Movies & TV Star Trek: Lower Decks Breaking Up is Hard to Do — Star Trek: Lower Decks “The Best Exotic Nanite Hotel” Mariner faces her not-quite-ex, and Boimler heads undercover… By Keith R.A. DeCandido | Published on October 31, 2024 Credit: CBS / Paramount+ Comment 0 Share New Share Credit: CBS / Paramount+ What we have this week is a normal episode of Lower Decks, albeit one that continues two themes from the two-episode season premiere week: Boimler trying to be more like his alternate-universe counterpart, whom he met and admired in “Dos Cerritos,” and the proclivity for quantum fissures that prompted their mission in that same episode. Unfortunately, the A-plot this time focuses on dating adventures, which puts LD back in the mode at which it is least interesting: a twenty-first-century sitcom crowbarred into a Trek setting. Jennifer-the-Andorian goes on an away mission with Mariner, Tendi, and Rutherford to get rid of a nanite infestation on a resort station, and Jennifer immediately starts acting like she and Mariner are still dating. Mariner is appalled, because they broke up ages ago (right around when Mariner was exiled to Starbase 80 in “Trusted Sources”). Except, when she goes over what happened, she realizes that she didn’t actually break up, she just gave Jennifer the silent treatment and assumed she’d understand. And their respective duties have kept them away from each other in any case, so they haven’t talked until now. So now Mariner has to actually break up with her. This plot is tiresome for a number of reasons, not the least being that it’s a little too early-twenty-first century. And I still wince every time we see this Andorian named “Jennifer.” LD has dipped a little too much into the “they’re aliens, but they have boring white-person names! Ha! Ha! That’s funny!” well. Plus Jennifer just isn’t that interesting. Another reason is that this is yet another “oh God, Mariner is the worst” plot, which grew tiresome around the one-third mark of season one. I’ve said all along that Mariner would be better off being modeled after Chris Knight in Real Genius, the veteran officer who has seen it all and has stopped giving a fuck, and recent seasons have given us more of that (e.g., booing missions that seem boring, like in “Caves”). But this is back to Mariner just being rotten and no fun to be around. Before she has a chance to properly break up with Jennifer, the Andorian reveals that she’s transferring to another ship, so this is their last mission together before they will be physically far apart. Mariner is relieved, as circumstance has prevented her from having to do something unpleasant, she can just let Jennifer transfer off, and it’ll be just like they actually broke up! What we learn this week is that Jennifer is just as horrible a person as Mariner. (Well, okay, we kinda knew that from the way Jennifer used Mariner to tweak her salon in “Hear All, Trust Nothing.”) Eventually she reveals that she knew damn well that Mariner’s silent treatment was breaking up with her, but Jennifer wanted to make Mariner actually do it before Jennifer transferred off. They have it out, and wind up breaking up less acrimoniously, and remain friends—or, as Jennifer puts it, she finally has an ex who doesn’t want to kill her. Lovely. This being a Star Trek show, the big conversation where they have it out happens while both are clutching to a palm tree while a giant nanite infestation is consuming everything in its path. The nanites—Rutherford names the collective nanites “Glump,” which is adorable—resist all attempts to capture them, though eventually Rutherford figures out a solution, because of course he does. And it involves T’Lyn, in another bit that I wasn’t entirely enthusiastic about: the oh-so-logical-and-stoic Vulcan goes all fangirl on a popular singer named Korg. She even gets to use his instruments—vibes—to create a resonance frequency that will shatter the nanite bond and block the intelligence controlling them. It’s cute that T’Lyn has this weakness, but it’s a little too constructed. Tendi later gets Korg’s autograph on a padd for T’Lyn, and her initial response is that it’s a pointless gift, but she keeps it anyhow, because she might need it for handwriting analysis later. Ha! Ha! That’s funny! Credit: CBS / Paramount+ The more interesting plot is Boimler’s. He’s assigned with Ransom and Billups to go undercover to retrieve an admiral who’s gone AWOL. Boimler, however, is all nervous because just before he goes off with the first officer and chief engineer, he sees Jet on his way to sickbay. Jet warns Boimler that Ransom is a crazy man who gets his junior officers hurt: on their just-completed mission together, Jet lost both his hands. This, at least, feels like a Trek comedy plot. After all, a cliché of the franchise since practically the very beginning has been the junior officers on the off-ship mission (whether landing party or away team) being the ones who get hurt or killed, thus showing that there’s danger without actually endangering a regular. And Boimler is now scared to death that he’s the designated victim on this mission. As a result, he screws up any number of things he normally wouldn’t, like eating and drinking in front of Kreetassans and giving away that he’s Starfleet while on an undercover mission. However, when it seems like the AWOL admiral has converted Boimler to his side of the fence—he’s fed up with the crummy assignments he’s gotten since being promoted to flag rank, like being in charge of milking space whales—Ransom and Billups make it clear that they wanted Boimler along because he’s a good