Is Modern Liberalism Gene Roddenberry's Fault?

One thing that seems to be overlooked is that the Enterprise is a war machine, not politics.
But nevertheless, it is an interesting comparison and thesis. And hey, Star Trek is always an interesting diversion :)

To this I'd add a few things in Star Trek which the lefty liberals would sure to attack...

Kirk is the ultimate 'Maverick' (reference: McCain)

Many episodes - crewman are apparently expendable for exploration, it happened all the time. (reference: Iraq)

"The Enemy Within" - Kirk, the hero, is split in two. We learn that to be a good leader, we must have a good side and a bad side, and good judgment to keep track of the two. (reference: Bush)

In "The Corbomite Maneuver", kirk used a poker hand to beat Spock's chess position (reference: WMD)

Enterprise routinely kicks the heck out of Romulans and Klingons (reference: evil empires)

Kirk routinely makes mistakes, but he is forgiven because he is a cowboy who 'get's it'

In "The Return Of The Archons", why did Kirk break the Prime directive and interfere with the society of Landru?
a). because otherwise he and the Enterprise would be destroyed.
b). because it was not a living, growing society.
c). because the society was being directed by a machine.
d). all of the above.
The answer is d): all of the above. (reference: Iraq, Hussein and Weapons of Mass Destruction, WMD)

"Court-Martial" - where kirk is accused of murder, later acquitted. (Bush derangement syndrome)

In "A Taste Of Armageddon", what was Spock was destroying a disintegrator chamber when he said he was practicing a peculiar variety of diplomacy. Kirk put an end to their 'liberal' version of a war, where people simply marched into the chambers based on a computer model. (ref: global warming, and others)

and last but not least:

Kirk routinely gets the girl

The liberals might like these:

For centuries humans have glorified organized violence, but imprisoned those who employ it privately" - Spock

"Space Seed" - Khan's rebel uprising is squashed (Ref: civil war)

"The Devil In The Dark" - environmentalists save the Hortas

"Errand Of Mercy" - the Organians, a race a million years ahead of earth, steps in to stop the Federation and Klingons from waging war (one of my favorite episodes,not because of this message, but it's just a great mind exercise in alternate hypothesis)

As in "All Our Yesterdays" these and many other journeys are possible...

I used my trivial trek questions to research this :)
javadoug.googlepages.com/trivtrek.txt

---------------------

September 28, 2008

Is Modern Liberalism Gene Roddenberry's Fault?

Ah, now this is my kind of article. Western Chauvinist tooted her own horn over at Gerard's place when he linked to us, and I'm glad she did. To the sidebar she goes. It's a little difficult to tease this posting the way she's structured it; I'll do my best...

Is Modern Liberalism Gene Roddenberry's Fault?

Anyone old enough to have seen the original Star Trek series created
by Gene Roddenberry might recognize the utopian ideals of today's
liberals in it. Think about it. On any major policy we debate, Star
Trek is the fulfillment of the liberal playbook.

Start with environmental policy. No fossil fuels burned in GR's
world. Nope - only dilithium crystals and warped space needed. Isn't it
grand? No CO2 emmissions at all...

Next up, how about economic policy? Capitalism or socialism? How
primitive. As far as I can tell, no currency ever changes hands.
Everyone in the Federation seems to "work" for the Federation...

How about health care? Well, Star Trek gives a whole new meaning to
"universal healthcare"! I never saw Bones turn away anyone...

And finally, we can wrap up social policy, civil rights, race
relations, international relations conveniently in "the prime
directive". This is encompassed by today's liberal ethics of
multiculturalism, political correctness and moral relativism...

...

The other thing WC forgot is Star Trek's mission: To explore strange
new worlds, and new civilizations; to boldly go where no man has ever
gone before! Back in the sixties, liberalism loved to talk a good game
about this, and according to the evidence that has come to my
attention, had not yet directly contradicted itself here. But nowadays
it's a whole different century; liberalism is all about not doing this. It is about bathosploration:

Opposite of Exploration.
A progressive movement over time which endeavors toward an ideal,
rather than toward a frontier. This makes fulfillment of the Exponential Growth Instinct absolutely impossible over the long term.

Bathosploration is about doing less instead of doing more. It is about
making things clean and sanitized instead of finding out what's
possible. It goes down instead of up, inward instead of outward.

...
This is what bathosploration is. Can we polish what's already been
polished, and make it even smoother and shinier and more sanitary?
Surely, there must be a way. Forget about exploring. Go inward instead
of outward. Trudge toward an ideal instead of toward a frontier.

