Enterprise: Ripped from the headlines

Spoiler Warning

This entry is about the Vulcan Arc in Star Trek: Enterprise (season 4). If you plan on watching the episodes The Forge, Awakening, or Kir'Shara, you should probably read this later because my analysis includes spoilers.

I came up with this theory just from watching the episodes, but it seems so obvious to me that someone else must have already noticed this. The writers may have even already admitted their source for the general plot. This is certainly not the first time a Star Trek plot has been influenced by real life events, but I never noticed such a propagandist bent before. But maybe I'm just imagining it.


Where have I seen these characters before?

V'Las represents the demonic warmonging caricature of George W Bush that liberals voted against on Election Day. (Of course, I almost didn't recognize him since I see Bush as the valiant leader we need to keep our country safe, but that's another topic...) V'Las is crazy with his need for violence and power. He lies as easily as breathing. He's an enemy of peace and a traitor to his world. Many people who have called for Bush's impeachment would say that V'Las is the spitting image of Bush.

The Syrrannites are the Muslims that are supposedly oppressed by the Patriot Act and TSA screeners. The Syrrannites are very peaceful and thoughtful. They just want to practice their religion out in the desert. They probably even meditate towards Mecca several times a day. Then, the intolerant Vulcans blew up their caves. Of course, the caves don't represent Afghanistan since everyone was in favor of that war.

Hopefully, you see where I'm going with this. Okay, then. Let's speed this up then.

Enterprise: The human embassy was destroyed at the beginning of the arc by terrorists.
Real life: Terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

Enterprise: The Vulcan leaders secretly attacked the embassy themselves.
Real life: The "Blame American First" crowd claim: (a) we invited the terrorists kill us through our greed and lack of compassion, (b) Bush know we were going to be attacked and lets it happen, or (c) all of the above.

Enterprise: V'Las leads Vulcan to war against the Andorians with lies.
Real life: Liberals say things like "Bush mislead us into war" and call Bush a liar.

Enterprise: The Andorians didn't have the Xindi super-weapon.
Real life: The U.S. never found Saddam's WMD's.

Enterprise: The human's vessel Enterprise was situated between the innocent Andorians from the aggressive Vulcans.
Real life: The "Human Shields" in Iraq offered to protect schools and hospitals.

Enterprise: Surak (the father of Vulcan logic)
Real life: Michael Moore (the father of modern liberal propaganda)

Enterprise: Kir’Shara (legendary writings)
Real life: Fahrenheit 9/11 (fictional documentary)

At the end of the third episode, V'Las's clandestine Romulan friend probably represents a Saudi prince (as in "blood for oil"), but he could also represent the Pope. Which would be more sinister to liberals: Gigantic Oil (an alliance between the Big Oil companies and the Mideast reservoirs) or Super Jesusland (evangelical protestants and observant Roman Catholics acting a single majority voting bloc)?

So who represents John Kerry? I'm not sure he's there. Perhaps he's some peaceful Vulcan such as T'Pau. Maybe Archer was supposed to be John Kerry. Then T'Pol would have to be John Edwards. It doesn't really matter. The point is that Bush didn't win in this allegory because Bush respresent evil to the liberals and everyone knows that good always triumphs over evil in the Star Trek universe. (I'm sure the plot was developed before November 2, and it may have even been filmed before the election.)

I'm not against using current events as inspiration for art. But at least don't use the wacko off-the-wall liberal view of the world when you're doing it. I've been a fan of Star Trek for a long time, but I'm no longer a fan of the Enterprise series. I'll probably keep watching for a while, but it's more laughable than enjoyable.

By the way, they really should have given Michael Moore a "story by" credit to be fair.

John Kasich For President in 2008

I don't know if John Kasich is contemplating about running in 2008, but I think he'd be a good successor to the GWB era. I saw him speaking on the O'Reilly Factor (I guess it was the Thursday edition) about what Bush should undertake in the next four years, and he appears to understand the conservative principals that led George W. Bush to win a second term.

Some people have suggested that next Republican nominee would be Rudy Giuliani (former mayor of New York) or Arnold Schwarzenegger (assuming a change in the Constitution to allow someone of foreign birth to be elected). That very well may happen, but it's possible that the Democrats would offer a candidate who would be hard to distinguish from a New York or California Republican. In that case, I might support the Constitution party candidate instead of the Republican party. Bush has demonstrated that the Republican party doesn't need to be afraid of being conservative. According to the exit polls from Tuesday (if you happen to believe them), Americans like having a President who is concerned with moral issues. A Pro-Choice candidate could win the nomination, but lose the election. (Many Democratic voters are actually Pro-Life. You'd never guess it from the Democrats who are elected. Out in the cities and towns, many Democrats are actually concerned about moral issues.)