officer. (Also, he’s wiry. As Billups says, you always need a wiry guy.) Unlike Mariner, who remains stuck in neutral five years in, we’ve gotten to watch Boimler evolve from the callow ensign into the type of highly competent officer that we come to expect from our Trek characters. And, true to how evolution works, it’s happening very very slowly. But it is happening! The nanites have been directed by a Starfleet ship—an extremely tiny Starfleet ship. It turns out to be another vessel from an alternate timeline, but in their universe, everything is way smaller. The admiral returns from duty and is assigned to help the micro-ship out. (Her captain is surprised, saying that the admiral’s counterpart in their universe is off milking space whales…) This is the second time we’ve had a universe crossover, and one suspects this will all build toward something… Credit: CBS / Paramount+ Random thoughts T’Lyn also meets Korg, and he turns out to be a devotee of logic, which just makes T’Lyn an even bigger fan. That’s the sort of thing we don’t see enough of in Trek: people from one species embracing the culture of a different species. It has shown up here and there—Ensign D’Seve in TNG’s “Face of the Enemy,” for example—but we should be seeing more of it. Boimler now has a lot of stubble. He’s obviously very very slowly working his way toward growing the beard that his alternate-universe counterpart had in “Dos Cerritos.” Kreetassans and their taboo against eating and drinking in front of other people were introduced in Enterprise’s “Vox Sola.” Finally, this episode has a historic moment, as we see Gallamites for the first time! Established in DS9’s “The Maquis, Part I” has having toothy smiles and transparent skulls so you can see their brains. It was a running gag on DS9, with Dax having a friendship with a Gallamite captain named Boday. In this LD episode, we see Gallamites, and they have big teeth, the tops of their heads are transparent, showing their brains, and they also look surprisingly Saurian, which is a nice touch.[end-mark] The post Breaking Up is Hard to Do — <i>Star Trek: Lower Decks</i> “The Best Exotic Nanite Hotel” appeared first on Reactor.

Hollywood, California has gone through countless changes over the last century, but one period that remains iconic in the eyes of historians is the Golden Age of Hollywood. It began just before World War I when silent movies were what was being made. The era lasted over five decades into the late 1960s. During this time period, audiences were introduced to many technological advances such as sound... Source

As we move to the conclusion of this election cycle, there seems to be only one thing about which all Americans agree. That is, that something is very wrong in our nation. In the latest Gallup polling, only 22% say they are satisfied with the direction of the country. The highest this has been over the last 16 years was 45% back in February of 2020. So, despite change in party control over these years, the sense that something is wrong in the country has persisted. More in the framework of this election, only 39% say they are better off than they were four years ago, and 52% say they are not better off. Most Americans do not even have confidence in the sources where they get their news. Only 31% say they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in mass media. The first time Gallup asked this question, back in 1972, 68% expressed confidence in mass media. A record high percent of Americans, 80%, say the country is “greatly divided” on the most important values. In a New York Times/Siena College poll, only 49% say “American democracy does a good job representing the people.” And 76% say “American democracy is currently under threat.” All agree that something is wrong, but no consensus emerges about what exactly is the problem. Is it possible to put a finger on what is causing the cynicism and disillusionment that grips the psyche of our nation? My view is the problem is the drift of the nation from its founding principles. To put it another way, we have no choice about whether we have faith or belief. But we do have choice about what it is we believe. The dramatic change that has taken place in America is the uprooting of the Bible as our starting point for right and wrong. We have exchanged our faith in God for a faith in government. In 1950, Gallup reports 0% of Americans said they had no religion. By 1970, this was up to 3%. And by 2023, this was up to 22%. Over this same time, in 1950, the federal government consumed 14.2% of our GDP. The estimate from the Congressional Budget Office is that in 2024, that percent will be 23.9%. The preamble to our Constitution explains its purpose is “to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity.” Our Constitution was not presumed to be the source of our freedom. We are already free by virtue, as noted in the Declaration of Independence, of being created thus by our God. Our Constitution was designed to limit interference by government in the ability of free, God-fearing men and women to live their lives as they see fit. The guideline for behavior, for right and wrong, is that which is transmitted to us from our Creator through the Bible. Under this reality, America grew and became great. However, success brings the sin of pride, and we begin to attribute our success to our cleverness rather than our faith and personal responsibility. As increasing numbers of Americans have turned away from God, they have turned more to government. The sad paradox is that as Americans turn to government, they abrogate the very freedom that the Founders envisioned government’s role to secure. The result is less economic growth, breakdown of the American family, and disappearance of children. Growth of government, growth of federal debt, and no children is no formula for a country with a future. I believe this is what Americans are sensing and what is producing all the negative feelings and pessimism. We must return to the vision of our Founders: A free nation, under God. And a Constitution that secures “the blessings of liberty.” Short of this, although we may experience ups and downs, the nation will not realize its great potential. