As I was saying ...

A blog about stuff. Updated as need merits.

President Thomas Whitmore giving an address about an alien invasion

Transcript of a CNN panel discussing President Whitmore’s speech given on July 4, 1996 concerning an alien invasion

11-minute read

President Whitmore is speaking. He’s in a little box in the corner of the TV screen and the chyron reads “President tries to put mishandling of alien invasion behind him, outline new focus.” A stock ticker and a promo for an upcoming special CNN Reports: Aliens Invade – Crisis from the Sky are also onscreen.

“… vanish without a fight! We’re going to live on, we’re going to survive. Today we celebrate our independence day!”

Cutaway to the studio as Whitmore finishes and before crowd’s cheers begin

Wolf Blitzer President Whitmore has just made another attempt to revive his failed plan to save humanity. Will his speech change opinions of a skeptical, war-weary public? Is it too little, too late? I’m Wolf Blitzer and this is CNN. Our panel will discuss the speech tonight in The Situation Room after this message from Gold Bond Medicated Powder.

Blitzer We’re live as President Whitmore greets the assembled crowd after what some are calling a short, surprisingly belligerent speech urging aggressive action against invading alien forces. Not much language about reconciliation. We’ll be going live to the aerial battle as soon as it begins. Before then, let’s talk to our panel of experts for instant analysis of the address.

Seth Jameson, senior fellow who has been hiding in rubble of the Brookings Institute and eating grasshoppers to survive, what is your reaction?

Jameson The speech was really dark.

Blitzer Your take, Lawrence M. Tweedy, writer of the In Repose column for the The Atlantic, and author of A New Way of War: America’s Leadership in a Post-Leadership World .

Tweedy It seemed to focus a lot on America. A lot of people are suffering and he did little to demonstrate empathy or lay out a plan for them.

Blitzer T. Ken Wright, you’ve been an outspoken critic of the president.

Wright It’s certainly a compelling vision, but I doubt the president can pull it off …

Rep. Robert “Bob” Sequious cutting in We need to back the president on this. If it had been George Bush giving the speech …

Blitzer Bob Sequious, who represents the now-devastated Park Slope area of Brooklyn and one of the few members of Congress still alive. You support the president’s plan, then?

Sequious The president has had a clear vision for dealing with the alien threat since the beginning.

Wright Yes, in his rhetoric, but his handling of the alien invasion has been all over the map. His numbers are way, way down.

Sequious … but in the face of overwhelming force …

Wright … Only 15 percent of the dwindling remnant of humanity feel he has shown strong leadership …

Sequious … he’s done all he can to win the …

Wright … and if he thinks one speech can turn that around …


Blitzer Let’s go to Kay Streite, political analyst and pollster, welcome to The Situation Room. Do you feel Whitmore hit the right themes?

Streite It was a missed opportunity to reassure struggling citizens that he has a plan …

Tweedy cutting in What plan? While it is true that the guy from The Nanny said it was about bloody time the Americans launched a counterattack, it is a typical American attitude that the world exists at our behest to do our dirty work …

Sequious Larry … Larry … Larry …

Tweedy … while we take all the glory.

Sequious Larry, c’mon I think that’s a very unfair characterization. America needs to show global leadership on this issue. It will send a message loud and clear: Aliens, if you wish to invade earth, you will deal with an international coalition response, not just Americans.


Tweedy But it’s not an international coalition …


Tweedy It’s just America calling all the shots. This was an entirely unilateral effort, typical of Whitmore’s go-it alone tendencies. He expects the world to simply line up behind him based on a single speech.

Blitzer Alexa van Smeckler, president of the Faculty Senate and associate professor of feminist history at the smoking remains of Weselyan University. What’s the situation like on the ground where you are?

van Smeckler Roving post-apocalyptic gangs have resorted to cannibalism. My teaching assistant was eaten right in front of me last night. I expect to be eaten soon. It’s terrifying, Wolf.

Blitzer Alexa, allow me to quote from the president’s speech. Reading in a flat monotone from his clipboard “We will not go quietly …” pause as he flips to next page and finds his place “ … into the night. We will not vanish without a fright … wait … fight We’re going to leave, we’re going to survive.” He seems to be trying to strike an almost Churchillian tone, his Never Surrender speech.

van Smeckler Churchillian is right. His clear reference to Robert Burns strikes a notable tone of Anglocentric white heteronormative militancy. Not going quietly into that good night is a typically male, confrontational approach to problems. Famed Poet Adrienne Rich once wrote “the red coals more extreme, more curious in their flashing and dying than you wish they were, sitting long after midnight” Those are words of beauty, not violence. Perhaps it is our lot not to rage against the dying of the light but to fade away in the golden light of a waning late-night fire. Also “we’re going to survive” rhetoric seems to have been lifted wholesale from Donna Summer’s female empowerment anthem.

Blitzer I believe that I Will Survive was Gloria Gaynor.

van Smeckler Stop mansplaining me.

Blitzer Panel, he’s ignoring key constituencies?

Streite Earlier in his speech he seemed to really hammer on the word “mankind.”

Blitzer Flips though notes on his clipboard. before reading “Mankind, that word should have new meaning for all of us today. We can’t be consumed by our petty differences any more.” Dangerous words, Kay Streite?

Streite Whitmore has never been strong on women’s issues – equal pay, child care. Does he consider these petty issues to be set aside while he kills aliens? This battle is just an excuse to undermine the gains women have made in favor of some nebulous “mankind.” I’m not falling for it.

Blitzer A huge setback for women, then. Well, the ones still alive.

Streite Clearly.

van Smeckler Absolutely, Wolf.

van Smeckler is suddenly dragged away by a group of survivors wearing tattered rags and human skulls for helmets.

van Smeckler Oh god no! Help!

van Smeckler’s mic is cut off, ending her screams.

Blitzer Thanks for participating, Alexa. Whitmore’s central theme seemed to be about Fourth of July being the U.S. Independence Day. How do you think that will play. Too jingoistic?

Wright That was a very carefully worded mention. I won’t say it was pandering to his base — mainly the tiny remnant of humanity left alive — but no doubt it focus-grouped better than, say, Bastille Day.

Tweedy Again this is just more America-first thinking, as if we should thank America for the freedom it allows everyone else to have. This isn’t just America’s Independence Day, either. The Philippines endured four centuries of imperial oppression before finally being freed from America in 1946. On July Fourth. Trying to impose an American holiday on the world is a sad irony lost on me entirely. He clearly hopes to re-establish American rule and emerge from this with the country as an imperial power.

Wright That’s unfair. This is a call for unity and you know it. You can forgive some excesses of rhetoric in service of …

Tweedy Propaganda?

Wright … rallying troops before a battle.

Tweedy So, propaganda?

Wright Was King George III’s St. Crispin’s day speech propaganda? This battle is key to Whitmore’s agenda of killing aliens …

Tweedy Genocide, just like Hitler.

Wright I don’t think that’s …


Tweedy He’s dehumanizing the enemy.

Wright But they aren’t humans.

Tweedy So they’re just monsters then. I think we know who the real monster is here.

Blitzer It’s now time for a CNN Situation Room Fact Check sponsored by Bob Evans Whole-Hog Pork Sausage.

A graphic flies up on the screen showing an alien ship next to an F/A-18 Hornet, with arrows pointing to the various weaponry.

Blitzer Whitmore claims this will be, quote, “the largest aerial battle in the history of humankind” unquote. A CNN Fact Check analysis has determined this claim to be “Mostly false,” as the Battle of Kursk, which began on July 5, 1943, included more than 5,000 aircraft. The White House has failed to provide any details about the number of aircraft participating in today’s battle. Additionally forces are hastily recruited pilots with little or no real combat experience.

Tweedy The man is a liar and has no shame.

Wright Impeach him.

Blitzer Alicia Sterling, you covered the White House for CNN before it was blown up. Whitmore ran on lower taxes, the economy and jobs. Has he signaled a new agenda with this speech?

Sterling There’s has been a sudden shift in communications coming out of the hole where the White House used to be. Typically administrations telegraph moves ahead of time, but Whitmore was completely silent on the alien invasion issue until two days ago, and it’s dominated since. It’s not clear he’s sold this sharp shift in White House priorities to voters. Critics say it’s a distraction from his failure to make inroads on Capitol Hill, which is now technically Capitol Smoking Crater. It’s yet another sign of this administration’s lack of a clear message heading into the midterms.

Streite We expect his new message of defeating aliens to sell well in urban areas on the East and West coasts currently under attack. The danger is that red states may see it as just another handout to coastal elites.

Sequious Oh, come on. He’s saving Earth!

Wright He blew up Houston just to gain a few extra seats in Congress!

Blitzer Alicia, are sources telling you that the Whitmore Administration sees political opportunities in this messaging shift?

Sterling The message of killing aliens may not resonate in areas hardest hit by alien attacks as the administration hopes. Food and shelter are more immediate concerns, and he has yet to address them at all. Whitmore’s insistence on staying the course on a disastrous war could be seen by some as seriously skewed priorities.

Blitzer This just in: A CNN / Facebook flash poll finds that 79 precent of viewers say that food and shelter are immediate concerns, 61 percent say Whitmore has yet to address these concerns at all and 58 percent say that staying the course on a disastrous war could be seen as a skewed priorities.

Blitzer Tweedy, your take?

Tweedy Whitmore’s militant stance has been a disaster since the start. He’s constantly put our troops in danger needlessly. He claims to have spoken telepathically with an alien and knows their intent, but Amnesty Intergalactic reports that the alien was kept in a stress position for hours and was subjected to repeated beatings by a — checks notes — a Capt. Hiller who, not only punched but also kicked the alien after it had been incapacitated and restrained in a parachute.

Sequious Capt. Hiller is a hero. An astronaut candidate. He welcomed the alien to earth almost immediately upon their meeting.

