Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
I Don’t Love Spock
By Matthew Continetti — March 7, 2015
“I loved Spock,” said President Obama, reacting to the death of actor Leonard Nimoy. Why? Because Spock reminds him of himself. The galaxy’s most famous Vulcan, the president wrote, was “Cool, logical, big-eared, and level headed, the center of Star Trek’s optimistic, inclusive vision of humanity’s future.” Just like you know whom.
The president is not the only writer who has drawn comparisons between himself and Spock. I am also a Star Trek fan, but I admit I was somewhat confused by my rather apathetic reaction to Nimoy’s death. And as I thought more about the president’s statement, I realized he identifies with the very aspects of the Spock character that most annoy me. I don’t love Spock at all.
Not only do Spock’s peacenik inclinations routinely land the Enterprise and the Federation into trouble, his “logic” and “level head” mask an arrogant emotional basket case. Unlike the superhuman android Data, a loyal officer whose deepest longing is to be human, Spock spends most of his life as a freelancing diplomat eager to negotiate with the worst enemies of Starfleet. He’s the opposite of a role model: a cautionary tale.
Spock cares only for himself. He returns to the Enterprise in Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) only because he believes the superior intelligence of V’ger might help him finally purge all human elements from his soul. True, he sacrifices himself for the good of the ship in Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan (1982), but Spock’s renunciation of self is not as total as we are led to believe. He knows he has a fallback position. He knocks out McCoy and — without the doctor’s consent — transfers part of his consciousness to his old friend.
The crew then spends the following two movies breaking countless regulations to bring Spock back to life. They steal the Enterprise, illegally pilot it out of Space Dock, trespass on the Genesis planet, blow up the Enterprise, hijack a bird-of-prey and kill its entire crew, take the stolen Klingon vessel to Vulcan, and return to Earth despite a travel ban imposed by the president of the Federation at the beginning of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986). Illustrating the absurdly liberal future envisioned by Gene Rodenberry, where there is no money or human want or, apparently, rule of law, despite all of these crimes Kirk and Spock and company are rewarded with a brand new ship at the end of the fourth film.
Spock is the reason Sybok captures this just-off-the-assembly-line Enterprise in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) and comes very close to delivering it to an insane, frightening god entity that sounds like Orson Welles. Most damning to his reputation, however, has got to be the mess Spock creates in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991). Unbeknownst to his best friend, Spock has taken up secret negotiations with the Federation’s mortal enemy, the Klingon Empire, to dismantle the neutral zone and end the military dimension of Starfleet. Then Spock decides the best person to accompany the Klingon high chancellor to a galactic peace conference is Kirk, whom the Klingon’s despise (in the words of the great John Schuck: “There shall be no peace as long as Kirk lives!”) and who hates them in return. What a brilliant idea.
Furthermore, Spock volunteers Kirk for the job without the captain’s permission. His decision thoughtlessly plays into the hands of the interstellar conspiracy to foment war between the Federation and the Klingons, because the plot’s leaders see Kirk as the perfect fall guy for the assassination of Chancellor Gorkon.
Spock’s ethnocentrism, combined with “illogical” romantic attraction, leads him to promote one of the conspirators, Lieutenant Valeris, to a bridge position wherefrom she manipulates the investigation into Gorkon’s death, conceals evidence, and murders two co-conspirators. Some judge of character, that Spock.
Then, when Kirk surrenders himself to General Chang, Spock plants a ridiculously conspicuous Viridian Patch on Kirk’s shoulder so he can trace the captain’s whereabouts. But he has no need to track Kirk because the captain’s trial is broadcast across the quadrant and the Klingon judge says specifically where Kirk and McCoy will be imprisoned.
A routine planetary scan of Rura Penthe would have alerted the Enterprise the moment Kirk emerged from the energy shield. Was Spock hoping the Klingons would see the patch and murder him and McCoy for attempting to escape? We’ll never know.
Kirk eventually figures out the murder mystery and once again saves civilization. But Spock’s colossal blunder does not stop him from disappearing from the Federation decades later and turning up on Romulus, where he begins unauthorized negotiations with yet another illiberal adversary of the Federation. This time he has befriended Romulan Senator Pardek, with whom he hopes to arrange for the unification of the Vulcan and Romulan peoples.
