Thoughts on Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith

I've been thinking about this film ever since I came out of the theater. I enjoyed Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith even given it's bad dialog at the beginning of the film. George Lucas has succeeded in giving a strong ending to this the last of the prequel films. I felt satisfied that we have finally come full circle with this story. Ending where we came in. With the Empire Ruling the Galaxy, and Darth Vader as the Emperors' enforcer.

I am tempted to sit down and rewatch Ep. IV-VI to see if after viewing Ep. III, I view these films from my youth in a different way. So moving is the way that Lucas hands the fall of Anakin Skywalker in this film. As many have stated in their reviews, Lucas has handled the transformation to Darth Vader in an all too human way. I also can see how the Cannes Film festival could have seen this film as a statement on the Bush administration. Lucas has tried to capitalize on this, but I feel that any similarities are pure happenstance, owing to the forces of history and story telling any similarities with Bush and current events.

Now, the question is, will 20^th Century let this franchise go? Or will they try, at some future date, to make the rumored Episodes VII-IX that Lucas claimed he outlined years ago, without him?

International Reactions to Weapons in Space

Photo Credit: Scrapman

It has not taken countries, such as Russia,long to react to the purposed change in American policy to Weaponize Space.

Vladimir Yermakov, senior counselor at the Russian embassy in Washington, said his country is urging the U.S. through diplomatic channels against any plans for space militarization. But he told a space conference Russia would have to react, possibly with force, if the U.S. successfully put a "combat weapon" in space. Read more...

It looks that even though the government has stated that no change has been asked for from the Air Force and the Defense Department. I don't think that any would find it incongruent with the attitudes of General Richard B. Myers who was commander of NORAD and the U.S. Space Command before he became Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. And Rumsfeld has been an advocate of the National Missile Defense (NMD) related projects for years. So even if this story is false, which I don't believe, one could easily see them asking for such a directive.

The internal U.S. debate over whether the Pentagon needs to put weapons in space gained momentum in 2001 following the conclusions of a commission that warned of the possibility of a "space Pearl Harbor" that could destroy U.S. commercial and military satellites.

"If the U.S. is to avoid a 'space Pearl Harbor', it needs to take seriously the possibility of an attack on U.S. space systems," said the commission, which was chaired by Donald Rumsfeld before he became defense secretary. Read More...

Unfortunately Congress has not, in my opinion, done its job with adequate oversight of the agencies of the Executive Branch. They have all too often been a rubber stamp on what the administration wants.

Related Articles:
WorldNetDaily: Russia threatens force if U.S. militarizes space
Space.com: Scientists Warn Against Weaponizing Space

New Patriot Act.

Photo Credit: remington

It looks as if the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Pat Roberts is working on a new Patriot Act. This new Bill reportedly, would give the Administration powers that it has sought for years for secret wire taps and powers of investigation that Congress has so far rebuffed.

What is disturbing and what really points to the fact that they don't really believe in this is that they are holding discussions on this bill in secret. They don't feel strongly enough in this Bill, that it could not stand public viewing of the details. That is wrong. How can knowing the details of a statute be a danger to national security?

Related
GOP Aides Say New Patriot Act Obliges Bush

Weaponization of Space

Photo Credit: justcola

It looks as if Rumsfeld will get his boondoggle. The Air Force is expected to ask the President to allow weapons in space. This is what the New York Times is reporting today. While the times saids that the Pentagon is only asking for a directive for "free access to space". I think we can all agree that this means weapons. Because, in theory we have that and will for some time in the future. And this term "free access to space" can not mean nothing other then suppressing other space powers. Granted they would still be vulnerable to a nuke going off in space(that being the most effective anti-satellite weapon).

The proposed change would be a substantial shift in American policy. It would almost certainly be opposed by many American allies and potential enemies, who have said it may create an arms race in space...Any deployment of space weapons would face financial, technological, political and diplomatic hurdles, although no treaty or law bans Washington from putting weapons in space, barring weapons of mass destruction...In January 2001, a commission led by Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the newly nominated defense secretary, recommended that the military should "ensure that the president will have the option to deploy weapons in space." Read more...

Related Articles: Updated
Air Force Seeks Bush's Approval for Space Arms
TIMES' SHAKY SPACEWAR STORY
EMP SCAREMONGERS FIZZLE

Word of the Day: Flexitarianism

You learn something new everyday. For me it is Flexitarian. Now I view myself as a fairly well read person, but had never heard of this term before today. I came across it on the Rick Emerson Blog. Here is the definition I found.

Flexitarianism is the practice of being flexible about the degree one practices vegetarianism or veganism. A flexitarian might make only vegetarian dishes at home, but eat dishes including meat at the home of family or friends. In 2003, the American Dialect Society voted flexitarian as the year's most useful word, and defined it as "a vegetarian who occasionally eats meat."

Related Articles:
Rick Emerson Blog entry: Boiling the tofu frog
msnbc: Are you a 'flexitarian?'

