Why the Trolls Will Always Win

 

Andrew Auernheimer - mug shot, Fayetteville Police

Andrew Auernheimer – mug shot, Fayetteville Police

Kathy Sierra built an exceptional career in technology developing video games, teaching Java programming for Sun Microsystems Masterclasses and writing books. A female success story in an otherwise male dominated field. That is, up until 2007 when she abruptly left public life, cancelled her career, and even fled her home. She did that because a sustained harassment campaign comprised of death and rape threats, threats against her family, fabricated claims of prostitution, and a false claim that she had issued a DMCA takedown to stifle the free speech of critics. In the face of this organized onslaught she tried to hold on, to take a stand and fight the good fight. But when the harassment culminated in the public release of her private address and Social Security Number, a technique known as Doxxing, she bolted in fear for her and her family’s lives.

It turned out a man named Andrew Auernheimer had been responsible for having harassed Sierra. Known as ‘Weev’ online, he admitted it in a 2008 New York Times story on Internet Trolls. There, he spoke to the lengths at which he and his cohorts went to discredit and destroy Sierra.

Over a candlelit dinner of tuna sashimi, Weev asked if I would attribute his comments to Memphis Two, the handle he used to troll Kathy Sierra, a blogger. Inspired by her touchy response to online commenters, Weev said he “dropped docs” on Sierra, posting a fabricated narrative of her career alongside her real Social Security number and address. This was part of a larger trolling campaign against Sierra, one that culminated in death threats.

Now, seven years later, Kathy Sierra’s returned with a long form essay titled, Why the Trolls Will Always Win. Part explanation for why she’d left and part call-to action against the danger of online harassment against women, she argues decent people must organize. Because the situation has grown much more serious since she went into hiding all those years ago. Trolls have stepped up their game. Beyond the mere threat of Doxxing, which acts by threatening to incite physical violence from random crazies with a screw loose, malicious trolls have taken to SWATting. This is a so-called ‘prank’ where harassers call police and make false accusations to induce a SWAT raid. One prominent example is that of game developer Chris Kootra. Last month, while simply playing a video game, Kootra was surprised by a SWAT raid with officers forcefully entering his business with guns drawn.

For the lulz. SWAT raid Kootra’s office after a false tip.

Kootra had the presence of mind to raise his hands and offer no resistance. But had he made the slightest mistake, say reaching in his pocket unexpectedly, he could have been killed. There is also the troubling trend of trolls developing malicious software intended to harm victims directly. For example, posting images on epilepsy forums which flicker at rates known to induce epileptic seizure. Given that Sierra is epileptic herself, this kind of harmful trolling hits home personally. She writes:

[While not photo-sensitive], I have a deep understanding of the horror of seizures, and the dramatically increased chance of death and brain damage many of us with epilepsy live with, in my case, since the age of 4. FYI, deaths related to epilepsy in the US are roughly equal with deaths from breast cancer. There isn’t a shred of doubt in my mind that if the troll hackers could find a way to increase your risk of breast cancer? They’d do it. Because what’s better than lulz? Lulz with BOOBS. Yeah, they’d do it.

And yet Auernheimer, the man who put her through all this horror, has for entirely different reasons become a kind of ‘Net cause célèbre of Internet freedom. He attracted the attention of federal authorities after having committed a hack against AT&T where he’d obtained the email addresses of tens of thousands of iPad users. Authorities pursued a case and in due course he was convicted, ultimately sentenced to 41 months in federal prison for identity fraud and conspiracy to access a computer without authorization. Many thought this conviction and sentence an egregious of online freedom. Attracting support from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and prominent Georgia University Law Professor Tor Ekeland, the two worked together to craft an appeal and overturn Auernheimer’s conviction. In April 2014, they succeeded and Auernheimer is now free.

Ekeland wasn’t the only one bothered by the government’s case. Even Kathy Sierra disagreed. Yet she’s appalled that somehow she’d been dragged into supporting the very man who’d abused her.

