Take A Second Look

I’d like to recommend something to you that may sound implausible at first.

Take another look at the TV show Star Trek: Enterprise.

Things are not as they were.

When Enterprise first took to the air, I was very hopeful. There were all kinds of dramatic potential in a prequel to the original Star Trek series. E.g., getting to see all those "lost ships" the Original Series Enterprise went in search of and, in particular, seeing the founding of the Federation.

Unfortunately, danger signals started coming from the series almost at once. It seemed to be set too far in the past for the show to deal with the founding of the Federation, and most of the shows seemed misdirected towards a kind of "gee whiz" exploration of the galaxy.

My personal ability to bond with the series was also hampered by the fact that (at the time it went on air) I couldn’t even get the series due to living in an apartment complex with the dinkiest cable in the world, though I managed to see some episodes anyway.

Things didn’t seem to get better in the show’s second season, and its ratings declined. Taking this decline seriously, the show’s third season focused on a year-long story arc that posed a direct threat to the survival of everyone on Earth (the Xindi arc).

I thought this was a step in the right direction, like the lengthy arcs that drove the shows Babylon 5 and (in its latter seasons) Deep Space 9. The quality of the show definitely improved in season 3.

Despite this, the series almost was not renewed for a fourth season, but in the end it was.

I thought, and still think, that the series needs to move to the Roman War that leads to the founding of the Federation as quickly as possible to get things back on track.

They’re not moving to that as quickly as I would if I were the show-runner (though they are definitely moving toward it), but the quality of the show has improved even more in the fourth season, and I want to recommend that you take another look at the program (or a first look, if you haven’t seen it before).

The characteristic of the present (fourth) season is that for the most part it features stories that are longer than one episode but shorter than a whole season. Most stories are three or four episodes long.

More important than the format is that the show’s creators are focused on integrating the series more closely with the established Star Trek mythology, letting us look at corners of things that we have heard of but never seen or never seen explored in detail.

One three-part arc, for example, featured Brent Spiner (Next Gen‘s Commander Data and his "father" Noonien Soong) as Data’s "grandfather" Arik Soong. At the time of Enterprise, the line of family geniuses was not intersted in robotics but in genetic engineering. Arik Soong tried to bring to fruition a line of genetically "improved" humans dating from the late-20th-century Eugenics Wars (a la Kahn Noonien Singh). His disastrous failure in these episodes convinced him that trying to improve on the breed was a mistake, and by the end he turned to cybernetics, paving the way for the creation of Commander Data by his son.

Another trilogy of episodes focused on the planet Vulcan. We got to see things we’d heard about before, like the harsh desert known as Vulcan’s Forge (a reference to Roman mythology, incidentally) and we got an explanation for something Enterprise fans had long complained about: The Vulcans we saw in the series don’t seem the same as the Vulcans we know from the Original Series. They aren’t pacifists. They’re (somewhat) more emotional. They aren’t normally mind-melders. And they tend to be suspicious toward humans rather than respectful of them. In fact, they’re more like Romulans than the Vulcans we know from previous Star Trek shows.

Turns out that these differences are explained by a simple fact: Under the (hidden) influence of Romulans, the Vulcans of Enterprise‘s day have strayed from the teachings of their planetary peacemaker, Surak (who we kind-of met in the Original Series). But due to the intervention of the Enterprise crew, a social revolution starts that will lead to the dominance of the philosophy of the Vulcans that we know and love.

Upcoming episodes and min-arcs seem no less ambitious.

One such episode features the inventor of transporter technology.

A quadrology of episodes focuses on the Andorians and their homeworld.

An upcoming trilogy focuses on the Klingons and holds the prospect of finally offering an on-screen explanation of why the Klingons we saw in the Original Series are so different visually from the Klingons of the movies and subsequent series.

And Bill Shatner is likely to appear soon.

However things work out, a change has definitely been made in the Star Trek: Enterprise series. I’m already seeing messages on Internet boards like "What’s happening to me? I am actually loving Star Trek again."

There’s something to love here, again.

Tune in Friday nights to see what it is.

Start watching this Friday and be ready for the dramatic episodes that will start airing in January.

The Economics of Knowledge

Thomas Sowell follows British economist Lionel Robbins in defining economics as "the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses" (Applied Economics, 1).

Knowledge is one such resource.

No surprise then that Nobel-prize winning economist Becker and federal judge and author Posner have the following insight:

Blogging is a major new social, political, and economic phenomenon.
It is a fresh and striking exemplification of Friedrich Hayek’s thesis
that knowledge is widely distributed among people and that the
challenge to society is to create mechanisms for pooling that
knowledge. The powerful mechanism that was the focus of Hayek’s work,
as as of economists generally, is the price system (the market). The
newest mechanism is the “blogosphere.” There are 4 million blogs. The
internet enables the instantaneous pooling (and hence correction,
refinement, and amplification) of the ideas and opinions, facts and
images, reportage and scholarship, generated by bloggers [SOURCE].