Sterling Sources who asked for anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the matter told me that the guy who played Jayne on Firefly and that actor who always plays a military guy shot the captured alien repeatedly even though it had its tentacles up, was unarmed and posed no immediate threat.

Blitzer Final thoughts?

Sequious It was a strong well-crafted speech.

Tweedy I disagree. It was boastful with little to back it. Who’s going to carry out Whitmore’s policy? Some drunken crop-duster pilot in his rag-tag air force? Does someone like that seem like he has the skill to blow up a mile-wide mothership? He’ll probably just crash into it.

Blitzer We’re going back live now to Nevada as the planes are fueled and prepare to go airborne ….

Sideshow Bob surrounded by rakes

We need to talk

Eight-minute read

Dear “Resistance,” we need to talk.

Since the early days of the Trump campaign, a pattern has emerged.

Trump does or says something, you erupt in fury. The press and anti-Trumpers frantically clutch at their pearls as they dramatically plunge down upon their fainting couches like Margaret Dumont, barely able to mutter “well I never!”

The networks immediately begin flood-the-zone coverage. We’re subjected to Wolf Blitzer intoning gravely to a stoney-faced panel of political experts who, naturally, represent the full spectrum of viewpoints from A to B.

“So, in your estimation is Trump stupid, evil, or some combination of stupid and evil?” he asks, more in sadness than in anger.

Even as the press is high-fiving each other over “finding their spine” and being a “Fourth Estate check upon the excesses of government,” even as a doddering Nancy Pelosi measures the drapes in the House Speaker’s office, a sudden realization occurs – or it should occur.

Trump actually got what he wanted. And I mean that in both small and in meta ways.

Before I pull that thread a bit more, let me state this clearly, unequivocally: I did not vote for Trump. I would not vote for Trump. Ever.

If you are a person of the Left or a Trump hater, what I am about to say will not be something that you want to hear. But you need to hear this.

You are Sideshow Bob. For the love of god, stop fucking stepping on rakes.

You are losing. Bigly.

You are losing because you should be winning easily. You suck at resisting. You are as bad at resisting as I am at dating.

I look at events and am deeply dismayed at an anti-Trump “Resistance,” such as it is, that seems to have learned nothing and to have forgotten nothing.

“Yes,” you may say, “I’m right and more importantly a good person and Trump is all evil and old and also orange with weird hair and don’t forget Russia! Also his name is Drumpf.”

Congrats, that gets you jack fucking shit. Rather, it got you jack fucking shit because you did all that and Trump still won.

This isn’t a fucking Pollyanna movie. Politics doesn’t matter at all about what or who’s most good. It’s about what is believed to be true. It’s about outcomes. As I tell my friends who “Hulk out” and flip over tables at the mere mention of Trump, I don’t care if you are actually right.

People make three basic mistakes about Trump:

That’s not to say he’s smart, correct or politically savvy. My position has been and remains that this whole Trump thing will end badly.

No matter how many times these assumptions prove not true, they are catnip for anti-Trumpers, who, like their anti-Obama counterparts before them, seem willing to believe anything no matter how transparently ridiculous, e.g. The Gorilla Channel. They lie there purring and licking the latest toy mouse from Salon or Slate of Huffpost, content in their rightness.

Trump doesn’t need to be a clever strategist when he is so extraordinarily fortunate in his adversaries. They hate him. Loathe him. Despise him. “Purple-faced, spittle-flecked rage” hate him.

Rage leads people to do stupid things, say stupid things, embrace stupid ideas. 1 It keeps the “Resistance” from fundamentally understanding its adversary. The “Resistance” just can’t stop stepping on its own dick.

This helps Trump in three ways:

  • Trump’s goal is to institute a policy change or law, but his adversaries’ goal is to destroy Trump. Trump has the easier goal.
  • It plays into his persona as an oppressed outsider
  • It is a given his adversaries will act at least as crazy and uncivil as he does, if not more

And even if Trump doesn’t know this, he’s surrounded by very smart people who do.

Looked at objectively, Trump should be an easy takedown.

I like to say that Trump just can’t “not.” Instead of rising to the occasion, he rises to the bait. He can give a well-received, vaguely presidential-sounding speech and then the next morning unleashes a juvenile tweetstorm that undoes everything.

He is the king of unforced errors, a veritable shitshow of fails.2 Or he would be were his adversaries also not as good or often better at the same thing.

The press, the Democrats etc, also can’t “not.” They point out fact errors like some pedantic prig correcting someone’s grammar. 3 They go nuclear. They act crazy.

So what’s “crazy”? Maybe crying on the air. Maybe calling detention centers that have been around through multiple administrations “concentration camps.” Maybe getting basic facts wrong. Maybe calling someone a “see you next Tuesday” as part of witless joke. Maybe saying the president’s son should be locked in a cage with a pedophile.

And, more importantly not realizing anti-Trumpers are wildly overplaying their hand – yet again.

True, Trump rescinded child-separation policies, which by the way was also practiced by the Obama admin. But then it was “necessary,” so shut up.

Still, congrats on that. Go team! It was bad policy and politically stupid, and even Trump-backers hated it.

So, a clear win! High fives all around!

Was it a win? Well, I’ll let you decide. Here’s a Harvard Harris poll taken last week at the height of the “immigration crisis” sturm und drang:

  • Trump’s approval rose to 47 percent
  • His approval rose 10 points among Hispanics
  • 63 percent favor Trump’s DACA compromise
  • 61 percent say our current border security is inadequate
  • 60 percent back a border wall
  • 69 percent say that ICE should not be disbanded
  • 64 percent believe border-crossers should be sent home immediately
  • 84 percent are against sanctuary city policies
  • 72 percent oppose restaurants discriminating based on political views

So the outcome of the Fortnight of Immigration Rage was to – uh – help Trump’s poll numbers rise? Among Hispanics? Yay?

But Trump is wrong! So what? Remember, the goal here is not to be right but to win.

A truly smart move would have been:

  • Bait Trump into defending the policy for at least two weeks
  • Shut the fuck up entirely about open borders and abolishing ICE
  • When Trump hits bottom, use that as leverage to get what you actually want

Efforts to change underlying policy or swing public opinion didn’t work despite a full frontal assault of outrage. If that didn’t work, how exactly do you intend to turn public opinion? Free kittens?

Here’s another stat from a CBS poll:

Do you approve or disapprove of how Donald Trump is handling the matter of children and parent separation at the border?

  • Approve: 42%
  • Disapprove: 58%

I suppose some will rage about how those 42 percent are evil Nazis etc. But let me repeat: The goal isn’t to be right or show how good you are. The goal is to win the argument.

In keeping with anti-Trumpers learn nothing, forget nothing policy, they were jizzing themselves over Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s 4 primary upset win and rushing ass-over-elbows to call for abolishing ICE and reviving FDR’s court packing scheme.

Rather, anti-Trumpers are acting like a bunch of people so sure they are going to win that they can’t be bothered to control their message.

Which is why this is all so bothersome for those of us who don’t hate Trump but want him reined in. I was discussing politics a few weeks ago, and my friend mused about why people aren’t jumping from the Trump ship. “It’s simple,” I said. “They look at the alternative and it’s worse.”

Maybe from where you are sitting it isn’t, but let me say this again: What you prefer doesn’t matter.

Maybe being vile and vulgar and petty and throwing the president’s spokeswoman out of a restaurant and bragging on social media about how butthurt she must be will win the day. Maybe flinging a bedpan full of hate at the Trump admin will work.

Maybe Democrats will ride their wheezing, farting Rocinante of unpopular ideas to a midterm tsunami. Maybe we’ll see “Abolish ICE” signs popping up in the industrial and upper Midwest and South where Democrats need to make inroads.

Maybe you’ll get the open-border policy you want. Maybe ICE will be converted into the U.S. Immigrant Welcome Wagon Agency.

Maybe the “Resistance” will get its shit together 5 and act like a sane opposition.

I wouldn’t bet on it.

  1. For example, wishing that Hillary Clinton, a dour, uninspiring Nixon-in-a-pantsuit was president so she could rubberstamp eight years of Obama fecklessness like a county clerk. Here’s a political tip for winners: Run anyone else.
  2. A prime example is Trump’s stupid, offensive Twitter battle with Mika Mxyzptlk, one half of America’s Most Insufferable Political Couple that is not James Carville and Mary Matalin.
  3. Like me, for instance.
  4. Her working-class-hero schtick is, like most politicians’ electoral claims, total bullshit. She grew up in leafy Westchester County and attended Boston University, tuition cost $66,000 per year.
  5. If you want to know what happens to a minority party that can’t get its shit together, look no further than Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, the British Labour Party. They couldn’t win an election to save their lives, even against the hapless Theresa May.

The Backlash Awakens

11-minute read

I spent the holiday around my 3-year-old nephew.

While he is very cute, with sandy brown hair and vivid blue eyes, he’s also like all children, a child. That means that he’s entirely at the sway of his emotions. One morning he said he wanted yogurt for breakfast. My brother didn’t have any.

What followed was a slow-motion deterioration over about a half hour that led into a full tantrum. It’s said we grow out of this.

Maybe, in the sense that we generally don’t throw tantrums, but the underlying pattern is there. We dress it up in reason and give it more complexity, but really we want what we want, regardless of our age.

Is this a fancy way of saying that some people are having a tantrum after seeing The Last Jedi? Maybe, but not really. Many people wanted A and instead got B.

I’ve seen the videos. I’ve read the posts. I’ve seen this thing about how The Last Jedi should have unfolded (TL;DR: Everyone is a hero!). There’s even a petition to have the film stricken from the canon.1

I get the backlash.

However, I do think the film is misunderstood bigly. As a pedant (read: insufferable smarty pants) I feel I must at least examine why people dislike it and at least defend what it was trying to do.

While the beefs with the movie are many, the key one centers around the characterization of Luke.

