My reimagining of Star Trek.

I just read that the new Star Trek movie has been pushed back to a spring 2009 release date from it's original release of winter '08. Star Trek is pretty much dead to me but because there have been rumours that the eleventh (!) Trek could be some sort of reimagining ala the new Battlestar Galactica, I want to tell you how I would reimagine the original Star Trek series if I was in charge.

First, the ship would still be called the U.S.S. Enterprise. And chicks would still wear mini-skirts. But instead of the crew being one-third female, I would make it fifty-fifty male/female.

I would get rid of the Starfleet moniker and call it United Earth Space Probe Agency instead. That's what Starfleet was originally called in early episodes of the classic series. I'd dump the stupid United Federation of Planets because it is analogous, more or less, to the United Nations. Instead, I'd call it the Commonwealth of Independent Planets (a nod to the UK and the current Commonwealth of Independent Nations).

Kirk would stay pretty much the same. He would still be a guy, a maverick, a cad. Nathan Fillion from Firefly and Serenity would be a good choice to portray Kirk. Doc McCoy would be a few years younger than his classic series counterpart and he would be of mixed race/ethnicity (preferably black/Vietnamese with some French). I'd change Spock significantly, though. Spock would now be a know-it-all chick and there would be sexual tension among McCoy, Kirk, and Spock as well. Spock would be half-human, half-Vulcanian but with a decent haircut.

Under my reimagining plan, Scotty would now sport a beard. And be part aboriginal Australian. He'd still have that cool fake Scottish accent, though.

Uhura would be played by an actress this time around.

Chekov and Sulu would now be Muppets voiced by Frank Oz and the guy from Black Eyed Peas. Sort of a Burt and Ernie in space. This change shouldn't be controversial since Chekov and Sulu are completely useless, throwaway characters. I mean, c'mon, anything would be better than Walter Koenig and George Takei.

Yeoman Rand will be a Transformer under my plan. Sort of C-3PO meets Bumblebee (from the Transformers) with sex appeal. She's be a CGI character voiced by Michelle Obama and she'll be able to transform into a cool dune buggy like the ones in Star Trek Nemesis.

Nurse Chapel will be the ship's psychologist under my scheme. And she'll be a brunnette. With a German accent. And high heels. And too much lipstick.

The uniforms would stay pretty much the same. I'd only swap out the mustard uniforms for lime green ones as was originally intended way back when.

The bad guys would no longer be analogs of the Soviets and the Chinese. The bad guys will now be analogs of radical Islam and the U.S. Democratic Party, appropriately called the Arabons and the Pelosians. The Arobons would look sorta like Klingons but their foreheads would be covered by turbins. Pelosians would look like they had too much plastic surgery which isn't all the different from what Romulans looked like in classic Trek.

My reimagining would be a sure hit as this new series would confront such controversial subjects as Muppets' rights, radical Arabonism, Pelosian totalitarianism, and robot-on-robot love. The new series would feature a wide range of guest stars including Rush Limbaugh, Weird Al Yankovic, Mick Jagger, Traci Lords, and Boner from Growing Pains.

Like the new Battlestar Galactica which is like a hundred times better than the original Battlestar series (they actually hired actors and writers with brains for the new Battlestar series), I think my reimagining would be roughly seven-hundred times better than the "classic" Trek series.

Presidents Day is a meaningless holiday.

To make room room for Martin Luther King Jr's Birthday as a national holiday, Washington's birthday and Lincoln's birthday were destroyed as holidays and in their place arose the stupid, meaningless holiday we call Presidents Day.

Who are we celebrating? Zachary Taylor? Martin Van Buren? Richard Nixon? Jimmy freakin' Carter?

The answer is yes to all four. Presidents Day is a celebration of all presidents never minding that many are not deserving.

Do we celebrate William Henry Harrison who accomplished nothing in his thirty days in office?

What about James Buchanan who did nothing to avert the Civil War (maybe the war could not have been avoided but Buchanan didn't even try to stop it).

Should we honor white supremacist Woodrow Wilson? Yassar Arafat's buddy Jimmy Carter? Corrupt Richard Nixon?

I guess we're supposed to on Presidents Day.

Meanwhile, the two greatest Americans--George Washington and Abraham Lincoln--continue to fade from public memory.

Jimmy freakin' Carter. What the hell?

Why you must vote for John McCain in November.

For those conservatives threatening to sit out the election in November because John McCain will be the Republican Party's nominee for president, consider the following:

• Six of the nine Supreme Court justices will be over age sixty-eight when the next president takes office in January '09. There is a world of difference between the type of justices McCain would appoint versus justices Obama or Clinton would appoint. We really don't need any more wannabe legislators on the nation's highest court.
• A Democratic president, working with what will surely continue to be a Democratic congress, will raise taxes. Raising taxes is always a bad idea but with the economy slowing, tax increases will make things much worse. John McCain will not raise taxes. In twenty-five years in congress he has never voted for a tax increase.
• Obama or Clinton would likely mismanage the war against Islamofascism. Sadly, neither Democratic candidate will even admit we are in a war against worldwide radical Islam. Do you really expect a Democratic president to defend the nation properly when they cannot even admit we are at war? As for Iraq, despite the rhetoric of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, a complete pullout from Iraq is improbable. However, dramatic decreases in troop levels is almost a certainty under a Democratic administration. We simply cannot afford to look weak in the eyes of radical Islam which is what will happen if we decrease troop levels. Increased violence will almost certainly follow such a policy. McCain will, of course, do what is necessary and ultimately right for the United States with regards to the war and Iraq.