I suspect the GOP would have a better chance at winning in November with a conservative candidate from a swing state such as Ohio or Florida. Kasich represented Ohio for many years in the House of Representatives. I'm not opposed to Florida Governor Jeb Bush as a candidate, but I'm not sure if Americans are in favor of a Bush Dynasty in the White House (GHWB, Clinton [oops], GWB, Jeb?). It might be a good idea allow the Bush family a break from national office. I haven't put a calculator to it, but I'd think that Jeb'd still be plenty young in 2012 or 2016. And there's always the potential for George P. Bush to follow in his uncle and grandfather's footsteps someday in the not-so-distant future. Also, I wonder if Jeb actually has presidential aspirations (he would know better than most that's it's an extremely difficult job). Could he really want to leave Florida's great climate for D.C.?

Since Kasich actually had a brief campaign for President back in 2000, he might be interested in running again. The end of his speech when he dropped out epitomizes that he fully grasps what has made Bush such a good President (before he was even elected):

But I'm also very excited with the fact that I'm going to make it a top priority to fight and work for the election of my friend George Bush to the White House in 2000. And I want to tell you that it's an easy decision for me, because George Bush is a man who believes in bottom up. He does believe in the power of people. You think I haven't been watching him cut taxes, provide for strengthening of faith-based institutions, the need to stand up for people who rarely get stood up for, the need to stand up for people who rarely get stood up for, to end the polarization in America, to end the division that we have. And George Bush's term of compassionate conservative really kind of defines exactly what John Kasich is all about. And many times when I watched the governor delivering a speech or an interview on television, I swear I could have turned the sound down and put my own voice in there. And so I feel as though I have a soul brother. I've got somebody that sees this future for our country the same way that I do. And I'm very privileged and honored today to have George Bush with us and I'd like for him to come out on the stage.

And as John doesn't have any Presidents in his immediate family, he shouldn't be as much of a lightning rod for wacko conspiracy theories as a third Bush candidate would be.

More info on Kasich (it's somewhat dated, but I think the essence is still accurate):

• New Century Project
• Issues2000

Correction: Osama endorsed "Anybody but Bush"

I made some mistakes in my analysis of ObL's latest statement on Saturday. I didn't realize I was reading a small excerpt from a 18-minute speech. I thought I was reading the whole thing. Oops.

First off, I'm less sure that he knows what's going on in America. He may be a subscriber to the New York Times, but it's more clear that somebody sent him a copy of Fahrenheit 9/11 (and he actually fell for the all of the lies).

Also, apparently a key word from his statement may have been mistranslated by most media sources. He should take a hint from the Unabomber and Michael Moore and release his propaganda in plain English.

I'm just glad that I'm voting for the candidate that ObL is trying to scare me into voting against. It's clear that Bush is the candidate that terrorists like the least. And his strength on national defense is why I like Bush the most. I would've voted for Bush before this statement came out, and I'm not letting some wannabe movie star dissuade me.

Osama bin Laden announced his endorsement: No One

Osama bin Laden made a new home video to discuss the U.S.'s election next week.

He denies the accusations of hating freedom. Yeah, right. He believes you're free to do anything you want, but he'll shoot you if it goes against the Koran.

Also, he seems to be endorsing the administration of former President George H. W. Bush. The translation was unclear. I think ObL was trying to confuse us with that one.

But I don't think that was his main point. His main point is he plans to kill us regardless of who wins the election: "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al-Qaida. Each state that doesn't mess with our security has automatically secured their security." Maybe he prefers Nader. I don't really know.

Osama and his al-Qaida buddies are aware we're having an election on Tuesday. They read the newspapers. (They're probably even conducting polls and focus groups to predict the outcome.) Certainly, he's trying to affect the outcome of the election. But he can't just come out and ask us to vote for Candidate A or Candidate B because the typical American voter would vote for the candidate that he doesn't endorse (if we believed that's what he meant). Apparently, he's trying to say he's just as scared of Kerry as he is of Bush. I guess he doesn't miss his old pad in Afghanistan. Maybe the new cave has a pool. But I digress...

If you want evidence of who ObL would really endorse, I'd suggest you watch the "Kerry On Iraq" documentary that the Bush campaign produced. For example (from the transcript):

"I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of Candidacy, Patriot’s Point, SC, 9/2/03)

...

