Pew-pew's not included

Hey, remember that time someone spent two hundred and thirty one thousand dollars on Captain Kirk's phaser? You don't? Well, someone did. And it wasn't even the famous phaser pistol, it was the phaser rifle Captain Kirk used in one episode to to murder his best pal who was granted god-like powers by a space cloud and went all Dark Phoenix. Two-hundred and thirty one thousand. And did I mention that it's not even a real phaser?

Above: That time Captain Kirk battled an all-power being named Gary.

Pictured: Space pants.

Well hold on to your space-pants fans of irrational spending decisions, because last week at an auction in Las Vegas, because of course this kind of thing would happen in Las Vegas, some idiot-I mean, some collector-spent five-hundred and fifty thousand dollars of actual money on Han Solo's blaster. Specifically the prop used in The Return of the Jedi. And yes, that's thousand with an 't,' which, while not million with an 'm,' is still an obscene amount of money to spend on Han Solo's pretend laser gun. But here's the insane part: the obviously superior Luke Skywalker's lightsaber only went for four hundred and fifty million.

I mean, you have to make
the pew-pew noises yourself...

You heard me, lightsabers are, by any reasonable measure, better than blasters. Ok, so first let me be clear that I am a Trekkie first, and a Warsie (Star Wars fan? No? Ok, you do better...) second, so I have no targ (see?) in this hunt, but why would anyone drop a hundred thousand dollars more on Han Solo's gun? And just so we know what we're talking about here, this lightsaber was the one Mark Hamill used in New Hope and Empire Strikes Back. Like, it's a lightsaber. The lightsaber. It's objectively the cooler fictional sci-fi weapon. Sure, these are just props from a movie and not like, an actual blaster and lightsaber, but still...

$2.57 million? Holy shit, Uncle Owen
must have been rolling in it.

Anyway, the blaster and the lightsaber weren't the only props up for bid last week. An Ewok's axe went for eleven thousand dollars, and a Storm Trooper's blaster sold for ninety thousand, which by comparison sound almost reasonable...in that way that spending tens of thousands of dollars for a plastic laser gun is more reasonable that paying hundreds of thousands for one. Shockingly, this isn't the most preposterous splurge on a Star Wars prop, that would be last year's sale of R2-D2 for $2.75 million. Yes, this time with an 'm.' For a pretend robot.

You know someday, probably not too terribly long from now, perhaps when the revolution comes, whoever is buying this stuff is going find themselves asking 'why'? 'Why is my door being bashed down by an angry mob armed with pitchforks and torches?' 'What did I do to deserve this?' And I hope that on that day one of those peasants points to the multi-million dollar collection of movie props and replies 'seriously?'

Pictured: Health insurance for a year for like, a hundred and fifty two people,
two and a half average priced homes or about fourteen college educations.

(source: egregious wealth disparity)

If you made Eraserhead, weird is relative

Trump could be alone in a room with
the corpse of James Buchanan and
still be a distant third on the list.

Well, I suppose this makes me feel slightly better about David Lynch. Huh? What am I blathering about? Oh, this. David Lynch released a statement today to clarify something he said a couple days ago in an interview with The Guardian about the President being one of the greatest presidents in history. Yeah, the current one. Well, ok he did sort of say it, but in today's statement he clarified that that's not what he meant. Like, at all, which, sad-trombone, is too bad for the President who referred to the unexpected praise from the director at a rally in South Carolina.

He was there to support Governor Henry McMaster in today's runoff election for the Republican nomination, but mostly talked about himself, and his hair, and how guilty of crimes he's not.

"Hey, Arnold Schwarzenegger, big movie star, took my place, it bombed
in about two shows it was over. It actually bombed in one show."

-The President talking about his old
TV show no one cares about instead of,
 you know, anything that matters at all 

Speaking of children-huh? Oh, he
meant that metaphorically...

