I liked "Star Trek" .... but it's not Star Trek.

Spoilers for the movie will follow, so if you haven't seen the film but plan to, you might want to stop reading. You've been warned -- and here's a cool poster from the Spanish version of the movie to provide some "spoiler space":

OK. As I've posted previously on this blog, I'm a Star Trek fan. Trekkie, Trekker, fanboy, whatever -- the terminology is not important. I grew up watching reruns of the original series with my dad, who'd watched them first-run in the 60s.

I was a huge fan of The Next Generation when it came out, even though the first couple of seasons were not great. But eventually TNG grew into its own, and it led into Deep Space 9, my favorite Star Trek incarnation ever (I would have loved to see Captain Sisko, Major Kira, and the rest of the DS9 crew get their own feature film!)

I watched Voyager for a while, but quickly got bored, and I never could stand watching Enterprise. (Like this new film, Enterprise played fast and loose with Star Trek "canon," which is why I had a hard time with it.)

I've read dozens of Star Trek novels, I've been to the (now-closed) "Quark's Bar" and Star Trek exhibit in Las Vegas, I've participated in Trek-based online role playing games.

In short, I'm a fan. And as a fan, I feel a little taken advantage of by this movie. Because although it wasn't really made for Trek fans, J.J. Abrams and his crew certainly didn't mind taking our money!!

That brings me to my first point: this was an incredibly lazy way to write a screenplay. Writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman took these characters and this setting that everyone understands, at least a little.

They didn't have to spend plot time explaining what a Vulcan was, or who Kirk and Spock were, or what the "Federation" is, or what "Romulans" are. Because everyone, at least on some passing level, is familiar with the Star Trek mythos.

Yet, at the beginning of the film, they throw in the ultimate overused sci-fi cliche, time travel. Which brings us to an "alternate universe." So now, the writers get to use these characters that we've all come to know over the past 40 years. But they get to completely and utterly disregard the "canon" of some 600+ TV episodes, 10 films, and countless novels, video games, and comic books.

In short, they got the best of both worlds. They got to use Trek characters without having to pay any attention whatsoever to their backstory. This was an incredible shortcut for the writers, a cheap writer's gimmick, allowing them to write a lazy, nonsensical plot, featuring the following nonsense:

• Kirk goes straight from cadet to captain? Come on! He wouldn't have been as effective of a captain if he didn't spend years working his way up, learning how a starship works.
• What the heck was Kirk's mother (pregnant with him) doing onboard the USS Kelvin with Kirk's father? The first episode of Next Generation made it very clear that having families onboard a starship was a new and controversial idea. Yet, 130 years in the past, here was Kirk's mom, giving birth onboard.
• Why would you build a HUGE starship on Earth, in full gravity? It's a cute plot point that both Kirk and the Enterprise are from Iowa. But even 21st-century humans aren't this stupid -- we didn't assemble the International Space Station on the ground, then launch it into space!! You build the components on the ground, and assemble in space.

I could go on and on, but I won't. The movie wasn't written for fanboys. I get it. But I wish they hadn't called it "Star Trek," then; hadn't used characters named Kirk, and Spock, and Uhura and Sulu, and a ship called Enterprise.

The best episodes of Star Trek were the ones that raised interesting philosophical or intellectual questions, or provided social commentary on our own world. Gene Roddenberry was a master at this. He used the original Trek to raise social awareness during the turbulent 1960s. Episodes like "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" (which pointed out the dangers of hate and bigotry) and "The City on the Edge of Forever" (which examined the concept of a necessary war) made Star Trek more than just a silly sci-fi show with cheesy special effects. It was true social commentary, set 175 years in the future to give Roddenberry some cover to talk about uncomfortable or controversial topics.

TNG and DS9 continued that tradition, with episodes examining the morality and effectiveness of torture, the definition of sentience, euthanasia, the concepts of honor, duty, vengeance, and mercy, and too many more to list.

The TOS and TNG films continued this tradition; Star Trek IV showed the consequences of hunting a species to extinction; Star Trek VI made end-of-the-Cold-War commentary, wondering if longtime adversaries can become allies; Star Trek: First Contact showed Picard still struggling with his desire for vengeance against the Borg.

Star Trek was at its best when it made the viewer think. When it raised concepts or ideas that were a bit uncomfortable. Heck, I once took a community education class entitled "The Philosophy of Star Trek."

This 2009 "Star Trek" film had no philosophy, no intellectualism, no moments that make the viewer think about anything. They had a golden opportunity to make a statement about a very relevant topic -- torture -- when the Romulans captured Captain Pike. Was it effective? Was it cruel? Did it work? Did Pike even know the codes that Nero was after? Did he make things up, say whatever his captors wanted to hear, just to end his suffering?

Who knows. Because J.J. Abrams and the other makers of this film didn't give it any depth whatsoever. They simply made a film that had fast cars, loud music, bloody noses, make out scenes with green aliens, planets exploding, and spaceships blowing the living hell out of each other.

And I like all those things. But from Star Trek, I expect more. And I suspect Gene Roddenberry would have been sorely disappointed in this film, in seeing his franchise turned into another generic big screen shoot-'em-up.

