Wait a moment. Unless the Klingon captain is an antagonist that doesn't fit with the Trek canon, since this series is supposed to be set about a decade before the timeline of the original Star Trek series. The article doesn't say one way or another so I'm going to assume the Klingon is the primary antagonist in the series, but somehow I have a nagging suspicion I'll be wrong.
The Federation was at war with the Klingons in TOS, and it took a planet of energy beings to stop it. Any Klingon in the Federation's hands would have been too valuable to risk as the captain of a starship, no matter what his origin. If this turkey is captain of a Federation ship there had better be a good reason for it.
But I think it's going to be not-good, because their list of characters is thus:
In addition to the [non-captain] female lead, Fuller hopes to cast an openly gay character, and The Hollywood Reporter says that the rest of the seven-character cast will be rounded out by "a female admiral, a male Klingon captain, a male admiral, a male adviser and a British male doctor."So out of the seven leads, we know one is going to be a homosexual, and we know the sexes of the rest of them. We don't know anything else. Which leads me to think that what's important here, to the folks working on this series, is checking boxes on a diversity form--rather than telling interesting and entertaining stories.
Since Voyager first aired, I've never been optimistic about new Trek series because the SJW has always been strong with the ouerve and when a new series is being developed the creative team always boasts about what they're going to do. People still point to TOS as having the first interracial kiss on TV--O, the groundbreaking egalitarianism!--and by the time Deep Space Nine featured the first lesbian kiss on TV the whole idea of "what barriers can we break this season?" had become passe. No one cared about the kiss on DS9, because (A) TV series no one watched and (B) the societal guardrails that made the kiss in TOS such a controversy had already long since been dismantled.
After Voyager I assumed that Star Trek: Enterprise was going to suck, and was pleasantly surprised to find that it was excellent...and then it was pulled because so many fans of the show disliked it.
I guess we'll see.
* * *
Daughter of President "Choom Gang" now taking to the choom herself. Why not? I'd bet money that Obama is smoking the wacky terbacky in the Oval Bong. Pot is almost legal now, and anyway it's not like Malia Obama is ever going to have to do anything but be part of the aristocracy.
* * *
I'd say this is a net gain, or almost. Statins are being rationed by Britain's National Health Service because socialized medicine. Statins are worse than the disease they allegedly treat, anyway; if you have high cholesterol you need to knock off with the carbohydrates and start eating high-fat. Counterintuitive, but it'll fix what ails you, and you won't need to poison yourself with statins.
* * *
I agree with Fred: there is no need to antagonize Russia. I really don't understand the point, here, of the Obama administration's continued aggressive stance against Russia. We should be teaming up with Russia to fight islamic terrorism. Russia would be a powerful, powerful ally, and now that they're no longer the USSR and trying to absorb the entire planet, our interests should align more closely with theirs.
In international politics, the interests of two nations are never entirely parallel; there's nothing wrong with that. But here we have to make a decision: do we want to have a full-on shooting war with another country? Is there a compelling reason to go to war with Russia? What, exactly, are they doing that we should risk total war with them?
The Democrats would have us police the world, as if it was our responsibility to prevent all suffering everywhere. Here's a news flash: we can't do that. It's foolish to try. The decision to go to war should only be "yes" when we can answer a majority of the following questions in the affirmative:
* Is the safety of the United States threatened?I'm sure I could think of others if I had time. The point is, getting into a war should be a lot harder, politically, than it is right now. We've been at war, one way or another, since 2002, and we're no closer to winning it than we were when we started. (It could be argued that we're farther from winning it.) And we're not winning it because we're not willing to win it.
* Has there been a major attack on the country, or is one imminent?
* Are we willing to prosecute this war to its conclusion, which means totally destroying the enemy's ability (and possibly will) to make war?
* Is fighting this war important enough that the politicians making the decision would send their own children off to fight?
* Are we willing to convert our economy entirely to a war footing to win this war?
Politicians get too much political hay out of it. Defense contractors line their pockets (their own and the politicians') with warbucks. Meanwhile, our soldiers keep dying for no identifiable benefit, at least none that accrue to the United States in general.
I don't see the point in going to war with Russia. I just don't see it.
* * *
No one cares about the Olympics. The floor is lava, the zebras are angry. Literally mayhem!