Movie Review – Star Trek (2009)

Star Trek (2009) – J.J. Abrams / Orci, Kurtzman
Release: 8 May 2009 (USA)

I went to see this movie on Friday night with my friend, Rick, and my brother, Macon.  I had purchased our tickets for the 9:35 showing earlier in the week and we arrived at the theater about 8:45.  We took up our position in line with about a dozen folks in front of us.  Before they opened the doors to the theater to even let us enter, there was approximately 100 to 150 people waiting in line.  By the time the movie started, the theater was at about 90% capacity.  A good turn out for such a late showing!

My general overview of the movie is that it’s the best movie I’ve seen so far this year.  It takes you out of the theater and puts you out in the fantasy universe of Star Trek without any holding back.  But the look and feel of the movie is futuristic without being unbelievable or totally reliable on special effects.  The CGI is utterly undetectable, with only one or two scene exceptions.  The “reality” of the setting and pace of the action, is like watching Die Hard in space!

And Die Hard is a favorable comparison in my view.  The action is fast-paced, the setting is natural and believable, and the humor is without a doubt, the most dead-on, perfect as has ever been in the long-running Star Trek franchise.

For Trek fans, (myself at least), this movie sets 20 years of mediocre Star Trek films back on course!  (Yes, it’s been 20yrs since Star Trek V – The Final Frontier, was released in 1989)  But it comes wielding a hefty two-edged sword.  On one hand, J.J. Abrams has set a new standard for Star Trek and has left in his wake the opportunity for the franchise to take on new life and go on another 20yrs.  I have no doubt on this claim at all!  But on the other hand, die-hard Trekkers will not be able to look forward to seeing some of their favorite TOS episodes relived by the new crew.  In fact, much to the dismay of the loyal Trekker nation, what has long been accepted as historical Trek fact will simply no longer apply to this time line.  But the resulting storyline possibilities are infinite.

I can say without regret, that the future never looked brighter for Trek and I’m looking forward to going where no Trek has ever gone before.

Qapla’, Abrams!

View Trailer

9 May 2009 at 10:02 - Comments

Sovereignty of Texas (and other states)

Re: Sovereignty of texas

Quote:
Originally Posted by sportacus View Post
This is an embarrassment. Total rediculous sad embarrassment.

The governor of our state is questioning the overall constitutionality of what the Federal Government is doing. The fact that Texas was once it’s own independent republic and once succeeded from the union is not what’s important here.

This is NOT an embarrassment.

It’s the United States Constitution.

It is just as fundamental to the founding of this country as is the freedom of speech, and the right to bear arms. It is eight more amendments down the list from #1 & #2. It does not apply solely to Texas, it applies to all states — Delaware, Florida, Wyoming, Hawaii — The Federal Government CANNOT give itself more power than what is provided by the Constitution of the United States. IT CANNOT BE DONE WITHOUT AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION.

The only embarrassment here is that the media is calling Governor Perry an “idiot” and his comments “ludicrous” and “insane”.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The United States Constitution
Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
The Tenth Amendment is similar to an earlier provision of the Articles of Confederation: “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”[1] After the Constitution was ratified, some wanted to add a similar amendment limiting the federal government to powers “expressly” delegated, which would have denied implied powers.[2] However, the word “expressly” ultimately did not appear in the Tenth Amendment as ratified, and therefore the Tenth Amendment did not amend the Necessary and Proper Clause.

The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers granted in the Constitution is generally recognized to be a truism. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court noted that the amendment “added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified.”

From time to time states and local governments have attempted to assert exemption from various federal regulations, especially in the areas of labor and environmental controls, using the Tenth Amendment as a basis for their claim. An often-repeated quote, from United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941), reads as follows:

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
The federal system limits the ability of the federal government to use state governments as an instrument of the national government. Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). However, where Congress has the power to implement programs, or to regulate, there are sound reasons for the national government to encourage States to become the instruments of national policy, rather than to implement the program directly. One advantage is that state implementation of national programs places implementation in the hands of local officials who are closer to local circumstances. Another advantage is that implementation of federal programs at the state level tends to limit the growth of the national bureaucracy.

For this reason, Congress often seeks to exercise its powers by offering or encouraging the States to implement national programs consistent with national minimum standards; a system known as cooperative federalism. One example of the exercise of this device was to condition allocation of federal funding where certain state laws do not conform to federal guidelines. For example, federal educational funds may not be accepted without implementation of special education programs in compliance with IDEA. Similarly, the nationwide state 55 mph (90 km/h) speed limit, .08 legal blood alcohol limit, and the nationwide state 21-year drinking age were imposed through this method; the states would lose highway funding if they refused to pass such laws. See e.g. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).