“They ruined Luke!” is the most succinct version of this complaint. “Luke would never do that!” the howls of outrage go.

This complaint is, in short, bound to the fact that fans can’t seem to reconcile the two images of Luke. Last seen in Return of the Jedi as heroic savior of the Galaxy. In The Last Jedi he’s bitter and deep in a crisis of faith. The notion that he would, even for a passing moment, think of striking down his nephew, is anathema.2

That this rash act led to the birth of the First Order is just the the ice for the Hateorade.

There’s no nice way to say this, so I’ll just say it: This position is horseshit.

It stems from a basic failure to understand the character of Luke, and more importantly, to understand a major theme and texture of the original trilogy itself. To put it in a succinct form favored by those booing The Last Jedi: What movies have you been watching for the past 30 years?

Luke is not the unalloyed hero and crusader for the light side that fans seem to think he is. Nor are the Jedi. In the end Luke does win and does do the right thing, but only after repeatedly indulging his dark impulses.

Luke’s defining characteristic – other than being whiny – is that he struggles with darkness. At his first meeting with Yoda, the Jedi master refuses to train Luke. (I feel I should point out here that this is just like Luke first refusing to train Mary Sue3. Jus’ sayin’.)

Yoda dresses Luke down, arguing he’s filled with anger and too reckless and focused on dreams of glory — you know, Dark Side shit. Luke’s cave vision shows him replacing Vader. It’s a manifestation of the inherent darkness he carries with him.

He eventually proves Yoda right by blasting off in a fit of pique to face Vader.

In Return of the Jedi he is increasingly being drawn to the dark. Such as this scene where Vader goads Luke into embracing darkness only to get his black-clad ass kicked:

In the above clip, Luke is in all black, deep in the shadows. Most of the fight he’s bathed in darkness – almost a Vader analogue. It’s almost like the director was trying to say something. A metaphor perhaps!

But, Luke would never be tempted by the Dark Side to take up his lightsaber and try to straight-up murder someone — well, other than this time:

Anger, impulsiveness, and petulance – them’s those Skywalker men fer ya.

With that in mind, here’s a point I think people really are not getting:

When Luke says that the Jedi must end, that should be read as Skywalker family drama must end. Because for three generations, the word Jedi has pretty much been synonymous with Skywalkers. And unceasing war4.

Those wacky Skywalkers don’t settle their differences the way normal dysfunctional families do: by screaming at each other at the Life Day dinner table. They’d just have a ruined holiday as Anakin sarcastically calls Luke’s new job as Jedi “impressive” and Luke would ask his nephew Ben Solo “when are you going to stop hanging out with Snoke behind Tosche Station and get a real job?”

Meanwhile their Uncle Owen would be muttering about how they need to build a wall to keep the Jawas from stealing all their jobs as Aunt Beru tries to change the subject to how well the roast bantha turned out.

Instead, the Skywalkers drag the entire rest of the galaxy into their mess. First the dad blows up his daughter’s planet, then his son blows up his dad’s prized moon-sized space station. There’s a few billion people dead right there.

Then dad uses the entire resources of the Empire to track down the son, killing a large portion of Empire senior management in the process. Even after all this, the son decides to just show up on his own and hang out with dad at his new space station while dad uses it to blow up his daughter’s friends and coworkers.

A few years later, another Skywalker decides to settle his daddy issues by blowing up several planets. There’s a few more billion dead there. And Leia, the most sensible Skywalker of the whole lot, ends up leading two armed rebellions, first against her dad and then against her son.

Jesus fuck, Skywalkers, leave us out of this!

Why would Luke, looking at any of this, be OK with this continuing on? Why would he be a party to it?

But let’s set aside complaints about Luke for a moment. These were just a part of a larger picture — a tessellation of complaints. The real source of objections is found at a meta level. The Last Jedi is a decidedly different statement overall than its predecessor.

The Force Awakens begins with the line “This will begin to put things right.”

Intentional or not, that line serves as the film’s purpose statement. Indeed, that is pretty much what The Force Awakens accomplished: Righting the ship.

It was a tall order. The movie needed to set up a new trilogy with new characters and give old characters their due. But it’s most important mission was to win back the hearts of fans alienated by the dreadful prequels.

Three years ago I wrote this of The Force Awakens trailer:

Rather, the implicit message of The Force Awakens trailer seems to be a sort of relationship counseling. “We know you’ve been hurt in the past. It’s OK to love again.”

And The Force Awakens is very much in that mold. When Mary Sue and Finn hijack the Millennium Falcon and lead a pair of TIE fighters on a chase as John Williams’ score swells, it’s a moment of pure, naked, shameless fan service.

But I’m not made out of stone either. I’ve literally waited my entire life to get to see the Millennium Falcon be awesome again. The Force Awakens knows this.

The Falcon, R2-D2, Luke’s iconic blue lightsaber — they’re right where we left them, on a metaphorical shelf. Luke, Leia and Han? They’re long split up. We haven’t had Star Wars or its icons since 1986 and neither have they.

The Force Awakens is everyone getting Star Wars back – in the most fan-service filled, comfortable manner possible. Much has been written of how it’s a soft reboot and beat-by beat retelling of the original Star Wars. When a character exclaims “It’s another Death Star,” the correct reaction is “Of course it is. What else would it be?”

If you want safe pop entertainment, co-writer and director JJ Abrams is your guy. The Last Jedi writer and director Rian Johnson is not. He’s an indie filmmaker of clear ambition. His notable filmographyBrick, Looper, four excellent episodes of Breaking Bad – are genre exercises that carry a decided edge.

The Last Jedi represents a 180-degree shift in mission. If the key line of The Force Awakens is about setting things right, the key line of The Last Jedi is “This is not going to go the way you think!”

The clearest contrast between the two films is found in scenes where iconic characters revisit the Millennium Falcon 5. When Han and Chewie re-enter it in The Force Awakens, it’s nostalgic, a big warm fuzzy blanket. It’s about regaining the past. “Chewie, we’re home.”

When Luke visits the ship in The Last Jedi, it’s about what has been lost and can’t be regained. Luke, too, is home. But the meaning of home has changed for him.

Awakens is about using emotional attachment as fan service. Jedi is about using that same attachment to tell a story, define a character. The difference is stark.

Those expecting the easy nostalgia of Awakens were no doubt left cold. As were the speculators.

JJ Abrams may have set up his Mystery Box world — spawning dozens of “Who’s Mary Sue’s father” speculative pieces — but Johnson shows up, just like Yoda5 at the end of the second act, and burns it the fuck down. All that speculation about Mary Sue’s parentage or Snoke’s origins or how Luke’s lightsaber turned up – “page turners they are not.”

Snoke, aka Darth Hef, served his purpose and died. (Though not everyone is ready accept this.) You may recall the emperor in the original trilogy played much the same role. From a pure screenwriting perspective, he was there to service Darth Emo and Mary Sue’s characters.

He should be called Darth McGuffin.

What’s important to the story is that Kylo Ren’s Darth Vader cosplay is smashed, that he’s unhinged and out of control. Luke’s lightsaber is severed. Mary Sue, she’s a nobody. There’s no midchlorians and notions of destiny or any of that heavy mythological nonsense.

For those who thought all that family tree and Mystery Box bullshit is important, here’s some advice from Basil Exposition:

The Last Jedi is an iconoclast in the true definition of the word: One who topples icons.

Star Wars movies need to stop being about The Force and Skywalkers and who’s related to whom, all with a thick layer of fan service ladled on like grandma’s Life Day bantha gravy. Just make them fun and exciting with strong characters, humor and great action.

After the throne room battle Darth Emo has some words of advice for Mary Sue.

“The Empire, your parents, the Resistance, the Sith, the Jedi… let the past die. Kill it, if you have to. That’s the only way to become what you are meant to be.”

It’s almost as if Kylo Ren is talking about the movies themselves.

  1. Good luck with that one. The execrable Star Wars Holiday Special remained EU canon until 2014. It gave us such things as the name of Chewbacca’s home planet, the existence of and names of his wife, child and father, and provided the first appearance of Boba Fett. Additionally, if the Holiday Special was canon then Bea Arthur is the owner of the Mos Eisley cantina, Harvey Korman in drag hosts a popular cooking show in the Empire and Diahann Carroll provides spank material for the galaxy’s holo-headsets.
  2. The Luke / Ben story arc bears a striking resemblance thematically to Rian Johnson’s previous film, Looper in which the protagonist attempts to prevent a disastrous future but ends up setting it in motion.
  3. Sorry, Rey. I actually know your name. I keep making this mistake for some reason.
  4. It would be like if the monarchial heads of state during World War I and World War II were related to each other. Oh, wait. That actually happened.
  5. Yoda here is a puppet. Thankfully that George Lucas prequel CGI-Yoda horror is finally behind us.
Santa winking

A treatise on the nature and implications of Santa’s surveillance state as described in “Santa Claus is Coming to Town”

17-minute read

When one hears the phrase “surveillance state” one’s mind immediately goes to Russia’s notorious KGB or East Germany’s Stasi secret police.

They’re synonymous with ruthless imposition of order and the means to enforce that order.

Granted, the United States has quite the surveillance state of its own right now, what with the NSA listening in to our phone calls and internet traffic. (Hi, guys!) But that’s the small fry.

In true U.S. fashion we’ve managed to privatize our surveillance state with the likes of Google, Facebook and devices like the Amazon Echo. We’d never allow a government device that was always listening into our homes. But if we can more easily order toilet paper or listen to some pop songstress caterwaul on Spotify, sure, go for it. In fact, we’ll even pay the company spying on us for the privilege of using the device.

All that hard work by the NSA only to have most of America just hand it over freely. Boy are their faces red.

But what of the other surveillance state? The one hiding in plain sight. The one collecting vast amounts of data day and night, year after year after year. The one that knows our deepest secrets. The one we can’t opt out of.