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Unease With Elections Exposes Loss of Hope, Loss of God in America appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The world must be getting so much worse! Activists protest everywhere. Listening to them, I’d think hate, homophobia, racism, and environmental threats are at record highs. But it’s not true. Despite our ugly election politics, for most people, life is better than ever.   Our air and water are cleaner. People live longer and healthier lives. There’s less racism and homophobia. But if they admit that, activists would be out of a job. In my new video, John Tierney, a journalist who’s covered protests for years, says, “For activists, success is a threat. It is going to put you out of business.” I push back. “They’re not a business. They’re not making money doing this.” “Yes, they are!” Tierney says. He’s right. Environmental groups probably make the most. The head of the World Wildlife Fund pays himself $1.2 million a year. Somehow, that will reduce climate change? “Climate change is the perfect crisis,” Tierney says, “You can attribute anything to it, and it’s always in the future.” The fund says climate change increased the number of “major hurricanes.” “There’s been no long-term growth in the intensity or the number of hurricanes,” Tierney points out, “but every time one comes, it’s a great photo op for the crisis industry to use to say, ‘This is climate change!'” When it comes to deceitful self-dealing, Tierney says, “The ultimate example is the Southern Poverty Law Center.” When the SPLC opened, it promised legal help to those harmed by racism. After its lawsuits bankrupted chapters of the Ku Klux Klan, the SPLC changed its “Klanwatch” to “Hatewatch,” Tierney points out, “fabricating the idea that there’s a rising tide of hate in this country. … It scares people, and they get money.” “They think they’re making the world a better place,” I suggest. “But they’re not!” he says. “They’re viciously attacking and smearing.” Smearing groups like “Moms for Liberty” and “Moms for America.”  “Scaremongering and giving people the idea that there’s all this hatred and racism,” Tierney continues, “when all the evidence shows just the reverse.” The SPLC’s founder said he’d stop fundraising once they raised $55 million. Now they have $600 million, and they ask people for more money. Another branch of the crisis industry, The Human Rights Campaign, claims that American gays are under attack. They issued a “national state of emergency” for LGBTQ+ people. But “last year, public support for gay rights reached an all-time high,” Tierney says. “Gays can marry in every state. There’s no stigma against homosexuality. Gay characters used to be taboo on television; now they’re practically obligatory. An anti-gay slur is this career suicide. But these activists need to declare some kind of emergency.” Racial justice activists claim America is still a racist country. “How did this fundamentally racist country elect Barack Obama and reelect him?” asks Tierney. “There’s even been a decline in the search for racist jokes on the internet. People are more committed than ever to treating everyone the same.” I bring up George Floyd’s killing. “But that was a very rare event,” Tierney says. “Studies do not show any racial bias in police shootings. Taking one death and turning that into a ‘national reckoning with race’ was incredibly lucrative for activists.” They raised more than $10 billion after George Floyd was killed. Back Lives Matter’s leaders spent $12 million of it on luxury properties. And their anti-police protests probably killed people. Violent crime increased sharply. Activists’ self-promotion often kills.   “One of the great public health advances (of) this century has been vaping,” Tierney points out. “Once vaping devices were introduced, smoking rates plummeted to historic lows.” Lots of lives are saved because vaping is much safer than smoking. “But this was a huge threat to anti-smoking activists,” Tierney says. “If people were quitting on their own, what happens to us? So, they started scaring people about vaping.” “They’ve succeeded in persuading most people that vaping is as dangerous as smoking,” he adds. “That is a horrible thing to do to the public. But it’s been very good for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. It’s great for their careers. It’s terrible for public health.” COPYRIGHT 2024 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC. The post Promoting Panic for Cash appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Vice President Kamala Harris’ weak response to President Joe Biden’s calling Donald Trump supporters “garbage” matches her hyperbolic, incendiary claims that Trump is a “fascist” who relies on the tactics of Adolf Hitler.  Meanwhile, Harris’ running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, compared Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally to a Nazi gathering.  