On December 18, 2008, fans of Star Trek lost one of the most important people that made a man's dream come true in several ways.

Majel Barret Roddenberry was the widow of Trek creator Gene Roddenberry and got her start playing the First Officer of the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701...no bloody A, B, C, or D) under Captain Christopher Pike in the pilot episode.  After NBC asked for a second pilot, she became Nurse Chapel, the head nurse under Dr. McCoy...and someone who loved Spock deeply.

After the series ended, and in 1985 she rejoined Star Trek, this time as the voice of the computer on Picard's Enterprise and actually the computer voice on every Starfleet vessel in Picard's timeline.  Also, she played Deanna Troi's mother in several episodes on Star Trek: The Next Generation and Deep Space 9.

She also had the honor of having a part in all of the Star Trek films and series.  She was the only one that had that privilege.  I do not know if she had a part in the upcoming film of Kirk and Spock's early days, though.

In one episode of Star Trek, Mr. Spock, when informed that "Flint" would eventually pass away due to leaving Earth's influence said, "On that day, I shall mourn."  That day, in a way, has come again.  We've already said farewell to Gene Roddenberry, DeForrest Kelley and James Doohan from the original series, as well as several who had smaller roles.  Now, we bid Majel Barret Roddenberry a sad farewell and lay her to rest.  Her memory, though, will "Live Long and Prosper".

We will miss her but, her legacy will live on in the hearts of Trek fans worldwide.  She has rejoined Gene, DeForrest, and Jimmy in the afterlife.  We will miss her voicing the computer of Starfleet vessels on the small screen, in movies, and, even several computer games where she lent her talents.  We will look fondly on her as Nurse Chapel and even Luxana Troi.

Rest in Peace...(Bagpipes start playing a mournful "Amazing Grace" here)

Dear readers,

Maybe I'm mistaken here, but, aren't we in a recession?  Haven't we been in a recession in the USA for a year?

How is it then that sports fans are seeing athletes asking for and getting these saleries that are beyond orbital?  The Yankees announced that they acquired Sabathia for a whopping $161 million recently.  This is, in a time of economic woes, as big of a scandal as the Governor of Illionis being accused of trying to sell President-elect Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder.

We're tightening our financial belts partially due to high gas prices for the last several years.  We're seeing banks getting $700 billion and it looks like the "Big 3" automakers are in line for a $14 billion bailout, as well.  Houses are being foreclosed on all over the country.  Yet, the Yankees and possibly other baseball teams are thinking of handing athletes more money than most of us will ever see and, in order to pay for these salaries, ticket prices will continue to climb as well as prices at concession stands, which will further pinch the wallets of even the most die-hard fans.

What the fans need to do is simple...do not visit the ballpark, do not buy overpriced concession stand food, and, don't buy the sponsors products.  In doing so, it will send a clear message to the owners that even they must consider the tough times that the common man is facing and adjust accordingly to allow fans to enjoy the sports that they love.  If the fans bolt away from the stadiums, the owners will have to tell the players that, for a while, they will have to live on less money (ever hear of living on the interest of the millions that they've already earned and hopefully have not frittered away?)  We will no longer accept it when a player cries "poverty" because they only get $500,000 a year instead of $37 million.  Real poverty is living month to month on a government benefit package or working our rear ends off at a telemarketing job just to maintain an apartment that eats up so much of your paycheck that you have to decide on eating or trying to keep the lights on.

When I was living in Phoenix, I had not only to somehow keep the lights on from paycheck to paycheck, but, keeping food in the apartment for my original roommate, but, then, a gal I stupidly took in who eventually screwed me in more ways than one.  That's poverty, people.  I had to work in a field I detested to make ends meet and keep a "girlfriend" happy.

So, I really do not need to hear it when an overpaid and underworked athlete starts crying that they deserve all that blasted cash when the economy is this bad and, even Barack Obama says that it's gonna get worse before it improves, which means that the country might be heading into a depression for a while.  Will the players donate their surplus funds to the poor?  Probably when the Titanic is raised in one piece.  Will they volunteer to play for a fraction of what the teams would likely offer?  Probably when the Hindenburg flies again.