Worse, it focuses on children, making harsh moral judgements that greatly affect their future and social standing, even the kind of socks and underwear they receive as gifts.

We’re talking about Santa Claus who, since first noted in 1934, has run the most pervasive, far-reaching and powerful surveillance state in world history. Put succinctly:

He sees you when you’re sleeping

He knows when you’re awake

He knows if you’ve been bad or good

Since the spy network was first made public by John Frederick Coots and Haven Gillespie in the famed investigative Christmas carol Santa Claus Is Coming to Town, the revelations therein remain the canonical take on Santa’s elaborate intelligence network. The movie adaptation of the song chooses to gloss over this in favor of portraying Santa as a Che Guevara-like revolutionary figure, rejected and exiled before finally bringing his vision to the populace at large.

But if the eponymous movie hides the truth, others have not. In the intervening years, like a line of holy scripture, these three sentence have been elaborated on, expanded and speculated over across multiple movies, TV specials and songs for decades. They have all tried dramatize its details and impact in increasingly varied ways.

An entire mythology has grown up around Santa’s surveillance capabilities. Far from being intrusive, Santa and his vast data collection is most often portrayed as a benevolent service for the betterment of humanity – namely through the enforcement of discipline on children.

He carries out his annual labors with dedication and efficiency and without complaint, a few stale cookies and some tepid milk as his only reward.

Because of this, Santa himself is often shown as a selfless, if somewhat harried, servant trapped in obligatory duties. His work is seen as pure altruism, or at the very least innocuous, something for parents to care about when the kids are little but to gradually just stop thinking about once their kids become sullen, inarticulate teens.

Some mix of all these factors means that Santa’s constant, all-seeing surveillance is something we tend to just let slide. It exists to enable Santa’s life of service. No biggie.

After all, who doesn’t like Santa? Other than Philadelphia Eagles fans.

But is this really a fair assessment?

Even if we set aside whether Santa’s actions are justified, are we basing our acceptance of Santa’s actions on our own assumptions and scant evidence rather than a clear picture of what Santa is really up to? Santa’s surveillance net has significantly more nuance – and implications – than is generally assumed. Much is encapsulated in just these 11 words:

He sees you when you’re sleeping

He knows when you’re awake

Let’s just stop for a second and let that first line really sink in.

It’s 2 a.m. You’re snoring loudly, your mouth agape. A silvery line of drool drool puddling on your pillow glints in the moonlight. And there’s Santa, standing over you, in the dark, inches away, his brow furrowed as he studies your face. Perhaps a mittened hand slowly slides under a blanket.

Back at the North Pole, Mrs. Claus once again reaches over to find the cold emptiness beside her in bed. She sighs knowingly. Another night of crying herself to sleep …

Setting aside the creepier aspects for a moment, these lines are clearly presented together to draw a sharp contrast in Santa’s daytime and nighttime surveillance capabilities. He sees you when you’re sleeping but he only knows when you’re awake.

This certainly gives lie to the notion that Santa is some sort of omniscient, all-powerful near-deity observing our daily actions, an all-seeing eye like Sauron, Heimdall or a Freemason.

Were this notion true, Santa could potentially have compiled a vast archive of scenes from our regular daily tasks – ordering coffee, placing the cover sheets on our TPS reports, cooking dinner – as well as our more private, embarrassing moments such as pooping, whacking off in the shower, picking our nose at a stoplight, eating food out of the trash, sinking an oil drum1 containing a dead body into the deep ocean, etc.

Rather, his “sees you when you’re sleeping” methods greatly differ from the popular assumption, enough that we could dismiss the whole thing as Santa is just likes being a creeper. Or maybe Santa only has surveillance cams installed all the world’s bedrooms and hotel rooms.

But before we dismiss it all like we do so often when Santa is involved, recall that this limitation hasn’t hampered his ability to “know” with certainty who’s been “bad or good” or to “find out who’s naughty or nice,” as the song reiterates.

Perhaps the truth is that he doesn’t actually need to watch our everyday actions and interactions. Not seeing, only knowing, when we are awake might not be a limitation at all. What happens when we’re asleep might be the only part of our lives that’s relevant to Santa’s interests.

The text certainly supports this. “Sees” is a word with many shaded meanings. One could assume the meaning here is “sees” in the literal sense “to view with one’s eyes.” The use of “know” – as in “he knows when you’re awake” and “he knows if you’ve been bad or good” – elsewhere in the song suggests a more esoteric, shaded meaning of “see” in the vein of “to understand intellectually or spiritually; have insight.”

Santa truly sees us when we are sleeping. He peers deep into our soul, past our daily pretenses, the actions we take to be socially acceptable, our boasts and facades, the lies and delusions we create to justify our actions. Our conscious mind is pulled aside like a magician’s drop cloth revealing the truth beneath. Nothing we do gets past Santa.

Nighttime surveillance finds us at our most vulnerable, our most nakedly open. Our subconscious is allowed to leave its things in the streets and run wild, our true natures and deepest feelings and wishes are unleashed into the world like monsters from the id.

In this light, the bold claim that Santa is “gonna find out who’s naughty or nice” takes on an added dimension, an inevitability of sorts. Conceal all you want, but the truth will out as he hovers over our dreams absorbing our essence like a red-suited incubus.

He sees.

If the nature of Santa’s surveillance is less “spy camera on the street corner” and more “deep understanding of our spiritual and emotional life,” who makes it onto his list and who does not takes on an added urgency.

As the song makes abundantly clear, He knows if you’ve been bad or good. While crying and pouting are the only actions specifically forbidden, the lyrics place a special emphasis on the far-more ill-defined “bad” and “good.”

The “sees you when your sleeping” line may be the most unsettling, but the “bad or good” line is the most problematic.

The entire claim centers on the notion that Santa “knows.” There’s a certitude. He doesn’t just investigate claims. He doesn’t process reports handed to him. There’s no adjudication. Certainly no appeal.

Santa just knows. End of story.

Given his reach and influence, this puts Santa among the world’s foremost moral arbiters. He wields power that rivals such as the pope can only dream about.

But the power he wields is based on … no one knows. What, exactly, does Santa believe?

Humanity has struggled for millennia to understand the true nature of good and evil. It has been a key question considered by philosophers, theologians, jurists and kings.

It’s the subject of profound works. The Book of Job contains the Bible’s deepest philosophical musings into this question, arriving that it’s perhaps simply unknowable. Likewise Aristotle expressed his thinking with the Golden Mean, a way to find a balance between excesses. It’s a theme written across history.

Good and evil is of such wide interpretation and shifting definition that the importance of Santa’s moral philosophy is thrown into sharp relief. At an extreme end, a bigoted, inflexible Santa might withhold toys from homosexual children because he considers it to be a violation of the natural order. That would certainly be in line with certain moral codes.

Or an overly indulgent Santa might simply spread toys with nary a thought to the end result of such promiscuity. Again, certain moral codes would endorse such behavior.

But at a deeper philosophical level, a Utilitarian Santa would have a starkly different view of good and evil than, say, an Objectivist Santa or an Existentialist Santa or a Nihilist Santa2. It really depends on whose philosophy book is sitting on Santa’s toilet tank.

While Utilitarian Santa might see dropping a dollar in a homeless person’s cup as an act of kindness and charity, as the good it brings to that individual’s immediate need outweighs the possible perpetuation of the recipient’s plight. Objectivist Santa might view such an act as futility and investing that dollar in improving oneself brings about the most overall good for society.

Existentialist Santa might dole out toys as randomly as possible to teach children about the inherent unfairness of the world, whereas Nihilist Santa would withhold toys, not out of spite, but because his real gift to the world would be despair.

Santa, due to his affiliation with a religious holiday, might even take a more theological view. Thomas Aquinas argued that virtue springs naturally from reason, but that many things not first seen as virtuous, “have been found by men to be conductive to well living.”

If virtue is discoverable by reason, this casts doubt on Santa’s ability to keep up with ever-shifting virtue, no matter how wise and all-knowing.

Social mores often lag behind accepted personal and private behavior. In other words, the way we are supposed to behave and the way we behave are often the difference between the map and the territory.

The sad fact is that, like the study of good and evil itself, we are left with more questions than answers.

Even if we were able to pin down a definition of Santa’s philosophical underpinnings, his role is not just moral philosopher, but moral enforcer.

From the understanding of virtue springs the law. But that doesn’t mean that Santa’s moral code directly translates into virtue among those he oversees.

Great lawgivers, Moses with his Ten Commandments, Hammurabi with his Code – have used law as means to impose civic virtue. While law is freighted with certain notions of right and wrong, mere conformity with the law does not bring one personal virtue.

For example, certain strains of Christian theology consider “sinning in one’s heart” to be the same as committing the sin itself. It’s not enough to forego stealing because the store’s cameras might catch you. One must internalize that the act of stealing is itself to be wrong.

Likewise, U.S. common law and justice is centered on intent. Causing a death, while always terrible, is considered a lesser offense if it is done through negligence rather than premeditation. This is an important distinction from blood-for-blood justice extant in pre-enlightenment civilizations.

Additionally, the law itself might be as flawed as the lawgivers themselves, and therefore virtue requires the law be defied3. As Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his Letter from a Birmingham jail:

“I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.”

Without the knowledge of the philosophical underpinnings of Santa’s enforced moral code, can we even know that his code is just? This lack of transparency extends to other areas.

  • How exactly is our naughty / nice ratio calculated?
  • When was his equipment last calibrated?
  • What biases have crept into his calculations?

If Santa’s adjudications themselves are inherently unjust, the only just act would be to resist them. Santa is unlikely to suffer such insubordination. Yet with Santa as a sole arbiter, we are simply in a moral quandary with no solution.

This is as much a symptom of the centralization of power as it is with Santa himself.

Take a moment to consider the statement that “Santa Claus is coming to town.”