Fair use could be changing

I was listening to Todd Cochrane's podcast of Geek News Central, and he brought up the Federal Court's over turning of a new FCC regulation that would of changed how we have used are VCR's and DVR's to record TV shows.

Listen to the clip from that Podcast:

As he stated, now they want a new law that would in effect over turn that decision of the Federal Court. This is something that should be watched for. I object to the type of change shown in this clip. The MPAA has to get its act together and see the writing on the wall. Changing the law to suit them will not protect them. People have gotten used to viewing TV when they want, how they want it for the last 25 some odd years, ever since the Sony Betamax case in the late 70's, trying to change the rules now will only anger their customers. And do nothing to help them adapt to the new reality of the market place.

Related:
EFF: Electronic Fronter Foundation
Geek News Central
Piracy is Good? How Battlestar Galactica Killed Broadcast TV

Newsweek Fiasco

Photo Credit: interimage

As people get stirred up over the Newsweek article of last week about the alleged flushing of the Korean at the Gitmo Detention Center, I think it is important to remember that while many in the Islamic world are outraged over this story and the level of violence that it has sparked, I feel it cannot be placed solely at Newsweek's feet. What has occurred is a global erosion of US prestige in the world. These riots are a result of a long series of wrong steps in both the media and the government. This one story, in and of itself isn't the cause. Those in that part of the world believe that we would do such an act. The facts to them are of no relevance. They see it as a part of a greater pattern of our actions. We have failed to counter the propaganda of the Jihadist in that part of the world. And our actions in Iraq have only fed into their point of view.

Now we have the US government asking for a retraction. Rightfully so, but the damage has been done and those who would believe this type of story will not believe a retraction. I get back to the the point that this is endemic of a greater problem. US credibility. People around the world used to believe the statements of the US government on the world stage. Now they look for the "Wag the Dog" effect in almost every word uttered. This is very damaging to the US.

Newsweek should have been more careful about it's stories. In this new world of global communications words have true power on the world. We have known this for some time, but have not seen this type of reaction to a news article printed in this country having such an immediate reaction in a place on the other side of the world viewed as cut off from the main stream of world opinion.

Related Articles:
White House Wants Retraction From Newsweek
Newsweek says Koran desecration report is wrong

Nerd test

I guess I need to work on my Computer Geek status.

Time keeps moving on.

Check Out

This new podcast, done by a Radio man in Portland, OR who's station changed format on him and others. Tim Riley's City Desk is an off shoot of what he did for that station as a newsman. It's an amusing collection of local and national stories put together in a short audio piece, worth a listen too.

Fallout

Photo Credit: agentdero

Things seem to be turning from bad to worse. First we had this administration destroy American credibility in the world over Iraq. That is now haunting use with North Korea and Iran both of whom are moving forward with their respective programs. With North Korea going so far as to set up reviewing stands near, what looks to be a nuclear test site (See: Experts Outline Process of Possible North Korea Nuclear Test).

On a similar note Iran has stated today that it will restart its uranium enrichment-related work within days. So now when are government needs its credibility the most we don't have it. We face North Korea showing the world that it has moved from just being suspected of having Nuclear weapons to giving a demonstration. And Iran moving forwards towards some for itself. Ignoring the international community. Some believe that Iran's moves are with the possible intent of using them as a counter to American power, by using there possible weapons as a way to blind US technology in a conflict that they see coming.

So this administrations aggressive stances have push us all into a very dangerous place in two critical parts of the world.

Related Articles
AP: Iran Confirms Uranium-To-Gas Conversion
Reuters: Iran says to resume enrichment-related work in days
VAO: Experts Outline Process of Possible North Korea Nuclear Test

PBS Hurting Under Republicans

It looks as if the Republicans are closer to fulfilling their dream of killing Public Broadcasting, or at least the TV portion. The New York Times today has an article called, Republican Chairman Exerts Pressure on PBS, Alleging Biases. In it they show what looks as if the White House and Karl Rove, have placed into the hierarchy PBS, a Republican operative.

What seems to have really set them off was the show "Now With Bill Moyers." Republicans have always had it in for Moyers as a Leftist and this show seems to have set them off more than usual. With Kenneth Y. Tomlinson placed as head of PBS. He seems to have forced Moyer to leave. Tomlinson really angered many across the country when,

"Last November, members of the Association of Public Television Stations met in Baltimore along with officials from the corporation and PBS. Mr. Tomlinson told them they should make sure their programming better reflected the Republican mandate."

Mr. Tomlinson said that his comment was in jest and that he couldn't imagine how remarks at "a fun occasion" were taken the wrong way. Others, though, were not amused.

All of this seems to show that PBS as we know it is dying at the hands of the Republicans whom have never like or seen the need for it. If things remain as it is now then in a few years a valuable resource to the public will have been lost.

NYT: Republican Chairman Exerts Pressure on PBS, Alleging Biases