But you all know what happened next. Something something something horrifically unfair government case against him and just like that, he becomes tech’s “hacktivist hero.” He now had A Platform not just in the hacker/troll world but in the broader tech community I was part of. … But hard as I tried to find a ray of hope that the case against him was, somehow, justified and that he deserved, somehow, to be in prison for this, oh god I could not find it. I could not escape my own realization that the cast against him was wrong. So wrong. And not just wrong, but wrong in a way that puts us all at risk.

Tor Ekeland, in recent commentary at Wired, continues to defend Auernheimer as having been wronged by an overzealous prosecution, the precedent of which would have had significant ramifications for ‘Net freedom:

…the crucial issue here is not weev or his ideas but the future of criminal computer law in the U.S. You may think weev is an asshole. But being an asshole is not a crime, and neither is obtaining unsecured information from publicly facing servers.

Which leaves Sierra lamenting that Auernheimer still hasn’t been charged and convicted for what she considers his real crime of harassment, crimes that harmed her and countless others. Where’s the justice? Inciting violence and dissemination of ‘fighting words’ is not free speech. Yet, as she admits, unless you’re a celebrity you’re “…more likely to win the lottery than get any law enforcement agency to take action.” So there is none. “We are on our own,” she laments. “And if we don’t take care of one another, nobody else will.”

So she came back to push back, to push back against prominent journalists and notable members in Tech who conflate prosecutorial violations of due process with the right to disseminate harassment and cruelty.

I came back because I believe this sent a terrible, devastating message about what was acceptable. … To push back on the twist and spin. I believed the fine-grained distinctions mattered. I pushed back because I believed I was pushing back on the implicit message that women would be punished for speaking out. I pushed back because almost nobody else was, and it seemed like so many people in tech were basically OK with that.

Auernheimer, for his part, remains unapologetic. Responding to Sierra on Livejournal, he writes:

Yesterday Kathy Sierra (a.k.a. seriouspony), a mentally ill woman, continued to accuse me on her blog of leading some sort of harassment campaign against her by dropping her dox (information related to identify and location) on the Internet. … Kathy Sierra has for years acted like a toddler, throwing tantrums and making demands whenever things didn’t go her way. She rejects any presentation of polite criticism or presentation of evidence as some sort of assault on her. She was the blueprint for women like Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian, who also feign victimhood for financial and social gain. Kathy Sierra is the epitome of what is wrong with my community. She had something coming to her and by the standards set by her own peers in the social justice community, there was nothing wrong with what she got.

Some people never change.

=-=-=-=

Note: Originally posted at Slashdot.

James Bamford Releases DOJ Report on NSA Warrantless Wiretapping from 1976

Investigative Journalist James Bamford knows a thing or two more than some believe he should about the National Security Agency. Across his more than three-decade long career digging muck out of exactly those places U.S. government intelligence agencies preferred he wouldn’t tread, he’s published five books and over eighty press reports. At times, this made for some tense confrontations with intelligence officials from an organization once so secret even few members of Congress knew of its existence. 

For the last several years public focus on the NSA has been on Bush and Obama era reports of illicit domestic spying. From allegations of warrantless wiretapping reported by James Risen in 2005 to secret documents released to journalists at The Guardian by Edward Snowden a year ago. And smack in the middle, Bamford’s 2012 revelation of the existence of a huge, exabyte-capable data storage facility then under construction in Bluffdale, Utah.

Given all this attention on recent events, it might come as a surprise that almost forty years ago Senator Frank Church convened a congressional committee to investigate reports of unlawful activities by U.S. intelligence agencies, including illegal domestic wiretapping by the NSA. At the time, Church brought an oversight magnifying glass over what was then half-jokingly referred to as “No Such Agency.” And then, like today, James Bamford was in the thick of it, with a Snowden-like cloak-and-dagger game of spy-vs-journalist. It all began by giving testimony before the Church Committee. Writing yesterday in The Intercept, Bamford tells his firsthand historical account of what led him to testify as a direct witness to NSA’s wiretapping of domestic communications decades ago and then details the events that led to the publication of his first book The Puzzle Palace back in 1982.Read on for more.