"But the president and his advisors did not do almost anything correctly in the walk-up to the war. They rushed to war. They were intent on going to war. They did not give legitimacy to the inspections. We could have still been doing inspections even today, George." (ABC’s "This Week," 10/12/03)

If I were a terrorist, I'd vote for the man who's a dove because the hawk might send a missle into my current cave or bunker. I wouldn't be impressed by those who "vote to threaten the use of force" or "would still [be] doing inspections even today". I'd be afraid of the man who'd risk his chance of re-election by waging war against me and my terrorist neighbors.

By the way, Kerry want to give nuclear fuel to Iran. Iran is a member of both the "Axis of Evil" and OPEC. They don't need nuclear fuel for fuel. They want nuclear fuel for terrorism or war. If ObL is registered to vote (perhaps he votes by absentee ballot), he's voting for Kerry. Ten out of ten terrorists vote against Bush.

Praying for Rain

The state polls seem to be hinting at another nail-biter of a U.S. election. At this point, butterflies flapping their wings and drops of rain can make the election swing one way or the other. Even if it doesn't rain anywhere in the country on Tuesday, George W. Bush can win it fair and square. But he fairly won the election in 2000, and it still took several weeks for Mr. Gore to conceed his loss (for the second time). This time, I'd like to see not only a win for Bush, but also a solid, uncontroversial win.

The best way for that to happen would be rain in Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, New Hampshire, Pennsylvannia, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Hey, rain could even be a factor in Hawaii (I heard Dick Cheney is visiting Honolulu tomorrow). Rain probably isn't very likely in New Mexico for meteorological reasons, but Bush is likely to win there anyways. In the case of rain, we'd expect some less enthusiastic voters to stay home, such as lukewarm voters and voters who only want to vote against Bush (instead of for the Democratic nominee). A strong win vs. a narrow win in these states could mean the difference between months of legal wrangling and Supreme Court appeals and a quick victory for the candidate with the most support.

Now, I don't want to disenfranchise anyone, so I'm not endorsing hurricanes or flash floods. I don't want anyone to be physically unable to make it to the ballot box. But I think if enough people in "swing states" are looking for their umbrellas on November 2, we'll know who our next president is when we wake up on November 3.

I'm sure that Kerry's campaign staff would tell me that actually Kerry's support runs deeper, but I won't believe that unless I see it. The polls I've seen indicate that most of the people who plan to vote for Kerry prefer him because his name isn't "George W. Bush". Many people strongly support Bush. Few people actually like Kerry. It takes a lot of campaigning to get people to vote for someone they dislike especially if they'll get wet in the process.

John Howard is re-elected in Australia

Over the weekend, Australia re-elected John Howard.

Hooray for Australian voters!

Australia's Prime Minister John Howard says he is "humbled" after winning a fourth term in office.

With 70% of the votes counted in Saturday's election, results indicate Mr Howard's Liberal-National coalition has won an easy majority over Labor.

I'm confident that Australian voters chose the best candidate for a safer Australia despite the view of John Kerry's sister:

Diana Kerry, younger sister of the Democrat presidential candidate, told The Weekend Australian that the Bali bombing and the recent attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta clearly showed the danger to Australians had increased.

"Australia has kept faith with the US and we are endangering the Australians now by this wanton disregard for international law and multilateral channels," she said, referring to the invasion of Iraq.

Asked if she believed the terrorist threat to Australians was now greater because of the support for Republican George W. Bush, Ms Kerry said: "The most recent attack was on the Australian embassy in Jakarta -- I would have to say that."

John Howard has been a strong ally of the United States in the War in Iraq, and I view his re-election as an indication that Australia continues to be a loyal ally of the America.

Thanks, Australia.

Armed with spitballs?

Democrat Sen. Zell Miller addressed the Republican National Convention a few weeks ago:

And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40% of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: Against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel, Against the Aegis air-defense cruiser, Against the Strategic Defense Initiative, Against the Trident missile, against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?
U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric.

Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.

Hmm. I'd rather my country have some weapons than be defenseless. But that's just my opinion.

... then you are a Republican

From Arnold Schwarzenegger's speech at the Republican National Convention:

If you believe that government should be accountable to the people, not the people to the government ... then you are a Republican!

If you believe a person should be treated as an individual, not as a member of an interest group ... then you are a Republican!

If you believe your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does ... then you are a Republican!

If you believe our educational system should be held accountable for the progress of our children ... then you are a Republican!

If you believe this country, not the United Nations, is the best hope of democracy in the world ... then you are a Republican!

And, ladies and gentlemen ... if you believe we must be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism ... then you are a Republican!

I guess that makes me a Republican.

Well said, Mr. Governor.

Bush is ahead in the polls!

