Judging Truth

As we approach the celebration of our hard fought independence just a few weeks away, I have been pondering how far we have come in the past 233 years. We successfully threw off the tyranny of England and forged a new form of government never before seen on the face of the Earth and forever changed the future of this planet.

For years our young country still struggled with many of our own difficulties. Small wars for territories, westward expansion and a bloody civil war to preserve this fledgling nation and end the stain of slavery all plagued us within the first century. Growing out of these struggles emerged a strong industrial nation. We emerged a nation not only capable of defending ourselves, but we were a nation capable, if not always willing, to stop global threats and liberate millions of people from oppression. Twice this past century we stood against massive global threats and by our sweat, blood and tears entire nations were freed. We survived great depressions and financial recessions always emerging a stronger, more capable nation. This nation has pioneered the fields of medicine, manufacturing, science, engineering and so many others. Our might has brought forth terrible weapons of war, but our compassion has tempered their use only to protect and liberate. Our feet first touched the soil of another planet and our ingenuity gave birth to much of the modern digital world. Our arts, music, television and music lead the modern world in creativity, beauty and skill. Our farms feed the hungry nations of this world, while our medicines heal the sick an injured.

In less than a quarter of a century, this young county of ours has grown to be the greatest nation in the world, comprised of the most generous of people and representing the strongest force for good this world has ever known.

I fear for this nation as our Independence Day approaches. We have abandoned the principles that shaped this nation into what it has been over the past quarter of a century. Today we move farther from the dreams of our founders and we betray their ideals with massive government expansion, government ownership of and interference in private industry and the usurpation of the rights of the States and the citizens by an overly powerful central government. We no longer stand for liberty and freedom. We are no longer willing to protect and liberate the innocent. We no longer have the will to stand against global threats for our own protection nor that of others. We have become a weak shadow of our former selves and we allow our fear of what others think of us to paralyze us into inaction.

Today, citizens of Iran die in the streets while they call for freedom and liberty much as we did just over two centuries ago. We sadly turn our eyes away from the horror, too cowardly to even condemn the actions or voice outrage against this oppressive regime. After years of telling these people to throw off their oppression and rise against this totalitarian government, we turn our back on them when they finally do. We, who possess strongest, most advanced military in the world, cower in the face of public opinion and let innocents suffer at the hand of a brutal government, just as we did in Somalia and Darfur.

Is it because we are so focused on the possible nuclear threat posed by the rogue nation in Asia who threatens to launch a weapon towards one of our states this very Independence Day? No, unfortunately not. Once again, when we face an open, hostile threat toward the peace and security of this nation and her allies from a unhinged, uncontrollable rogue state that potentially has the capability of delivering nuclear weapons to the continental United States, we cower and do nothing. We stand by and wait for them to act, at which time it may be too late. Just as before with the horrible attacks of Pearl Harbor and the World Trade Center, we want to avoid conflict at all cost while our enemies plot our destruction. If we have learned nothing else from our past, the one thing we should have learned is that appeasement of our enemies is the fastest way to cost more American lives than was necessary. It failed with Germany. It failed with Japan. It failed when Israel had tried it with the Palestinians. It has failed when we have tried it with the terrorist threats we face today. Appeasement is weakness.

I fear for the future of this nation, her citizens and all those worldwide who depend America’s benevolence, compassion and strength. What exists before your eyes today is a shadow of its former self, an echo of its strength and a pale reminder of its purpose and will. I will celebrate this Independence Day with some sadness in my heart as I realize, this could well be one of the last ones we celebrate, lest we offend some other minor groups of people who hate us no matter what we do.

Is no one getting tired of this crap yet?

Seriously, this man stands before this nation and lies through his teeth knowing full well that he cannot prove a single thing he says. At least when Clinton lied to the nation, he did so skillfully and made it so that you were never sure when he was shooting you straight or filling you full of bull shit. He was an artist when it came to dishonesty and misdirection. Obama simply does not care if what he says is true or not, much less who believes him.

Just days ago we were treated to a speech about how Americas was one of the largest Muslim nations in the world. Uhm, not true. If you take the latest CIA estimates of about 1.8 million Muslims in the country that would place us somewhere around 58th out of 60 ranked nations. I wonder how the 76.5% of Americans that identify themselves as Christian like to constantly hear that we are not a Christian nation. How do they feel when the President of this country tells us that the Muslim population in this country that is less than 1% of the whole makes us one of the biggest Muslim nations on the planet? How about the fact that we are the largest Christian nation on the planet? Or do we Christian simply not count anymore?