Bamford writes:

…during the summer of 1975, as reports began leaking out from the Church Committee, I was surprised to learn that the NSA was claiming that it had shut down all of its questionable operations a year and a half earlier. Surprised because I knew the eavesdropping on Americans had continued at least into the prior fall, and may have still been going on. After thinking for a day or so about the potential consequences of blowing the whistle on the NSA—I was still in the Naval Reserve, still attending drills one weekend a month, and still sworn to secrecy with an active NSA clearance—I nevertheless decided to call the Church Committee.

But he didn’t stop at the witness stand. Afterward, he continued researching the matter for a book. And the further he dug, the more waves he made. Until someone slipped him a then recently declassified copy of a 1976 Justice Department memo [PDF] detailing a criminal investigation into illicit domestic spying by the NSA. But when agency officials discovered he had that document they took extraordinary measures attempting to get it back. They threatened to prosecute under the 1917 Espionage Act and retroactively reclassified the memo to squelch its contents.

Fearing someone might break into his home and steal the manuscript, Bamford arranged to transport and secure a copy outside of U.S. jurisdiction with a colleague at the Sunday Times of London. It was only upon the 1982 publication ofPuzzle Palace that the agency dropped their pursuit of Bamford and his document as a lost cause. That’s at least one stark difference between then and today when it comes to whistleblowers — back then, they merely threatened espionage charges.

Yogi Berra famously once said, “It’s like Deja Vu all over again.” And though the Yankees’ star wasn’t speaking of illicit domestic wiretaps by the national security state, given a comparison of recent revelations to those detailed by Bamford decades earlier the quote certainly fits. In telling his story of how he published details about the last NSA Merry-Go-Round with warrantless wiretapping, Bamford shows us that our recent troubles of lawless surveillance aren’t so unique. It’s deja-vu all over again. But if deja vu is like a waking dream, this seems more a recurring nightmare for a body-politic lured to snoring slumber by a siren-song of political passivity.

That old Justice Department memo isn’t likely to wake the public from their slumber. But within its pages is a stark warning we all should have heeded. As Bamford notes in that Intercept story, the report’s conclusion that NSA lawlessness stems straight from the birth of the agency suggests a constitutional conflict systemic and intentional.

…the NSA’s top-secret “charter” issued by the Executive Branch, exempts the agency from legal restraints placed on the rest of the government. “Orders, directives, policies, or recommendations of any authority of the Executive branch relating to the collection … of intelligence,” the charter reads, “shall not be applicable to Communications Intelligence activities, unless specifically so stated.” This so-called “birth certificate,” the Justice Department report concluded, meant the NSA did not have to follow any restrictions placed on electronic surveillance “unless it was expressly directed to do so.” In short, the report asked, how can you prosecute an agency that is above the law?

 

=-=-=-=

This story originally appeared on Slashdot

Fired NY Fed Regulator’s Secret Audio Recordings Inside Goldman Sachs

Carmen Segarra. Image by Nabil Rahman for ProPublica)

Carmen Segarra. Image by Nabil Rahman for ProPublica)

Carmen Segarra used to work as a regulator for the New York Federal Reserve Bank, one of twelve regional banks that make up the US central banking system. In her capacity as regulator, Ms. Segarra was assigned to a team overseeing investment banking giant Goldman Sachs. There, while investigating a case of Goldman having advisied a client about a buyout offer by another company in which the firm held significant investment holdings, she determined that Goldman didn’t even have a conflict of interest policy. Her supervisor initially backed the investigation, until it became clear she meant to file a written report detailing her findings of fact. Then they abruptly fired her.

And all this would have been another unfortunate case of ‘she-said / institution-said’ ineffective whistleblowing were it not for the fact that Ms. Segarra saw what was coming and had bought a keychain audio recorder. With it, she collected 46 hours of internal discussion and meetings, including statements by Goldman Sachs principles admitting the firm didn’t have a conflict of interest policy and that the deal under investigation had been “shady.” Additionally, she collected reams of documents and testimony. She thought her case iron clad.

However, when it came time to reveal her findings in full to superiors, though initially supportive of the investigation, her boss quickly shifted gears and worked to squelch the report. This culminated in a recorded meeting where her boss made clear his supervisors at the Fed insisted she downplay those findings. Then, a week later, before she could formally file the report, they fired her.

