Went to see Star Trek (the movie, for those of you living on the dark side of the Moon) last night.

I'll keep this spoiler-free for those of you who haven't seen it yet, but I wanted to air some thoughts.

I enjoyed the new Star Trek film (there, I said it). However, for most of the film I couldn't help but compare it to one clip from Stargate SG-1's episode 200 (for those of you who don't know the episode, it's a pastiche of the series, pitched as a producer who wants to make a new version of Stargate SG-1, but "edgier", with a "younger cast". Hilarity ensues.). This, to my mind, fits the new Star Trek film very well - this is TOS¹ for the 2010s.

For one thing, Kirk is ridiculously young. This is a guy in his late 20s, who is (by a series of events which I won't spoil here) put in command of the fracking Flagship of the Federation (think of it as a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier if that helps to make the point). There must have been most of a crew more qualified for the job than him! And this is right after his involvement in a series of events which probably did little to endear him to the command hierarchy.

Plus, whilst it's true to character that Kirk was not exactly a man who played by the rules, in this film he not only breaks but utterly smashes so many of them (as well as spending at least 10% of the film involved in fistfights with someone, usually with another member of his crew!). In a quasi-military organisation like Starfleet, that should have some serious repercussions, but of course it doesn't, because this is Kirk we're talking about here. I guess I'm just annoyed that his "punch, blast, blow it all up, what the hell" attitude seems to yield positive results.

This is where I think my rose-tinted glasses are impairing my judgement, but I'm sure that Star Trek was never this... blatantly over-the-top. Maybe I'm just getting old, and my standards for what I consider over-the-top have moved down. Or maybe Star Trek was never very subtle, just that, when I was younger and more impressionable, it didn't occur to me to think of it as over-the-top.

It's a wild ride - the special effects are jaw-droppingly gorgeous (possibly the best I've seen in awhile, and coming from a sci-fi geek, that's saying something), and the film has bucketloads of references and in-jokes for all the geeks in the audience (Admiral Archer's pet beagle? :) ). Often, getting all the references is half the joy for me, and this film provides it in droves.

Also, it's clear the actors are having a blast - Simon Pegg as Scotty and Karl Urban as Dr McCoy (he even gets a "I'm a doctor, not a..." line) are a joy to watch. Even the very post-feminist Uhura gets some good moments (and smoochies! That's all I will say about that...).

To close, here's a badly mangled quote from Jamie Hyneman of Mythbusters fame:

"Jim [Kirk] wants big boom."

¹ The Original Series, the first Star Trek television series (with Kirk, Spock et al)

Even though I'm living on the other side of an ocean from you, I'm still watching developments on your political scene with great interest - we live in an interconnected world, after all - and there is something I would like get off my chest. It concerns, unsurprisingly, the upcoming election, the campaign for which is taking ever more alarming turns. In November, you will be choosing a new leader for your country, and there are a few things which I would beg you to remember.

• Stop putting down "elitism", "intelligence", "education" and "experience". When someone builds you a house, would you rather it was built by someone competent, who has studied the subject extensively and worked in the field for many years, or by the average Joe down the road? Who would you rather have operating on you should you fall gravely ill, the best surgeon you can find, or the guy who barely scraped through medical school, yet who is a riot at the neighbourhood barbecue? Running a country is amongst the most difficult jobs on the planet, and the fact that being intelligent, educated and experienced seem to count against a candidate is mind-boggling. Should a country which prides itself on greatness not be run by its best and brightest?


• Stop unquestionably glorifying military service. Militarism as an assertion of a country's greatness is a concept which died at the end of the last millennium; technology has made sure of that. Recent history, or indeed all of history, should have more than convinced you that war is a horror beyond belief - not only should you think long and hard how your choice of candidate will affect the road your country takes in this regard, but, more importantly, stop regarding service in the armed forces as some kind of qualification for political office. In the military, situations are reduced to absolutes, whilst the real world is full of shades of grey. I will not insult your intelligence by citing examples where mistaking one for the other has led your country into hot water over the last decade. Note that I am certainly not saying that military service should be counted against a candidate, far from it, but the extent to which it is glorified without question, and trotted out as some kind of demonstration of aptitude for politics makes me shiver.


• Demand depth. Running a country is not like watching a Hollywood blockbuster, where the hero is stalwart and true, the villain shady-looking and French, and all ride off into the sunset after a hundred and twenty minutes of run time. To quote President Bartlet from the West Wing, "every once in a while, there is a day with an absolute wrong and an absolute right, but those days almost always involve body counts. Other than that, there aren't too many un-nuanced moments in leading a country that's way too big for ten word [answers]." Do not be lulled by slogans or punchlines, by vacuous labels such as "patriot", but look behind the façade. Ask tough questions. Do not be satisfied with a ten-word answer to a question whose answer could fill an essay or even a book. Pull back the curtain to find out if there's really a wizard or just a small, bald man called Oscar.
  
  In the same vein, do not be satisfied with appeals to emotion without any substance behind them. So many campaign ads, slogans and speeches are chock-full of vacuous emotional appeals which, when it comes down to it, reduce to nothing but dust. Whilst these may attest that the candidate is an excellent orator and/or has hired excellent speech- and ad-writers, are these the skills which should be foremost in your mind when considering someone's eligibility for political office? Wouldn't you rather want to see the substance behind the smokescreen?


• Check your facts. One would have thought that the information age would have provided the means for absolute and rapid fact-checking by anyone with an internet connection, yet twisted truths, questionable interpretations and outright lies and coming so thick and fast during this campaign with nary a raised eyebrow that it makes me shudder. Hold your politicians accountable for what they say, and call them on it if they misrepresent something or lie outright. Sure, mistakes can happen, and moulding information to their advantage (from framing to "spin") is almost irresistible to politicians, but the upper ends of this practice are questionable at best, and outright lies should result in verbal crucifixion. Demand honesty from your politicians, because if you don't, what makes you think they will suddenly be honest with you once elected? How would you feel if the reasons you voted for a candidate turned out to be lies?

Please, my dear American friends: Vote with your brain, not your heart.