I have already covered the other lies in that speech in a previous article, so I will not dwell over the idiocy of expecting people to believe that Islam gave us modern printing, the compass, algebra or our base understanding of the spread of diseases and how to cure them. What I want to focus on today it the sheer arrogance that it takes to stand before the American people and promise to cut our non-defense based deficit in half on one hand, while you other hand spends this country into massive debt. Does he think we are that naive? Does he really believe that we are that stupid? Or does he even care?

Where is the recovery? Where is the stimulus? Where are the jobs that were supposed to be created by the trillions of dollars of our money that Congress has plundered from the already overdrawn coffers? Oh, I see. Those jobs have not been created, but they have been saved! All rejoice and hail the mighty one for he has saved however many jobs he claims he has.

How do you count a job as saved? This is pure conjecture. The economy either creates jobs or loses them. Since Obama has taken office millions of Americans have lost their jobs. Our unemployment rate has soared to 9.4% and is only beginning to show hopeful signs of slowing. I will consider jobs having been saved when the number of jobless claims stops increasing and the unemployment rate begins to decline. Only then will we be saving jobs by *gasp* actually creating them.

I can barely listen to this man speak anymore for knowledge that if his lips move, we should beware. While other nations raise their heads to test our will and resolve, he tours around countries that have teetered on the edge of hostility against this nation for decades apologizing for OUR behavior. He panders to regimes whose citizens cheered as the towers fell and thousands of innocent Americans perished. He wants to talk with nations who openly show their hatred of this nation and threaten everything that we stand for. He cowers at the feet of our enemies and hides in fear from his responsibilities to uphold the constitution of this nation.

I am through with this. I have never before even come close to thinking this before. I have often argued against this notion with good friends in the past, but it may be time for Texas to find its own path. I am sure that there are many other fine states that may like to join us. Maybe not, but for the first time in my life, I would actually consider it.

Once again we see the intolerance, violence and hatred of the left. There have been many leftists that I have disagreed with, vehemently at times. However, I can recall not one single incident where I actually wish physical harm to come to one, especially not publicly or to such a vicious level at to completely demean the subject.

Here is your tolerant left. Here are your champions of women’s rights. No. The sarcasm fails me. They are nothing of the sort.

Today, Playboy Magazine published a list a list called So Right, It’s Wrong. This is a list of the top ten conservative women that they would like to hate f*ck. You heard me right. I did not coin that term, it was used many, many times in the vile article posted on the Playboy website. That is until the cowards pulled the article due to the outrage it caused. If you want to view some of the postings, I found a website that captured screen shots of the insulting article before the spineless scum at Playboy pulled it. You can view the comments on these professional women and the abhorrent languages used to describe how they would like to have violent sex with them, on RedState (Caution: Content Possibly NSFW).

What I find so infuriating about situations such as this is that when it is a leftist showing their complete intolerance of, hatred of and violence towards others it is somehow acceptable. There has been no mainstream media condemnation of this vile assault against these women. None on the left have come forward to condemn the actions of these petulant children for their assault on these women. Just as when that complete waste of skin Perez Hilton assaulted Carrie Prejean because she gave an honest opinion that he did not share, the left can call these women horrible names and suggest vile actions against them and it seems acceptable.

However, we are not to criticize a judicial nominee based on her racist comments or horrible record from the bench, when the Democrats schemed to prevent Miguel Estrada from being nominated to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals based solely on the fact that he was Hispanic, ignoring that he was one of the most well respected trail lawyers and was supremely qualified.

We are told to be nice and not criticize President Obama’s dishonest, appeasing, apologetic speech where he panders to those who would just as well see us dead, when the left spent the last several years calling multiple members of the Bush administration everything from murders to Hitler himself.

We are said to be the sexist, racists, intolerant, ignorant rednecks, clinging to our guns and religion, but when you look for intolerance and hate, you only need to look to the left to find abundant examples. I will not stand for this hypocritical double standard bullshit any longer. Every single one of the people responsible for this article should be immediately terminated from Playboy. That means authors, producers, editors, researchers, etc. Everyone needs to be gone for this abomination against these women. I mean if Don Imus gets canned for a nappy headed ho comment, then these guys have to hit the pavement and hit it now.