While bits of the story have been out in print for about a year, the radio show This American Life just published actual excerpts from those audio recordings. They make for harrowing listening. As the producer says in the introduction, her recordings show: “Repeated examples of pervasive regulatory capture by the industry regulators are meant to oversee.”

In other words, whereas before we could all surmise just how bad banking regulation must be, what with the Financial Crisis having nearly tanked the world economy and all, with this audio we can hear first hand and in minute detail what it’s like for an honest regulator to try to do the job properly: You get fired. Quickly. Then your embarrassing work is buried and reputation smeared. And if she’d just kept her mouth shut, she coulda gotten rich! This, at the very heart of the global financial system.

Is it any wonder why the public has lost faith in our political and economic institutions?

Dear Aggrieved and Beleaguered Old-Sk00l Gamers

She's Purdy. I Should Threaten to Kill Her.

She’s Purdy. I Should Threaten to Kill Her.

For those with lives too busy to bother following mini-scandals in the gaming industry, Chris Plante of Polygon recaps a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad week for the community as a whole. Little ‘ol unknown me will list the events, as did he, because they’re so outrageous they warrant repeating:

1. Old-sk00l gamers, opposed to structural shifts in the industry, used Youtube, Reddit, twitter, 4chan, and an assortment of channels to distribute defamatory and private correspondence about a sexual matter between one purple-haired female indie-developer and her chagrined dirty-laundry-tell-all ex-boyfriend. The ex claimed that of several she’d slept with while they were together, one is a gaming journalist. This got a contingent of the gamer community up in arms over supposed systemic corruption within gaming journalism. Ostensibly because that journalist might have posted positive reviews of her freely available game in a sex-for reviews quid-pro-quo, and thereby promoted not just the game but her feminist values as well.

2. A friend of this purple-haired indie-game-dev chick, Phil Fish, an indie-dev himself, tweeted a note of support for her. In response, someone hacked his twitter account and web site. He wasn’t pleased about that.

3. In a separate matter, feminist vlogger Anita Sarkeesian released another of her videos on Tropes Versus Women in Videogames on Youtube. There’s been a history of vehement opposition to her work, with death and rape threats, harassment, and general trolling. And this week, it happened again.

 Screen shot 2014-08-29 at 10.46.54 AM

Someone messaged her with death threats against her and her family, including her home address to make it clear they were serious. She and her family left home in fear for their lives. The story’s all over the news. Real classy.

4. It seems old-Sk00l kids don’t like Sony either. A bomb threat diverted a flight carrying Sony Online Entertainment President John Smedley. And someone engaged in a denial of service attack that shut down the Sony Playstation Network.

5. And yesterday, someone called the police and made a false report about game developer Chris Kootra. As a result, a SWAT team invaded his company offices with guns drawn. One false move and he could have been killed.

swatted’. Authorities call it a felony.

After Plante finished summarizing these sorry events he concluded:

Polygon:

This week, it should be clear to this community that games are at a cultural turning point. No longer are games designed, marketed and sold to a niche group of young men. … More games are being created by more people for more people than ever before.

Which is right. But I wish Plante had also focused on the business side of this cultural transition in gaming. It’s more than just a cause of social righteousness. Because, as the PBS NewsHour reported, women now outnumber teenage boys as a market demographic buying games.

Adolescent boys are widely considered to be one of, if not the most, sought-after demographic by game development studios, but the uptick of female gamers could be a signal of changes to come. Mobile ad firm Flurry Analytics found that on on the whole, women presented a much larger value proposition to game developers in terms of revenue and brand engagement. [link in original]

That’s a fact seemingly ignored by just about everyone, journalists and both pro and anti feminist gaming activists alike. Instead, the focus is on media personalities.