A friend asked me last night if I would have liked the movie better if it had been called something else, if it had featured new characters. And I would have -- but I probably wouldn't have gone to see it, either. A movie called "Space Wars" with totally unknown characters wouldn't have attracted my attention. So again, I say -- I feel used.

I will probably choose to ignore the rest of this "alternate universe" created by J.J. Abrams. Leonard Nimoy was the saving grace of this film, and he will likely not be in the sequel or sequels when produced. I don't really care about what "new adventures" this new "cadet-to-captain" Kirk will have, don't really care about Spock and Uhura's love affair, don't really care about the "new" Enterprise, with its bridge that looks like an IKEA and an engineering section that looks like a brewery. (Why does a starship need so many pipes?)

I choose to remember Star Trek as it was, not this retcon/reboot/rewrite or whatever we're supposed to call it. The "original" Star Trek universe as created in the TV shows and the first 10 films lives on in a very prolific series of novels, written by some incredible authors who, unlike J.J. Abrams, respect the canon of the Star Trek universe, and don't use gimmicky plot points as a cheap and easy way to make a lot of money.

When J.J. Abrams was first announced as the director, he admitted he hadn't watched many episodes of the original series, and said "I was always more of a 'Star Wars' than 'Star Trek' fan."

We can tell, Mr. Abrams. We can tell.

Yes We Can!!! Mostly.

An historic night last night, as Barack Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States. Obama scored the largest electoral college win since 1996, winning at least 349 electoral votes to John McCain's 147, with Missouri and North Carolina still outstanding.

It wasn't the complete domination I'd hoped for. Montana, Georgia, and Arizona went for McCain, and Republicans held on to endangered Senate seats in Georgia, Kentucky, and possibly Alaska (still too close to call). But what are Alaska Republicans thinking? I guess if you can elect a wack-job like Sarah Palin governor, you don't mind a convicted felon like Ted Stevens as your senator.

Civil rights in the form of marriage equality took a big hit last night, too. Anti-same sex marriage initatives were approved in Arizona, Florida, and California. (Absentee ballots remain to be counted in California, but it doesn't look good.)

Despite the fact that Florida is my former home state and I have a lot of friends there, the result in California is particularly disappointing for me. For a few reasons:

(1) California is generally a relatively liberal state; certainly the win for Obama in CA was never in doubt. In some ways, I feel like, if the voters in CALIFORNIA won't support marriage equality, who will???

(2) Unlike in Florida and Arizona, the vote on Prop 8 in California REMOVES a pre-existing right. Same-sex couples have had the right to marry in California since earlier this year. Now, that right has (presumably) been cruelly stripped away. What happens to the same-sex marriages that were already legal? Do they instantly become void?

Or, if pre-existing same-sex marriages remain, doesn't that create two classes of people in California? Those who got married before November 4, and those who didn't? That's blatantly unconstitutional.

(3) The anti-gay "Yes on Prop 8" campaign was mostly funded (possibly as much as 75%) by the Mormon Church. Their ads were misleading and tried to convince voters that churchs and synagogues would be forced to perform gay marriage if Prop 8 failed. "Religious freedom" could be at stake, they said.

Bullshit. If you don't like gay people, and consider them second-class citizens, just say so. Although I'd vehemently disagree with that stance, at least it would be an honest one. But the very well-funded "Yes on 8" forces were able to use lies and misdirection to confuse just enough of the electorate for a narrow win.

Sadly, even some Orthodox Jewish groups got into the act, aligning with the Mormons and evangelical Christian groups. I'm ashamed to be a member of the same religion as the people who would send out (and many of those who comment on) articles like this homophobic piece of shit.

(4) Finally, I can't decide what Barack Obama's role should have been in the fight against Proposition 8. When asked on an MTV interview about it, he sort of hedged his bets:

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."

In one way, disappointing to hear him say "I am not in favor of gay marriage." Yet, on the other hand, he got it right in saying that our constitutions usually expand liberties, not curtail them.

I don't know. His candidacy brought lots of African-Americans to the polls in California (and across the nation). Gay rights is a difficult issue for the A-A community, especially for the evangelical A-A population. Exit polls suggest that nearly 70% of black voters voted for Proposition 8, against marriage equality.

With such a close vote overall, I can't help but wonder if Obama could have made a difference. In the last couple of days, couldn't he have recorded a commercial or robocall for the No on 8 campaign? Stating that constitutionally-mandated discrimination is something that no one -- particularly African-Americans -- should support?

Sure, a pro-gay marriage stance -- even a quiet one -- might have hurt his votes in some rural areas. It wouldn't have put his win in California in jeopardy, obviously. But maybe, if the McCain camp moved quickly to make an issue of it, it could have caused Obama to lose some of the close states he won last night? Maybe Virginia, maybe Indiana?

What if he'd turned even 10% of the A-A population from "Yes" to "No" votes on Proposition 8?

We'll never know, of course. And there remain legal and legislative options for marriage equality across the nation. This fight is not over, and I firmly believe that one day, our daughter Sophie will look back on this fight the way we look back at the bans on interracial marriage. It's nearly inconceivable to me that America once told blacks and whites they couldn't marry each other.