No longer will I stand for the racist, sexist, hateful, bigot claims of the left. I dare anyone to bring that argument to me. I will bury anyone who does in multiple examples of bigotry and hypocrisy from the left. I am done with this hateful bullshit. I will stand for it no longer.

I did not get to hear the speech that President Obama gave this morning, but I have just finished reading its transcript. I have to admit that this man can surely stir emotions within me when he delivers a speech. Unfortunately these emotions are frustration, embarrassment, shame and fear. I want to examine a few points of his speech that really caught my eye and cause me grave concern.

“The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights.”

Uhm, no. The Qur’an has done that. The religion itself has done that. The very words of Mohamed himself have done that. Islam is hostile to America and anyone who does not believe as they do. It is NOT the religion of peace and it is absolutely intolerant of any other religions or non-believers. I can quote passage after passage, and have done so before, that show Islam to be the violent religion that it is, completely opposed to the basic human rights that we cherish.

“I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

Again, Islam is intolerant and does not respect any who do not believe. There is no mutual interest that can be seen between a Muslim and an infidel. The principles of justice that Islam prescribes are violent and absolute ones, showing no mercy or compassion whatsoever. They practice honor killings without trials or remorse, even unto their own flesh and blood. They beat women for being independent, outspoken and free willed. They suffer no deviance from this strict religious and accept no argument towards moderation. The question of same sex marriage is an easy one to answer under an Islamic style system of justice: simply kill the homosexuals and there is no issue.

“There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground.”

They will not listen to us. They wish to learn nothing from us. They will never respect infidels. There is absolutely no common ground.

“It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”

Let’s see here… Algebra was developed by the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians well before Islam ever existed so, no. The magnetic compass is believed to have been developed in China during the Qin Dynasty of 221-206BC, so again, no. Other tools of navigation, possibly but that is too vague a statement to discern. Our mastery of pens and printing? Well since Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press in 1440 in Germany, the Chinese perfected movable clay type in 1041 and the Buddhist introduced the earliest form of block printing in 880AD, I am calling this one false as well. The statement that they have given us our understanding of how disease spreads and is cured is just beyond ignorant. This understanding has come from many cultures, both ancient and modern. Islamic culture has also given us: terrorist hijackings, suicide bombers, honor killings, wife beatings, barbaric executions, jihads against innocent civilians and oppression of women’s rights for centuries. Throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds it absolute intolerance of other religions and racial hatred.

“As the Holy Koran tells us, ‘Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.’”

Well, that is true and in that case I fear that President Obama is completely screwed. This entire speech was full of lies, half-truths and utter bullshit. Maybe tomorrow I will go into the absurdity of his support for Iran’s nuclear program that he briefly highlights in this openly apologetic and appeasement full speech.

In a surprising decision this morning, the California Supreme Court ruled that the Proposition 8 definition that marriage is between a man and a woman and the subsequent ban on same sex marriage would stand. In a break with its traditional way of doing business, the Supreme Court in California upheld the will of its people and denied the attempt to circumvent the will of the people and the constitutionally legal process under which the proposition was made into law. It did allow that existing same sex marriages could stand, but no more would be allowed or recognized in the state according to the law.

Well, this is a disturbing pick for a Supreme Court Justice. President Barack Obama announced today that he is nominating Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter. Sotomayor has served in the Southern District court of New York since 1991 until she was elevated to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in 1998 by then President Clinton. In most instances, this level of experience would certainly qualify someone for a nomination to the Supreme Court, but it is her very decisions and opinions expressed during this service that make here unqualified in my opinion.

Allow me to preface this by stating that I believe a nomination by the President to any position should receive an up or down vote by the Senate for confirmation based upon the candidate’s qualification to hold the position and not based upon the political agenda of the candidate or the Senate. Nominees for the Supreme Court should not be asked how they would vote on this issue or that in an attempt to flesh out their political tendencies, because those tendencies should not come into play when they are judging the law. It is insane to ask a Justice nominee of any level to pre-judge an issue without the benefit of hearing all the sided before making that decision. Any nominee, who would willingly give such an answer, obviously admitting prejudice or preconceived convictions on an issue, should be immediately disqualified. However, past decisions and behaviors are well within the scope of the approval process.

Her name was immediately familiar to me when she was announced, but with a modest effort of research, I find myself with serious questions about this candidate’s qualifications to sit on the highest court in the nation. One such glaring case that calls to question the impartiality of Sotomayor is currently awaiting review by the very court to which she has been nominated.

