Private Mars Rocket II

As reported on Facebook but not here, I have embarked on a watch (can't really call it a re-watch) of Star Trek: The Original Series. Herewith, Part 1 from Facebook, and Part 2 which is new.


Part 1

the first episode of Star Trek (known now to fans as "Star Trek: The Original Series) aired on September 8, 1966. I wasn't born until later that month. The show's last episode aired in June 1969, before my 3rd birthday. For these perhaps obvious reasons, I've only seen the original in re-runs, which means out of order and recut for more commercials.

Because of the above I have recently started watching all of the episodes in order on Paramount Plus. They are offering the "Remastered" version, which was released in 2006. Some of the changes are very obvious - the planets look like actual planets, not blobs - and the Enterprise herself looks cleaner. The remastering also makes "oops" such as the occasional out-of-focus closeup jump out at you.

As to show order, the remastered edition has the original pilot as Episode 1, and the rest of the shows (so far) in broadcast order. The "second pilot" (Where No Man Has Gone Before) really jumps out as not in the continuity. (1960's TV was a different time.)

Also a different time was the hairdos (beehive central!) and sexual attitudes. As I learned in Mudd's Women (last episode I've gotten too) in the 23rd century, nobody is homosexual! I was also struck in that episode where the established female characters seemed to disappear.

At any rate, just some thoughts for a cold Tuesday while I take a break from work.

Part 2

So I've completed up to and including Episode 13. Some general thoughts.

1) Damn, the writers took ANY excuse to have Kirk running around shirtless! Relatedly, Kirk's not been near the horndog we remember him as. (At least not yet.)

2) "The Menagerie" (the two-parter where Spock hijacks the Enterprise) kind of blew my mind. In what universe (other than Star Trek, obviously) does mutiny and assault get laughed off? Roddenberry and at least some of the cast and crew (plus plenty of audience members) had served in real militaries. I think this was a case of the writers painting themselves into a corner and having to Rube-Goldberg themselves out.

3) "The Conscious of the King" also didn't age very well. In Shakespeare, several plays hinge on a girl pretending to be a man. It worked back then, in part because the actor WAS a man (or at least a teenager.) "Conscious" only works if we have a few people who have actually seen Kodos the Executioner. Now, maybe in the 1960s, where some states still issued drivers licenses without pictures, that was believable. Today - nope, they'd have the guy's fingerprints and DNA on file.

4) Regarding the tendency to re-cut episodes in reruns for more commercials, I was struck by how there was a lot of screen time spent having actors stare dramatically at each other. Not sure if that was foresight or just "we need to let the camera run to fill out the time."

It's been a while since I've delivered a rant about the current political situation, so, on Thanksgiving Eve I'm going to do so and get it out of my system.

Obeying Illegal Orders:

It is perfectly legal for somebody, even active duty or retired military, to counsel serving military personnel that they should not obey an illegal order. MAGA can (and alas probably will) bluster otherwise until the Sun goes supernova, but that fact remains. Although Senator Kelly and others didn't say it, a prime example of an illegal order would be the ongoing attacks on unarmed boats off of the Venezuelan coast. There is no legal justification for these attacks, as we are not at war with Venezuela. Speaking as somebody who has personally conducted counter-narcotics operations in those waters, there is no practical justification either.

In fact, Trump's apparent attempt to drum up a war with Venezuela is illegal and unconstitutional. The Constitution requires Congress to declare war precisely because it was, in the age of monarchy, common for the King to start a war and then demand his people support it.

Lindsey Halligan, Comey and Leticia James

First, the law appears to be clear. A President gets to appoint an interim US Attorney for 120 days, then the district court appoints somebody. They MAY appoint the same person the President did, and they usually do, but if that person is fired, especially because they won't undertake a bogus prosecution, then the district court gets to appoint somebody else until the President and the Senate agree on a person.

Second, the general case against these two is weak at best. This is why only idiot hack like Lindsey Halligan would even attempt to prosecute. Halligan is, in fact, Exhibit A as to why US Attorneys should be Senate-approved.

MAGA principles, or lack thereof

A principle is "a fundamental truth, law, or belief that serves as a foundation for a system of behavior or reasoning." MAGA clearly doesn't, or if they do, the only principle appears to be "whatever stokes my anger." Most people, by about the age of five or so, figure out that's no way to go through life.

Having cleansed my palate of political commentary, for those that celebrate, please enjoy your Thankgiving.

"Anger is like a hot coal, you hold it in your hands with the intent to throw at someone else but in the process, you are the one that gets burned." -Buddha

The above quote from Priti Shah's new book Uplift is a good example of what this book is. It's a book designed to help the reader recognize their value in life. It has a number of exercises in which the reader is encouraged to reflect and write notes.