I plead with all conservatives (and moderates and independents and Democrats) to please take such things into account when voting this November. McCain isn't great on some issues but on the biggest issues of our time, he's strong. Stronger than Obama and Clinton to be sure.

Do you suffer from MDS?

There is an insidious disease that is sweeping the nation. It infects the brain quickly causing the mind to come to conclusions based on emotion, not reason. In some cases the reason center of the brain is paralyzed and the part of the brain that controls emotion becomes imbalanced as it attempts to compensate for the disease.

It's called MDS: McCain Derangement Syndrome. Symptons include unsubstantiated claims that Senator John McCain is not conservative or he (McCain) is a secret liberal or even that John McCain is no different than Hillary Clinton. The sufferers often express their desire to drive the moderates out of the Republican Party in the name of purity. It is even rumored that some sufferers of MDS are gathering sticks and tree limbs to build a fire. But the latter claim has not been substatiated--yet.

McCain Derangement Syndrome can strike anyone. But it has especially wrecked havoc upon conservative talk show hosts and political pundits.

The insidiousness of this disease is clear. It's not surprising that right-wing demagogues like Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, and Laura Ingraham would be some of the first victims. However, it also strikes seemingly otherwise logical, reasonable pundits like Hugh Hewitt and Rush Limbaugh and columnists Thomas Sowell and George Will who often go into detail about how Mccain is not a real conservative. The details they bring up are often things McCain did or said years ago and, much of the time, these quotes and alleged examples of un-conservative behaviour are taken out of context. What is even more puzzling is the narrow-minded selectivity demonstated by many DMS sufferers as they ignore statements made by the candidate they support (usually Mitt Romney) that are completely inconsistent with their vision of pure conservatism. Double-standards oddly don't bother MDS victims. MDS sufferers often invoke the name of Ronald Reagan as the standard of true conservatism even though Reagan himself would not pass these tests of conservative purity put forth by MDS victims!

What do we do about it? Perhaps read and listen to clear-thinking pundits like Michael Reagan and Michael Medved. Better yet, take demagogues like Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, et al. with a grain of salt.

Make that a large grain of salt.

Logo for Super Bowl XLIII revealed.

The logo for the NFL's forty-third Super Bowl was revealed today. Super Bowl XLIII will be held in Tampa, Florida February 1st 2009.

I like the logo. It's clean, simple, and I like the colors. The red star represents the AFC while the blue star represents the NFC. As you probably know, the winner of the AFC (American Football Conference) plays the winner of the NFC (National Football Conference) in the Super Bowl. As a pro-football historian, I can tell you that not all Super Bowl logos have been that pleasing to the eye.

The first Super Bowl wasn't even called the Super Bowl at the time. It was not-so-simply called the First World Championship Game NFL vs AFL (Green Bay defeated Kansas City 35-10). Not a bad design but it would have looked a lot better if the AFL and NFL script was colored in. You can barely see NFL and AFL in the logo. Still, it holds up fairly well though it will not win any awards for best Super Bowl logo:

Super Bowl II was a nice improvement. It's simple, timeless, and more colorful. You could use the same script style today and no one would think it was outdated. I like simple and bold and the logo for Super Bowl II is one of my favorites:

While the logo to Super Bowl III is big and bold and tells you right away that it represents something grand, it does look dated. It isn't a bad design by any means but it isn't one of the best:

The logo for Super Bowl IV is too simple; it's boring. Shadow script is fine but put some color in it! It's isn't bad as in a Attack of the Clones kind of bad, it's just so ordinary, in a Phantom Menace way, that it isn't memorable in at all:

You want dated? Take a look at the Super Bowl V logo. It's so dated, it's very bad:

I'm a sucker for that Old West saloon-style font (hey, I'm a 'Niners fan and that's the font they used to use). Any way, I like the logo for the sixth Super Bowl. Simple but effective:

Dated and the shadow in the shadow font look overly bulky. Thumbs down for Super Bowl VII's logo. It screams seventies:

The Super Bowl VIII logo is one of my favorites. It stands those time tests quite well:

Super Bowl or Silly Bowl? I can't decide! What the hell is wrong with that X? It looks terrible! One of the worst Super Bowl logos. Hell, maybe ol' number nine is the worst SB logo:

Plain? Check. Unicolor? Check. Better than the previous Super Bowl logo? Check! No, the logo for SB X isn't bad at all. A little plain but that's better than too cute:

Similar to the logo for Super Bowl VIII, it works because it's a solid design. Eleven is pretty:

Now that I've bored the six of you to tears with my analysis of, all things, Super Bowl logos, tell me what you think. Agree? Respond. Think I'm nuts? Leave a comment. Maybe you even like the logo to Super Bowl IX? Tell me why.

Eleven Super Bowls down, thirty-two to go.

Giant upset.

Congratulations to the New York Giants for pulling off one of the biggest upsets in NFL history in Super Bowl XLII.

Going into the game the New England Patriots had won three of the last six Super Bowls and if the Patriots had won yesterday, they would not only have won their fourth NFL title in seven seasons but they would have finished the season a perfect 19-0 and cemented their position as one of the great dynasties in pro-football history.

Unlike many football fans, I don't hate the Pats. However, when the 'Niners or the Raiders aren't playing in a Super Bowl, I tend to root for the underdog. And the Giants were fourteen point dogs. Not only did New York win but they gave us one of the best, closest Super Bowls ever. Considering the lopsided nature of most Super Bowls, this says quite a bit.

So congratulations to the New York Giants. Well played and well deserved!