In 2003, New Haven, Connecticut issued a civil service examination to its firefighters to fill eight vacant lieutenant and seven vacant captain positions within in the department. The test material was known to all those tested and was administered to 77 employees who desired a chance to fill the fifteen vacant positions. When the test was completed and scored, it returned almost all white candidates to fill the promotion positions. None of the nineteen black firefighters who took the test made the cut. The City of New Haven made the decision not to certify the results of the test and not to give the promotions that were promised because they felt the test was somehow racially biased toward the white candidates. How this could have been possible is not clear since the testing material was available to all candidates who took the test. The white firefighters sued the city for racial discrimination, claiming that their successful scores had been disregarded based solely on the color of their skin.

To me this is a clear cut case. Even with the New Haven claiming that the test itself was racially biased, it matters not. How can a test asking questions about firefighting, an activity that is performed by men and women of all races, be racially biased towards ‘white’ firefighters? Is it the fault of the successful, high scoring candidates that the city presented a bad test? Should they be punished for the quality of a test that they were asked to take? The test was announced to all, the materials made available to all and it was presented that the top scoring candidates would receive promotion based on their scores. When the scores did not reflect what the city determined was ‘racially appropriate’ they changed the rules. In my opinion this is a clear cut case of discrimination based upon racial factors only. The firefighters who scored the highest on the test for promotion were denied those promotion because the color of their skin. The city was wrong.

This case came before Judge Sotomayor and she denied the appeal, siding with the lower court decision against the firefighters. However, this is not the real issue with her involvement in this case. The 2nd Circuit Court’s decision was unusually quick and their opinion added basically nothing to support their decision or uphold the decision of the lower court. Fellow 2nd Circuit Court Judge Jose Cabranes went so far as to claim that, “Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case. … This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.”

This drew the attention of the Supreme Court who heard the issue in April with most analysts agreeing that the City of New Haven did not fare well. If this is overturned, it will be the fifth such decision of Sotomayor’s that the Supreme Court has reversed often citing improper application or misinterpretation of the law.

If this were the only example of such judicial irresponsibility, it would not cause as much alarm, but it seems that Judge Sotomayor is incapable of separating her personal racially tinted opinions from affecting her decisions. Allow her own words to illustrate my opinion, from her 2001 UC Berkeley speech: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Uhm, what? Well that is a purely racist statement in itself. If I said that I would hope that a well educated white man would make better decisions than (insert any other race / sex combination here), I would be chastised as the ultimate sheet wearing racist on the spot. There were plenty more examples that re-enforced my belief that this woman is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.

A Justice is supposed to apply the law impartially, fairly and without preconceived opinions about the issues before it. A Supreme Court Justice is ultimately responsible to the Constitution of the United States and is supposed to uphold it regardless of their personal beliefs, political tendencies or opinions. They are NOT meant to reinterpret the law, massage the law or change the law. They are meant to uphold it. It appears that Sonia Sotomayor is simply incapable of doing this.

I will be attending a Republican PAC meeting next week where the topic will be to define what a Republican is. I have given this topic much thought and feel that it will be a difficult task to perform unless you diverge from what a Republican is and move to defining what a Republican should be. While I have always identified myself not by political party, but by my ideological convictions, I am a long standing member of the Republican Party and tend to vote that way almost exclusively. The reason for why I do this should be evident in the disaster that can be clearly witnessed today from a Democrat controlled Congress and administration.

What a Republican is today and what it should be, what it was intended to be, are far different things. The Republican Party has deviated from what made it successful and has lost the will to fight. It has become paralyzed with ideas of political correctness, bi-partisanship and moderation. I am not sure I can clearly define what a Republican is today, but I can define what it should and should not be.

Sometimes today when you hear the word conservative spoken it is done so with distain. Many view this ideology as antiquated and out of date. They often use terms such as progressive to describe ideologies that oppose conservative values in an attempt to give them a more enlightened sound. However, if you follow these ideologies through to their conclusion you will see that they are the most regressive, leading people back toward servitude and tyranny. To fully appreciate this you must understand what it is that the conservative is trying to conserver, or rather preserve.