Liberals embrace this warts and all. You see it everywhere. You see
it in the offshore drilling controversy. Don't drill that! Something's
endangered. Buy carbon credits instead...bring your net carbon
emissions to zero, like Al Gore said. Be a zero. Stop existing
meaningfully. Abort your baby, show your patriotism by paying higher
taxes, and when you die have a green funeral.

Star Trek is about the polar opposite of that. Oh sure, the
individuals are likewise diminished...bridge crew notwithstanding,
everyone on the Enterprise is just a nameless extra wearing spandex.
It's the exploration part of it. Reaching for the stars, finding out
what's out there -- forget it. Liberals like to talk a lot
about what could be out there. Stepping on out, once the technology is
available, to find out for sure? Not on the liberal's watch...not while
he has anything to say about it. That disastrous episode Force of Nature
in which Starfleet imposes a Warp 5 speed limit due to this discovery
that the warp drive damages the fabric of space...that would end up
being your pilot episode, right there. Omigod!! By existing and doing
bold things, we're damaging the environment! Again!

Funny how that never, ever seems to change.

Liberals think humans are so special, in our own way. Killer whales
bite seals in half, or swallow 'em whole. Lionesses strip chunks of
bloody flesh off the bodies of antelope that were frantically running
away just moments before. Spiders inject venom into the bodies of flies
that dissolve them into a ghastly milkshake from the inside out, while
the flies are still alive, writhing in agony. That's fine. But you, you
human schmuck, are destroying the world simply by driving to work.

So if modern liberalism is Star Trek's fault, the monster seems to
have turned against its creator since being first animated. Perhaps
that part of the Star Trek culture never was terribly well thought out.
After all, what good does it do to seek out new civilizations and new
worlds, and then once you find them...make extra sure you not have
anything to do with 'em because of your revered Prime Directive?

Cross-posted at House of Eratosthenes.

is_modern_liberalism_gene_rodd

Gore urges civil disobedience to stop coal plants

Gore now urges breaking the law. That's not the gentlemanly thing to do. Stopping coal plants is a good idea, but this is not the right way. And carbon capture and sequestration is not the right reason. He is wrong on two counts. Strike one and strike two. One more strike and he is out.

The right reason to stop coal plants is because they emit SO2, that's sulfur dioxide, which is bad for forests. They also emit other toxins bad for humans and animals to breath. So they are dirty, but the CO2 is not a real reason, because global warming is not caused by this source, primarily, and with the sun spot cycle slowing down, it is likely to get colder in the future, not warmer.

The right way is through government and civil discourse, not civil disobedience.

Gore urges civil disobedience to stop coal plants
Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:29pm EDT

By Michelle Nichols

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Nobel Peace Prize winner and environmental crusader Al Gore urged young people on Wednesday to engage in civil disobedience to stop the construction of coal plants without the ability to store carbon.

The former U.S. vice president, whose climate change documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" won an Academy Award, told a philanthropic meeting in New York City that "the world has lost ground to the climate crisis."

"If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration," Gore told the Clinton Global Initiative gathering to loud applause.

"I believe for a carbon company to spend money convincing the stock-buying public that the risk from the global climate crisis is not that great represents a form of stock fraud because they are misrepresenting a material fact," he said. "I hope these state attorney generals around the country will take some action on that."

The government says about 28 coal plants are under construction in the United States. Another 20 projects have permits or are near the start of construction.

Scientists say carbon gases from burning fossil fuel for power and transport are a key factor in global warming.

Carbon capture and storage could give coal power an extended lease on life by keeping power plants' greenhouse gas emissions out of the atmosphere and easing climate change.

But no commercial-scale project exists anywhere to demonstrate the technology, partly because it is expected to increase up-front capital costs by an additional 50 percent.

So-called geo-sequestration of carbon sees carbon dioxide liquefied and pumped into underground rock layers for long term storage.

(Additional reporting by Timothy Gardner; Editing by Christine Kearney and Xavier Briand)

© Thomson Reuters 2008 All rights reserved

Democrats concede on drilling

Good news: Democrats concede on drilling.
Three cheers for the Republicans who stuck to their guns!

posted by Ed Morrissey
Democrats will not fight to keep the moratorium on off-shore drilling in their efforts to put together a continuing resolution to keep government funded into next year. Congressional leadership has conceded the issue to Republicans, who have staged protests and raised the profile of energy policy over the last six weeks. Starting on October 1, states will have no federal restrictions on oil production:

Democrats have decided to allow a quarter-century ban on drilling for oil off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to expire next week, conceding defeat in an months-long battle with the White House and Republicans set off by $4 a gallon gasoline prices this summer.

Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., told reporters Tuesday that a provision continuing the moratorium will be dropped this year from a stopgap spending bill to keep the government running after Congress recesses for the election.