It’s a simple phrase, really, made ominous by being surrounded by overt threats and pleadings. Unlike the “thou shalt nots” of the Ten Commandments, these rules are leavened with the passive aggression of “you’d better not” and a warning that we’d “better watch out.” They’re capped with the near-desperate entreaty to “be good for goodness sake.”

The vagary of what Santa will do once he gets to town leaves the threat entirely in the mind of those it is leveled toward. It reads as an “oh you’re gonna get it now” threat along the lines of “just wait until your mother / father gets home!” Taken to its extreme you get Robot Santa from Futurama.

Yet the song is sung with joyous gusto at grade school holiday pageants, likely because it’s cute to see a bunch of carpet demons in their holiday best sing condemnations of behaviors they regularly indulge in. Being forced to sing lyrics that they don’t truly understand the implications of has a certain air of a North Korean children’s choir singing praises to Kim Jong-un.

As is now abundantly clear, Santa’s impending approach to town as part of his annual rounds is not the selfless act of charity that he would have us believe.

The greatest virtue can be found in only pure acts of self-sacrifice and charity that offer no chance for gain and from which one can derive no pleasure or acclaim. For instance, anonymously saving a child from a burning building or going on a date with me.

But Santa has much to gain from his work. He controls access to toys, and the price of getting them is to conform to a moral code – his moral code.

But even that is not his end goal. It’s a distraction, like a magician’s act of misdirection. We’re so turned inward in pursuit of our own morality to please some distant fat man that we don’t even notice what’s really going on.

The movie Elf, despite being filled end-to-end with embarrassing pro-Santa propaganda and hagiography, hit on an important truth. Santa’s power is not inherent; it derives entirely from our belief in his power.

Santa’s network is in truth not an enabler of his “good” works but merely a means that allows him to accumulate power. That makes him not any different from dictators who worked toward arbitrary “perfection” of their own societies. Likewise, the KGB or the Stasi justified their crimes as excusable in pursuit of the goal of International Socialism.

“If you want an omelet you have to break a few eggs”-type thinking.

Santa uses his jolly persona to hide that he has established a self-enforcing cycle of dependence and fear of reprisal to remain in power based on perpetuation of the false idea that societal good flows from him like the crystal steams that flow in heaven. Like all great politicians, he has convinced vast numbers that helping him achieve his goal is the best way to help them achieve theirs.

We may believe he’s working for us, but at the end of the day, he’s the one who gets to sit on the Candy Cane throne at the North Pole, and he’s the one who gets to hear Hail to the Elf play when he walks into the room and he’s the one who gets his portrait in all the Coca-Cola ads.

Us? We’re remain the nobodies just trying to scrape by.

  1. Be sure to poke holes in it first. You don’t want your dark secrets to come floating back the surface.
  2. Nihilists! I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.
  3. The lyrics of the song specifically forbid pouting and crying, but what if the child is doing this as the result of parental unfairness? Would this not qualify as Martin Luther King’s virtuous disobedience to an unjust law? Does the child not have an obligation to pout and cry as a righteous protest?
Chief O'Brien in happier times

Chaos in engineering

12-minute read

Let us, for a moment, consider the fate of Miles O’Brien.

Not “The Passion of the O’Brien,” as his time stationed on Deep Space Nine became known, as it took him through the 24th Century equivalent of the Stations of the Cross, such as spending 20 years in a virtual mind prison or having his daughter fall through a time portal.

We’re going to talk about his other fate: How he was a once-promising officer and bridge crew member who was stripped of rank and sent to exile, first in the Transporter Room and later to a crumbling space station orbiting a backwater planet, where only after years of struggle does he finally regain his stature and dignity.

O’Brien came aboard the Enterprise on its first mission, an honored hero of the Cardassian War. Appropriate to someone of his stature and skill, Ensign O’Brien is a helmsman in series debut episode Encounter at Farpoint (Stardate 41153.7), seen in a red command uniform manning a key bridge station during a moment of crisis.

Yet, only a few months later on Stardate 41249.3 (Lonely Among Us) we see him stripped of rank entirely, serving as a security officer. He’s not seen again for another year when he re-emerges, this time as a transporter chief. But he’s been busted down to a noncommissioned rank – senior chief petty officer – as confirmed in the fifth season episode Family.

Something went down, but it’s never explained and he never speaks of it, even as he toils away far from his former post and former glory days on the bridge. His job mainly involves standing around for hours – days even – waiting to work a few buttons and send others off on amazing adventures. He watches as others like Lt. Barclay are promoted past him, his hopes and dreams fading away to nothingness like a crew member on one of his transporter pads.

While it’s possible O’Brien was entirely responsible for his fate, a far more likely explanation was that he was caught up in the turmoil and dysfunction that swept through the lower decks of the Enterprise during its inaugural year of service in the United Federation of Planets fleet.

We see a veritable revolving door of chief engineers, five in just a year, sometimes with tenures lasting only a few weeks. They are repeatedly shown as undependable, absent or, worse, openly mutinous in a crisis. Senior officers exclude them from ship’s business and away teams and are shown going around them to make sure that orders are carried out. And, like O’Brien we later learn they have been busted down and sent to often-humiliating duty posts.

Even the most hardened Star Trek fan must wonder what the fuck was going on in Engineering.

That same fan might also be saying “wait, I don’t remember that episode.” Indeed they would likely be right. The problems in engineering are rarely overtly depicted.

Rather, it’s shown in bits and pieces, just kinda there as a slow burn in the background across Jean-Luc Picard’s entire first year in the captain’s chair. Taken together, they clearly show a department in utter chaos.

Why would the Engineering Department become such a problem? Aren’t Starfleet officers the epitome of professionalism? What could possibly make them go rogue?

One reason: Wesley Crusher.

We see Wesley1 repeatedly endanger the ship and crew. He’s even responsible for the entire ship being stolen. Yet he suffers no repercussions. He isn’t banned. He isn’t grounded. Rather he’s honored again and again and again, credited with saving the ship. Often from problems he caused.

One can only imagine the howls of impotent rage as engineering members would slam their fists again and again and again into their pillows at the end of their shifts.

It didn’t have to be that way, but it was, right from the start, during the ship’s second mission.

In the episode The Naked Now (Stardate 41209.3) the Enterprise crew is infected by a contaminant that causes symptoms akin to drunkenness. Leadership fails to take even the most basic precautions, such as not letting infected patients simply wander out of sickbay. Senior officers Lt. Cmdr. Data and Lt. Tasha Yar are too busy boning to notice the ship is headed to certain destruction thanks to Wesley, who has shut off the engines and barricaded himself in engineering.

Despite all this, Chief Engineer Lt. Cmdr Sarah MacDougal is seen patiently and professionally dealing with the problem despite being infected herself. Yet, in a move that had to have been galling for a seasoned engineer of the Federation flagship, Wesley is left entirely unpunished. He’s lauded for saving the ship.

Worse, she is apparently held responsible. This is the last we see of MacDougal until years later. During the episode Galaxy’s Child (Stardate 44614.6) when her name pops up on an Engineering screen as a third-shift duty engineer responsible for aligning subspace phase coils.

And, we’ll be returning to that crew shortly.

Enter Lt. Cmdr. Argyle, who was placed in charge of Engineering by the episode Where No One has Gone Before around Stardate 41263.1 – about a month after MacDougal’s banishment. Apparently having learned nothing from her downfall, Argyle allows Wesley back into Engineering to work on a school project. Once again, through irresponsible inaction, Wesley directly places the Enterprise and its entire crew in mortal danger. He fails to report when his friend, an alien creeper called the The Traveler, does all kinds of weird shit that fucks up the warp engines.

Despite this, the episode ends with Wesley being promoted to acting ensign for “conduct in the true spirit and traditions of Starfleet” and is assigned the helmsman position on the bridge.

It’s not hard to picture the engineering crew sitting around in the junior officers mess, five or six Synthahols under their belt, raging. “I spent four fucking years at goddamn Starfleet Academy. I polished statues’ asses with my toothbrush. And for what? So that whiney little shit Wesley Crusher can get to steer the ship!”

O’Brien, sitting in a dark corner alone, overhearing this conversation, sheds a single tear, thinking of his career that could have been.

Alas, Argyle too is busted down and during Galaxy’s Child3is also listed as working alongside MacDougal as a third-shift duty engineer.

By this point engineering was clearly in a full-blown leadership crisis as evidenced by the senior officers’ reluctance to even deal with the department.

For instance, the chief engineer is nowhere to be be seen when Klingon Korris threatens to destroy the Enterprise by blowing up the dilithium chamber in Heart of Glory (Stardate 41503.7). In the episode The Last Outpost, Engineering sits on their hands during a crisis and Picard has to send LaForge down to take control of the department and concoct a solution to free the ship.

In the episode 11001001,2 Picard doesn’t even consult with anyone from engineering during a major computer upgrade. He leaves Wesley, a teenager with no official rank, to oversee the work. When the antimatter containment pods head toward collapse, it’s Wesley, not Engineering, who notices.

Or perhaps Engineering crews did notice, but sat sulking at their workstations, muttering about leaving a teenager in charge of the Federation flagship and that if “Wesley is so goddamned smart let him fix the fucking containment pods.”

Events like these, as well as Picard’s apparent lack of faith in engineering, allows the rift to grow into outright rebellion.

It all comes to a head during the episode The Arsenal of Freedom (Stardate 41798.2) in which LaForge is left in charge of the ship during a routine away mission that quickly escalates into a ship-endangering crisis. Chief Engineer Lt. Logan, his sneering contempt for LaForge and Picard’s leadership boiling just under the surface, shows up on the bridge in an ill-fated coup attempt. He demands the conn due to his role as chief engineer and superior rank, a ballsy move considering he was a mere lieutenant to LaForge’s lieutenant junior grade.

Whatever his motive, Logan not only disappeared from his chief engineer role but the ship entirely, suggesting Picard quietly took care of the problem.