Anita Sarkeesian versus Thunderf00t. Or, InternetAristocrat versus [unnamed female indie-dev-chick with purple hair]. This personalized conflict mobilizes the masses on each side, drawing viewership, building audience, fanning comment flame wars. Anti-social-justice-warriors claim Sarkeesian incites trolls to attack her and thus build a sympathetic audience, all while disseminating salacious and sometimes defamatory material about their opponents to do just the same. Both sides get more views as the controversy escalates. Wash, rinse, repeat.

But lately, the anti-social-justice warriors have used the scandal with this purple-haired-indie-dev chick, and revelations about her private life, to elevate the matter to one of supposed journalistic ethics. Taking reports from the ex-BF detailing her relationship with this other journalist and concluding that an alleged sex-for-game-review quid-pro-quo had occurred. Thus, to them, here was proof of widespread ‘journalistic corruption’ in the gaming press.

Are you fucking kidding me?

You needed to reveal details of some purple-haired-chick’s private sex life to make the case that for-profit media companies print public relations and help their advertising customers maximize sales? You conclude ‘journalistic corruption’ because one journalist might have released a bogus positive review of a game that’s given away for free?

And this is your case for corrupt journalism?

Rob Simple’s blog presents a well written argument for that position (I like Rob’s blog). He also includes a hoard of down the rabbit-hole crazy-facts-that-don’t-matter about that female developer whom I shan’t name, so go there for the digs. But, getting to the core issue of this so-called journalistic ethics debate, and what to do to save gaming journalism, he concludes:

Honestly, I don’t think it needs saving. It needs [to be] euthanised.

I’m sorry, euthanizing the gaming press is your solution? Never mind that it’s no solution, just how do you implement it? Are you going to take out the entire gaming press with a carefully aimed BFG shot? I’m sure the industry is – ahem – quaking in their boots.

Look, gaming journalism isn’t a morass of industry collusion because some unknown green-haired indie-game-dev-chick may have gotten one or more unfair positive reviews for a free game. As Totalbiscuit eloquently points out, the real issue is a gaming public being repeatedly snookered by misleading public relations campaigns for shitty commercial products. With supposedly objective reviewers trading inside access to promote a hype machine about an ever present unbearably desirable new. And those gaming media outlets thus raking in ad revenue cash in the process. All that to hawk $60 pieces of unfinished garbage. And you facilitate all this. Feminists gaming press is a side issue.

There’s an argument I’ll buy. Totalbiscuit, I salute you.

You want to talk real corruption in journalism? The field is a mess everywhere these days. Some examples that dwarf little things like video games: Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, Margaret Wente, Jonah Lehrer, Gerald Posner, and more – all disgraced for publishing false quotes and/or printing plagiarism. A Poyntr study reported that in 2012 alone, a total of thirty-one known instances of reporters fabricating quotes or plagiarizing sources had been revealed.

Here’s some more: In the lead up to the Iraq War, Judith Miller, of The New York Times, wrote numerous hard news articles using anonymous quotes by Bush administration officials that turned out to be false. The Times’ editors squelched James Risen’s report on Warrantless Wiretapping at the request of Bush Administration officials during the ’04 election cycle, thus impacting the election itself. Scott Shane’s NY Times reports in 2010-11 that cited unnamed CIA sources who smeared the London Bureau of Investigative Reporting’s work documenting Afghan civilian casualties, falsely calling it a Pakistani Intelligence operation. And let’s not forget Dan Rather’s report that used a falsified document purporting to supposedly prove George Bush’s draft dodging. Or Lara Logan’s CBS News 60 Minutes flawed report on Benghazi citing an anonymous source that turned out to have lied about his background and uttered false claims on camera.

I could go on and on with more examples, but those were stories of national and international import. More than just disseminating false public relations and corporate propaganda to sell newly released or pre-release commercial games, but shit nations go to war over.

OK, so agreed – ethics in journalism is seriously fucked up. But then so is this idiotic example of a random purple-haired-chick used as some grand cause célèbre for ferreting out ‘systemic journalistic corruption.’

You gotta be fucking kidding me.

Totalbiscuit’s discussion of big gaming companies wresting bogus reviews for pre-orders and shitty games seems a more viable target. That is, if you want to hit upon the core of bad journalistic and commercial media practices. Because no for-profit media company would put their reputation on the line and disseminate false reviews of certain free games merely to promote a social agenda. That’s nuts. No, they’d want more. A big advertising contract. Insider access for a juicy story sure to draw audience. SHOW ME THE MONEY.