Translated...it's not happening.  The Titanic broke apart on the surface.  The Hindenberg exploded prior to landing in a big ball of flame.

Until next time...

Dear friends,

Recently, I read an article where gay activists were protesting outside of Saddleback Church in orange County and in the article, I found where the more vocal of the gay activists was complaining that the church was actually lying to people in saying that if Prop 8 failed, that children as young as 5 would not be taught that being homosexual was "normal" and therefore, was to be accepted.  That is a lie in itself because it's already happened.  In Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal, it's permissable for a child as young as kindergarden to be given a book where a prince marries a prince.  One child's father objected to the material and asked that parents be notified of the upcoming lesson and to give a parent the ability to opt-out of that series of lessons.  The school district said that it was not a notification issue and that the parents had absolutely no right to object because gay marriage was perfectly legal there.  He was then arrested for criminal trespassing when he stood his moral ground...and banned from going back to the school.  He filed a lawsuit against the district and, sadly, the courts have sided with the school and basically stripped parents of their rights to decide, for themselves, what morals they want to teach their children.

The gay activists want you to believe that should gay marriage be allowed, that, your own child(ren) will not be exposed to that in school.  Do not believe it, friends.  If gay marriage becomes legal in your state, your right to object on religious or moral grounds gets shoved aside faster than it took to hang Saddam.  In fact, your rights to even say to your child what is or is not moral will be taken away.  In a worst case situation, your rights to home-school or private-school your child will be stripped as state teacher unions and various activists, acting under the guise of "Equality" and "Let's remove hate" will start to prevail in the court systems.  "What better place to teach equality than in a public school?  What better place to teach about "Hate laws" than in a public school?  Gee, we can't allow home-schooling or private 'religious' schools to continue to operate because they are teaching kids wrong.  They are teaching how to hate people that are different.  They are teaching different morals than we want to allow."

People...Don't fall for that line.  They are the ones teaching intolerance.  If you don't accept gay marriage, then, you're intolerant.  God says that we may not like someone...but, that we have to love them regardless.  That means that while I don't like gay activists because I know that they are screaming to the courts already that they are being discriminated against because they can't "marry".  They aren't happy with state laws that give them the same legal rights and protections that their straight counterparts enjoy as a married couple.

The difference here is that "gay civil unions" is a secular thing, not much different that a straight couple getting a civil marriage.  A true marriage is one that takes place in front of an ordained minister of any denomination that calls upon God

They want something that they are not supposed to have because of their lifestyle choice. They decided that they like same sex relationships instead of the man-woman marriage. They are not entitled to marriage because God, who they will answer to someday, said that homosexuality is detestable to him. It's irrelevant if we decide that it's OK to profane marriage under the guise of equality. Guess what, folks? We're already equal in God's eyes. That's what's important. Equality under the law is a fleeting thing as man's laws are only allowed if it's His will for them to pass.

Why do you think there are so many laws protecting children? In God's wisdom, those laws were passed and approved by the President or your state governor. Those outside the USA have your own method of enacting laws, but, there's still laws that protect children, correct? That's because it's in alignment with what God wants. We all have laws that say that if you murder someone, you get to spend the rest of your life in prison...or are sentanced to death. That's a direct result of God's word to the Jews. "Thou shalt not kill" is an important part of our moral being and such an important thing that every country has laws prohibiting murder.

God abhors homosexuality! Those that pratice it and listen to the lies that gay marriage is acceptable will stand before God and when he asks "Why did you engage in homosexual acts and then pervert My Holiness by defiling marriage?" you will be judged GUILTY and sentanced to spent eternity in the lake of fire reserved for the devil and his demons.

