Month: April 2006

I see that a new Star Trek movie is in the offing, to be produced and directed by J.J. Abrams. I used to really love Star Trek a whole lot (see the Star Trek Redux posts linked in my sidebar for more), but the franchise went out with nothing resembling any kind of bang whatsoever — rather it limped out with a final movie that was so bad that it even managed to boast a dud of a score by Jerry Goldsmith.

Honestly, this smacks of desperation on Paramount’s part. Here are a few reasons why I’m less than enthused about this (as opposed to, say, Hercules at AICN, who claims to be “having a geekgasm” over this:

:: First, I gotta be honest here: J.J. Abrams has yet to do anything that really makes me stand up and take notice. I know that he’s one of the reigning god-emperors of geek stuff, but his previous projects have never caught my attention much at all. I bored quickly with Lost once I realized that the show’s purpose was going to be to maximize the mystery for as long as humanly possible, and the few episodes I’ve seen since I stopped watching regularly (about a third of the way into the first season) have done nothing to dispel that: it’s just people wandering around the island, speaking in hushed tones about mysterious stuff and lots of problems with trust intercut with flashbacks of which I only found a few interesting. Alias never caught my sustained interest, either, feeling to me like a blend of James Bond and The X-Files. Going back into Abrams’s body of work, I see that he was behind Felicity, a show which slid in one eye and out the other (Keri Russell was cute, but that’s about it), and that he was at least partly responsible, writing-wise, for two forgettable movies (Forever Young, Regarding Henry) and one downright bad one (Armageddon). And given what I know of Abrams’s last attempt at reviving a moribund franchise, I’m kind of wary about what he’ll do with Trek.

(Full disclosure: I definitely plan to see Mission: Impossible III, even if I generally don’t think Abrams is a genius and even if I know that Tom Cruise has gone so far ’round the bend that he’s coming back out the other side now.)

:: The film’s purported subject matter bugs me a bit, on Trek geek grounds. According to the Variety article linked above, the film will be a prequel, and “will center on the early days of seminal “Trek” characters James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock, including their first meeting at Starfleet Academy and first outer space mission.” Now, no script has been written yet, so the resulting movie — if a movie even results at all — may not actually resemble this. But if this “Kirk and Spock: The Early Years” idea turns out to be true, here’s my reaction.

Ugh.

Ugh, ugh, ugh.

Firstly, I don’t care what the “official Trek timeline” says. I simply do not believe that Kirk and Spock were in the Academy together, at the same time. I just don’t. If anyone can cite something from either a series episode or one of the films that contradicts me here, then fine, but I’ve never once had any other impression than that Spock is at least twenty years older than Kirk, or that Spock’s been in Starfleet a lot longer than Kirk has.

There’s no real problem here, timewise, that I can see. First of all, Kirk is something of a “wunderkind”, one of the youngest Captains in Starfleet and a guy who’s been driven by the idea of command his entire life. Spock is not driven by command at all; by the time he becomes a Captain, it’s as the commander of a starship that’s being used for training new cadets. And if we assume that the TOS episode “The Menagerie” happens early in Kirk’s command of the Enterprise — perhaps even in his first year — then it’s possible that Spock was already serving on the Enterprise, under Captain Pike, while Kirk was still at the Academy. (The events of “The Cage” are clearly stated to have taken place thirteen years earlier.

Additionally, the episodes “Journey to Babel” (TOS), “Sarek” (TNG), and “Reunification” (TNG) all clearly establish that Vulcans have significantly longer lifespans than humans. In “Babel”, Dr. McCoy comments that Sarek is “only 102”, clearly implying that for a Vulcan, 102 is sort of like what being 55 or 60 is for a human: middle to late-middleaged, but still with years of productive life ahead. Sarek lives another eighty years to die during TNG’s run, and Spock is also alive and kicking vibrantly in TNG, as well. Putting this all together, it makes more sense to me that Spock is ten to twenty years older than Kirk, as opposed to being the same age as Kirk.