These are the things that move media business. So I’ll put it in stark terms:

No mere social movement alone has EVER shifted the media landscape in a multi-billion dollar industry.

  • Though green-warriors have sat in trees, though they spiked trunks and marched on logging companies, splendid forests are still felled.
  • Though anti-fracking activists have showed their sink faucets spewing fire before cameras, though they march on fracking sites and organized countless anti-fracking campaigns, those big-bad energy companies still squirt chemicals into the ground and bottle up natural gas for sale.
  • Though whales are magnificent creatures with large brains who sing beautiful songs, and though a cheesy Star Trek movie sympathetic to their plight might have tugged at nerd hearts if nerds had one, and even after a Save the Whales bumper sticker craze lit up the ’70s like an old roach, the damn things are still stuck with harpoons, dragged onto whaling ships and taken to market to be eaten by hungry Japanese.
  • And the civil rights movement? Really? #ferguson

You anti-social-justice-activists plain have it wrong. Journalists aren’t colluding with game developers to force social justice themes on buyers of games. No business has ever cared about social justice. They collude with big players to sell shitty products and attract advertising revenue.

Got that? It’s about MONEY.

As told in that PBS article on women gamers having overtaken teenage boys as buyers, this tells the tale of a demographic shift affecting product and press. So does Anita Sarkeesian and the +200,000 followers on her Youtube channel. These are leading indicators of a potential lucrative market the gaming industry wants to tap. Let’s be honest, these companies are more interested in exploiting new markets than furthering the cause of the exploitation of women. All this hoopla about chick-games is an industry tailoring new product to suit new buyers. Not some great awakening of social conscience by a once misogynistic now reformed industry.

They do it because it will make them richer.

And all ya’ll old-Sk00l gamers are a tapped out and maximized market. How much more growth opportunity do you present?

Ya’ll won’t change this market transformation by loudly complaining on Youtube, Reddit, /v/ and elsewhere. Or engaging in illegal guerrilla tactics like threatening the life of a feminist culture critic, smearing a purple-haired indie-dev-chick by disseminating details of her private life, hacking a corporate gaming network and making bomb threats at an airport to piss off one of their executives, and certainly not by calling in a SWAT team on some random game developer. That shit will simply destroy your credibility and attract notice of very pissed off authorities with real guns and a long memory.

You’re doing it wrong, kids.

727-computer-reaction-face-gun-shoot-head-suicide-an-hero

NOTE: This entry was originally posted at WordPress.com.

Character Interaction Beat Breakdown of Star Trek TOS Episode S2E10 “Journey to Babel”

Robert McKee, author of Story, a scriptwriting and storytelling guide, offers a teardown mechanism for understanding story structure in Chapter 11, “Scene Analysis.” This post uses the techniques and terminology he presents to deconstruct the Star Trek Original Series episode, Journey to Babel. Written by D.C. Fontana, it tells the story of a familial breach between Spock and his father, Vulcan Ambassador Sarek. On mission, the Enterprise is host to a group of diplomats who board to travel to a diplomatic conference. During transit, a spy intervenes and threatens the mission, while Amanda, Spock’s mother and Sarek’s wife, Kirk, and others attempt to resolve the family breach between father and son. 

Intertwined are two additional plot threads, the B Plot regarding a mystery signal, mystery ship, and mystery spy. And a C Plot regarding the conference attendees and their varying interests at the diplomatic conference. A plot breakdown is available at Memory Alpha. 

The McKee approach avoids plot – or event – analysis and instead focuses on a beat based text / subtext analysis of character interactions. The purpose of this is to tease out subtext implied by dialog and thereby determine underlying character motivation. Further, it breaks down per-scene opening and closing values, or emotional states imparted on the audience implied by story events. Next, the goal is to find plot thread structure embedded within scenes, sequences, acts, and the entire story – that is, interleaving of plot structure as A, B, and C plots intertwine. The last task is to determining a controlling idea – or, theme. 