But he also referred to David Lynch's real, not made-up comment that:

"[Donald Trump] could go down as one of the greatest presidents in history because he has disrupted the thing so much. No one is able to counter this guy in an intelligent way. Our so-called leaders can't take the country forward, can't get anything done. Like children they are. Trump has shown all this."

-David Lynch, no really

That's liberal Hollywood for you, always
insting on rational, articulate leaders.
Pfft...a bunch of elitists if you ask me...

Well, when he quoted Lynch, Trump actually said: David Lynch could go down as one of the greatest presidents in history. But whatever, I'm inclined that to believe that he meant to say "I could go down as one of the greatest" because of the raging narcissism. Anyway, he went on to joke: 

"There goes his career, right? In Hollywood."

-The President on the 

dangers faced by his supporters

I mean sure, we've got kids in detention camps, a looming trade war with China and the near total loss of our credibility abroad, but sure, let's remember the real victims here: people who support the President.

First they politely asked Sarah Huckabee Sanders
to leave a restaurant, and I didn't speak out...

"Suffering and division? Did I mention that
Schwarzenegger bombed on The Apprentice?"

-Trump, on his priorities

But back to David Lynch. Breathe easy Twin Peaks fans (and Twin Peak: The Return fan), you don't have to feel weird about watching David Lynch movies...well, no more weird than you normally would feel. Lynch's statement-which he released on Facebook because the future, takes the form of an open letter to the President in which he explains that his quote was taken out of context and that what he, the President is doing "is causing suffering and division."

Not Sting in metal underpants
weird, but still...weird. 

Lynch then goes on to entreat Trump to 'turn the ship around' and 'point our ship toward a bright future for all.' And then it gets weird.

"You can unite the country. Your soul will sing. Under great loving leadership, no one loses-everybody wins. It's something I hope you think about and take to heart. All you need to do is treat all the people as you would like to be treated."

-David Lynch, getting weird

So uh, David Lynch wants Donald Trump's soul to sing, and that's...cool. It's not that I disagree with Lynch's sentiment-all though I do disagree with the nautical metaphors-it's just...has he been following the last couple years? I guess I'm not sure if this is Lynch genuinely trying to talk some sense into the President or just him trying to distance himself from some ill-advised comments so no one tries to kick him out of a restaurant. 

Maybe he's hopping to connect with Trump on some kind
of septuagenarians with bizarre hair solidarity thing?

They that sow the jerk, shall reap the jerkwind

In a move sure to elicit outrage from the sort of people who love to feel outraged, Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked to leave the Red Hen Restaurant in Lexington Virginia. Why? Well in her own words...well, her own Tweet:

You do your best to treat people with respect? Really? Wow,
and I mean this constructively, but maybe try just a little harder?

Pictured: The Red Hen. Not pictured,
the shabby chic interior and mason jars
repurposed as glasses. I'm just guessing.

Ok, some background here. The Red Hen is a farm-to-table restaurant which, I don't want to make any broad generalizations here, but is kind of a millennial thing for people who care about things like organic food, carbon footprints and how non-GMO the grass their steaks were fed was so right off the bat I'm a little confused. As a member of the current administration, I would have had her pegged for someone who goes to a place that serves exclusively endangered animals or lets you slaughter your own cow, but that's just my own baggage talking.

Ok, but if Wilkinson hadn't asked her to
leave, is there any way, any way at all that
ther meal wouldn't have been 13% spit?

Anyway, upon seeing the Press Secretary enter with her party, the staff-who are unsurprisingly not fans of hers, called the owner, Stephanie Wilkinson, and asked her what they should do. Should they prepare a fresh, organic and sustainable farm-to-table meal for a woman who makes a career out of lying to our collective faces, or just ask her to leave. Wilkinson came down personally and explained to Huckabee Sanders: "...that the restaurant has certain standards that I feel it has to uphold, such as honesty, and compassion, and cooperation." 

She then asked Sanders to leave, which she did, and now her restaurant has two and a half stars on Yelp. Partly because Yelp is objective garbage, but also because thousands of people are furious about the way the Press Secretary was treated.