But of course Pardek is playing Spock for a fool. Reunification is a guise for an audacious Romulan invasion of Vulcan that draws inspiration from the Soviet taking of Iceland in Red Storm Rising (1986). It is only because the Enterprise-D has been sent to the neutral zone, and Captain Picard and Lieutenant Commander Data have been dispatched to Romulus to locate and secure Spock, that the plot against the Federation is revealed before it’s too late.
I also find it noteworthy that Commander Sela and Proconsul Neral believe there is a chance that Spock will actively cooperate with their plan — evidence that the ambassador’s loyalties aren’t clear even to the Romulans. What’s more, despite inadvertently starting yet another war, Spock insists he remain on the home world of the most aggressive and conniving galactic power. In a massive (but unusual) lapse in judgment, Picard agrees.
Amazingly, though, such disastrous negotiations with Klingons and Romulans aren’t even the worst things Spock does. If we accept Star Trek (2009) as canon then the “cool” and “level-headed” Spock is responsible for the destruction not only of his home world and the death of 6 billion Vulcans but of the entire Star Trek timeline that audiences have loved for almost 50 years. As usual, evil happens because Spock is too idealistic, too in thrall to a value-neutral conception of science, to consider the unintended consequences of his actions.
The 2009 movie has a backstory that is complicated and silly, and I am too tired to recount it in detail so you can read a synopsis here. Nevertheless, Star Trek is an enjoyable picture that is revealing of Spock’s awfulness. It shows how Spock (played by Zachary Quinto) is tormented, physically and mentally, by the fact that his mother is human, how Mr. Logic is actually a boiling kettle of fury, resentment, passion, and ambition. Spock is a jerk to his girlfriend Uhura (Zoe Saldana), who is way out of his league. He almost kills Kirk (Chris Pine). He is so overcome with emotion he relieves himself from duty in the middle of a huge crisis.
Spock is rude to his father. “I never knew what Spock was doing,” Sarek (Mark Lenard) tells Picard in “Unification 1.” “When he was a boy, he would disappear for days into the mountains. I would ask him where he had gone, what he had done; he’d refuse to tell me. I forbade him to go; he ignored me.” Spock and Sarek fight constantly throughout the Trek continuity, despite Sarek’s offering his son countless diplomatic opportunities that Spock invariably messes up. Then Spock ignores his father for years as Sarek suffers from Bendai Syndrome and dies.
And Obama likes this selfish jerk? The coolness the president so appreciates in Spock is a thin veneer over a remarkably arrogant and off-putting detachment from human suffering. Dr. McCoy, played by the charming DeForest Kelley, bitingly exposed this truth about Spock’s nature again and again. Discussing the Genesis Project in Wrath of Khan, for example, Spock lectures McCoy, “Really, Dr. McCoy. You must learn to govern your passions. They will be your undoing. Logic suggests —”
But McCoy won’t hear it — and he’s right. “Logic? My God, the man’s talking about logic; we’re taking about universal Armageddon!”
All Spock can do is pretentiously raise his famous eyebrow.
Spock is ashamed of his humanity. He flees it. In Star Trek VI Kirk tells Spock, “Everyone’s human.” Spock says he finds that sentiment offensive.
My favorite scene in “Unification 2”: Spock and Data are alone, collaborating on a technical project. Spock muses on the Vulcan aspects of Captain Picard, which Data finds curious because Picard has been a model for his emulation of humanity. Spock can’t understand why Data would want to be more human. “You have an efficient intellect, superior physical skills, no emotional impediments,” he says. “There are Vulcans who aspire all their lives to achieve what you’ve been given by design.”
“You are half human?” Data asks.
“Yes,” Spock says.
“Yet you have chosen a Vulcan way of life?”
“I have,” Spock says.
“In effect,” says Data, “you have abandoned what I have sought all my life.”
The two look at each other in silence.
It’s in this scene where Data’s superiority to Spock is most apparent. Data not only has the mental and physical edge over practically everyone, he is curious and earnest and humane, while Spock is moody, flip, detached, and self-consciously superior. Data wants to fit in, while Spock displaces his anxieties over his bicultural heritage onto his family and work relationships. Data’s words and actions are the result of blind unerring computation, while Spock is a creature of inner conflict and envies his famous and high achieving father. I’d pick Data over Spock for my first officer any day.
