Thursday, July 14, 2016


Gene Roddenberry tried to paint a very liberal and permissive portrait of the future with his Star Trek franchise.

Certainly the human race is more permissive in the 23rd century.

Skin color does not seem to matter.

Yep, Kirk was landing green chicks under Rodenberry and Abrams’ direction!

And think about this-in every movie, Kirk trashes a perfectly good starship.

Would today’s Navy keep giving a captain a new ship every three years? I think not! But in the 23rd century, the taxpayers are willing to give young captains more chances to learn…

Next week, “Star Trek Beyond” will hit theaters with a bombshell: the long-running sci-fi franchise’s first openly gay character. 

As it happens, it’s someone that longtime fans already know and love: Helmsman Hikaru Sulu, the character played by George Takei in the original 1960’s television series and, later, in seven “Star Trek” movies.

Now, thank heaven for the alternate time line plot device. The writers avoid having to explain Sulu having the hots for Uhura in the original series.

With the JJ Abrams films we have an entirely new Sulu played by John Cho.

Cho may have been mistaken as gay in the Harold & Kumar film, but he did end up with this hottie by the second film...

She's not really relevant to my point, but she is a hottie!

My point? Simple. The GLBT (or LGBT-do you believe they are actually fighting over whether the initial for gay or lesbian goes first?) lobby is going to celebrate this as a win, even though openly gay George Takei was against changing Sulu's orientation.

I think it paints a bleak picture of the future for gays.


Because for the entire original series, the animated series, the six original cast films, seven years of The Next Generation, four TNG films, seven years of Deep Space Nine, seven years of Voyager, four years of Enterprise, thousands of novels, comic books and fan fiction pages and three JJ Abrams films-that's more than 244 years of Starfleet-Starfleet was still following the policy brought to you by this liberal guy:

Yep-the "enlightened" 23rd century was still following "don't ask don't tell!

It look a renegade Romulan destroying Vulcan, attacking Earth, getting Kirk out of bed with the green alien girl and sending the universe onto a different timeline for Starfleet to accomplish what the US Military repealed in eighteen years.


  1. This isn't really on-topic but I'm going to say it anywyay...

    STAR TREK fans... sheesh! When the hell are they going to grow up and spend a day in reality? That's just such a dumb, rehashed, opiate for the pseudo-intellectual goobers who refuse to leave their mommy's "womb" (aka as "basement").

    Yeah, I loved Star Trek... when I was in the 4th-friggin'-grade!!! (True Fact.) But then I graduated to the 5th grade and lost interest. (True Fact.)

    Q:Which franchise will end first, Star Trek or Rocky?
    A: Neither will ever end, because stupidity is eternal.

    And this goes for 'Star Wars' fans, too!

    ~ D-FensDogG
    'Loyal American Underground'

    1. We've always disagreed here, as it's a matter of what mindless entertainment you choose to watch for an escape.

      You like your Andy Griffith reruns, I kind of like watching Kirk fire phasers and bed green women.

      Although it has been quite some time since I've seen an episode of the original show, I did like both of the recent films, and enjoyed the Star Wars film, too.

      And believe it or not, the recent "Rocky" film (Creed) was pretty good. Nothing in that franchise will hold a candle to the original film (classic) but not so bad for a two hour escape from the AZ sun.

      So I guess I am included in your "not grown up and not spending days in reality" although I can say while placing my hand on a Bible that I have never put on a pair of Spock ears or owned a Star Trek uniform shirt.

    2. You know what really bothers me about the whole "coming out party" in the film?

      Now Hollywood throws in LGBT just to mainstream it-it has nothing to do with plot advancement or character development.

      On "Bosch," an (otherwise pretty darn good) original from the A retailer you hate, they cur to a scene where his lieutenant is at home, a woman comes out of the bathroom and they go into a soft porn scene.

      It's not brought up again until several episodes later, and the woman is mentioned in passing as an old girlfriend.

      What was the point?

      Oh yeah, to make people thing that LGBT are more common than the less than 10% of the population that they are.

      I've noticed this on almost every show I Netflix.

      Enough already, Hollywood!

  2. LC ~
    I didn't remember that we'd discussed this before, but then many of my brain cells have been drowned. I did think we'd both laughed over that SNL skit with William Shatner though.

    I consider you a good friend, so please take the following with the good humor it's intended as. Not meant to be a serious pissing match, but...

