OK, just two minor points for today.
1.) I must admit that I’m generally impressed with Barack Obama thus far. I don’t agree with 100% of his policies and actions to date, but it’s becoming clear that he is quite intelligent AND politically skilled. A smart guy who knows how to use it. I believe that he is inspired by the fearful responsibility that he was given, and will generally try to do what is best for the nation; I think he is becoming what you could call a “patriot”, and not just another scheming, posturing politician e.g. Pelosi and Specter.
I do wonder, though, about Obama’s relative youth. I wonder if he is overestimating the power of his position and of the system that he is there to direct. He is moving to take on all of the big problems at once; global warming, education, economic recovery, the financial system, the auto industry, health insurance, energy supply, terrorism, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, North Korea, Russia, etc. And he’s right that everything is inter-related; you really can’t separate out any of these situations. Still, I wonder what Harry Truman might say if he could be in the White House today. I suspect it might be something like this: “there’s a lot for us to do, and we can’t ignore any part of it, like the previous Administration was doing. But by the same token, we can’t solve it all at once; we’re gonna have to set some priorities as to how and when we tackle these situations”. Yea, a bit of Missouri plain talk might be refreshing right about now.
2.) I haven’t seen the new Star Trek movie yet, but it’s heartening for an old guy like me to know that young people today are getting interested in the Trek concept once more, just as the geeks within my generation did about 40 years ago. I myself was never a true Trekkie, didn’t even watch Trek on TV when it first came out. Over time I developed a taste for it, however, as well as the follow-ups (Star Trek TNG, Deep Space 9, Voyager, etc.). I wouldn’t want to go to a Trekkie convention myself, but I do sympathize with those folk who devote much of their lives to Trek, as there was a certain techno-idealism behind it all. It did capture something of the human spirit, in its own futuristic way.
Thus, I don’t have much sympathy for William Shatner, the original Captain Kirk, given the way that he later tried to turn his key role on the original Trek series into a joke (in response to all the geeky adulation from devoted hard-core Trekkies). Shatner is famous, perhaps notorious, for his put-down of Trekkies in a December, 1986 Saturday Night Live skit, appropriately titled “Get a Life”. Obviously, it involves Shatner telling fawning Star Trek fans to “get a life”, stop spending so much of their time following that show. There have been other Shatner incidents since then showing his disdain for the Trek movement and his regret for tying his career fame to it (although he has since softened his position and mended some fences with “Trekkie World”; mostly so that he could make some additional money and finally kill off Captain Kirk in the 1994 movie “S.T. Generations”).
One reason that I can’t sympathize with Shatner and his various Trekkie put-downs is that Shatner hasn’t had much of an acting life himself (outside of Star Trek). Let’s see now, some of his big appearances since the Trek days have included hosting the World Poker tour; hosting the $20,000 Pyramid game show; doing commercials for Priceline.com and Kelloggs All-Bran; and playing an attorney on Boston Legal. The Boston Legal gig sounds dignified at first; but in the show, Shatner manages to turn his role into a big goof. I recall one episode where Shatner’s character (Denny Crane) and another attorney went on a camping trip, and during the night they were startled by an animal outside their tent. So Shatner went out to see what was stalking them, and it turned out to be a sheep. Then Shatner started to stare at the sheep with sexual intent, as suggested by the sultry background music. Finally his friend grabs him before he could do anything untoward. Not exactly a high point in TV entertainment.
Get a life? I believe that Shatner needs to work on his own life, before telling his erstwhile Trekkie admirers how to live theirs. If Shatner wants the public to remember him as much for what he did after Trek, he should start working on something worth remembering.
3.) As to Nancy Pelosi — I wasn’t very impressed before, and I’m less impressed now. Oh, sorry, I said I’d stop at two. But Pelosi certainly has become a “minor point”, in the grand scheme of things.
Jim,
Re Obama: I think he did a great job handling the “Notre Dame” fuss. I just wish that the Bishops had as much sense as he has–let’s look at the big picture regarding this problem, let’s see how we might support mothers who have children, let’s see how we can reduce unwanted pregnancies, etc.
I must confess I began to wonder myself whether Obama’s idealism will prove to be sustainable and/or able to achieve the goals he is working toward. But I also must confess that I’d so much rather have a president who speaks as Obama does in his measured, tho’tful, sincere, open minded, carefully tho’t out words than the type of situation we had under GWB when one was not sure the prez actually understood the problem(s).
And then too, one doesn’t hear any of the bishops saying anything so sensible as Obama has said regarding abortion. In fact, one Bishop actually said “We are at WAR!!” Good grief! I find myself wondering who should be leading the Catholic Church. What a terrible inditement of the Bishops–when one is reduced to thinking such tho’ts.
As to Star Trek and particularly William Shatner. I enjoyed ST in its early days and then my interest waned greatly. The early writing of the series was truly well done; later writing fell off seriously.
As to Shatner and his “Boston Legal” stint: I became a fan of the program after it had been on a season or two. If one followed the program, one would note that the Denny Crane character was suffering from Alzheimer’s and that all his “shenanigans” were the result of his medical problem.
In fact, Boston Legal addressed some serious relationship problems between the two men–Crane and his partner (how soon we forget) whose name I cannot recall now.
MCS
Comment by MCS — May 18, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
Jim,
Re Obama: I think he did a great job handling the “Notre Dame” fuss. I just wish that the Bishops had as much sense as he has–let’s look at the big picture regarding this problem, let’s see how we might support mothers who have children, let’s see how we can reduce unwanted pregnancies, etc.
I must confess I began to wonder myself whether Obama’s idealism will prove to be sustainable and/or able to achieve the goals he is working toward. But I also must confess that I’d so much rather have a president who speaks as Obama does in his measured, tho’tful, sincere, open minded, carefully tho’t out words than the type of situation we had under GWB when one was not sure the prez actually understood the problem(s).
And then too, one doesn’t hear any of the bishops saying anything so sensible as Obama has said regarding abortion. In fact, one Bishop actually said “We are at WAR!!” Good grief! I find myself wondering who should be leading the Catholic Church. What a terrible inditement of the Bishops–when one is reduced to thinking such tho’ts.
As to Star Trek and particularly William Shatner. I enjoyed ST in its early days and then my interest waned greatly. The early writing of the series was truly well done; later writing fell off seriously.
As to Shatner and his “Boston Legal” stint: I became a fan of the program after it had been on a season or two. If one followed the program, one would note that the Denny Crane character was suffering from Alzheimer’s and that all his “shenanigans” were the result of his medical problem.
In fact, Boston Legal addressed some serious relationship problems between the two men–Crane and his partner (how soon we forget) whose name I cannot recall now.
MCS
Comment by MCS — May 18, 2009 @ 3:06 pm