I've got a couple guesses on why Bush is ahead in the latest polls.


Who speaks clearly about the defense of America?

John Kerry at the UNITY 2004 Conference:

I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history.

George W Bush at the Republican National Convention:

Do I forget the lessons of September 11th and take the word of a madman, or do I take action to defend our country? Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time.

Whose economic judgement do you trust?

John Kerry at Democratic National Convention:

The story of people struggling for health care is the story of so many Americans. But you know what, it's not the story of senators and members of Congress. Because we give ourselves great health care and you get the bill.

George W Bush at the Republican National Convention:

To be fair, there are some things my opponent is for -- he's proposed more than two trillion dollars in new federal spending so far, and that's a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts. To pay for that spending, he is running on a platform of increasing taxes -- and that's the kind of promise a politician usually keeps.

Serenity: the Firefly Movie

In the fall of 2002, there was a wonderful television show called Firefly. Only 15 episode were made, but each one was a work of art. I watched every episode from the first episode one aired to the last one aired. I bought the DVD set went it went on sale. I've watched each episode repeatedly, and I haven't gotten bored of them yet.

Universal Studios is currently producing a new "episode" (actually it's probably more like three or four episodes). It's called Serenity and it's going to be great! The planned release date is April 22, 2005. Find out more information by becoming a Browncoat.

Update: 11/23/2004

Serenity Delayed Is Not Serenity Denied. The release date for Serenity has been pushed back to September 30, 2005, but I'll still be there. Ostensibly, this will benefit the film since it will have less competition than the crowded late spring and summer calendar.

Let's Kill the Income Tax

What we have now is a mess. And it continues to get worse. Today's income tax system can't be understood without a PhD in accounting.

A flat income tax rate for everyone would be better the current mess, but abolishing the income tax altogether would be better yet.

Anyone who fills out their own tax forms every year (as I do) can tell you that the current system is a lot more complicated than it should be. Page after page of special cases (for special interests) are intended to buy votes, and it only gets worse each year. Every politician running for office wants "fairer taxes", but not everyone wants simpler taxes. Common sense dictates that a tax has to be simple to be fair. If no one can even understand the tax system, no one can determine if it's fair. Thus, the current system is definitely unfair. Let's throw the whole thing out!

I'm not proposing anarchy. The government can still collect taxes: sales taxes. Now, the first criticism is always, "poor people will starve." Well, that's why the smart folks at FairTax recommend a monthly rebate equivalent to the taxes paid on essential goods.

From the FairTax FAQ:

All valid Social Security cardholders who are U.S. residents receive a monthly rebate equivalent to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, also known as the poverty level expenditures. The rebate is paid in advance, in equal installments each month.

What I think is most appealing about the idea of abolishing the income tax is that successful people won't be punished for earning more money. No one will be bumped into a higher tax bracket because they're working too hard at the office. With a sales tax, you choose how much tax you pay. If you buy more expensive toys (as wealthy people reported do), you pay more in taxes. If America was founded on the principal of freedom for the individual (and that's what makes America strong), then replacing the income tax with a sales tax is clearly the right decision for our nation.

The Mysterious Siberian Explosion of 1908

Did aliens save planet in 1908?
Russians say they have found spaceship debris

Members of a Russian scientific team researching the site of the Tunguska meteorite crash of 1908 say they have found remnants of an extraterrestrial spacecraft, report a variety of Russian news agencies.

The object appeared to be a large metallic block, according to the reports. The researchers chipped off a piece of the object and will now test its composition.

The alien idea sounds like it's from a movie. My theory is that time travel is involved instead. (Anyone read Michael Crichton's Sphere or saw the movie?)

Update: I read another article on this topic today:
Russians add new twist to old UFO myth
Tale of 1908 Tunguska explosion gets even more tangled

It didn’t do the new Russian UFO story’s credibility much good that it first appeared on the pages of the newspaper Pravda on Tuesday. In Soviet days, Pravda was the propaganda arm of the Soviet Communist Party, but under new management, it became a tabloid-style scandal sheet with a special penchant for wild paranormal tales.

I guess enquiring minds want to know. In any case, the newly found debris could have come from 1960's Russian spacecraft:

Sassen was referring to a flight on Dec. 22, 1960, meant to carry two dogs into space. According to “Challenge to Apollo,” NASA’s definitive history of the space race, "the payload landed about 3,500 kilometers downrange from the launch site in one of the most remote and inaccessible areas of Siberia, in the region of the Podkamennaya Tunguska River close to the impact point of the famed Tunguska meteorite."

And although it's long been suggested that the explosion could have been caused by a comet, a meteorite is the more likely culprit.