10,963 reviews...for a place that seats 30,
opened in 2008 and is located in a town of 7,000.

"Any of you idiots disagree
with me? Show of hands? Oh..."

-Sanders Huckabee

So I have some questions. I know her response was on twitter, so tone and facial expression are lost, but when Huckabee Sanders typed 'I always do my best to treat people, including those I disagree with, respectfully' do you suppose she was able to keep a straight face? Like, we're a week out from that time she was, super rude to reporter Jim Accosta-with whom she disagrees-while explaining to him how Biblical the President's policy of separating children from their parents is. And remember that time she called for the firing of an ESPN host who disagrees with her?

Or, and this is my favorite, that time she insultingly suggested that CNN reporter April Ryan had her mind in the gutter when Ryan asked her if one of the President's gross, sexually suggestive tweets was in fact gross and sexually suggestive?

Above: Sarah Huckabee Sanders respecting the shit out of the White House Press corps.

"What did I do to deserve this
 treatment? Huh? No, I'm not being
ironic. Why would you ask me that?"

And do you suppose she was, while politely leaving The Red Hen, making any sort of connection between the treatment she experienced and the treatment gay people have faced when buying a wedding cake? You know, the very same treatment her boss and her party routinely defend as being the right of Americans to discriminate based on their personal convictions? I don't know if it was right or wrong for Stephanie Wilkinson to throw Huckabee Sanders out of her fancy hipster restaurant, but I do know that I don't have much in the way of sympathy for her.

Pictured: a box full of all
the respect due in this situation.

Like this is not the same thing as actual discrimination. She wasn't kicked out of a restaurant because of her race or sexual orientation. She was booted because the owner of the restaurant regards her as the hostile spin doctor for the smirking, thin-skinned man-baby the electoral college foisted upon us. Well, that and because she is, and I mean this with all due respect, kind of a jerk. A very public jerk, who works for an even bigger jerk who's also a racist and wants to take our healthcare away.

Have you tried not
supporting a fascist?

Speaking of people who work for public jerks, did you see this story about how Trump staffers are being socially ostracized in D.C.? They're facing something similar to what happen to the Press Secretary, getting attacked on social media, heckled in the streets and nobody wants to date them. Which, what did they expect? This is an administration that makes it a policy to call women liars, especially ones accusing the President of sexual assault.

It's like not showering. Sure, it's your right, but don't act surprised and victimized if people don't want to hang out with you. These staffers have a choice. They don't have to work for the President, they choose to. So does Sarah Huckabee Sanders. So does everybody in the White House. And that's not something that's going to wash off easily.

Speaking of, he's really got to stop hugging flags.
Spray tan and hair spray doesn't come out.

To boldly leverage IP or whatever...

Hey, remember that twelve year span where there were no Star Trek shows on TV? It was-huh? You don't? We lead very different lives. For trekkies this was known as the dark time:

Without new Star Trek to watch, people were forced to talk,
 interact with friends, even enjoy the outdoors. I shudder to think...

Pictured: Some reason.

Between 1987 and 2005 there were like fifteen Star Trek spin-offs. Ok, slight exaggeration, but in that eighteen year period, Paramount cranked out 614 episodes of Star Trek over four different series. And then after Star Trek: Enterprise went off the air for some reason, we were left with a long, Trek-less drought. With the exception of the J.J. Abrams-verse movies, which, you know, were ok but not really canon Trek, there was no new Star Trek for fans to obsess over. But then last year we got Star Trek: Discovery, and all was right with the world.

Cool? Yes. But are you sitting down? Because you should sit down. Get this, there-would you please sit down? I really don't want to be responsible for your injuries when you are figuratively blown away by this unconfirmed rumor. Ready: Ok, here goes: there are supposedly as many as five count them five new Star Trek TV...uh...things in the works.

I should probably clarify that these are five new Star Trek shows produced
by an actual production company and not by fans with a green screen.

The internet is, after all, 78% un-
substantiated rumors. The rest is porn.