Quit listening to those lies! It's not OK to be screaming at the courts because gay activism is getting pummelled at the voting booth. I don't see John McCain and Sarah Palin crying on the shoulders of the US District Court because they lost their bid for the White House. That card was played by Al Gore eight years ago and it didn't work out too well. There was a vote on the matter and now the losers are ticked off at the result. Even if the results were different on Election Day and Prop 8 had been defeated, I'd be asking us to not trip out and to try again to get gay marriage banned (That's what happened in Arizona. In 2006, a ban on gay marriage was defeated at the polls. Instead of sobbing on the courts shoulders, another attempt was launched and, this time, it passed. But, I haven't heard of gay activists in Phoenix going to the Maricopa County Courts or Arizona Supreme Court to have the will of the people overturned!!!)

Until next time...

Dear friends,

Over the last several days since the election, I've noticed something very disturbing regarding the passage of Prop 8 in California.  First, there were protests in Los Angeles and San Francisco that were peaceful.  That's OK.  I can respect the right of the opponents to protest their defeat.  But, now, they are not just protesting, they are attacking the Mormons because they sided with traditional marriage and supported the prop.  So did the Catholics, Baptists and others who stood for what is right!

Marriage has, until recently, been solely between a man and a woman.  Not same sex!  Two people of the same sex cannot have biological children of their own.  It cannot happen.

Marriage is sacred and something ordained by God.  Friends, this directly relates to God and is a God thing.  It's detestable to think that man can merely say that two men or two women can be joined in Holy Matrimony.  It's not holy when two people of the same sex get "married".  Yet, same sex marriage advocates want to insist that ordained and licensed pastors perform these marriages and invoke a blessing that will never come.  In the Bible, God said that homosexuality is detestable and always will be.

But, on a secular note, the opponents of Prop 8 were the same people that opposed Prop 22.  They convinced the California Supreme Court to overturn the will of 61.4% of the voters.  Now, even though the margin of passage is slimmer this time, the very same opponents immediately filed not one, but, three lawsuits to once again overturn the will of the voters.  This is WRONG.  I respect, as I said, the right of the losers to peacefully protest the decision.  If Prop 8 had been defeated, I would probably be among those grieving the loss, but, I could not support those who would want to overturn the will of the majority.

Also, the opponents are targeting the Mormons for a serious boycott.  Again, this is wrong.  The Mormons have the right to advocate for a ballot measure.  They are not currently allowed to advocate for a specific party or candidate.  For example, they are not allowed to have advocated for McCain or Obama.  They could not say "Vote Democratic" or "Vote Republican".  As long as they, as a church, advocate ballot measures that are by nature non-partisan, under the law, it's permitted free speech.  This goes for any church of any faith, not just Mormons.

So, I'm asking that those opponents of Prop 8 realize that they lost this battle in California...Arizona...AND Florida!  They are enraged that Prop 8 was passed, but, I don't see anyone ticked off at Arizona and Florida voters for defeating their aims of evil!  These folks need to stand down, lick the wounds, and move on to something else.  California is lost to them as the California Constitution is already amended to prohibit same sex marriage and nothing that they can do will change that.  Sorry, Charlie!

Dear readers,

Voters in California have a major decision to make, again.  Voters are being asked to re-vote on the issue of Gay Marriage.  It's certainly a "hot button" issue as Californians already voted on this matter in 2000 as Proposition 22.  The proposition was originally approved by 61% of the voters.  That's what is called a policital mandate.  However, the lobbyists and lawyers for the homosexual movement did not ant to recieve this message and cried on the shoulders of the legal system, eventually convincing the California Supreme Court to agree, 4-3, to overturn the rule of the majority of voters.  I could understand if the original vote was a lot closer, fur, when there's 61% in favor, the Supreme Court should have taken that into account and declined to consider the issue...Actually, it should not have even been heard at the Superior Court level. However, it was, so,here we vote again.

Sadly, courts in this country are not paying heed to the fact that the voters are vitally important to the running of the country.  Instead, when a group comes with their crying that the majority got their way, they are not handed a tissue and told to take a walk, they are instead told, "It's OK...Judgey Wudgey will make it all better and let you beat up on those who are in the majority."