What Leonard Nimoy’s death revealed is that there is a sizable portion of Trek fans, and of nerds in general, that identifies with Spock’s neuroses, his hang-ups, his self-loathing, that are attracted to the cold soulless abstractions through which he views life, who believe in the naďve and ineffective diplomacy in which he so thoughtlessly and recklessly and harmfully engages. I can’t help but find this revelation disturbing. One of those fans happens to be the president of the United States who, like Spock, has derided the notion of helping to end the slaughter of the Syrian Civil War as illogical while giving up leverage in his negotiations with Iran. It will take America some time to recover from the legacy of our Spock-loving president — though probably not as long as it will take my friends to stop laughing at me for writing this column.
— Matthew Continetti is the editor-in-chief of the Washington Free Beacon, where this column first appeared. © 2015 All rights reserved
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Social climber
SLO, Ca
|
|
I just skimmed that but it's probably the most stupid thing posted on this thread in quite some time. A high bar indeed!
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 8, 2015 - 07:35am PT
|
This.^^^
Plus, Spock was in favor of informed consent before students have sexual contact.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
Bookworm scores another home run with the Spock post. LOL
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
Yeah , i was upset when i found out Obama liked that jerk Nimoy..I'm voting for Jeb Bush..
|
|
Larry Nelson
Social climber
|
|
Dirtbag wrote:
Plus, Spock was in favor of informed consent before students have sexual contact.
Speaking of informed consent, Two California teachers were recently charged with having sex with students and giving them cocaine. On the plus side, the students involved had perfect attendance (Hat tip to a late night comedian).
Here is one reason I always preferred Star Trek to Star Wars.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
lol^^^^^^
worm has problems...lol
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 9, 2015 - 07:28am PT
|
When he uses the words "hath wrought" you should listen up because you know what he is saying is very, very important and deep.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
How to Become a Conservative in Four Embarrassing Steps
Not that we'd want to. But many Americans, perplexingly, have taken that path in the last ten years.
By Paul Buchheit / AlterNet
March 8, 2015
http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/how-become-conservative-four-embarrassing-steps
The language of true conservatives often turns to denial, dismissal, and/or belligerence, without verifiable facts of any substance. There is also evidence for delusional thinking and a lack of empathy. Here are four ways to be just like them.
1. Ignore Facts
Research shows that conservatives tend to modify facts to accommodate their beliefs and convictions, while liberals are more willing to deal with the complexity of multiple sources of information that help determine the true facts.
In simpler terms, numerous studies (here, here, here, and here) conclude that conservatives are not very smart.
Perhaps the best example of fact-aversion is climate change. Incredibly, even though 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate warming is very likely due to human activities, 66 percent of Republicans say they do not believe in global warming.
It's even more incredible that the Chair of the Committee on the Environment, James Inhofe, brought a snowball to the Senate floor to back up his earlier suggestion that manmade global warming is "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."
If there is even a chance that humans are damaging the environment, a thinking person would consider the potential effect on his or her children and grandchildren. But the exact opposite has happened. Half of all carbon emissions have been dumped into the air in approximately the last 25 years. Even the Pentagon, much trusted by right-wingers, has warned that "the danger from climate change is real, urgent, and severe."
2. Make Up Your Own Facts
This is the opposite of ignoring facts, for in this case conservatives are inventing new ones. A prime example is the stubborn belief in supply-side, trickle-down economics, and in the supposed power of the free market, as summarized by Milton Friedman when he said, "The free market system distributes the fruits of economic progress among all people."
The "Laffer Curve," named after economist Arthur Laffer, hypothesizes that tax rate increases will eventually reach a point of diminishing returns for tax revenue. Conservatives have contorted this economic theory into the 'fact' that all tax reductions are beneficial.
But there are numerous reputable economists, research groups, and tax analysts who have concluded that the maximum U.S. tax rate can and should be about twice its current level.
Adherence to supply-side beliefs may help to justify 35 years of trickle-down persistence in the minds of the people getting rich. As conservative analyst Michael Barone once said, "Markets work. But sometimes they take time." 100 years, perhaps?
