As part of their "sea-change", the NY Times is now asking for answers to the questions that they should have asked 6 years and one war ago.

They're demanding answers for the why we're still in Iraq, why did the Republican congress not do anything, why the hell is everyone in the administration such a liar...and so forth.

It must be getting bad for them (the first cheerleaders of the war) to actually turn on their masters and demand something more than glib cliches and "myths" from the same people they worshiped not that long ago.

I guess something sunk into their heads-perhaps some damn good sense.

I know, I know..they're just as bad as every other corporate entity news outlet, but still, they're the "big guy" in it. If they're changing their tone, everyone should pay attention.

There's somethin' happening here..

If we need we need more evidence of a “sea change” I give you an inarticulate, incomprehensible Andrew Sullivan who can’t even begin to respond to Glenn Greenwald’s post, and instead starts muttering about John McCain who is “sensing the mood.”

Good grief, if there’s anyone who does not “sense the mood” it is John McCain whose “pro-war express” has completely derailed. His campaign has gone down in flames and has failed to “get a life.”

I really expect much better than this from Andrew Sullivan who, even when I disagree with him, is not usually this lame.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/04/a_seachange.html

Your thoughts are so well articulated and clearly thought out that I won't argue. I never got into critiqueing Star Trek; it's just one of my favorite entertainments, and TNG serves that purpose best for me.

That said, I would posit that the reason DS9 had a stronger story line was that it had to. The previous series' stories were the exploration--the boldly going and discovering and all that. DS9 was stationary, so they needed a different narrative thread, perhaps a more complex one.

What was the original point? Honestly, it was an offhand remark. A friend and I were talking about the prospective future of humanity, and he was being pessimistic in a wry sort of way, so I said, "So you think the future will be more like Blade Runner than Star Trek." To which he acquiesced and I said that's kind of depressing. What I was talking about was the quintessential images that spring to mind when I think of those two hypothetical universes. I understand your point that ST includes BR, in a way, but I still think the utopian atmosphere of the "modern" ST reality is diametrically opposed to BR.

That was a fantastic blog posting. That's as good as the old "I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the untied snakes of a jelly cow. And to the Republicans for which they scam..."

When and if this sea change hits the blue collar fox news watchers, and they realize they have been conned, will they blame the jews?

I see star trek is topical today. William Shatner rules!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqwRO3eqVfk

IntrovertGirl:

I would posit that the reason DS9 had a stronger story line was that it had to. The previous series' stories were the exploration--the boldly going and discovering and all that. DS9 was stationary, so they needed a different narrative thread, perhaps a more complex one.

Point taken. But they aced it in spades when it came to making a virtue of a necessity.

What was the original point? Honestly, it was an offhand remark.

And what better way to start a Star Trek sub-thread? Especially on a lazy Sunday.

Here's my final word (knock on wood). A link to a post I wrote awhile back:

"Star Trek Socialism"

http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=354

Though it could, perhaps, rekindle the Socialist/Libertarian thread.

Your thoughts are so well articulated and clearly thought out that I won't argue.

It's Sunday and this is far more interesting than American politics. I'd have to go with Blade Runner but there is another author Billmon (Gosh, we miss him) had done a post about. As usual, I had never heard of him until Billmon dug him up and there was a movie out recently based loosely on his dystopian view of the future that wasn't promoted at all so no one saw it. Little wonder that, (and it's not A Canticle for Liebowitz), but along those same lines. Basically, idiots rule the world. Sound familiar?

I think the premise of this satirical and black comedy was a guy wakes up in the future and finds that idiots have taken over. Now I give you this:

The Daily Dystopian

News, views and American history lessons

"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history."

--Dan Quayle

http://www.blogstudio.com/dystopia/03_23_03___03_29_03_The_Daily_Dystopian.html

I believe we must live relatively close, as I'm sure I know which development you're talking of (in the WAMC listening area?). We have the same political make-up down in my county, where the heavily Republican town planners are also the property owners and the developers. It feels hopeless, with fields from last year this year's mega-mansion hell ... and still, an organic farmer friend just got 100 beautiful acres from the Open Space Institute. We're here, and active, and trying.

Four assassinations? No, more like tens. King, Malcolm, and RFK, to be sure; but don't forget the numerous SNCC/CORE/COFO field workers who were brutally murdered, the massacres of the Panthers (e.g., Fred Hampton and Mark Clark), and so on.

And that's just in the United States.

bebop, you have made me blush. Hubby is lovable, but never offered me succotash and rhubarb, and the deer have eaten our blueberry bushes this year (gooseberries are safe). Maybe I should renegotiate?

I will do my best to repopulate the planet with soil-loving chickies, and encourage others to do likewise.

You post beautifully. I could read your letters all day. But now I will open a ginger beer, poke a toe at the lemonbalm overtaking the herb bed, and look for the stray cat that comes to beg.