Conservatives value the principals laid out by the founding fathers of this nation. In the creation of the American society we witness some of the most enlightened, revolutionary and forward thinking concepts never before seen on this Earth. The concepts of individual personal liberty, maintained through an organized federalist society with minimal centralized control from a truly representative republic government. The founders saw this form of government as the only means to ensure the freedoms of the people not to be controlled by a select few. They knew that only through the individual power of the States’ ability to govern themselves, could the ensure that they would never be threatened by a distant, detached central government as they had suffered under the British Crown. The believed that certain rights were inherent to humanity’s existence and that those rights could not be denied by any government. They constructed separate but equal branches of government and divided the power among them to ensure that no one branch could invalidate the other. They founded a system of laws based on the natural law of God and rooted in Judeo-Christian principles. They believed that each citizen was accountable for their own actions, should be fairly treated under the law and bore certain responsibilities in exchange for the wonderful gifts of that citizenship. Finally, they believed that these rights and privileges were born from the basic unalienable rights that were bestowed upon us by our Creator.

This is what conservatives which to preserve. This is the most ‘progressive’ and successful form of government that has ever been tried on this planet. However, it is a far cry from what we actually have today and it is still a far cry from what most Republicans are calling for. We get glimpses of hope in people such as Governor Sarah Palin or Governor Rick Perry, but they are not yet the leaders of this Party and they hold nowhere near the sway that is needed to steer the party away from the liberal tendencies that it has adopted from its political opponents.

What Republicans should not be can easily be seen in examples of recent Republican leaders. Under the Bush administration the Federal government grew by leaps and bounds, our immigration laws were ignored and excuses were made for those who violated them, our Congress spent like they were their Democrat counter parts and the Federal government interfered with the private sector more under his watch than under the previous Democrat President. This is NOT what the Republican party is meant to be.

The last true Republican leadership was Newt Gengritch as the Speaker of the House and Ronald Reagan as President, but we are constantly told to forget those days. The era of Reagan is supposed to be gone. Really? I seem to recall that in the eighties California was a paradise. Business and people alike would flock to its low tax rates and thriving economy. Now it is a wretched cesspool of waste and ignorance. Witness the liberal legacy that is now California; a state with a $21 billion deficit who is threatening to open prisons, close schools and lay off police and firefighters, before it eliminates wasteful government spending. While the government of California soaks its citizens with high taxes to pay for illegal immigrants, outrageous environmental programs and a government bureaucracy that surpassed only by the Fed, its citizens a fleeing, leaving the state for less oppressive lands. This is a state that once was the envy of others that now disserves only their pity and it is lead by a Republican governor. No this is NOT what Republicans were meant to be.

When I go to this meeting next week, I am afraid I will not be able to define what a Republican is because I am convinced that they do not know themselves anymore. This party is like a defiant child, throwing a fit when it gets in trouble for not following the rules. How can it expect to gather people to its flocks when it ignores the principles that it is meant to uphold? You know the rules. If you break them, do not throw a petulant fit when you get your hand slapped in elections. Follow the rules.

I find it simply amazing how Nancy Pelosi knew about water boarding, knew nothing about water boarding, knew about it but thought they wouldn’t use it, knew about it once they had used it and was simply lied to by the CIA all along. Now it is apparently her belief that the CIA lied to her the entire time and continuously lies to Congress on a regular basis. Isn’t that nice? Slam the CIA just to cover your own incompetent ass.

In the absolute height of arrogance, this woman is demanding investigations and possible criminal charges for those who acted in good faith on information that they thought was lawful and appropriate. She wants to retroactively target CIA operatives, advisors and administration officials for actions taken that were lawful at the time they were carried out, regardless of their legal status now.

Now we see the treachery and deception present on the left. This woman knew full well about all of these procedures and interrogation techniques and signed off on them. She knew before anyone was ever water boarded that it was a technique that had been approved by the CIA and would be employed in the most severe cases. She knew after it happened and never raised any alarm until it was politically profitable for her to do so. This is not about torture. This is not about interrogations. This is about political capital and maneuvering. This is about revenge against the Bush administration and retribution against political opponents. This is petty, corrupt, unethical, deceitful and dishonest. Where is the outrage from the left? Where are the objections to her knowing this was occurring but staying silent until it politically benefited her not to?

She needs to go. Not because she supported the water boarding of vicious, murderous bastards bent on the destruction of as many innocent Americans as possible. Hell, she should be commended for that. No, she needs to go for lying through her teeth and attempting to have dedicated professionals who simply did their jobs brought up on charges for doing the very things she knew there were going to do to keep this country safe.

Seriously, let us remember who we are dealing with here.