This breakdown runs scene by scene. Starting with the PROLOG teaser, then moving to ACT 1 (comprising seven scenes), ACT 2 (comprising six scenes), ACT 3 (comprising seven scenes) and ACT 4 (comprising two scenes). My hope with this work was to develop an analysis from interation minutia through to the big picture across an entire story.

In the PROLOG, the story opens the A PLOT, with McCoy in Kirk’s quarters expressing discomfort to Kirk at being forced to wear formal regalia for a diplomatic function. But soon the focus transitions from McCoy and Kirk to Spock and the Vulcan diplomat Sarek. Immediately, it becomes clear that Spock and Sarek know one another and that Sarek dislikes Spock. Kirk offers Spock to Sarek as tour guide for the Enterprise. But Sarek openly refuses to recognize him and requests an alternate guide. It becomes apparent that Spock is persona non grata to the man. 

When Kirk offers Spock a chance to transport down to Vulcan for a short visit with his parents a SURPRISE REVEAL occurs when Spock announces that Sarek is his wife are father and mother. Thus FAMILY ESTRANGEMENT becomes the primary story issue to resolve in the A PLOT. B and C PLOTs are subservient to A PLOT, entering and exiting the story in a FILO (First In Last Out) order. 

ACT 1 opens in Scene 1 with a continuation of the A PLOT, as Kirk gives Sarek and Amanda a tour. Until, just as Scene 1 ends, the B PLOT enters with a video call from Uhura announcing the detection of a MYSTERY SIGNAL.

Moving to Scene 2, the A PLOT continues then transitions to open a C PLOT about a diplomatic conflict over the incorporation of a planet into the Federation.  Sarek and Tellorite Ambassador Gav have a verbal confrontation with Sarek refusing to answer Gav’s questions. With all three plot threads now introduced, there’s a turnaround back to A PLOT and then Scene 2 finishes off with B PLOT as Chekov contacts Kirk over the ship intercom about a MYSTERY SHIP tailing the Enterprise. 

This is the only scene in Act 1 with multiple plot threads, and it’s worth noting that with all players from each plot are present in the reception room, making intercutting shots from distant sets where differing plot events might take place unnecessary. Transitioning across plots is handled by Kirk leading Sarek off from one group, McCoy, Spock and Amanda in A PLOT, to another group, Gav and the Andorian diplomat for C PLOT within the same room. Thus creating what McKee terms French Scenes (Story, Pg. 292), or a breakdown of the scene into separate subscenes based on changing location and groups of characters within the same set location. Kirk repeats this at the end of Scene 2 when he is called to a wall intercom by Chekhov, separating himself from both groups to transition the subscene to B PLOT by nature of communication with a character off set via a wall intercom.  
 
Scenes 3 through 7 interleave PLOT threads from one scene to the next.

Analyzing these in context to ACT 1, a curious structure becomes apparent. One finds three examples of Spock being demeaned across scenes either by Sarek ignoring his existence, or with McCoy and mother Amanda across the A PLOT. Additionally, in the B PLOT there are three examples of a MYSTERY SIGNAL leading to a MYSTERY SHIP tailing the enterprise, creating an EXTERNAL THREAT. And finally, there are three examples of Sarek confronting a difficult diplomatic conflict with Gav, the Tellorite diplomat. ACT 1 ends with a cliffhanger as Andorian Ambassador Gav is found dead.

What’s curious about this is that it perfectly fits Christopher Booker’s RULE OF THREE thesis, found in Seven Basic Plots (See pg. 229). Thus, we have three examples of problem escalations across each of the three A, B, and C plots leading to a major TURNAROUND and CLIFFHANGER at the end of ACT 1. As Booker argues, three leads to four, or three examples of a first state leads to a transformation in the fourth example to a second changed state.

By the start of ACT 2, the C PLOT continues for two additional scenes. There, an investigation of Gav’s murder leads to Sarek as PRIME SUSPECT. But, Sarek collapses during questioning, showing him to be gravely ill with HEART TROUBLE. This can be interpreted at two levels. First, in the text, as a reason why the character cannot be viable murder suspect – he is too ill. But, secondly, at a subtext level, it can also be interpreted metaphorically. Spock’s estranged father has a BROKEN HEART. Thus, resolving this FAMILY BREACH must also resolve his HEART TROUBLE.