Of course, none of this is carved in any kind of stone; but then, neither (to me) are the “official timelines”. It’s always been really hard to nail Trek down as far as continuity and time go. A strict reading of the evidence of the shows, for instance, strongly implies that the Enterprise is around forty years old by the time Star Trek III: The Search for Spock rolls around, and yet there’s Admiral Morrow, claiming in that film that the Enterprise is twenty years old. So even if I personally find the idea of Kirk and Spock being the same rough age (give or take a year or two), maybe that’s just my problem. Fair enough.

But then there’s another problem: the idea of exploring just Kirk and Spock’s first meeting. And the big problem with that has a name: Leonard H.

In other words, where is Dr. McCoy?

Making a movie centering on Kirk and Spock alone commits a serious error, misunderstanding the character dynamic that made the Star Trek: TOS so iconic that it spawned decades of spinoffs and sequels. It’s not the Kirk-and-Spock dynamic that lies at the dramatic heart of Star Trek; it’s the Kirk-Spock-McCoy dynamic. It was the way McCoy’s passions and Spock’s cool logic, often set in conflict, informed Kirk’s eventual decisions that made the original show work. And the very best moments in Trek history so often involved these three characters. Making a movie about young Kirk and young Spock and their very first adventure together seems to me to potentially constitute a serious misreading of what made Star Trek so good in the first place.

Of course, as noted, I could end up being completely wrong here. We’ll see.

(But really, isn’t it pretty damned obvious that if anyone’s going to resuscitate Star Trek, it should be Joss Whedon?)

Share This Post

From my vantage point as a Buffalo sports fan, I’ve accustomed myself to the grand old idea that it matters not whether you win or lose, but rather how you play the game. This has made slightly more palatable the reality that Buffalo sports teams, over the last half-decade, have tended to lose. A lot.

But now the Buffalo Sabres, a squad of men who routinely engage in something called “Hockey” in a national league of some sort, have uncovered a heretofore unrealized reality: that if you don’t suck, and if you do play the game well enough to win quite a bit more than you lose, then, by Golly, you get one of a limited number of invitations to play some more games, after the scheduled end of the “regular season”. And as long as you keep winning, you get to keep playing! And if you win enough until there’s nobody left to beat, well, they give you an oversized drinking vessel made of silver and they engrave all your names on it and everybody basically dances into the streets with glee.

Who knew, eh? Go Sabres! Win that grail chalice mug stein snifter beaker cannikin goblet tumbler CUP!

(The Sabres won Game One of their playoff series against Philadelphia last night, by the way. 3-2, in double OT. Game on!)

Share This Post

Ever since I started working at The Store, it’s been my policy in this space to mention as little as possible about my day-to-day doings there, because I don’t want anything I write in this blog to be interpreted in any way as a “statement by an employee” of my company. I’ve taken this policy to such a degree that I do not even mention The Store by name in this space, although it doesn’t really take an investigative mind of Colombo-like ability to figure out just where I work.

But I’m going to set that personal policy aside for just this post, because my company’s chairman and, well, beloved patriarch died this afternoon. While this man wouldn’t know me from Adam were I to approach him, he is directly responsible for the creation of a company in which I believe strongly and for a working environment which I’d never thought possible before I worked there. The people at The Store, both my supervisors and my co-workers, were of immeasurable support to me and to my family all during Little Quinn’s life and in the terribly hard days that followed after Little Quinn’s life ended, and it all began with the man who passed away today at the age of 87. I owe him my gratitude, and I honor him today.

So farewell, Mr. Wegman.

Share This Post

Matthew Yglesias on war with Iran:

The United States military is, for one thing, in much worse shape today than it was in March 2003 with far fewer resources at its disposal (see the Iraq War). The Iranian military, meanwhile, is in better shape than Iraq’s army was, since it hasn’t been subjected to more than a decade of stifling sanctions. Iran is geographically larger than Iraq. Its population is about twice as large as Iraq’s. Perhaps more to the point, the vast majority of the trouble in Iraq has been made by a distinct minority of the population — the one Iraqi in five, more or less, who is Sunni Arab, the dominant group in the Baathist ancient regime. Fully half of Iranians are Shiite Persians, so we’re talking about a nationalist backlash with a population base about four or five times as large as the one we’re facing in Iraq.