I do not often do entertainment write ups on my site, but this is a paramount event that I cannot let pass. This past weekend I got the chance to see J.J. Abrams re-envisioned take on one of the most popular movie and television franchises in entertainment history. I had severe reservations about beginning the Star Trek saga completely anew with a complete recast of the original beloved crew. How could you match the interactions between Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley? This was like recasting your childhood friends and family with entirely new people. I was not sure how I would take this.

In short, I frakking loved it.

How could you be sure to capture the cavalier style and bravado vibe that William Shatner had given the earlier James Tiberius Kirk? Apparently, by picking Chris Pine to play him and letting this young rising star put his own spin on the character. There were moments you could see the older Kirk come out in this fresh new version of himself. They were small but critically important things: interactions with Bones, looks that he shot, the way he carried himself and at the end just the way he sat in that chair. You could tell he was Kirk, but he was not some cheap copy or imitation of Shatner’s Kirk. He was a new re-invented Kirk, played brilliantly by Pine. I think he did the role justice and cannot wait to see how he re-develops one of the most well know characters in movie history.

From his announcement for the role, I could not have imagined a better choice for Spock than Zachary Quinto. Just on looks alone, he was a striking choice and there was no question of his abilities as an actor from his role as Syler in the popular television series Heroes. However, the role of Spock is not an easy one to play. Most actors rely on emotions to convey a message. When you are playing a character whose sole goal is the restrictions of these emotions in favor of pure logic, that is simply not an option. Quinto nailed the stoic façade of Spock and blended the confusing emotional conflicts well. Once again, there were moments that Nimoy’s character could be seen, but just as with Pine’s representation of Kirk, there was a genuine newness to this Spock. It was not a repackaging of the previous version, but a new invention of the character that paid appropriate homage to its origins.

The other characters in the film were just as well cast. I think I will really like John Cho as the new HIkaru Sulu and will get used to the extremely thick accent of Anton Yelchin as Pavel Chekov. I still wonder if that was completely real or if it was an embellishment by the actor. I can see some real comedic moments rise from that either way. It seemed to me that Simon Pegg’s Scotty did not have nearly enough time in the movie to get a good feel for him, but from what we did see he will be a slight departure from our original engineer, yet still remain the ‘miracle worker’ that we have come to expect. Then there was Zoe Saldana as Nyota Uhura. When I managed to actually draw my attention from here absolute striking beauty to the character she was playing, you could see a strong, intelligent and determined Uhura emerge as a nice compliment to the ground breaking role that Nichelle Nichols began in the original series. I think the old Uhura would be supremely pleased with this version of herself.

The final character that I have not yet addressed was the most impressive from my point of view. As a huge Lord of the Rings fan, the casting of Eomer, one of the horse lords of Rohan, as Bones was something I was very apprehensive about. However, from the moment that Karl Urban entered the screen as Dr. Leonard McCoy, he captured the essence of the character perfectly. As the character developed he added his own flare to it. This was my favorite character of the re-invented series.

Now that the hails for the characters are out of the way, there were a few problems I had with the movie. For starters and with my best attempt not to spoil the story for anyone else, there are several things that I did not like about the storyline. In one fell swoop, the plot changes over 130 years of Star Trek history, leaving the events that we have come to know and love either non-existent or highly implausible. The plot used a theme that is terribly familiar in the Star Trek universe. One that can cause major problems if left uncorrected. Historically, when such a thing has occurred, the event has been corrected and all harmony restored to the universe. This film broke from that tradition by leaving huge holes in future (or past) plot lines. It failed to reconstruct or prevent events that would severely have changed the outcome of the other ten Star Trek movies and four of the existing television series. For a genre so steeped in tradition, history and lore this can be a major problem.

J.J. Abrams delivered a beautifully done movie with amazing special effects, wonderful casting, great acting and an engaging storyline, but at what cost to the franchise that he based it on? One thing that should be understood by Hollywood by now is that while you need to take risk and challenge your audience, there are certain lines that you do not cross. Messing with the history of an almost half century old phenomenon such as Star Trek is one of them. A re-imagined storyline to a beloved franchise can work well if properly done, as can be seen in the phenomenal example of Battlestar Galactica, but there is only so much that a fan base can take. I will reserve complete judgment until see what they do with the next installment. After all, one movie ended with a beloved major character dead in the past, until they realized that fans simply would not accept the death of Spock. They managed to fix that, so let’s see what they can do.