I say TV things because this announcement is kind of vague so far, but CBS the company that owns Star Trek's TV rights announced that Alex Kurtzman, the new show runner for Star Trek Discovery who took over for the previous show runners who were just fired-it's a long story, has signed a five-year contract to "expand" Star Trek for television. They didn't actually say what that meant, but because the internet, there are unconfirmed details that are floating around.

"Hey, what are you talking about? I'm
super-interested in Khan's backstory."

-No one

According to Variety's shadowy, anonymous sources or as we can safely assume: according to carefully orchestrated leaks from CBS's marketing department, Kurtzman and his production company are working on several new Star Trek-ey series. a Starfleet Academy-based series, an animated series, and two what they call 'limited' series, one is still a mystery and one is a Khan origin story which-do we need that? They floated that idea awhile back and I registered my active disinterest then so for now I'll only say this: there is such a thing as too many trips to the well.

Pictured: teens experiencing drama
and, I don't know, Terellian plague?

But a Starfleet Academy show sounds sounds fun. I mean, there's like a million CW-style genre shows right now and everyone loves teens and drama, so why not do it in space? And an animated series makes sense given the success of the two Star Wars cartoons. Anyway, that just leaves the mystery mini-series. Ok, 'limited series,' but that's just prestige TV talk for mini-series. What's that about? Are you still sitting down? Great, now you'd better buckle your nerd belt because holy shit.

The rumor about that is that it might be a continuation of Star Trek: The Next Generation with Sir Patrick Stewart reprising his role as Jean Luc-Picard which is what every TNG fan has been begging for ever since we sat through the objectively terrible send-off that was Star Trek: Nemesis.

Pictured: A scene from Star Trek: Nemesis in which Picard is menaced by
his vampiric Romulan clone who also wants to destroy the Earth...for some reason.
No really, that happens in this movie. That's why I called it 'objectively terrible.'

Above: The smug countenance of
someone who knows something we
don't and is loving the shit out of it.

Anyway, while still a rumor, it does kind of line up with a weird impromptu interview Stewart gave in London where a reporter asked him if he's seen Discovery, and he seemed to think at first that he was being asked about something else.Then he just sort of smiled knowingly and said:

"No I haven't, but I may have cause to look at it very soon."

-Sir Patrick Stewart, nerd-baiting

Of course all this is like, super unconfirmed, and all we know for sure is that things are 'in development,' and that could mean next year or never. Also, if you're counting that's only four new things and Variety mentions five, but I think it's entirely possible that the under wraps mini-series and the Patrick Stewart show are the same thing. But whatever. With only one Star Trek show on TV right now, we, as a fan base are still dangerously underserved, so I for one welcome whatever Trek they want to throw our way.

Besides, more Star Trek shows means a higher likelihood
of me getting to play Th'rah'ssk'Kdhke'll, the heroic, yet flawed
 Andorian Starfleet Captain who breaks all the rules and has
 rocking' abs-which yeah, shut up, they'll add them in post. 

Space Farce!

No. Just no. Donald Trump does not get to found Starfleet. I think it's fair to say that we've put up with a lot from this administration in the last year and a half, but this is too far.

"The line must be drawn he-yah!"

-Captain Picard referring 

to this exact moment

Sorry Tony Schwartz, I should have
said "author" of The Art of the Deal...

In what I can only assume to be some kind of desperate attempt to be known to historians as something other than the electoral college-ly elected President who puts children in jail, early Monday, Trump directed the Pentagon to create a sixth branch of the U.S. military. Yeah, just like that...which, I didn't know that that was how branches of the military became a thing either, but then I never thought the Republican party would be insane enough to elect the author of The Art of the Deal, but here we are.

Really? We're letting the former host of
The Apprentice establish a Space Force?
We're just letting this happen. Anyone
in the room want to say something? No?

So today, while waving his executive order around, complete with comically oversized signature, Trump announced:

"We must have American dominance in space. Very importantly, I'm hereby directing the Department of Defense and Pentagon to immediately begin the process necessary to establish the Space Force as the sixth branch of the armed forces. That's a big step."