Michael Kinsley on the same subject:

So, after more than half a century of active meddling—protecting our interests, promoting our values, encouraging democracy, fighting terrorism, seeking stability, defending human rights, pushing peace—it’s come to this. In Iraq we find ourselves unwilling regents of a society splitting into a gangland of warring militias and death squads, with our side (labeled “the government”) outperforming the other side (labeled “the terrorists”) in both the quantity and gruesome quality of its daily atrocities. In Iran, an irrational government that hates us with special passion is closer to getting the bomb than Iraq—the country we went to war with to keep from getting the bomb—ever was.

I’m truly astonished that we’re actually discussing another war, when we haven’t finished the last one — and that one against a weaker foe.

I suspect that, a hundred years from now, someone will pen the definitive history of our time, and the title of that book will be Batshit Crazy.

Share This Post

Steven Den Beste seems less than thrilled that Oliver Stone is making a 9-11 themed movie. Well, if SDB is assuming that Stone’s going to make something along the lines of Fahrenheit 9-11, he can by all accounts stop worrying. Here’s an original press release about the film, and everything I’ve read since bears this out: Stone’s film focuses tightly on one tale of heroism from the World Trade Center attacks: the rescue of two Port Authority policemen who were trapped in the rubble. Maybe not everyone’s cup of tea, but every report I’ve read about this film’s production has gone out of its way to make clear that this will not be Oliver Stone in “left-wing conspiracy theorist” mode.

(Speaking of which, it’s always bothered me when people refer to JFK as advancing a conspiracy theory, because it really doesn’t advance a theory at all. It’s more of a “fantasy on a theme”, with that theme being “conspiracy”. JFK doesn’t so much advance a theory about the Kennedy assassination as it advances all of them — minus the ones involving aliens and UFOs — basically throwing everything up on a wall for all to see. Just watch JFK and try to sum up the film’s “theory”. It can’t be done. Incidentally, JFK is one of my favorite films of all time. I’ve been for years in awe of how much Stone was able to pack into those three hours.)

Share This Post

Via Glenn Greenwald, I see that Glenn Reynolds thinks that the Congressional authorizations of military force in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq constitute “declarations of war”. Reynolds tosses out a whole lot of legalistic stuff to argue that what we’ve got is a declared state of war, but — well, he’s wrong. By way of illustration, let’s look at the actual language used in Congressional declarations of war.

Here are the texts of both joint resolutions of Congress declaring war on Germany and Japan in December, 1941 (World War II):

Germany:

Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the government and the people of the United States of America:

Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

Japan:

Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America:

Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

Here is the text of the joint resolution of Congress declaring war on Germany in April, 1917 (World War I):

Whereas the Imperial German Government has committed repeated acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America; Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Imperial German Government which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and that the President be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial German Government; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States. (Emphasis added)

Here is the text of the joint resolution of Congress of war against Spain in 1898 (Spanish-American War):

DECLARATION OF WAR WITH SPAIN

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, First. That war be, and the same is hereby, declared to exist, and that war has existed since the 21st day of April, A. D. 1898, including said day, between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain.

Second. That the President of the United States be, and he hereby is, directed and empowered to use the entire land and naval forces of the United States and to call into the actual service of the United States the militia of the several States to such extent as may be necessary to carry this act into effect.

I couldn’t find the text of Congress’s war declaration with Mexico in 1846, but here’s the resolution of Congress declaring war on Great Britain (the War of 1812):

An Act Declaring War Between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Dependencies Thereof and the United States of America and Their Territories.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That war be and the same is hereby declared to exist between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the dependencies thereof, and the United States of America and their territories; and that the President of the United States is hereby authorized to use the whole land and naval force of the United States to carry the same into effect, and to issue to private armed vessels of the United States commissions or letters of marque and general reprisal, in such form as he shall think proper, and under the seal of the United States, against the vessels, goods, and effects of the government of the said United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the subjects thereof.

By contrast, the text of the Congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force against Iraq can be read here. It’s too long for me to quote here, but it’s worth noting that the resolution never uses any of the turns of phrase common to the above declarations: the specific existence of a “state of war”. No “state of war” has been declared to exist between the United States and the government of Iraq.