Even high school debate coaches erect a key boundary: When you label your opponent a Nazi, you’ve lost. StopAntisemitism, which describes itself as a grassroots watchdog organization, called foul, posting a statement on X that went viral:  Equating either candidate or their supporters to the Nazi regime diminishes the genuine horrors of Hitler and his followers. It dishonors the millions who perished under his orders and disrespects those who gave their lives to bring his tyranny to an end. Save the reprimand for the actual Nazis. As Harris struggles in polls to reach the necessary Electoral College tally of 270 votes, and also in the betting markets, the Democratic presidential nominee reeks of desperation while trying to shake her obvious association with the unpopular Biden-Harris administration.  Yet the vice president also conjures a certain familiarity. Numerous examples illustrate how Harris is poised to become Hillary Clinton 2.0. (Clinton, of course, lost to Trump in 2016 as the Democratic presidential nominee.) Both women are nearly lifelong politicians who never faced the average U.S. voter (e.g. median political ideology vs. blue state extremism). As U.S. senators, both hailed from states that are safe and cushy for liberals.  Their core voters are disconnected from the rest of America—a key factor in an Electoral College-based, states-empowered republic.  The Cook Political Report’s Partisan Voting Index ranks Harris’ California as +13 Democrat margin compared to the nation as a whole; it ranks Clinton’s New York as +10 Democrat. This helps explain why both women have a tin ear about Middle American values.  Because of her last-minute party coronation after Democrats forced Biden out of the race, Harris didn’t earn one single vote in the 2024 Democratic primary season (nor did she as a candidate in 2020). This means she hasn’t faced the average nationwide Democrat voter, either. Sure, Harris and Clinton both might have relatively middle-class or humble roots (as Harris desperately trots out in the most awkward fashion to any question she gets on the campaign trail, no matter how unrelated).  However, the two women truly have floated in economic and social “privilege” their whole adult lives.  And the fact that Harris was the child of two parents who worked for elite colleges—her mother for the University of California, Berkeley and her father for Stanford—gifted her a childhood of socioeconomic privilege that reverberated into adulthood.  Like Clinton, Harris is out of touch with average Americans. And while Harris at 60 is younger and perceived by some as more likable, Clinton is more articulate and better informed—so perhaps this cancels out.  Even though Clinton, now 77, comes off as more rigid and cold, Harris’ many verbal gaffes mean the vice president projects incompetence instead of endearment. Tellingly, behind the scenes, Harris’ staff apparently doesn’t experience her as likable. Blistering levels of staff turnover beset the vice president’s office due to allegedly hostile work environments. Harris is ultimately the source of this breakneck turnover.  Whatever Harris enabled or did to cause this excessive turnover is something she can’t hide from voters or the camera. Like Clinton, Harris projects unlikability and doesn’t evoke the deep, fierce loyalty of Trump voters. Like Clinton, Harris also projects inauthenticity, a sense that she loves celebrities more than everyday people.  Both women like power but don’t seem to care about the people in front of them. This is the opposite of Bill Clinton—numerous reports paint Hillary’s husband as a magnetic politician who makes each person feel like he or she is the only person in the room.  Both women, to compensate for their liberal elite bubbles, selected a balding, white-haired, supposedly inoffensive white man as their VP choice.  In both cases, it screams of pandering. And in both cases, it appears headed for failure. Carrie Sheffield is a senior policy analyst at Independent Women’s Voice. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Desperate, Elitist Kamala Harris Is Hillary Clinton 2.0 appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The New York Times, Media Matters for America, and The Washington Post are stepping up their pressure on YouTube to demonetize and censor election “misinformation,” particularly statements that the 2020 election was rigged or insecure. As these organizations push for stricter speech suppression, questions are raised about the implications for open discourse on the platform and the legacy media and activist attempts to get it shut down. In the past months, Media Matters undertook an extensive review of content from 30 prominent conservative YouTube channels, identifying 286 videos containing what they classified as election misinformation, which collectively garnered over 47 million views. This report, backed by verification from The New York Times, pointed out that YouTube profited from ads placed on many of these videos. Highlighted in the Times article were figures such as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, and conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, all of whom have voiced skepticism regarding the legitimacy of various aspects of the 2020 election process. According to The New York Times, “Giuliani, the former New York mayor, posted more false electoral claims to YouTube than any other major commentator in the research group.” Surprisingly, YouTube’s stance, as relayed by a spokeswoman, stresses the importance of open political discourse: “The ability to openly debate political ideas, even those that are controversial, is an important value — especially