Despite this leadership change, problems in the department persisted. The fourth chief engineer in less than a year, Lt. Cmndr. Leland T. Lynch, began resorting to more passive-aggressive actions. On Stardate 41601.3, Lynch and his crew is seen recklessly and needlessly tearing the warp engines apart.

Lynch suggests a repair time of 20 minutes. Picard flies into a rage, and only then does Lynch relent and complete the repair.

Unfortunately this leads to a delay in rescuing a downed shuttle crew on Vagra II, and directly to the ship’s chief of security Yar being killed by a stagehand wearing an oil-covered trash bag.

This incident was apparently Picard’s breaking point with “the Engineering problem.” Lynch was busted down to what was at this point clearly the favored “fuck you” to failed Enterprise chief engineers, third-shift duty engineer alongside Argyle and MacDougal according to Galaxy’s Child.

LaForge, the fifth chief engineer in less than a year, was placed in charge.

Seen in the light of the events that preceded it, LaForge’s ascension to chief engineer makes more sense. It was always an odd promotion for someone on a bridge command track who had no experience in the Engineering chain of command.

Stranger, it happens off screen and is given no explanation.

All we see of it is in The Child that Riker makes an offhand comment to Picard that chief engineer LaForge has “a nice ring to it.” While it could be simply paternalistic pride, in context of events it reads more like relief.

LaForge’s proximity to Picard and Riker as a member of the bridge crew, the fact that the two used him as an end-run around Engineering, suggests he was chosen less for his prowess, and more for his loyalty. Picard needed someone down there to be his hatchet man, his consigliere, his enforcer. That also explains why he was suddenly skipped ahead two levels in rank, from lieutenant junior grade to lieutenant commander.

“Lt. LaForge,” Picard said sharply before LaForge could even settle into the Ready Room chair. A cup of tea, Earl Gray, hot sat steaming on the desk.

“I have a difficult assignment for you. I need you to bring Engineering to heel. Immediately. Do what you have to. This is … “ he paused as if considering the full weight of what he was about to say “… off the books. Lt. Worf will assist. Dismissed.”

LaForge’s enforcement of discipline was apparently absolute. That’s why former, failed chief engineers were kept on board in humiliating roles, toiling away on the night staff as a warning to others who step out of line.

Further evidence of this is found when in the episode Elementary, Dear Data 4 (Stardate 42286.3) just a few weeks after being named chief engineer, LaForge endangers the entire ship and crew by turning over control to a Holodeck character. As LaForge sits there terrified he’s about to go the way of Capt. Needa, Picard lets him off the hook, saying the Enterprise is “ship-shape and Bristol-fashion,” before adding menacingly “As are we, Mister LaForge.”

His message is clear: He’s Picard’s man in Engineering. He can fuck up he wants as long as he remembers who has his balls in a vise.

  1. Pre-acting ensign, Wesley Crusher had the worst cable knit sweaters to appear on TV that were not featured in an episode of The Cosby Show.
  2. It’s worth noting that Riker was in the Holodeck trying to bone a smokin’ hot hologram when all this went down.
  3. We need to talk about LaForge in this episode. He’s a total creeper. He makes repeated unwelcome sexual advances at a woman, a woman he probably fell in love with by boning hologram version of. This isn’t the only creeper behavior he’s shown doing. He wants to bone some woman after watching her personal logs in Aquiel. Additionally, it’s notable he’s the only primary character other than Wesley Crusher who is explicitly shown as not getting any during the run of the series. He must have masturbated constantly.
  4. What is with Dr. Pulaski constantly shitting all over Data? What did he ever do? In one episode she intentionally gets his name wrong, calling him long-a Data. In one she tells Data to leave sickbay because her patient doesn’t need the “cold touch of technology.” In yet another, she rags on him about not being able to play poker properly. And in this one she’s busting on him about just being a mere computer with no intuition or insight.

Now on NPM: Convert your pixels to rems or ems using this PostCSS plugin

Two-minute read

Have you every had a dozen people coming over for dinner in 20 minutes only to discover that you need to convert a bunch of CSS with items sized in pixels over to relative sizes such as rems or ems? Who doesn’t face this problem at least several times a week.

Up until now the only way to fix this problem was to learn assembly language, make your own CPUs and write your own operating system. Well, no more!

postcss-pixels-to-rem is a PostCSS plugin that finds several types of pixel notations and converts them to either rems or ems. It is designed as a way to bring legacy SASS files written using pixels to rem mixins forward and into the postCSS world with as seamlessly as possible.

For example, it’s intended as a fix for legacy code that uses the now deprecated Bourbon px to rem and px to em mixins.

Does it work? Well, you’re soaking in it! The CSS for this site is compiled with it.

How it works

It takes in several types of notations and spits out finished CSS at the other end.

  • Notation of rem(<value>) or em(<value>) is converted to <value>rem and <value>em respectively.
  • Notation of <value>px is converted to <value>rem.

It also allows for several user-set options.

  • Base font size. Default is 16px.
  • Default unit. Setting it to rem or em will override rem(<value>) or em(<value>) notation. All items will be output in the user-set unit.
  • Media queries can be excluded from conversion.
  • Specific declarations can be excluded from conversion, e.g. border-width.

How to use it

After reading this, everyone will want to get their hands on postcss-pixels-to-rem. No need to resort to The Purge style theft and murder 1. There’s plenty to go around at the low, low price of free 2.

Unfortunately we released it a little too late for Valentine’s, Mother’s Day and graduation gift-giving, but there’s still birthdays and anniversaries – and don’t forget all-important early Christmas shopping.

It’s available over here on NPM. Or install it by:

npm install --save-dev postcss-pixels-to-rem

To use it with Gulp:

var postcss = require('gulp-postcss')
var pixelstorem = require('postcss-pixels-to-rem');    


gulp.task('css', function() {
    var plugins = [

Find full installation and usage instructions here on NPM or Github.

postcss-pixels-to-rem not only comes with a full money-back guarantee, and is also guaranteed to make you better looking, thinner, wittier, more popular and bring you happiness, all while converting your pixels to rems or ems.

  1. Unless you want to.
  2. We deal in volume and pass the savings on to our customers.
Alien xenomorph full body shot

Stupid, annoying people being chased by a monster

Seven-minute read

Alien may be one of the most influential movies ever made, but the actual plot of the movie could not be more simple.

It’s the stuff of many a B-grade monster movie. The crew of a space tug Nostromo brings an alien creature on board their ship that proceeds to kill them all. That simplicity is a strength.

Alien is so good because of how the story is told. It’s why it’s such an enduring and timeless 1 masterpiece. The claustrophobic setting, the tension and the groundbreaking production design alone are enough to define it as a classic.

But the creature itself in design and concept is the real reason the movie endures. It’s disturbing somewhere down in our lizard brain. From its face raping initial appearance to its eyeless-skullfaced remorseless killer adult form, it’s a nightmare being. In a world of Predators and Terminators and Freddys and Jasons, the Alien xenomorph reigns supreme.

In 1979, Alien was tense and disturbing in a way that few audiences had seen up until then – with the exceptions of maybe Jaws or Halloween. But Alien upped the ante by locking its characters in with the murder creature that has a head shaped like a penis just to fuck with the audience’s psychosexual phobias.

The franchise was revisited in 1986 by a then-up-and-coming James Cameron in Aliens. He kept the claustrophobia but in true sequel fashion ramped up the more! more! more! Unlike the “haunted house in space” of the first film he went with balls-out war movie – Zulu in space. Aliens is one of the greatest 2 action movies ever made and certainly one of the most relentlessly intense.

Sigourney Weaver’s imposing screen presence is used to great effect, as her Ellen Ripley is not only the best female action hero in screen history, she’s one of the best ever of any actor. And who could forget the late Bill Paxton as “game over, man” Pvt. Hudson.

Aliens is among the rarest of things: A sequel better 3 than the original.

Some film franchises took awhile to gain speed – James Bond, Star Trek – but Alien kicked off with two all-time classic movies, seminal films that became a foundation of one of film’s enduring movie series. Perhaps only Star Wars had this same one-two punch of masterpieces.

How do you follow that? They did’t.

There has not been a good Alien movie in theaters since 1986. Yet they continue to make them. Worse, the franchise has become just another entry in the “stupid, annoying people being chased by a monster” genre.

It isn’t like they haven’t tried to make a good movie. The history of the Alien universe is littered with missed opportunities. On paper they sound like the most amazing marriages of subject matter and talent since George Lucas considered Steven Spielberg to direct Return of the Jedi.

Consider these pitches 4

  • An Alien movie directed by David Fincher, who you may remember from such films as Seven, Fight Club and Gone Girl. OMG! It’ll be great!
  • An Alien movie written by Joss Whedon, a master of melding lightweight pop culture ideas with deep-seated human emotions, horror and action, eg, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Cabin in the Woods. Holy shit! I can’t wait!
  • An Alien movie with franchise originator Ridley Scott returning to the director’s chair and written by Lost mastermind Damon Lindelof. Mind. Blown.

The results are:

  • Alien 3, a long, boring mess that still somehow gave us the most iconic image of the entire franchise.
  • Alien Resurrection a long, boring mess that still somehow gave us this amazing shot of Sigourney Weaver making an over- her-shoulder three-pointer on the first take.
  • Prometheus a long boring mess that nonetheless gave us the awesome phrase “the Prometheus school of running away from things.”

Unfortunately the foundational idea of Alien isn’t that complex – that simple plot of the first film. There’s no real Extended Universe of story options. Marvel keeps it fresh by making genre movies with superheroes in them. Iron Man 3’s buddy cop movie. Captain America: The Winter Soldier’s ’70s paranoid thriller. Guardians of the Galaxy’s sci-fi romp.