-President Trump, just 

establishing things all willy nilly

But where does the Air Force end and
the Space Force begin? The troposphere?
The mesosphere? We demand answers!

He then went on to invoke Plessy Vs. Ferguson...for some reason. I mean, is he just putting words together or was that a deliberate reference to pre-Brown V. Board of Education school segregation?

"We are going to have the Air Force and we are going to have the Space Force: separate but equal, it is going to be something so important."

-Trump, nipping this in the bud

"How you say...duh?"

-Some Russian

space-guy

Apart from the bizarre phrasing, this was a weird move since exactly no one in the seconds after his crazy announcement was worried that there might be jurisdictional disputes between the Air Force and the Space Force he just made up. Weird and also terrifying. Not militarizing space has been sort of a tacit agreement between space-capable countries, and building a space military, regardless of what a 'big step' he thinks it is, flies in the face of that. Like, is there any way this doesn't prompt China and Russia to do likewise?

I mean, it's great that we suddenly care about space. It really is. What's not great is that we're turning it into another thing to fight over. But hey, at least we know that the Space Force will be separate but equal from the Air Force.

Yeah, but where does the Stargate Program fit into all of this?

They'll just put anyone on a plate these days...

Shouldn't there be a law against the President saying things that aren't true? I'm not talking about classified national security things, or lying about an affair (although that is a dick move, no argument there). I'm talking about spouting demonstrably false, straight-up bullshit designed sell your gross policies to the people foolish enough to still support you. Shouldn't there be a rule about that?

"Hmm...I'm just thinking maybe we should put something in here about
holding government officials accountable when they deliberately mislead the
public in order to further their own agen-you know what? It's probably fine."

-The Framers of the Constitution

really dropping the ball on this one

Well, Democrats and the Bible...

Anyway, I'm referring to the administration's zero-tolerance policy which is, as we speak-well, as I type, resulting in American law enforcement rounding up children of illegal immigrants and sending them to detention camps. According to the President, he doesn't want to do this, but the Democrats are forcing him to. You know, because of their avowed hatred of America. Oh, and the lame-stream media, they probably have something to do with this. And uh, I don't know, witch hunts? Hashtag sad. No collusion.

So here's the tweet where the President makes his case for voting out the Democrats who have forced-forced-him to enforce that unpopular policy he came up with:

Like, I know this is a weird thing to get hung up on given
that he's just tweeting infuriating bullshit all the time, but does
he not know the rules of capitalization? I mean, can't he get an
aide or an intern or something who could help him out here?

"Right here, but you left out
sexual assault and fraud."

First of all, fuck that. Of course it's not their forced family breakup policy. It's not. What a sack of shit. Secondly, fuck that. He's like some grade school bully grabbing a nerdy kid's hand, striking them with it and then saying stop hitting yourself. And then-huh? Ok, fine, it's not the best analogy. Instead of a ten year old beating up another ten year old, it's an old rich guy using the United States Government to traumatize children. But I think my point stands. And high taxes, high crime and obstruction? I mean, holy shit dude. Everyone currently under investigation for high crimes and obstruction please raise one leathery mitt?

So I guess what I want to know is why is anyone still into him? Well sure, racism, that explains a huge portion of the base, but also, and forgive me if this is a broad generalization, idiocy? I mean for real, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but here we are. Now, before you call me out on being unkind, keep in mind that Donald Trump thinks they're idiots too. The only difference is that they, for whatever reason, aren't picking up on the fact that he's just saying what they want to hear.

So are they though? I'll give him loyal, they are inexplicably
loyal, but are they the smartest? Also, and again, I'm nitpicking,
but I think he meant to say 'country's history' not 'countries.'

"Sure he's locking up kids, but Hillary's
emails or whatever. Benghazi!"