    One ought never to compare The Andy Griffith Show with Star Trek. Here's why:

    TAGS had a wonderful human element that ran through it. The show taught great lessons of goodness in a lighthearted comedy way. It was definitely not "mindless entertainment" for "escape". An entire Bible study course has been designed around TAGS episodes because the show illustrated eternal, decent, Godly truths.

    [I would be happy to suggest a list of episodes to watch if you'd like to see what I'm saying "in black and white".]

    Star Trek and Star Wars are just telling the same damned story over and over (for more of the Americans' dough and nothing else). "The Galaxy is being threatened by bad, alien lifeforms that seek to kill and enslave, and it is up to the 'A-1 Good-Guy Acme Federation' to stop their dastardly plan." The End.

    I mean, seriously, how many times can people watch the same story over and over -- with just changes in characters, costumes, and spaceship designs -- before they say, "OK, been there. Know the story. Had enough of it." (It's the same exact thing with all these superhero movies. Gah! "Good guy with superpowers [and help from CGI] overcomes bad guy with superpowers." The end.)

    And, Rocky... gee. 40 years from now it'll be the great, great granddaughter of Rocky Balboa fighting the great, great granddaughter of Apollo Creed!

    I'd have more respect for Stallone if he'd just come out one day and tell the American people, "I confess. I have no talent and this was really ALL I could do. Sorry I kept taking your money on lame re-tellings of the same tired plot."

    But I totally agree with you that the media is in overtime now trying to condition the masses to believe that sexual deviancy is normal, healthy, and mainstream.

    This is all the work of satan via his evil minions. This is NOT just stupid, degenerate people trying to brainwash us into accepting their twisted lifestyles. This is all spiritually-based and it's all to be found in that Book they all hate so much.

    No one could possibly be familiar with "that" Book and not see the prophetic pattern clearly emerging in double-time now!

    ~ D-FensDogG

    1. The Shatner SNL skit was classic. And I would agree that ST/SW is telling the same story.

      Again, I'm not saying any of the franchises are high brow, but I would point out how ST-TOS used their storylines to reflect a lott of what was going on in the world at the time (the Klingons and Federation locked in their own cold war that got resolved in an early 90's theatrical film). I think a lot of our entertainment in the earlier days aimed a little higher...well maybe not Gilligan's Island.

      Shakespeare and the Bible pretty much cover every plot, so I could argue that you're better served reading the Bible than TAGS.

      But substitute Frasier for TAGS, or Moonlighting and I'm still back to you watch your shows and I'll watch mine.

      Plus, you were part of the Hollywood machine-so I'm not sure you're without blame in the deterioration of the quality of our filmed entertainment.

      I don't see you giving all those residual checks back!


  3. Guilty as charged about having been part of the Hollywood Machine. But I was drunk those 7 or 8 years, so I plead Thunderbird insanity.

    But I'm pretty sure I've given ALL of that residual check money (or more) to charitable causes. (Damn! That was STOOPID!) So, in the end, I have a clear conscience.

    'Moonlighting' was really very clever. And 'Frasier' appealed greatly only to well-educated people. (One had to know a bit about everything to catch all those jokes.)

    So, I'd still put my entertainment up against yours and bet on mine as being Higher-I.Q.

    I mean, c'mon, DiscDude, when the car talks and a show takes place in Las Vegas, this really isn't the highbrow of the lowbrow.

    I'll give you credit though for avoiding "three hour tours" on a boat with a talking horse, little buddy!.

    ~ D-FensDogG

    1. Not sure about the talking car-is that the Trans Am? Never saw that one (although I loved the cartoon where the guy whistled for his car-Cool McCool?). But guilty on Robert Urich on Vega$, although that show does not hold up at all.

      But you're missing the point-I am not necessarily claiming my choices of entertainment are higher-brow. One, how does one prove it, and two, I don't always want higher brow.

      I realize that you are a wise Mensa Donkey and I am only a poor mindless mule, but as I have said many a time, where your job (at least when I knew you and we'd talk about such things as the office cleared out ) was not terribly mentally taxing, mine have all been, and let me tell you, sometimes watching William Shatner save the universe with this phaser hand and get the green chick's dress off with the other is just what the doctor ordered!

      I could also pull out some pretty clever scenes from the various Trek series, but you'd never acknowledge them. because at the root of your disdain is the fact that you don't like science fiction.