Every Alien movie is roughly this: Humans stupidly bring the xenomorph on board – hey look, it’s a big scary egg chamber! Let’s have a closer look! The xenomorph gets loose because the humans underestimate its danger and then it goes around feasting on the humans’ delicious nougaty centers for most of Act Three.

Prometheus was this except with black slime.

They also continue the tradition of various body horrors, to diminishing returns. Alien: Resurrection gives us a room full of malformed Ripley / xenomorph clones going “k-k-k-kill me. Every moment I’m alive is agony.” The baby squid monster5 extraction of Prometheus is cringey and memorable. But these read like setpieces.

Face it, the xenomorph isn’t that scary any more. The body horrors of the Alien spawning cycle are so well known that you can buy a hand knit facehugger to keep your head warm in the winter. Or a xenomorph plushie. Here in Boston there’s even an Alien: Convenant train car with xenomorph pics everywhere.

Thanks to cultural osmosis and copying, the alien larvae bursting out of John Hurt’s chest looking like the universe’s most toothy and terrifying stiffy has a blunted impact at best.

Based on clips of Alien: Covenant we’re in for a whole new cavalcade of dismemberments a blood squib explosions.

Like the Jurassic Park movies, the Alien series can have whatever first-act setup seems fitting – a mix of human stupidity, failure to recognize danger, greed and a dollop of corporate malfeasance so the audience can learn that we were the real monsters all along. But at the end of the day the creatures have to escape and chase everyone around because that’s what the movies actually are.

Prometheus went for “what’s it all mean” grandiosity and wedded At the Mountains of Madness mythology to the franchise. But it ended up being just a bunch of half-explained Damon Lindeleof mystery box hooey with a group of stupid and annoying humans being chased around for the entire third act. Personally, I was rooting for the aliens.

We’ll probably continue to get Alien movies. We as an audience set expectations of recapturing the visceral fear of Alien or the intense, unrelenting action of the Aliens. Movie studios like nice reliable franchises.

But capturing the greatness of the originals it’s not possible any more than recapturing a first kiss.

  1. I saw it recently in a one-night theater screening and I have no doubt that it could debut today virtually unchanged – perhaps a few special effects tweaks – and still be seen as a masterpiece. Or not. It’s been so copied down the years that critics would condemn it as derivative.
  2. The others are Die Hard and Mad Max: Fury Road.
  3. The others are The Empire Strikes Back, Toy Story 2, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, From Russia With Love, The Dark Knight, Spider-Man 2, Mad Max: Fury Road and Captain America: The Winter Soldier. There are no others. And yes, I’m aware of The Godfather II and Terminator 2: Judgement Day.
  4. Alien vs. Predator and its execrable sequel are not on this list as they are not canon. I once watched Alien vs. Predator at 6 a.m. while heavily hung over in a Times Square hotel room. Don’t ask why. The movie was dreadful.
  5. While this is certainly the most effective scene in the movie, it’s hampered by the fact that the baby squid monster is kinda cute. Just a little.
Joel, Tom Servo and Crow T. Robot

Do Tom Servo and Crow T. Robot have free will?

Five-minute read

When lists of sci-fi artificial intelligence are compiled, the robots from Mystery Science Theater 3000 rarely get their due.

They may seem to be thrown together out of household junk. But their abilities far surpass those of many better-known sci-fi counterparts, such as HAL 9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey, Lt. Cmdr. Data from Star Trek: The Next Generation or C-3PO and R2-D2 of the Star Wars franchise.

Crow T. Robot and Tom Servo demonstrate an amazingly sophisticated artificial intelligence, with a vast knowledge base of human culture and history and the ability to replicate complex emotional responses. They understand humor and both have a sharp, sarcastic wit. They are able to watch video and quickly process the content and respond with insightful, often humorous comments, not just preprogrammed responses.

They are capable of love, sadness, jealousy, anger – the whole range of human emotions. It’s clear they can actually think. They, to put it simply, depict an amazing achievement in the field of artificial intelligence.

Yet within the canon of the show, we know little about the full origins of either robot or the technology that went into them. The series itself is unreliable as a source of information or even internal consistency, as details of the robots’ background, their voices and even their physical appearance shift throughout the run of the series.

The most consistent facts about their creation are relayed in the first version of the show’s theme song. But even then the story is told as more of a sidenote to explaining why Joel, and later Mike, can’t control when the movie begins or ends, because, as the theme song’s lyrics point out, Joel used those special parts to make his robot friends.

This sad lack of information leaves us knowing little about the technology that actually went into the robots or their design and development beyond some sort of video playback pause / play mechanism. 1

However, consider the circumstances of their creation.

Joel, and later Mike and now Jonah, were kidnapped and imprisoned by evil geniuses as part of a mind-control experiment. These geniuses’ plans were to send their prisoner cheesy movies, the worst they could find 2. The test subjects would have to sit and watch them all while the scientists monitored their minds.

While the scientific value of this endeavor is questionable at best – they are mad scientists after all – the experiment carries a certain air deep unpleasantness if not outright torture about it. It’s reminiscent of US efforts to drive Manuel Noriega, fugitive ex-president of Panama, out of the Vatican Embassy by playing Van Halen 24 hours a day.

No doubt Joel’s loneliness and despair over his imprisonment would have driven him to create the robots. The need for real social interactions is likely what led him to such an amazing AI breakthrough.

Yet, such a full replication of human mental abilities and emotions would no doubt carry along with it all the messiness of actual human interactions. No one could really predict what might happen. Joel, perhaps longing for a simple human touch, burning with desire, might one day turn to one of his robot companions to fulfill those needs. Or perhaps, evil robot logic might conclude the best way to end the experiment is to kill Joel.

Add to this the confined space, hardships and deprivations of prolonged space travel. Even the most high-minded endeavors, let alone experiments by evil scientists, are subject to both human intimacy and animosities while under such pressures. The Biosphere 2 project in Arizona back in the 1990s, for example. 3

People can put whatever spin they want on the situation in the Satellite of Love, but Joel would be de facto imprisoning his creations with him, subjecting them to every wretched unpleasantness that he would be experiencing.4 To borrow from the The Dark Knight Rises Joel and Mike and Jonah are merely visitors to hell, whereas Crow and Tom were born there.

It’s simply not a given that cooperation – let alone friendship – would emerge between the humans and robots in such a situation. Joel would be aware of this.

This is a better explanation of the Robots’ strange willingness to remain loyally by the side of and assist any human who comes along: Joel programmed the robots to have Stockholm Syndrome. Tom Servo’s personality drifted dramatically, suggesting some tinkering took place to dial in exactly the right setting.

The result is robots who follow Joel, Mike, Jonah, whoever, repeatedly into the theater. They sit through cheesy movies with no ability to control where the movie begins or ends. Meanwhile someone monitors their sanity. Sound familiar?

The dark truth of Mystery Science Theater 3000 is that Joel is a victim who became the victimizer.

But unlike Joel, his captors have no ability to resist because he made them that way. Worse, Joel gave them the illusion of free will – the belief that they have a choice.

Yet the Robots are chattel – slaves actually – passed from owner to owner with no rights and no say, programmed only for loyalty, existing only so a trapped and lonely human can exert power over them.

Perhaps it is true after all that in order for something to love us, we have to destroy it just a little bit.

  1. From a purely technological perspective, it raises the question of what parts of a video controller system could be used to build an advanced, sentient artificial intelligence. It could be a hardware stop/start button with a bit of integrated circuitry, although in most modern systems video is decoded and played back in software. Stop / start is also carried out purely in software.
  2. La la la!
  3. Granted, the Biosphere 2 may have devolved into backbiting, lawsuits and sabotage. But the person responsible for the chaos was eventually removed and is now a top adviser in the Trump Administration where he can’t do any more harm.
  4. This is also what happens when people have children.
Emperor Donald Trump the First, Glorious and Eternal

The Orange Man in the High Castle

Six-minute read

It was a bright cold day in Trumpril, and the clocks with elaborately baroque gold scrollwork were striking thirteen.

I’d just finished my daily food ration, a few ounces of gray, flavorless protein paste made of ground-up crickets, when Emperor Barron Trump the First appeared on our TV screens. There was some mention of it being the anniversary of his ascension. Was it one year? Or two?

It really doesn’t matter anyway. He may as well have been emperor for 10,000 years. So few remember the America that was, only half a lifetime ago. It has simply passed from memory.

Even the bloody, protracted leadership purge of 2034 has receded by now. It began when Emperor Donald Trump the First, Glorious & Eternal, died at 90 after serving two and a half years as President of the United States, three years as Emergency Administrator of the United States before finally, with great reluctance, assuming a lifetime appointment as emperor.

Perhaps it was Emperor Trump’s declaration late in life that he would henceforth be known as Immortan Donald that led him to forego setting a clear line of succession. Regardless, the fight amongst Trump family members for control of the United Empire of America dragged on for years.

Looking back two decades, it’s hard to point to when Trump’s rule really began. Yes, Trump’s election in 2016 obviously. But finding the flashpoint that showed the path we were headed down, that’s so much harder.

Perhaps it was when Trump was overseeing the state of emergency after Congress was disbanded and arrested. Some say it was when he named several wealthy Russian businessmen to his cabinet. Or maybe it was when a federal judge entered a temporary stay of Trump administration food safety regulations and was immediately dragged from the bench and shot on live TV.

Trump University historians noted that then-Emergency Administrator Trump’s tweets after the judge’s “retirement from the bench” reassured and calmed the troubled nation. He cast a conciliatory tone, asking Americans to pull together to “help judges maybe think about the dangerous implications of decisions they make” and that “it’d be truly terrible to see something like that judge getting shot happen again”.

A blue-ribbon commission led by Ivanka Trump found that the judge had been violently resisting arrest for an unpaid parking ticket and that the shooting was justified.

It proved to be a momentary blip, and a Trump News Network poll showed Trump’s popularity surged from a low of 93 percent to almost 99 percent after his tweetstorm. Regardless, disbanding the courts proved a more effective check on judiciary excess in the long run.