-Smart, loyal people

I mean, look, when I call them idiots, I'm being a smug liberal. I've learned to be comfortable with that. But when Trump asks-with no less smugness, that the country believe a transparent line of bullshit, like, say, 'I have to put children in detention camps because Democrats,' he's presupposing a seriously insulting level of stupid on the public's part. A level which unfortunately seems pretty spot on since his fans aren't abandoning him in droves which is what one would expect when someone puts children in detention camps. So what is it with him that let’s him get away with this politically unscathed?

"...goddamnit..."

-Me, after googling 

'Trump commemorative plate'

I mean, he's not articulate, he's not charming. Am I missing something? Why do people continue to support him? Has he taken their families hostage? And speaking of hostages, if I'm following his line of tweets, this only became the Democrats' fault when the public outcry started. Then suddenly the Democrats won't work with the GOP so he has to do this and the only way it will stop is to vote for more Republicans and give him what he wants. So like, where does that end? A border wall? Even more racist immigration laws? His picture on some kind of commemorative plate? Because putting Trump on a commemorative plate would undermine the credibility of commemorative plates as a...a...

Like, since when do we negotiate with hostage-takers? I mean, how about instead of rolling over, we end the lock-ups, let these kids out of child-jail and then see if we can approach immigration reform like grown-ups without the all the lying and finger pointing?

Oh...right...forgot who we were dealing with here.

Today in literal sex objects:

Do you make terrible decisions involving money? Do you have a fondness for skeevy sci-fi tchotchkes? Well then this is the fifty-five ounce, durable cast resin fictional sex-idol for you:

"What the hell is this?"

-Sexy Picard

What I'm saying is make sure you're up-
on your shots, or hyposprays or whatever.

Now if you lead a rich, full social life, you're probably asking yourself, yeah, what the hell is that? Well I'll tell you, it's a horga'hn. No really, that's what it's called. It's a sex-idol from the planet Risa. The idea is that when you-huh? Oh, Risa? I see you spent your childhood playing sports and interacting with other kids, so I'll explain. On Star Trek, Risa is sort of a vacation planet where everyone goes when they have time off from boldly going to planets which resemble the Paramount Studios back-lot. But think less Outer Banks or Niagara Falls and more caribbean swingers resort.

The horga'hn then is a trinket or souvenir people pick up while they're there. According to the people of Risa, and to the Star Trek wiki (which, yes, I have bookmarked, don't judge me), to display one publicly announces to passers by that you're looking for anonymous sex. In many ways it's like the 24th century equivalent of peacocking.

Only less douchey. 

You wouldn't want to look
like an idiot, would you?

And now you too can own one too. Albeit a resin duplicate one. And all for the low price of two hundred and fifty dollars. Yes, of money. It's available on roddenberry.com which you might remember as the site where you call also find other replica Star Trek props like combadges and phasers. There's even a line of 'crap from Captain Picard's desk.' Oh, and did I mention they have bat'leths? Yeah, goddamn bat'leths. You know, the big, unwieldy, crescent-shapped sword things klingons use to hack each other to death? Well now you can brandish an authentic aluminum one instead of some crap you made out of paper towel rolls and duct tape. I mean, if you're going to get picked up by law enforcement for waving one of these around, it might as well set you back $350.

You know, just in case someone
questions the authenticity of your
plastic Star Trek fuck-me tiki.

Anyway, back to the horga'hn. As you can imagine, the one offered on roddenberry.com is worth every cent. In this case 25,000 of them. It's prop-accurate, hand-crafted and over 11 inches tall to quote the website. How much over 11 inches? There's no way to know I guess. The important thing is that it comes with a certificate of authenticity which proves beyond all doubt that yours is a real replica resin horga'hn and not one of the many counterfit Star Trek props that flood the market every never.

So take my advice and pre-order one today, because seriously, you do not want to be the only fan at this year's Star Trek convention who doesn't have one of these sitting outside their door at the Rio Suites.

To sum up: roddenberry.com will sell you a $250 prop
from a thirty year old sci-fi TV series which they assure
you will help, not hinder, your chances of getting laid.