To be honest, I don't consider myself the target audience for this, but it is well-written and very thoughtful. If you or somebody you know is seeking self-understanding, I can recommend this as a start.

Full disclosure - I'm thanked in the acknowledgements of this book.

Apparently I'm a slow learner - I've been elected to the Board of my townhome association.

Like the label on the tin says, updates on various topics.

1) I attended Windycon this past weekend. My schedule was light - two panels and a writer's workshop session - but I had fun and got to chat with a bunch of people. I'm glad they have a new hotel for next year - the Doubletree is sad and tired. I also note that Windycon will be a month earlier - October 9th-11th 2026.

2) It snowed heavily last night, but at least in Darien we only got 2 to 3 inches, it quit in the early AM, and it's rapidly melting.

3) I took today (Monday) off - after working a literal month of Saturdays I figured I earned it. Among other tasks, I went shooting. My dad gave had a Taurus 1911 in .45. He no longer has the grip to rack the slide, so he gave it to me. I fired a box of bullets through it. I also at the spur of the moment shot my Ruger LCR, a very lightweight .38 special. The range only had personal defense ammo for .38, so I shot that. Due to the extreme light weight of the gun, it's literally painful to shoot.

It is helpful on occasion to restate first principles, largely so one doesn't forget them.* Herewith, from this article which I'm just going to quote verbatim:

The Trump administration is doing a great many things that are morally wrong. We should say so plainly and not get tangled up in legalities.

Killing random people on boats in the Caribbean? Morally wrong.

Kidnaping people who have been part of their community for years? Morally wrong.

Hiring the dregs of society for the kidnaping force? Morally wrong.

Eliminating foreign aid that saves lives? Morally wrong.

Rearranging the nation’s finances to suit Donald Trump? Morally wrong.

Destroying diversity, equity, and inclusion across the government? Morally wrong.

Arbitrary firing of high ranking military officers? Morally wrong.

Destroying the People’s House without getting approval? Morally wrong.

Letting kids starve so that billionaires can have tax cuts? Morally wrong.

Declaring that only two sexes will be allowed? Morally wrong.

Constant lying? Morally wrong.

Demonization of the opposition? Morally wrong.


*or as we say Down South, "when you're up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember that your original purpose was to drain the swamp."

A New Beginning: An LGBTQIA Military Space Opera by E J Isaacs

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


Full disclosure - I was a Kickstarter backer of the publisher. Having said that, I recently read and enjoyed E. J. Isaac's debut novel A New Beginning. It's a space opera, which opens with a tense space battle in Chapter 1. The next section, labeled Part 1: A Taste of Diplomacy, is set 20 years later when a veteran of the battle in the first chapter takes out her new warship, Excalibur II, on an extended survey mission. The enemies we meet in Chapter 1 are still out there, just biding their time during an armistice.

The book is somewhat episodic, but interesting, with a large cast of characters. These characters aren't superhuman, but rather have the physical and emotional frailties of real people. It's a very engaging read.



View all my reviews

There seems to be a flurry of people jumping on the morality of creating stuff (pictures, writing) via AI. I want to add my take, which is people are not "creating" art via AI. First, a thought experiment and at the end a disclaimer.

A thought experiment: A person walks into a custom furniture store and says that they want a table. They specify materials, size, color, etc., and agree on a price and delivery date. Come said date, the table is delivered. Does the person stand around at their next cocktail party pointing at the table and say "look at this table I made?" No, rather they say "look at this table I bought." Now, maybe, depending on the amount of work with the furniture company, they can claim to have designed it. But not made it.


Thus unto AI. Humans don't make AI art. They buy it (even if it's from a free site). Maybe they can claim to have edited or designed what AI did, but they didn't make it.

Disclaimer: in my day job with a publicly-traded corporation, I use AI. I do not claim that I "made" any AI-generated product. These opinions are my own, not that of any past or present employer.

I've been watching people on Twitter celebrate ICE attacking protesters. I am reminded that people cheered on Bull Connor when he hit civil rights marchers with firehoses, dogs and batons. Those celebrating, then and now, are on the wrong side of history and morality.

On another site, I took issue with somebody who disparaged the concept that we should "believe all women" when they make allegations of sexual assault. In part, I thought he took it way too literally. Herewith, my definition of what "believe all women" should be, via an example.

Consider this hypothetical: You're walking out of a store into the parking lot when somebody comes running up to you saying "they're stealing my car!" What do you do? I suspect most of us would immediately whip out our cell phone and dial 911.

Here's what most of us would NOT do. We would not ask:
- are you sure they're not just borrowing it?
- is it being repossessed?
- did you leave the keys in the ignition?

In other words, we'd BELIEVE the person until we had a reason not to believe. We'd also not suggest that it was their fault their car was stolen.

Thus unto allegations of sexual assault. We should take the allegation seriously until we have reason to not take it seriously.