3. Display No Empathy for Others
Conservatives tend to blame poor people for their own misfortunes. Like when John Boehner voiced his perception of people without jobs: "This idea that has been born...I really don't have to work; I don't really want to do this. I think I'd rather just sit around."
Almost all healthy adult Americans, of course, want to work. But in 2011 Senate Republicans killed a proposed $447 billion jobs bill that would have added about two million jobs to the economy. Members of Congress filibustered Nancy Pelosi's "Prevention of Outsourcing Act," even as two million jobs were being outsourced, and they temporarily blocked the "Small Business Jobs Act." In April, 2013 only one member of Congress bothered to show up for a hearing on unemployment.
When asked what he would do to bring jobs to Kentucky, Mitch McConnell responded, "That is not my job. It is the primary responsibility of the state Commerce Cabinet."
It gets worse beyond our own borders, where American neoconservatism leads to behavior that is shockingly devoid of empathy. A 13-year-old Yemeni boy told The Guardian about the drones buzzing incessantly overhead: "I see them every day and we are scared of them...day and night...we even dream of them in our sleep."
That boy was killed by a drone in early 2015.
4. Shout Down Your Opponents
If nothing else works, belligerence will. Many of the top right-wingers use this strategy. John McCain told Code Pink protestors to "Get out of here, you low-life scum." Michael Moore has reportedly received death threats from both Glenn Beck and Clint Eastwood. Bill O'Reilly bashed Mother Jones chief David Corn as a "liar" and an "irresponsible guttersnipe," and then assailed New York Times' Emily Steel in an interview about the Falklands controversy: "I am coming after you with everything I have. You can take it as a threat."
The bully tactics are especially frightening at the global level. "All of Russia," notes Paul Craig Roberts, "is distressed that Washington has destroyed the trust that had been created during the Reagan-Gorbachev era." And as noted by The Nation, "There’s the perception across the Global South that, while the United States remains embroiled in its endless wars, the world is defecting to the East." Toward China, that is, as their New Silk Road opens doors of cooperation from the far east all the way to Europe.
Our conservative-controlled nation's self-serving belief in "exceptionalism" is taking us further and further from the rest of the world. And closer to a world of trouble for our children.
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
Senator Graham has never sent an email?
If that's true, it's preposterous. Running the federal government it seems, in this age, would require at the very least a passing understanding of the inter web.
It seems like a sidestep of a non-issue. His underlings took dictation and hit the send button most likely.
And really, why would one want to seem curmudgeonly in an era of rapidly evolving technology?
Does he not believe in technological evolution?
Freaking hypocritical luddites.
Oh yeah, BENGHAZI!!!!
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Mar 10, 2015 - 05:53am PT
|
bookworm, you should work on your comprehension skills. It's not incest, since the egg came from a woman other than his mother.
But, this is an issue every time I click one of your links. You seem to just quickly scan the lead paragraph and then form an opinion about the story, even though the story almost always contradicts your version.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
|
Mar 10, 2015 - 06:36am PT
|
Indeed.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 10, 2015 - 06:37am PT
|
I blame our Mullah in Chief for hathing wroughting test tube incest.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Mar 10, 2015 - 08:21am PT
|
Now 47 republican senators have received a lecture calling them on their stupidity by none other than the foreign minister of Iran. Too funny.
http://www.vox.com/2015/3/9/8180933/zarif-cotton-letter
"Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif dismissed the letter as a "propaganda ploy" on Monday. "I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement 'with the stroke of a pen' ... it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law," he said in a statement."
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Mar 10, 2015 - 08:24am PT
|
Oh, the Republicans and the fools that support them.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Mar 10, 2015 - 08:43am PT
|
Is it sedition?
Treason?
Traitors working against the State?
Logan Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Signed into law by President John Adams on January 30, 1799
The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 30 January 1799, currently codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953) is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.
The Act was intended to prohibit unauthorized United States citizens from interfering in relations between the United States and foreign governments.[1]
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Mar 10, 2015 - 08:51am PT
|
The Logan Act is probably unconstitutional.
While what the republicans did was very unamerican it was also weak and ineffective. No intelligent Government would or has taken it seriously.
In real negotiations authority is a fundamental basis. The senate does not have it and are therefore irrelevant to the negotiations.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!