Trek episodes to my queue, yet, but this eddy in the sea change thread reminds me that I need to do that.
-
OT...or not? The Durbin Disclosure
Not really pertinent to Glenn's "sea of change" discussion, but I hope others will find it relevant to some of his major themes.
You'd think that any of us who read this blog (or even follow the news) regularly would be long past the point of surprise at new evidence of the depths of deceit and flagrant (almost typed "fragrant," which is almost as accurate) abuse of power to which this administration is addicted. Yet for some reason, when I listened to Senator Durbin's recent admission that he and the entire Senate Intelligence Committee had been told--confidentially, of course--prior to the start of the Iraq catastrophe that the "aluminum tubes" that the public heard were the portent of Iraqi nuclear weapons probably weren't any such thing, I pretty much lost it. (For the video, see http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/28/sen-durbin-drops-bombshells-on-the-senate-floor/.) If Durbin is to be believed, we had a Senate oversight committee that knew the administration was telling lies to the American public, but they were required to sit in silence in the Senate during discussions about going to war that focused on "facts" they knew to be false. WHOA.
I harbor no illusions about this administration or its willingness to do whatever necessary to promulgate its fascist agenda. But this one truly stuns me. I just can't fathom how it could be possible, in our system of government, for members of Congress to have information that was so clearly pertinent to the discussion of going to war in Iraq, and to be aware that their colleagues were about to take us into a war based on patently false information, but not to be able to do anything about it. We know that this administration lies, dissembles, misdirects, and withholds information to enable itself to achieve its real goals. But...to be able to share information with a Congressional committee, and also to be able to tie the hands of those committee's members so that they were unable to use the information in carrying out their duties to the people who elected them...holy mackeral! Can it really be the case that there is no legal provision to protect We the People and our elected representatives in such an egregious circumstance??
-
Rove provides us with a template for change
The criminal right wing has created a template for change through its outrageous behavior, requiring all people of good conscience to oppose it, both Democratic and Republican. Bush and Co.'s transparent efforts to distort the truth by falsely stating the opposite of their true intentions, leads us directly to the scene of their crimes.
Karl Rove is formulaic and predictable. Once his shell of invulnerability has cracked, his tell-tale handiwork will be easier to trace. We the people must continue our steady and relentless investigation, until we drain this administration dry of its corruption.
-
Whatever Happened To Story???
[Me, re; DS9]:>>Pistols at 50 paces, girl.
Best. Star Trek. Ever.<<
You must be joking. How can Jean-Luc Picard be compared with anyone?
Well, he's a trained Shakespearean actor. He can be compared to other trained Shakespearean actors. And on that scale, he's good, but not super-top. As such, he shone especially in set piece episodes, such as the torture scenario played out in "Chain of Command, Part II." If that's your standard, he gets top marks, no question.
OTOH, he can be compared to the other actors he played opposite. And even in that episode, David Warner as Gul Madred was right there at his level. Maybe even a bit higher, what with playing the father in the same room he was torturing Picard in. But, really, the best actor in TNG for my money was Michelle Forbes as Ro Laren. No other actor pulled off so much character development in such a short, recurring role. And she easily outplayed Picard in their scenes together. Star Trek maangement knew what they were doing when they asked her to star on DS9--the one thing that didn't happen that could have made it noticeably better.
More importantly, though, you're proceeding on the presumption that a lead actor carries the show. I could simply by counter by arguing that Avery Brooks does a better job as an actor than Patrick Steward did. His character is less iconic, true. But that's what makes him better--he convincingly develops a character who goes through remarkable changes in the course of the series, something which no other lead actor in a Star Trek series does.
And this leads directly into what really makes it the best series--it's the only one that is really, actually, a story. The others after it tried to be, following in its footsteps. But they weren't sufficiently well-conceived so that the overarching story was strong enough to hold the parts together. Not only that, but the story is one of the very best to ever be told in the course of a TV series.
The reason I said the DS9 episode wasn't so relevant is because it's inserted long after the zeitgeist of Star Trek was already long-established, whereas the book was published right in the middle of that establishment.
Yes, but how the hell is that relevant to the original point???
I would say we're slightly talking at cross-purposes, but we're talking about Star Trek. How much can it matter? :-)
Data would surely disagree. And Spock would back him up, 100%.
-
Moment of Destiny
OK Glenn, now is your opportunity. Stake out a position for what follows the veto. Maybe Murtha's idea is good - refuse to give them another full bill.
Now that we know Bush is a fraud it is time to slam the door shut. Why compromise?
Also, what's the deal with this new initiative to place missiles in Europe? Seems like war profiteering Stage 2.
Frankly this seems like more of the same nonsense. As I said, time to slam the door shut. And a great question to ask Hillary and her fellow candidate friends.
-
It Get's Worse
Just the facts:
If Durbin is to be believed, we had a Senate oversight committee that knew the administration was telling lies to the American public, but they were required to sit in silence in the Senate during discussions about going to war that focused on "facts" they knew to be false. WHOA.
This isn't news. At the time it was happening, Florida Senator Bob Graham, who chaired the Committee (Dems controlled the Senate, after Jeffords went independent and started caucusing with them), publicly stated the committee was getting information that undercut what was being told to the rest of the Senate. But the rest of the Dems simply failed to make a stand on this.
Graham wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post in November, 2005, "What I Knew Before the Invasion," that gives a synoptic overview of how the Senate Intelligence Committee saw a prolonged pattern of predetermination and deception:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html
Graham was simply too much of an old-school genteel Southern politician to make the bare-knuckled fight he should have over this. But at least he pushed for the truth in his own way. If others had done the same, we could have avoided the war.