17 April 2009 at 12:13 - Comments

New Taxation Plans for Infrastructure

New Taxation Plans for Infrastructure

I was recently riding along in my automobile, with no particular place to go, mind you, and I was thinking about the gasoline price spike of last year. I know, it’s the kind of thing that no one wants to talk about but it’s still out there lurking in the shadows…like Michael Jackson. Anyway, I was thinking about gas prices, and something that I said back when $4.00/gal was on the horizon. I said “when are people going to realize that we are talking about the American way of life. Messing with the automobile is like messing with freedom of speech — Americans want to be able to come and go as they please, take the short cut or long road, get there fast or sight-see along the way. This is not just a cost of living issue, this is eating into people’s ability to enjoy the fruits of their labor…to go on vacation, to see and visit loved ones, to spend the weekend at the lake, even to be able to go into town and buy groceries. This is stabbing at the heart of America.”

You might not have heard me say that, or even read it in a posting online. But I said it to myself many times over and over again.

So I was letting those thoughts simmer with some new ingredients in this mind soup that I carry around in my head. I had heard on one of my many news outlets that there is a group of researchers in the western nether reaches of our great country that are toying with the idea of raising “new” funds for highway infrastructure by taxing a newly discovered source of untapped taxpayer financial resources.

It would seem that said researchers have not only spawned this concept and idea on their own, but had actually created the hardware devices and support systems AND successfully tested them for the monitoring, cataloging, documenting and reporting of the data in question. And according to the news source, the researchers were now pitching the idea to the appropriate lawmakers in order to further their research and possibly bring this new revenue stream online in the very near future. Obviously this sounds good on the surface because it would increase the amount of tax dollars brought into the budget of whatever state were to implement such a plan, but truly at its core it is just another tax plan to burden the meager taxpayer.

Hopefully, I have you asking yourself “What do they want to tax now?”

Well, some of you might have heard of this one already, but of course my being only almost 40, I’ve never even dreamed of such a notion…but this new plan would not be a new additional gasoline tax, it would not be a privatized toll road, it would not be a yearly inspection permit, or license, tag or registration renewal. No, it would not be one of those common things that we are already adapted to. This is something a little more direct and to the point.

They want to tax the number of miles that you drive in your car.

A Mileage Tax.

A luxury tax for those who can afford to live in the suburbs and are willing to commute into the city to earn a living. A luxury tax for those who can afford to own their own vehicle and not be limited to public transportation. A luxury tax that not only penalizes you for having that Lexus, but also penalizes you for having the wherewithal to take it out of your drive way.

Well, I’m a simple kind of guy and my first thought was that this was the most ridiculous thing I had ever heard of. But then I realized that it really is no different than a gasoline tax. Except that a gasoline tax places a heavier burden on people who want to drive less fuel efficient vehicles. Simple concept, drive more efficient vehicle, use less fuel, pay less tax. But a mileage tax hits you based on where you live, and where you work, and where your friends and relatives live….in addition to whatever kind if vehicle you drive. (note: let’s face it, a motorcycle running down the highway obviously causes less wear and tear on the road surface than a huge old pick-up truck, so how can you justify a motorcycle and a dually 4×4 truck paying the same mileage tax? I think not. So there would eventually be “tax brackets” based on type of vehicle you drive. It’s inevitable.)

So, back to my thought process here…
I suddenly switched from being mildly amused to being extremely ****ed off that someone would even consider such a thing. I live in America, and if I want to hop in my car this weekend and drive to Yellowstone or Wyoming, or heaven forbid, even California, are you telling me that my taxes are going to go up because I want to explore this great country of ours and travel to see all the great wonders that we as Americans have all around this great, beautiful back yard we have? Are you going to exempt an RV from this tax plan? What if I drive my RV back and forth to work? If I visit your state do I have to pay a rolling mileage tax while I’m there? Can I get to my destination without driving through your state? What if I move to your state but I never register my vehicle in your state? What if I’m in the military and I’m only stationed here? And what if I just refuse to buy another new car and get all my cars from Mexico where they don’t install your little mileage tracking black box, eh? Huh? Brainiac? Got milk?

Dumbasses.