Or maybe Trump’s moment came when the buildings housing CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Huffington Post, Slate and several other smaller regional news organizations simultaneously suffered massive structural failures, collapsed and then exploded before anyone inside could be rescued. A subsequent Trump administration inquiry found dangerous structural faults in every building housing every news organization in America except Fox News and Brietbart.

All of them were ordered disbanded until such time that “The Trump administration can guarantee that anyone reporting in this country won’t meet with sudden, deadly harm, which is really very avoidable if you think about it.”

Most Trump University historians however feel that these were merely precursor events to the mass roundups and internment of individuals in camps that Trump, with a wry sense of irony, dubbed “Sanctuary Cities.” Far too late, many realized that the border walls – both with Mexico and later Canada – were merely a ruse perpetrated on a gullible public. That and the multiple travel bans were intended not to keep others out, but as Trump later noted, “turns out they were actually locked in with me.”

“Rounding up illegal immigrants with years of experience hiding was just so agents could get some practice,” Trump later said with a hearty laugh.

“Dissenters were the real problem, and they weren’t making any effort to hide at all. Imagine that! Marching in front of cameras and then posting it on social media. Can you believe it?

“They thought they were brave resistance fighters. Turns out they were just helping make my job so much easier.”

Arrests were swift. Boston, San Francisco, Williamsburg, Portland, with their strict gun control laws, offered little to no resistance.

The first step was to round up everyone who signed up for Obamacare. GPS data collected by the NSA showed who had attended anti-trump protests. Anyone wearing pussy hats on Instagram or Facebook were targeted.

Also rounded up were New York Times subscribers and NPR pledge drive donors. State DMV records were searched for Prius owners. Entire neighborhoods were rounded up simply because John Oliver or Samantha Bee once got higher than average ratings there.

Gays were lured with the promise of free Lady Gaga concert only to find that “Lady Gaga” was none other than Mike Pence in disguise. Though efforts to “straighten out” detainees by having them engage in manly activities like wood chopping backfired when it made everyone as butch as the Brawny paper towels guy.

Dominoes fell swiftly after that. All universities were shut down. Months later, as the Trump’s armies swept through Canada and Mexico unchecked, Trump announced the founding the United Trump Empire of America. Soon after, all of South America rapidly fell. Then the Middle East and its vast oil reserves.

Efforts to block Trump via constitutional authority also proved fruitless, as Trump’s plan to repeal and replace the Constitution was among his easiest victories. Trump one day had just swapped in a his own version. So few Americans know what’s in the constitution that hardly anyone even noticed that the duties of the president were expanded to include “suppressing dissent in such manner as he sees fit,” “deciding all constitutional matters” and “banging hot chicks.”

With that, 240 years of constitutional authority were replaced by the Trump organization and one man’s vulgar appetites.

And that’s where we find ourselves today. Emperor Barron Trump, now in control of his father’s vast armies and the empire he built, is said to be eying the Pacific Rim countries and Europe next. What moves will come out of the Trump House are anyone’s guess, though.

What’s notable is the swiftness with which everything recounted here happened. Some said that the notion of America being transformed into a fascist nation was just wildly exaggerated political rhetoric.

However, looking back on the rule of Immortan Donald, it turned out not just to be plausible but true.

Stormtrooper hitting his head

Why the Empire always loses

Seven-minute read

It’s really all TK-421’s fault.

He wasn’t at his post, a mistake that led directly to the destruction of the Death Star1. Abandoning an assigned post is a fundamental violation of military protocol.

It’s similar to “I forgot to bring any bullets” in its forehead-slapping stupidity. It’s a court martial offense.

While the temptation might be to personally blame Mr. 421 for the error, his actions are really a sign of greater underlying problems in the Empire’s military training regimen. A certain sloppiness is evident.

It’s the kind of thing that allows a legion of the Empire’s best troops armed with lasers to be defeated by teddy bears throwing rocks. Or that allows the Empire to lose despite the Rebels’ tactical genius admiral leading his entire starfleet into an obvious trap.

One could blame these failures on the Empire’s ego-feeding need to make a big show of crushing the Rebellion in a single battle, which fails repeatedly. But we’ve only ever seen the broad strokes of these embarrassing military campaigns. We never saw the Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead view of events.

George Lucas intentionally left stormtroopers as vague, faceless enemies,2 mere tools of a remorseless Imperial machine. He even went so far as to make them easily replaceable clones in the prequels.

Even after six movies in which Stormtroopers were featured heavily, we knew little about them other than:

  • They’re usually taller than Luke Skywalker
  • They can’t aim for shit
  • They bonk their heads on things a lot.
  • They’re aware that the new T-17 is finally coming out

The two most recent movies, The Force Embiggens and Rogue One Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire, are the first to give us a more grunt-level view of military life in the Empire and First Order. FN-2187 – aka Finn – and Bodhi Rook.3 are the first Empire/First Order foot soldiers given any kind of major role.

While it is true that Finn (John Boyega) isn’t an original trilogy Stormtrooper, the First Order is a direct descendant of the Empire and clearly holds to its military traditions4. It’s made clear that the Stormtrooper training program was revamped in response to earlier failures, but seemingly not for the better.

Finn, who has been trained as a Stormtrooper since childhood, shows almost no military discipline or ability. His counterpart Mary Sue (Daisy Ridley), despite her background as a dirt-poor orphaned peasant, shows far more acumen at planning and escaping, not to mention calm under fire.

Even a cobbled-together band of rebels pilots know the importance of protocols such as radio discipline. Finn scores poorly for weapons and trigger discipline and doesn’t seem to have much in the way of fighting skills. TR-8R5 kicks his ass easily despite the fact that Finn has a goddamned lightsaber. Mary Sue, who has no military training, uses the same lightsaber to fight off a Sith Lord. Overall, it’s a very poor showing showing.

Rogue One’s former Imperial star fleet pilot Bodhi (Patrick Swayze) doesn’t fare all that well either.

While Top Gun has led us to think that being a military pilot is mainly about making furtive, longing glances across the locker room at fellow pilots, actual flight training and operations involve a lot of careful procedures that must be followed precisely to avoid disaster. Even a cobbled-together band of rebels pilots knows the importance of protocols such as radio discipline, as Wedge Antilles is chided to “cut the chatter” during the Battle of Yavin.

Bodhi is a graduate of an Empire military academy and flight school. He’s a junior officer with the rank of ensign. He’s not only a stick and rudder man. He would serve as commander of whatever craft he was flying.

In Star Trek terms, he’s Wesley Crusher to Finn’s redshirt. He’s a far more trained, far more educated, far more responsible individual than cannon fodder like stormtroopers. Or, you’d think.

Yet he’s an even bigger hot mess than Finn. He’s a ditzy scatterbrain who, like Finn, doesn’t seem as if he received any military training or discipline. He’s nearly useless in planning the assault on Evil Space Google that ends the movie.

Snarky Robot Slave K-2SO (Hoban Washburne) does most of the flying and is responsible for saving the crew from the exploding remains of Jebbush City 6 by flying way from the scene much like a leaf on the wind might.

What’s notable in both Finn and Bodhi, though, is not lack of skill but a decided lack of loyalty.

Finn is shaken by the death of a stormtrooper who was his – BFF? BAE?7 – and promptly deserts, only to, a few hours later and without hesitation, drill blaster shots into his former comrades’ chests. His lack of loyalty shows up again when, after finding out the stakes of Mary Sue’s mission, he decides to bolt the scene and sign onto a freighter.

Bhodi decides to join the Rebellion “because reasons,” although giving characters things like “motivations” or “story arcs” or “dimensions” didn’t seem to be a strong point for the Rogue One writers.

Such unmotivated disloyalty points to deep problems in the Empire and First Order’s lower ranks. Traitors commonly feel that whoever or whatever they have turned against betrayed them first. Paying back this original slight is how they justify their own betrayals. For example, Mark Felt, a.k.a. “Deep Throat” began leaking to The Washington Post after being passed over as FBI director.

But that doesn’t seem to be the case here. Finn and Bhodi are just untrustworthy.

Military training is supposed to use our innate, evolutionary propensity to form tight social bonds – tribalist, really – in small groups. It’s said you don’t fight for a cause, you fight for the guy next to you. Finn and Bodhi don’t even do that. They head for the exit.

Even if we set aside poor skills on display, the Empire’s military training seems to be fundamentally flawed at turning men into soldiers.

It’s why TK-421 didn’t see a need to stay at his post. Or Finn put his own wellbeing above that of others. Or Bodhi turned so easily. Or Stormtroopers are chatting about spaceships instead of guarding the important tractor beam controls right at a key moment. Or your chief deputy you saved from a lava pit throws you down a 10,000 story reactor shaft.

Poor training is why the Empire fell. Well it didn’t actually fall. It underwent liquidation wherein it sold its core assets to Supreme Leader Snape then followed that up by a rebranding and relaunch. Kinda like AOL or Yahoo.

  1. Some blame also lies with the guy who let the blockade runner’s escape pod go. Dude, they’re not paying you to bring back ammunition.
  2. It’s worth noting that Lucas here is doing what propagandists have been doing for years. By depriving the enemy of identity and playing to 3. prejudices he can kill them by the thousands onscreen and no one cares.
  3. Real subtle character naming there, Star Wars writers. Why not just name him Knowthings McDoomedguy?
  4. Such as getting its giant space lasers blown up. Amiright?
  5. Who, by the way, is a ginger.
  6. An explosion that, unlike all other explosions large and small, seems to have no explosive wavefront moving at supersonic speeds that would have crushed the escaping ship like a bug.
  7. All those young stormtrooper dudes and the only woman is Capt. Phasma. Situational homosexuality in the Stormtrooper corps must be rampant.

Page 1 of 10

Take me back to where I was reading