Marriage is something that shouldn't be toyed with.  In the Bible, Eve became Adam's wife and Eve was a woman, Adam a man, so their parts were compatible.  There wasn't some guy named "Steve" there to entice poor Adam into homosexual relations or a gay marriage.  Marriage is the first institution mentioned in the Bible and it's important to note that other religious books don't endorse homosexuality.  The Bible, the Torah, and, I believe the Koran all say that God considers homosexuality to be detestable.  In fact, in Old Testament times, anyone caught engaging in homosexuality was to be removed from the city and stoned to death.  Granted, we don't consider homosexuality to be a capital offense anymore, and, we've "Accepted" it for the most part, it needs to be said that a civil union does not equate a marriage, and, states have revised their laws to allow for civil unions.  Most states have already passed constitutional amendments that bar same sex marriages.  Others have laws on the books that prohibit ministers,  judges and other people who are authorized to perform marriage ceremonies from performing same sex marriages.

Also, there's a potential dangerous side effect here if gay marriages are allowed and, we're seeing that in another state:  Parents will not be allowed the right to opt-out their child from learning that Joe and Jim can be married like Tim and Sue are married.  A man in Mass. was JAILED for objecting to his child being taught that it's OK and "normal" for two men and two woman to be married.  He was told that he had absolutely no right to object and that was upheld by the courts.

If defeated here in California, it opens the door wide open to something just as chilling..."Hate speech" legislation.  This means that, sadly, the First Amendment and similar state amendments guarenteeing free speech may be modified to exclude "hate speech".  In Canada, where they are supposed to enjoy the same rights as Americans, one minister was ordered to keep his mouth shut regarding gay unions...It's considered a hate crime.

The tradeoff is unacceptable, people.  It's state mandated evil!  Are we really willing to give up our rights, because the homosexual lobby is crying into their lawmakers' shoulders.  They already enjoy the same civil rights as heterosexuals.  They have free speech, the right to gather peacefully, and every single right spelled out in the Constitution.  They do not, however, have the right to impose what they think on a majority of voters who said that they stand with traditional male-female weddings.  They do not have the right to undermine a parent's right to determine what their child(ren) are taught in school.  They certainly do not have the right to dictate what may be considered to be a hate crime.

Moving along, though, I want to voice an opinion on something that is of interest to San Diego voters and that is Prop. D.  This would, if passed, permantely ban alcohol at county beaches.  This came into effect as a temporary measure after a drunken brawl turned into a riot at Pacific Beach (just two blocks from where I live!)

This year, alcohol was banned, and, yes, beach attendance was down a bit.  That's OK because it you've ever tried to get on a beach that has hundreds of thousands of people there, it's impossible to get around without stepping on someone.  And, nearly impossible to enjoy the ocean.  Combine that with a lot of drunk adults, and, it's a recipe for disaster.  If the lifeguards are focused on babysitting a 40 year old drunk guy picking a fight, some other person could be in distress 100 yards offshore.  Also, with booze allowed, the police presence has to be kicked up several notches.

This year, however, people could move around on the beach, lifeguards were focused on the water, and, the police were not at the beach.  There was no problem with man-made piles of litter (the clumps of seaweed don't count).  Also, no loud parties every night disturbing those people in houses and very expensive hotels with oceanside views were happening.

Yes, local liquor stores hate this proposal...they stand to lose business.  That's their own fault as they provided alcohol to people that couldn't handle it.  But, they need to look at something that makes the loss of a few sales of beer look small...We're heading into a massive, global depression.

More on that in a later post.

Dear friends,

Well, the Juice of O.J. Simpson has finally run out.  In the late hours of Friday evening/Early Saturday morning, the jury hearing the armed robbery and kidnapping case returned a verdict of guilty on all 12 charges against the former NFL player and actor.  Under Nevada law, Simpson faces life in prison on the most serious charges against him, as well as his co-defendant, CJ Stewart.