OK…so obviously I’m opposed to a mileage tax. But I’m not an idiot. I understand why states need more revenue for roads and bridges and rest areas, and parks, and damn I sound like an Obama infomercial…but still I see a need. So what would be MY solution be for raising new funds for the infrastructure-minded politico?

If you’re not bored to tears yet, then keep reading…

I had this idea.
I am 100% above and beyond being supportive of a voluntary tax. I think that all taxes should be voluntary taxes and government programs should have to earn their funding the same way charitable organizations do — by begging for it. And the most well-known voluntary tax I can even think of is a state lottery. I know, I know, I know…gambling is the devil and if you ever play the lottery you’re going to hell with an empty wallet…whatever, sit down and shut up.

Let’s pretend for example, that we live in a state that sanctions a state-ran lottery. Oh I don’t know, let’s just say it’s Texas.

Let’s pretend that they have a scratch-off game called “18 Wheeler High Roller!” Sounds like a fun game. The scratch-off ticket is painted up like an all-day marathon of “Trick My Truck” on CMT. As you scratch off the sparkling gold glitter ink from the side of the tricked-out semi-truck trailer on the card, you reveal three blazing metal female silhouettes reclining back with their hands in their metallic hair and three matching dollar amounts that scream $25,000!!! You’re a winner!

Cost of the ticket — $5.00
All proceeds benefiting the Texas Department of Public Safety, Texas Department of Transportation, Texas Parks and Wildlife, and Texas Motor Transportation Association

OK, you see where I’m going here, but let’s say there’s another scratch off game called “Rally Across Texas!” On the card there’s a burly biker dude sitting on a Harley Davidson with a babe in leather chaps and a bandanna bikini-top leaning in to kiss his cheek while he grins ear-to-ear brandishing a double-thumbs-up hand gesture. You anxiously scratch off the dragons and roses tattoo ink to reveal four Harley Davidson symbols and the word “WINNER!!!” And you run screaming like a little girl through the Alsups store yelling that you just won a brand new 2009 Harley Davidson Electra Glide with custom everything!!

Cost of the ticket — $5.00
All proceeds benefiting the Texas Department of Public Safety, Texas Department of Transportation, Texas Parks and Wildlife, and Texas Motorcycle Roadriders Association

OK, if I haven’t got you excited about this yet, then maybe you would rather see a scratch off game just for hunters that’s all camo’ed up with hunter safety orange vests and a 12-point buck inviting you to “Take Your Best Shot and Win a Buck!” Grand prize? All expense-paid guided hunting trip to anywhere in the USA worth over $25,000. Lottery proceeds going to TxDPS, TxDOT, TP&W, and Texas Trophy Hunters Association.

Or how about one for bass fishermen and one for blue water anglers?
How about one featuring luxury elite vehicles that even last year’s lottery winner would drop a $5 bill on?

The state could even partner with the major automakers and Texas auto dealers and offer a dream series where the winner would win the “Car of Your Dreams!” and could take the winning lottery ticket in to any Texas auto dealer and drive off with any vehicle on the lot without paying a nickel!

All of the proceeds from these games would be directed to the three major Texas government agencies most directly responsible for Texas roads, highways, and parks….but in addition to that, each unique game would also benefit a private organization (or group of organizations who would benefit equally) that would be closely associated with the theme of the game. So the person who played the game not only “voluntarily” paid a tax to the state, but also made a direct contribution to the private sector who helps the regular Joe Q. Public enjoy the benefits and features that the willing taxpayer wants to help support.

You know what, I would love it if Texas were the first state in the union to develop a program along these lines that actually worked. I get so sick and tired of hearing how the yayhoos “out west” think they can solve the nation’s problems by requiring everyone in the country to bow down to their level of stupidity. Last time I checked, their state budgets were broke and they were in line right up there in Washington beside the car guys asking for bail-outs.

I heard on the radio today that TxDOT officials were already divvying up the Obama stimulus funds for Texas highway projects around the D/FW Metroplex. If Texas politicians had any brains at all they would sit on our share of the Obama stimulus for the next 3 or 4 years and then we could loan it out to our sister states when their plans blow up in their faces!

Maybe we could use the Obama stimulus money to buy up some of our sister states’ debt instead of it getting offshore’d to Asia along with our federal debt consolidation loans. I mean, really…if you’re going to sell off America to a foreign government, wouldn’t it better for all of us if it was Texas?

After all, we’re like a whole other country, right?

26 February 2009 at 22:51 - Comments