Always A Human Example In Science Fiction

I’m watching a sci-fi show right now and once again got hit with an annoying little consistency that seems to be prevelant in sci-fi shows that have aliens and alien cultures in it everywhere. What happens is that someone in the show will mention something and give a few examples—usually historic ones—which will pretty much always include at least one human reference and at least one alien reference. For example lets say a character is talking to another character about art and wants to give a few master artists as examples, then they’ll say something like “…great art from people like Michaelangelo, Greetblaczag, or Blorgjlob.” or “…like Zeepledorb, Marktong, or Cézanne.” They’ll always give a few alien examples to indicate that this is a sci-fi show with aliens, but always include a human example. I suppose it could be because it’s a human show, or maybe because humans think they’re so great. Maybe it’s because the writers think that viewers would feel alienated if they didn’t included at least one human reference each time. *Pardon the pun.*

Nov.16.04 – 1:28am *UPDATE*

It’s worse than I thought. I was watching an episode of Star Trek: Voyager the other day and noticed the above statement taken to the extreme. Instead of just listing a couple of alien examples and a human example, they were talking about human matters (Starfleet captains) and two unknown captains were listed as well as one well known one. I found this fitting but shocking because this is not a lone incident, in all situation where a science fiction show self-references in a list, they will list a few names you have never heard of, but will always throw in a name from a previous episode, previous series, or film, or something that you DO know.

Just once I would like to hear someone list a few things that are completely unknown and leave it at that.

Why The Push To Vote?

This past year has seen a lot of pressure to vote. Politicians, musicians, actors, athletes, and pretty much anyone who has any celebrity has been pushing voting like a back alley drug dealer pushing crack. Why? Well, if you do vote and the winner makes your life miserable, they can just say “Hey, you voted for me!” The blame then falls on yourself instead of them. Of course if you don’t vote and they do a terrible job then they’ll say “You should have voted for the other guy!” but this latter argument is weaker so they go with the former.

It’s quite clever really, they avoid blame no matter what you do. Maybe it’s just me but isn’t the government supposed to exist for the purpose of making the lives of it’s citizens better? Should not they they be doing the work rather than putting the onus on the people? If the current regime is not working shouldn’t it be their responsibility to fix it rather than expect the people to completely replace it? Of course I don’t propose an entirely self-sufficient government where the people have no input or power, I just think the government should not be trying to scapegoat on it’s citizens.