Republicans have made lifting the ban a key campaign issue after gasoline prices spiked this summer and public opinion turned in favor of more drilling. President Bush lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling in July.

“If true, this capitulation by Democrats following months of Republican pressure is a big victory for Americans struggling with record gasoline prices,” said House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio.

This effectively ends this as an issue for the 110th Congress. Democrats thought they could get a partial moratorium past the Republicans, one that would have kept drilling at least 50 miles off from shore, but President Bush threatened a veto on any continuing resolution with that kind of language. The Senate had attempted to fashion the exact same compromise, but in the end, Republicans refused to agree.

Will this mean drilling can commence? Not quite. The states have to lease the lands as well as the federal government, and states won’t likely do so without revenue sharing. Democrats tried blocking that in the Senate compromise, but that provided another point of failure for any compromise. Congress has to approve that action, and right now it still appears that Democrats want to use that to limit production.

The CR will likely come up for a vote tomorrow, and it’s not just missing the drilling moratorium. Congress has stripped out some popular programs with Democrats to ensure passage and agreement with the White House, including higher unemployment benefits and food stamps. It still retains five billion dollars in federal heating subsidies for the poor, but most of the rest of the spending priorities of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have disappeared along with the moratorium.

This puts quite the capper on the 110th. Not only did Democrats fail to achieve their broad policy goals, they failed on almost every specific goal they set in 2006. They failed to stop funding the Iraq war, they failed to impeach George Bush, and they surrendered on energy policy. Their only policy goal achieved — an increase in the minimum wage — came in a war-funding bill.

This battle may have been won, but the larger war for a rational energy policy continues. Congress has to pass a revenue-sharing bill with the states in order to get investment started in American production — a process that will create American jobs and keep our wealth in the US rather than overseas. With the meltdown in the financial markets still looming, this could not come at a better time.

FBI Investigating Potential Fraud by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman, AIG.

FBI Investigating Potential Fraud by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman, AIG.

Wasn't this supposed to happen back in 2004 when the original, Clinton-era crimes were exposed (Washington Post: Report Slams Fannie Mae)?

...Though it didn't quantify the effect of what it called pervasive misapplication of accounting rules on the company's books, the report by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight cited one instance in 1998 where the company inappropriately deferred $200 million of estimated expenses, which enabled management to receive full annual bonuses. Had Fannie recorded the expenses in 1998, no bonus would have been paid, the report said.

Management in the late nineties included Clinton operatives Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick and Jim Johnson. Otherwise known as Barack Obama's economic advisory team. These executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac racked in nearly $200 million in compensation in only six years. And taxpayers are left holding bag for these Democrats who got filthy rich by cheating, and fixing the books, basically putting off the collapse for years.

According to the Washington Post, Raines and Johnson are advising Obama:

The Washington Post, 7/16/08: “In the four years since he stepped down as Fannie Mae’s chief executive under the shadow of a $6.3 billion accounting scandal, Franklin D. Raines has been quietly constructing a new life for himself. He has shaved eight points off his golf handicap, taken a corner office in Steve Case’s D.C. conglomeration of finance, entertainment and health-care companies and more recently, taken calls from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters.”

The Washington Post, 8/28/08: “In the current crisis, their biggest backers have been Democrats such as Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (Mass.). Two members of Mr. Obama’s political circle, James A. Johnson and Franklin D. Raines, are former chief executives of Fannie Mae.“

Democrats not holding hearings - too suspicious

We need to jail the Democrats for this housing/financial scandal!There are no hearings in congress. Wonder why? That is because the Dems know they are guilty.

Obamonopoly

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/09/obamonpoly.html

We can't print our way out of this, but we can drill

Here is a terrific opportunity for McCain and the Republicans. They should link financial crisis to $700B lost per year in oil revenue which is sent overseas. What action do we take? drill here, drill now.

It's the perfect tie in! The money lost overseas will be a $700B infusion of cash into OUR economy, and that will alleviate this crisis.

We can't print money as a way out of this crisis.

Why is Mr. Punky Kitten the only one to think of this?

Mrs. Palin goes to Washington

Fallacy: confusing business, which is the free market, with government, which is public tyranny. As Palin said the other day: "Government is not the solution, it is the problem." She got that quote from Ronald Reagan.

Government is the problem, and I would trust an individual such as Palan, a Washington outsider, to shrink the size of government. Change cannot come from inside Washington, (including Obama, the penultimate insider), but only can come from outside. Just like when Mr. Smith goes to Washington, he finds and destroys the culture of corruption that exists on the inside.

