Thomash, I just read that and I didn't have to log in to look at it.

Here's the [link] then. I hope it works for people. It's an interesting piece, though I fail to see the motivation for writing it.

I would feel better about the Florida thing if I thought they would leave it at that. But, there will likely be vigils, blame and talking points.

I used to have this friend in Shreveport, I've mentioned her before. Really sweet, but not terribly bright? Anyway, she and I used to get into arguments about news, politics, other matters of fact. No matter how you tried to walk her through the logic, what facts you could cite, what common sense you tried to patientlly explain, what she thought was true was true. She didn't even need to convince you you were wrong, she just needed to hang on to the belief that she was right.

I feel like trying to wrest my country from these people is like arguing with Jennifer.

Orson Scott Card: "Star Trek's icky! Why don't you like my stuff the way you like Star Trek! But only weird people like Star Trek, so I don't want you liking my stuff."

Which was a shame, because science fiction writing was incredibly fertile at the time, with writers like Harlan Ellison and Ursula LeGuin, Robert Silverberg and Larry Niven, Brian W. Aldiss and Michael Moorcock, Ray Bradbury and Isaac Asimov, and Robert A. Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke creating so many different kinds of excellent science fiction that no one reader could keep track of it all.

Harlan Ellison, of course, wrote for Star Trek, although he certainly wasn't pleased with the results.

I hope it works for people. It's an interesting piece, though I fail to see the motivation for writing it.

Interesting view from a guy (Card) who stopped being "relevant" to science fiction twenty years ago himself.

Whedon's "Firefly" showed us that even 1930s sci-fi can be well acted and tell a compelling long-term story.

I wish it had had a chance to tell a long-term story.

ho stopped being "relevant" to science fiction twenty years ago himself.

No kidding. I loved him ... and then ... ick. I'd rather watch boring Trek than keep reading him.

Whedon's "Firefly" showed us that even 1930s sci-fi can be well acted and tell a compelling long-term story.

What does he mean by "1930s sci-fi"?

At assemblies at Ben and Julia's school, the teachers and parent-helpers will clap like: Clap Clap Clapclapclap.

Emmett's teacher claps three times, and then all the students stop what they're doing immediately and clap three times and it's instant order. It's pretty cool.

Much better than my teacher who slammed a ruler on her desk with a loud crack.

Harlan Ellison, of course, wrote for Star Trek, although he certainly wasn't pleased with the results.

Paid for his house though.

What does he mean by "1930s sci-fi"?

Space Opera, I think.

Here's what I think: Most people weren't reading all that brilliant science fiction. Most people weren't reading at all. So when they saw "Star Trek," primitive as it was, it was their first glimpse of science fiction. It was grade school for those who had let the whole science fiction revolution pass them by.

Wow. Condescending much?