      Interestingly enough, both Moonlighting and Frasier appeal to liberals and their ilk. I knew you were a closeted friend of the CFR, 97% of whom own the DVD's of both series.

      Of course, 98% of all statistics are made up. And 99% of all people would have abandoned this exchange four comments ago.


  4. LC ~
    Hey, don't misunderstooding me, man! I still love ya in a "John Wayne Way", even if you like dopey TV shows. You hate abortion, and that's good enough for me, Bro.

    >>... Not sure about the talking car-is that the Trans Am? Never saw that one

    Uhh... I'm not sure my damnself, 'cause I never watched a single episode. Was it a Trans-Am? All I know is that the car talked, and... was the main actor named Hasslehoff, or Husseldorf? Something appropriately stupid like that.

    >>... sometimes watching William Shatner save the universe with this phaser hand and get the green chick's dress off with the other is just what the doctor ordered!

    Oh, alright, I understand finally: You were using 'Star Trek' in the same way I was using 'Bacardi 151'. Gotcha!

    >>... at the root of your disdain is the fact that you don't like science fiction.

    You stopped short.
    But WHY don't I like science fiction?? I mean, aside from the fact that it's woefully short on science and long on fiction. ...Never mind. That's a topic for another blog bit.

    >>... Interestingly enough, both Moonlighting and Frasier appeal to liberals and their ilk.

    There are exactly 4.5 registered Republicans in all of Hollywood, USA, and Bruce Willis and Kelsey Grammer are 2.0 of them. You're on the wrong Attack Track.

    >>... 99% of all people would have abandoned this exchange four comments ago.

    That's a true statistic. BUT!... one thing I always liked about you was that, like me, you were part of the 1% independent thinkers who didn't follow the sheeple over the cliff.

    You haven't changed, have you? Because I sure haven't.

    As you could undoubtedly tell from my own blogs, I prefer comment sections where real long discussions occur -- whether they be serious, flippant and smart-alecky, clever and funny, informative, pointless or... whatever.

    I've never understood the reason for a person having a blog like, say, Alex's, or so many others, where every reader leaves just one comment of 1-4 sentences, and the blogger responds with just one comment of 1-4 sentences, and that ends the personal interaction.

    I've always preferred my way, where lots of personality is displayed and dialogue is encouraged and ongoing.

    But I can become a "one-and-done 1-4 sentence commenter" if that's preferred.

    For the record though: I believe in beating a dead horse until it's powder and doesn't need to be buried by manual labor. I'm peculiarly lazy that way.

    ~ LazyDogG

  5. Sorry for the delay in replying-had eye surgery yesterday (Thursday) and reading is a little hard still.

    I wasn't sure you'd get my nod to "The Three Amigos" but I am stunned you didn't seem to get my blatant rip off of Todd Snider's "Statistician Blues!"

    At the end of the day, we both know we're comfortable watching (and listening to) whatever the heck we like!

    But the verbal sparring is fun or I would not engage.

    For the record, I saw that Trek movie today (nice big screen, easy on the rehabbing eye) and the whole "gay thing: is over so quick it could be him seeing his brother (he gets off the ship on shore leave and a man is waiting with his daughter).

    Not really news at all, nor did the movie break any new ground either. Entertaining and cool on the CineCapri screen (it was right across the street from my post-operative appointment so was convenient and better than just going home) but containing nothing that would change your mind on your original comment.


  6. I've never seen 'THE THREE AMIGOS', so no chance of getting that reference. And although I've heard the song 'STATISTICIAN BLUES', I don't really know it that well because I've never had the album 'Near Truths And Hotel Rooms'.

    I just have the songs 'DEVIL'S BACKBONE TAVERN' and 'DOUBLEWIDE BLUES' from that album.

    What was the deal with your eyes?
    Man, just the thought of someone performing surgery on my eyes makes me CRINGE!

    ~ D-FensDogG

    1. Cataract surgery on my left one-I'd had contact lenses implanted about eleven years ago, but he'd said then I was probably at risk of early cataract surgery. By the age of everyone else in the surgery place, it was twenty years early.

      Having been through it a couple of times it doesn't make me cringe but if ya don't need it, don't get it. I still struggle a bit trying to text on the phone's keypad-they said it would be a week or so while the brain gets the eyes in synch and all the scar tissue heals.

      Or at least that's true 95% of the time.