As Glenn Greenwald points out, this is mainly about a confusion of the difference between a formal declaration of war and an authorization of military force, and about Glenn Reynolds’s insistence that the authorization of force against Iraq actually was a declaration of war.

My problem is with the whole way the Iraq war is being appreciated. In reading a lot of pro-war blogs, I see a lot of wiggle-language in reference to war in general. Specifically, the phrase “this war” is invoked a lot. Sometimes “this war” refers to Iraq; sometimes to Afghanistan; sometimes it refers in a larger, general sense to the entire “war on terror”.

I’m bothered by the difference between “war” in the specific legal sense (World War II) and “war” in the historic sense (say, the Gulf War) and “war” in the metaphorical sense (see just about any major policy focus of the last thirty years — our “wars” on terror, drugs, poverty, you name it). The “Global War on Terror” at times has the strange feel to it, as though it’s being pushed as some kind of substitute for the Cold War (which was itself only a metaphorical entity), and that it will last for decades in some kind of hazy and undeclared state as we bounce from armed conflict to armed conflict, assured by the Glenn Reynoldses of the world that it’s all good, it’s just all part of the War on Terror. Somehow.

Share This Post

This article about the final homecoming of a Marine from Iraq is long. It’s also profoundly moving.

Inside a limousine parked on the airport tarmac, Katherine Cathey looked out at the clear night sky and felt a kick.

“He’s moving,” she said. “Come feel him. He’s moving.”

Her two best friends leaned forward on the soft leather seats and put their hands on her stomach.

“I felt it,” one of them said. “I felt it.”

Outside, the whine of jet engines swelled.

“Oh, sweetie,” her friend said. “I think this is his plane.”

As the three young women peered through the tinted windows, Katherine squeezed a set of dog tags stamped with the same name as her unborn son:

James J. Cathey.

“He wasn’t supposed to come home this way,” she said, tightening her grip on the tags, which were linked by a necklace to her husband’s wedding ring.

The women looked through the back window. Then the 23-year-old placed her hand on her pregnant belly.

“Everything that made me happy is on that plane,” she said.

They watched as airport workers rolled a conveyor belt to the rear of the plane, followed by six solemn Marines.

Katherine turned from the window and closed her eyes.

“I don’t want it to be dark right now. I wish it was daytime,” she said. “I wish it was daytime for the rest of my life. The night is just too hard.”

Suddenly, the car door opened. A white-gloved hand reached into the limousine from outside – the same hand that had knocked on Katherine’s door in Brighton five days earlier.

The man in the deep blue uniform knelt down to meet her eyes, speaking in a soft, steady voice.

“Katherine,” said Maj. Steve Beck, “it’s time.”

That’s but a tiny portion of the piece. I strongly encourage reading the whole thing.

Share This Post

Sorry for the lack of content, folks, but in addition to some domestic stuff like picking up our sorry excuse for a living room, I had Firefox go belly-up for some strange reason, which forced me to re-download and re-install it. Back tomorrow. Look for “Sentential Links” then.

Share This Post

I linked a QuickTime version of this a while back, but I found it today on YouTube: the classic “Mahna Mahna” skit from The Muppet Show.

To me, this one skit perfectly illustrates the utter genius of Jim Henson and company in the 70s. Here we have two pink muppets who seem female, although there’s not really anything that indicates them as such (unless it’s just that they’re pink and they have giant eyelashes), singing a jazzy little tune — and then in wanders a hippie-looking muppet with a beard, wild-ass hair, and shades for eyes, who tries repeatedly to derail the jazzy tune with something more rock-like, only to be worn down as the two pink ladies just look at each other and shake their heads every time the hippie breaks into his scat singing.

What gets me is that these two pink ladies, aside from being able to flex their mouths for enunciation of their song (whose one word is “doot”), have absolutely no other means of expression or movement. Their arms can’t move, their eyes never waver from a bug-eyed stare — and yet their reactions to the wandering hippie are always clear. It’s all achieved through nothing but the way the muppets are moved by the “muppeteers”. The humor of the sketch is achieved entirely through body language.

Share This Post