When Sophie is my age, I think she'll feel the same incredulity about the fact that two men or two women couldn't get married.

In any case, a great night for America last night. But it could have been even greater.

Hope vs. Nope

In 2004, on the day before Election Day, I wrote a post on this blog entitled: Please, America. Do the right thing tomorrow.

Yeah, well. We all know how that turned out.

So here we are, four years later, on the cusp of a historic election. America is about to elect either our first black president or our first female vice president.

Lines are stretching for blocks in states with early voting; I have no idea what the lines will be like here tomorrow, in non-early-voting Alabama. I've never in my life waited more than 5 minutes to cast a vote, in any election. I suspect that may change tomorrow.

I'm sure the vast majority (of the small minority) of people who read this blog have either (1) already voted via early/absentee ballot; or (2) have decided, with 100% certainty, for who they'll vote tomorrow. (And if you're not voting in this election, you'd better be under 18 and/or not an American citizen. Otherwise, no acceptable excuse.)

But just in case there are any "undecided" voters among my readership, let me make the final case for Barack Obama.

America has been incredibly damaged by the eight years of George W. Bush's presidency. I almost typed "irreparably," but I hope that's not the case. Our standing in the world is in tatters due to the nonsense of the Iraq war. We're spending $10 billion dollars EVERY MONTH in Iraq, driving our nation further into debt. Our education and healthcare systems are a fucking joke compared to the rest of the industrial world.

Osama bin Laden, who murdered 3000 Americans on 9/11, remains at large. Bush had a chance to finish the war in Afghanistan, finish al-Qaeda once and for all, and he pissed away that chance, pulling troops into the Iraq quagmire instead.

Under eight years of George W. Bush, the disparity in this nation between rich and poor grew even wider. GWB rewarded his fat cat donors, his corporate masters, his oil company buddies with tax cuts and credits.

While New Orleans drowned, Bush helped John McCain celebrate his birthday. With cake, even.

The way John McCain has campaigned for the presidency leaves no doubt that he'd govern this nation the same way Bush has. He's run a divisive, nasty campaign, just like Bush ran in 2000 and 2004. Supporters at his rallies yell "terrorist" when Barack Obama's name is mentioned, they harass and sometimes attack members of the press, and McCain does nothing.

Like Bush before him, McCain is only interested in dividing the country to help him win. He doesn't care if he turns 50.1% of the nation against the other 49.9% if it gets him to 270 electoral votes.

His "Country First" campaign slogan was proven to be a crock of shit when he nominated Sarah Palin to the VP slot. It was clear then, that it was "McCain First," and always has been. No one can, with a straight face, state that Palin was the most qualified choice for the position. Not even close. A 72-year-old man, with a history of cancer, has chosen an unqualified crackpot to be second-in-line to the presidency. Unforgivable.

And yet, I don't want to encourage people to vote against George W. Bush. Or vote against John McCain. Or even vote against Sarah Palin.

Instead, I want people to vote FOR BARACK OBAMA.

This is a man that can bring this nation together. A man who would end the war in Iraq during his presidency. A man who will push for a healthcare system that will offer coverage to all Americans (and that's not "socialism," morons!). A man who will decrease the tax disparity between rich and poor; he understands that the largest tax breaks should go to the people who need them, not the people who don't.

I want a president who is smart, particularly after the monkey of the last eight years. Obama is a graduate of Columbia and Harvard, where he finished magna cum laude. He was the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review.

The man has brains. And he has a power to bring people together like no elected official I've ever seen. The way he has gotten people excited about his campaign, the way he defeated Hillary Clinton in the primaries (who had every possible advantage going in) is just amazing.

He is a devoted father and husband, and by all accounts he adores and dotes on his two daughters. I don't like to harp too much on "family values," but I think the way a person treats his/her family says a lot about their character.

I turned 18 in 1992, and cast my first presidential vote for Bill Clinton. I wasn't particularly politically-connected, but I knew I was a Democrat. I still think Bill Clinton was a great president, but his legacy will always be tarnished by the fact that he couldn't keep his pants zipped. (And to me, his conduct during the Obama/Hillary primary was deplorable.)

In 2000, I was -- and continue to be -- a fervent admirer of Al Gore. He would have been an amazing president; and yet, in the long run, he may do more good for the world because he lost (or, "lost") in 2000.

Barack Obama, though, has a real chance to be the greatest president of my generation. I will take my daughter Sophie to the polls with me tomorrow. And even though she's only two-and-a-half, and even though it may be tricky to stand in line with her for an extended period of time, and even though Alabama will end up in John McCain's column tomorrow, Sophie will be with me when I cast my vote.

Because I want her to know that she was in the voting booth on the day America made history.

A simple equation.

Tina Fey as Palin + Will Ferrell as GWB = AWESOME.

(Darrell Hammond as John McLoser isn't bad either.)

Best Buddies

Aww, look how sweet:


Two old, white, decrepit, useless Republicans (I don't care what Lieberman calls himself), nearing the end of their political careers.

Beautiful.