in the midst of election season,” she stated, defending the platform’s approach to content management. Critics argue that the concerted effort by The New York Times and Media Matters may push YouTube towards a censorship regime that could hinder the expression of political ideas and debates. They fear that these actions could set a precedent where content is excessively policed, potentially stifling a broad spectrum of political discussions under the guise of combating misinformation. A YouTube spokesman elaborated on the company’s policy, saying, “YouTube said it removes videos that mislead voters on how to vote, encourage election interference or make violent threats.” The discussion around these policies does not occur in a vacuum. Various community members and commentators have voiced their concerns. Giuliani, a popular YouTube creator mentioned in the article, defended his content, stating, “I am proud to be included with Ben and Tucker — two GREAT Patriots!” The Washington Post in particularly takes aim at podcasts. Podcasts, fundamentally different from other media formats in their distribution, exist primarily as MP3 files that are uploaded and stored on various hosting services before being disseminated across a multitude of directories and platforms. This more decentralized nature of podcast distribution means that unlike posts on a single platform like Facebook or Twitter, which can be centrally monitored and moderated, podcasts can be accessed from numerous sources. This dispersal complicates the ability of activists and tech companies to exert control over content, as removing a podcast from one directory does not prevent it from being available on others. Additionally, the host servers, often separate entities from the directories that list the podcasts, further obscure the line of responsibility and control, rendering censorship efforts fragmented. “Podcasts, whose fast-moving audio format has proved challenging for tech companies and researchers to monitor, can provide ‘a safe space’ for those airing election-fraud narratives, said Valerie Wirtschafter, a fellow at the Brookings Institution. “The shows are an especially impactful vehicle for falsehoods and conspiracy theories because hosts foster intimate, trusted relationships with their listeners, who regularly tune in during their commutes or while doing chores around their homes,” she said. “Fact-checking is so hard on social media,” said Katie Harbath, CEO of the tech consultancy Anchor Change and a former Facebook public policy director, to the Washington Post. “How do you even do that on a podcast?” Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro has launched a scathing attack on mainstream media, particularly targeting The New York Times and The Washington Post for today’s publications which he claims attempt to suppress conservative media outlets. His criticism comes at a critical time, just days before voters head to the polls. According to Shapiro, both The New York Times and The Washington Post released articles “just hours apart” in a coordinated effort to discredit conservative media. Shapiro disparages these pieces as “trash” and indicative of a broader media agenda to quell conservative discourse. Shapiro specifically mentions his own commentary, stating, “The New York Times, of course, argues on the basis of Media Matters (!) ‘research’ that YouTube is essentially making money off election denialism.” He defends his statements as factual, particularly his claims about Democrats manipulating voting rules in 2020 to favor mail-in voting and ballot harvesting, arguing, “Which, of course, isn’t misinformation. It’s true.” Further, Shapiro highlights the discrepancy between media accusations and YouTube’s policies, noting, “To the credit of YouTube, they’ve said ‘none of the 286 videos violated its community guidelines.’” This point underscores his argument that the media’s claims against him and similar content creators are baseless and not in violation of any established platform guidelines. Shapiro also criticizes The Washington Post, which he feels exacerbates the issue by suggesting that podcasts are detrimental to American society. He expresses dismay at being singled out for “the sin” of hosting former President Donald Trump on his show, which The Post characterizes as problematic. Shapiro sarcastically remarks on the publication’s extreme stance: “Their conclusion? You guessed it: SHUT IT ALL DOWN.” Shapiro’s critique extends beyond specific articles, touching on what he perceives as a broader attempt by the Democratic Party and its “apparatchiks” to control media narratives and stifle opposition. He ties these media criticisms to political motives, specifically attacking Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz for allegedly wanting to shut down opposition media. Established in 2004 by journalist and activist David Brock, who is described by Time magazine as “one of the most influential operatives in the Democratic Party,” Media Matters consistently targets what it perceives as conservative misinformation online and in the media. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post NYT & Washington Post Push YouTube To Censor Election “Misinformation,” Highlight Podcast Censorship Challenges appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

It Could Never Happen Here: Many People Won’t Consider the Grim Reality of Long-term Survival

PA Democratic Party Illegally Suppressing the Vote

It's in its initial stages of construction after a cash injection from the EU.

This kitty deserves all the treats (and an author credit).