PRIEST: "My Diocese Of Mosul On Fire"

I just got the following e-mail from a Chaldean priest friend of mine:

Dear Friends:

These are some pictures of the 2 churches bombarded in Mosul

by Islamic Fanatics. The damaged palace is the Chaldean Catholic

Diocese center, where I lived for almost two years, and now is no more

useful for use. It was a new palace built from 1992-1996, close to an

old Shrine of the Virgin Mary from the 7th century! The Shrine was

untouched, thank God.

Mosul1_1

Mosul2_1

Mosul3_1

Mosul4_1

Click to enlarge.

PRIEST: “My Diocese Of Mosul On Fire”

I just got the following e-mail from a Chaldean priest friend of mine:

Dear Friends:

These are some pictures of the 2 churches bombarded in Mosul
by Islamic Fanatics. The damaged palace is the Chaldean Catholic
Diocese center, where I lived for almost two years, and now is no more
useful for use. It was a new palace built from 1992-1996, close to an
old Shrine of the Virgin Mary from the 7th century! The Shrine was
untouched, thank God.

Mosul1_1
Mosul2_1

Mosul3_1
Mosul4_1

Click to enlarge.

Extremist Principal Of Florida School Loses Mind

Freedom Elementary School ain’t that free anymore. Its principal (possibly in collusion with the school board or other unnamed malefactors) has imposed a set of absurd and draconian prohibitions on what will be allowed this winter.

FOX (not The Onion or ScrappleFace) reports:

Freedom Elementary School in East Manatee, Florida, is banning not
only Christmas and religious-themed songs from its winter concert this
year; it’s banning references to winter, altogether. Snowmen and
snowflakes are strictly forbidden.

The
schools principal insists, "[We’re] trying to be respectful of
everyone." So, according to the Sarasota Herald Tribune, students are
now planning to sing songs about America and patriotism.

Oh, yeah, like those won’t offend anyone.

A Good Idea! . . . Mostly

According to news reports, Vatican officials are now urging the United Nations to recognize prejudice against Christians in the same way prejudice against Judaism and Islam are recognized.

Good idea!

Prejudice against Christianity has too often gone unrecognized while members of other religions have been given special treatment. Fairness all ’round is a good idea.

HERE’S A CNA STORY ON THE SUBJECT.

AND A PARALLEL REUTERS STORY.

While I think the Vatican demanding that anti-Christian bias being recognized in an explicit way, I think that there is a problem with the way the proposal is (according to news reports, for whatever those are worth) being advanced.

It’s a matter of words.

The term that is being proposed to refer to prejudice against Christians is "Christianophobia," which would mean "fear of Christians."

This term is a bad idea.

Consider: How many times have you heard complaints about opposition ot homosexuality being described by the term "homophobia," as if people who merely disagree with and disapprove of homosexual behavior are "afraid" of it.

Such charges amount to an attempt to psychologize the beliefs of those who disagree with your beliefs, which results in a species the ad hominem fallacy (in this case, "You disapprove of X because you are the kind of person who fears X"). This distracts from the objective merits of the discussion of whether X is a good thing or not and veers into the subjective world of emotions.

It’s bad argumentation. We should stick to analyzing the merits of a position rather than simply attacking the (alleged) subjective feelings of those who hold it.

What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, so if we recognize the "-phobia" fallacy when others use it, we should not employ the tactic ourselves.

Instead, we should recognize that prejudice against Christians is anti-Christianism, the same way we recognize that ethnic prejudice against Jews is anti-Semitism (and that theological prejudice against Judaism is anti-Judaism).

The problems with "Christianophobia" are particularly underscored by the fact that the Vatican officials urging the use of the term are (according to news reports) specifically concerned with attacks on Christians in the Muslim world that have been stirred up by the War on Terror (e.g., the bombings of churches in Iraq).

This makes it obvious that the problem is not fear of Christians.

It’s hatred of Christians.

Let’s be honest about that.

The more we confine our rhetoric to reality, the better off we’ll be in the long run.

U.N. – U.S. = Leage Of Nations = 0?

That’s an equation I’m thinking about at present.

I’m wondering–seriously, not just as an act of macho posturing–whether the U.S. ought to withdraw from the U.N. and what would happen in the event of such an eventuality.

Other folks seem to be thinking the same thing (more seriously this time than when the idea has been voiced in the past).

HERE’S A GUY WHO’S THINKING ABOUT THE FATE OF THE U.N. ESPECIALLY SERIOUSLY.

Made more serious by the fact that he’s a former consultant to ex-U.N. topguy Boutros Boutros-Ghali.

Thanks to the Powerline guys for posting this.

Whadda y’all think?