This verdict comes 13 years to the day when Simpson was found not guilty by a Los Angeles jury of Murder 1 in the deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.  Had there been a guilty verdict, OJ would have received the death penalty.  However, he was found liable in a civil trial for wrongful death and was ordered to pay (with interest included), approxmately $33 million.

OJ made a name for himself in avoiding having to pay that money, and, as a result, lost a lot of his personal possessions to try to satisify that debt.  That led to OJ and his friend trying to regain "personal belongings" that were supposedly stolen by force of arms.

OJ skated the last time he was on trial for a criminal act and was freed because the glove "doesn't fit".  Sadly, that was the turning point of the murder case.  The problem was that Simpson had to wear rubber/latex gloves to "protect the chain of evidence" that increased the friction to the point that it was very hard to put the gloves on.

That gave enough reasonable doubt to acquit (actually, it was, IMHO, a case of jury nullification) OJ and set him free after one of the longest trials in recent history.  Most other murder trials last a fraction of the time that the murder case did.  In fact, OJ's robbery trial was a little longer than average, but, not really notable because of that.

However, OJ played with fire again, and, this time, got burned.  I've felt that since his acquital 13 years ago, that he was on borrowed time and at some point, he'd make a mistake and end up in prison.  Now, it's happened and "The Jiuce", has run dry.  He only has himself to blame, because if he could have gone through the right order, he might have been allowed to get that stuff back legally.  Instead, OJ, is going to be in prison for the rest of his life.

Those that remember his Hertz commercials from 25-30 years ago will recall him running to catch a flight, only to trip up on the Hertz baggage.  He should have applied that to his real life and watched out for things that would trip him up.  A little late now, because, he's tripped on the luggage and fallen flat on his face.

The thing to remember here, and, it's a good thing to remember that pride does go before a fall.  OJ's pride in being able to flaunt the law has finally brough judgment on himself.  Don't let pride and ego get in the way of doing the right thing, friends, and, you'll prosper greatly.  It's far better than being OJ cellmate, right?

Until next time...Peace out!

Dear readers,

As you know, the United States COngress is serioiusly considering a $750 billion bailout to major lending companies to stave off an already deepening recession.

But, here's the problem.  It's $700 billion of our tax dollars that will be used to prevent major bankruptcies that could cause a "Meltdown" of the economy.  That's hogwash.  Why are we spending that much money to bailout what amounts to elected officials fat-cat friends.  I don't see Congress rushing to bail out small businesses that are in trouble.  I don't see Congress stepping in to ensure reasonable gas prices for the American public.  But, if the major gas companies were to suddenly start a meltdown like the lending industry, you can be sure that Congress will freak out and offer them a fat check for billions of dollars to shore up the companies, which would then cause prices to skyrocket to sub-orbital prices.  You think that $4.00 a gallon is bad.  What would you do if the price of gas were $8 or $12 a gallon?  What would families sacrifice just to be able to get around town?  How many small businesses would fail because they can't afford the price of transporting goods?  Would even retailing giants like Wal-Mart have to do serious downsizing to stay alive?  Would Congress offer Wal-Mart, for example, $500 billion to keep their doors open?

In the long run, I believe that this bailout will not help matters much, if at all.  It will only delay the inevitable for many of these companies and when that happens, the United States may go from recession to a Great Depression that may make the 1930s Great Depression look like a recession.

It may be better to let some of these money losing companies fail now and merge others into companies that can absorb with minimal government assistance, the debts.  It's also a delaying tactic, but, it may be better for the economy of the country.

The House responded properly on Monday in refusing to sign off on the bill, knowing that it's bad for the country (not to mention their re-election campaigns).  Now, there's a lot of "suger" being added to the re-do, and, oddly enough, it stinks of lobbyists having their own way.  I pray that the House shows the kind of leadership it displayed on Monday.

Until next time.