I'm tired of the tyranny coming from collectivists and snobs in Washington. We should decentralize the federal government, put the responsibilities for people and their problems back where it belongs, in the people's hands and as a necessary evil, in the hands of the states.

Business solves problems much more efficiently than government. Government should get out of the way, step aside and let the free market go to work.

Just remember, there are plenty of people like me, who are mad as hell at the inside the beltway crowd, and we are just not going to take it anymore. On the first Tuesday in November we are going to get inside our voting booth vehicles, and we are going to back over the inside the beltway crowd with all vigor and glee, telling our neighbors to watch us vote, because we just can't take it anymore, and we won't be apologetic, and we will tell everyone using the pen, because the written word is mightier than the sword !

We're on the Moon / Day of Reckoning

Check it out, we're on the moon! Circa 1969:



And here is one of my favorites:

Day of Reckoning for Clinton

Palin Rules!

impressive!

"I was mayor of my hometown. And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves. I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."

compelling!

"our opponents say again and again that drilling won't solve all of our energy problems - as if we didn't know that already."

"...the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all. Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines...build more nuclear plants...create jobs with clean coal...and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources. We need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers."

devastating!

"...in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening."

"We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco."

true change!

"[Obama] uses change to promote his career, and [McCain] uses his career to promote change."

McCain: hope for America

I finally find that I have HOPE for America. I feel proud to support John McCain. There is hope for America again.

Yes, we need a better business climate, a reason for people to invest in America. These items are the ones that give me the most hope that there will indeed be a 'morning in America':

Morning in America By Peter Ferrara
McCain has been darn good on taxes. Because America today suffers from the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, McCain has promised to cut the federal rate from 35% to 25%, restoring America's international competitiveness. McCain also proposes what has been a high priority among supply side economists for years, precisely because it would be so strong in restoring economic growth. That is to allow immediate expensing for capital investment, which means that capital investment expenses could be deducted in the year they are incurred, rather than strung out over many years under arbitrary depreciation schedules. This would eliminate an enormous bias against investment in America.

McCain has promised to phase out the badly mistaken Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) outright. He proposes to increase the dependent's exemption for children from $3,500 to $7,000, which would further slash income taxes for the middle class. He pledges to keep the Internet tax free, a cause he has long championed, and opposes taxes on cell phones. McCain would also make the Bush tax cuts permanent, again contrary to Obama, which would leave the top individual income tax rate at 35%, and the top tax rate for capital gains and dividends at 15%, while maintaining the phase out of the death tax.

McCain is even better on spending. He promises to go after wasteful and unnecessary federal spending with even more zeal than Reagan, an issue on which Palin lends strong support. McCain proposes to freeze all federal discretionary spending outside of defense and veterans benefits for one year, and to limit overall federal spending growth to 2.4%, about one-third the annual increases since 2000. He promises to reclaim the money committed to earmarks, eliminate broken, ineffective government programs, reform procurement policies to cut wasteful defense spending, and "veto every pork-laden spending bill and make their authors famous." Through these policies, he promises a balanced budget during his first term.


McCAIN ALSO HAS a sound program for increasing energy production. He proposes to increase oil and natural gas exploration and production, in part by eliminating the ban on offshore drilling. Palin as the VP creates a teachable moment for McCain on drilling and production from ANWR and the rest of Alaska. McCain also promises to bring back the nuclear power industry by eliminating unnecessary regulatory barriers that have stopped the construction of any new plants for over 30 years. He has set a goal of 45 new nuclear plants by 2030, with an eventual goal of 100 new plants. He also favors the rapid development of clean coal technology, so that America can continue to use its vast reserves of coal, which produce the majority of electricity production in the U.S. today.

By increasing supply, these policies would bring down the price of energy, oil, gasoline, and natural gas, which would also provide a further boost to our economy across the board. By contrast, Obama has no program to bring the price of gasoline and other energy down, and hasn't even embraced that as a desirable goal.

Yet, McCain's energy program is balanced. Like Obama, he also proposes federal support for the development of alternative technologies such as wind and solar power, and for flex-fuel vehicles, clean car technology, and electric cars. The key difference is that McCain is going to keep up, rather than move to shut down, production of oil, gas, and other established energy sources, while these futuristic technologies are still in development.

As critical for conservatives as anything else is the appointment of Supreme Court Justices, and other judges, which will also be discussed in detail in a future column. Here McCain has pledged unambiguously to appoint Justices like the recent Court additions of John Roberts and Sam Alito, and he voted as well to confirm Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. Obama has said just the opposite, that he would appoint Justices like former ACLU General Counsel Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the ultraliberal David Souter, while opposing appointments like Alito, whom he voted against. Again, the stakes for conservatives could not be higher.