With the decline of my Dallas Stars in the final weeks of the NHL regular season to finish just shy of a Western Conference playoff berth, my attention turned toward my other favorite blade runners out of Motor City. I was thrilled to see the Detroit Red Wings plow through Columbus to sweep the first round in a short, mostly dominant four games. It was exciting to watch the stellar performances of some of my alternate favorites chewing up the ice in the absence of my Stars.

However, I knew the second round would not sail smoothly by. Even though the 8th ranked Anaheim Ducks came in last in the division, something spectacular occurred when they hit the first round of the playoffs. The young replacement goalie for Anaheim, Jonas Hiller, who had a respectable .919 save percentage (6th) and goals against average of 2.39 (7th) in the regular season, exploded into a phenomenon on the ice in the past few weeks. He currently hosts the 1st place ranking on most of the key stats for all goalies (.955 SV%, 1.47 GAA) in the playoffs and has turned into an almost unbeatable spectacle between the pipes. Even when faced with the deadly Detroit Power Play offense, he has stood his ground for shot after shot, denying the net to most who braved the challenge.

The first two games of this series where thrilling to watch. They featured a matchup between almost polar opposites when it comes to play styles, yet the balance has been amazing. While the larger and more powerful Ducks have dominated other teams with physical force, during this series the majorly outweighed and shorter Red Wings have brought their own form of physical punishment to meet the Duck’s onslaught. Where the 2nd ranked Red Wings have been used to using finesse, speed and puck control to finish of their regular season opponents, they found an Anaheim team ready to match their moves and challenge them tactically at every level.

The first game was decided by a last minute goal by Nicklas Lidstrom to break the 2-2 tie with only 50 seconds to spare. Game 2 went to the third over time with a 3-3 tie, until Todd Marchant found a chink in Chris Osgood’s armor just over a minute into that OT. This has been one of the most impressive matchups I have seen in recent NHL Playoff memory. That is why last night was such a disappointment.

Anaheim took an early lead in the game striking on a breakaway from Teemu Selanne whose backhanded shot flat beat Osgood into the net. They went up by two early in the second period when Scott Niedermayer tipped in one on a Power Play shift for a questionable goal that seriously flirted with goal tender interference as Osgood was plowed into the back of the net right along with the puck. It took Detroit a while to rally, but after the wounded James Wisniewski was stretchered off the ice, they seemed to have new life. Henrik Zetterberg popped in a wrist shot for a Power Play goal just seconds after resuming play from the injury to the Duck’s defensemen. Detroit hit the third period with a new fire and the physical attacks of both teams seem up a notch. It was a back and forth struggles with plenty of shots on both goalies, but you could see that Detroit had finally found its stride. With just minutes left in the game, Osgood left his net and the Wings pushed the man advantage to try and tie the game. It actually happened, in my opinion, with 1:04 to spare in on the clock. The goal was setup by a shot on Hiller that redounded short of the net. The puck was misplayed by Scott Niedermayer, who tried to deflect it back up the ice, but instead dribbled the puck underneath Hiller and across the front of the net. Seeing the puck slide out from under Hiller’s leg, Marian Hossa stuffed it squarely into the open side of the net for what should have been the tying goal. However, this was not to be. Referee Brad Watson had lost sight of the puck from his position opposite the net from Hossa. The whistle blew right as the puck slid over the blue line, effectively killing the play on the ice and robbing Detroit of their well earned overtime opportunity. The reaction was immediate as the Red Wings began their celebration just to have it doused by Watson waving the goal off behind the net. It was a horrible and obviously incorrect call, but it was also non-reviewable. The play was dead at the whistle and even though the puck was already headed across the line. However, due to the fact that it had not cleared it fully, there was no goal for Detroit.

I hate games that end like this. Not simply because I am a Red Wings fan, but because a playoff game between teams of this caliber should never be decided on a technicality or a bad call. It is such a shame to have a mistake been the cause of a victory when it was so obvious that a goal was scored. I would have much rather seen the teams enter overtime and settle this with a good solid shot that squarely beat one of the netminders versus some crap call that cost a team the game. I say this knowing that the sluggish way Detroit was playing last night would have probably still spelled a loss for them in overtime, but knowing the sport of Hockey and seeing how they played in the period, I realize that anything would have been possible.

As it stands, I wonder what the punishment for Grand Larceny in California is. After that call, I would advise Brad Watson to obtain sufficient legal counsel in case someone decides to charge him with the crime he committed.