B PLOT then intervenes in Scene 3, as an EXTERNAL THREAT from MYSTERY SHIP ramps up suspense. Finally, Spock and McCoy determine just how severe Sarek’s LIFE THREATENING CONDITION is across Scenes 4 and 5, with both agreeing to Amanda’s dismay that PATERNAL DEATH will be the likely outcome. Yet, through hard INVESTIGATIVE WORK, Spock offers a TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVE to McCoy that might SAVE PATERNAL LIFE (and thus RESOLVE FAMILIAL RIFT. But it’s not a safe treatment, so McCoy is reticent because of a resulting RISK TO SUBHERO. Unfortunately, before Spock and McCoy can act to SAVE SAREK, B PLOT intervenes again, as an assailant knifes and nearly kills Captain Kirk (FATHER OF THE ENTERPRISE). 

With Kirk NEAR DEATH from a knife wound, ACT 3, Scene 1, opens with Spock refusing to relinquish command to SUBORDINATE OFFICER because of OBLIGATION OF DUTY to the Enterprise. Here we see that B PLOT and C PLOT intertwine, circumstances of both forcing related action. By Scene 2, the story transitions to B PLOT as Spock leaves to interrogate the Kirk’s assailant, an Andorian aide, held in the Enterprise brig. The interrogation leads nowhere. With Sarek’s health deteriorating, and Spock busy running the ship, in Scene 3, his mother Amanda, attempts to GUILT TRIP Spock into giving up command to save Sarek by threatening a NEW FAMILIAL BREACH – if Spock does not try to save his father, he’ll lose his mother. Yet Spock is unmoved.

Here, an inner conflict develops for Spock. On the one hand, he has a FAMILIAL DUTY to save his father. On the other, as second officer aboard ship where the captain and FATHER OF SHIP has been INCAPACITATED, he must take command of the Enterprise and see the mission and all occupants through to safety. This can be see as a COMPETING FAMILY DILEMMA. If Sarek is Spock’s father by lineage and Kirk represents FATHER OF THE ENTERPRISE, then Spock faces a SOPHIE’S CHOICE where no matter what course of action he takes he must FAIL TO UPHOLD DUTY to one or the other of his competing families

It’s only in Scene 4, when Kirk awakes after treatment, that a resolution to Spock’s dilemma is introduced. Kirk, in GREAT PAIN, takes command showing GREAT HEROISM, freeing Spock from POTENTIAL PATRICIDE. With Kirk again at the helm, the MYSTERY SIGNAL transmits again and is discovered to come from the prisoner and Kirk’s assailant. Kirk sends GUARDS to investigate, who find a HIDDEN TRANSCEIVER. Then, the MYSTERY SHIP begins SUICIDE RUNS, attacking the Enterprise. Thus, antagonists from B PLOT surface to force a FINAL CONFRONTATION across Scenes 6 and 7 of ACT 3, which bleeds into Scene 1 of ACT 4.

Across this FINAL CONFRONTATION, the RULE OF THREE applies again. For each attack run, the scenes intercut from Kirk on the bridge to McCoy in sick bay as he performs surgery on Sarek using Spock’s LIFE SAVING BLOOD. Each attack increases suspense by ESCALATING RISK, first a demonstration, then loss of ship power, and finally Sarek’s HEART STOPS, leading to almost CERTAIN DEATH. But by QUICK THINKING, McCoy uses OBSOLETE TECHNOLOGY to restart Sarek’s heart. This is intercut with just as Kirk, using a CRAFTY BLUFF, to pretend that the Enterprise is seriously damaged. Kirk baits the MYSTERY SHIP FOE into coming in for a slow FINAL KILL. But, exposed to the Enterprise’s WEAPONS, Kirk damages the ENEMY FOE just as McCoy SAVES A LIFE. And thus both B PLOT and C PLOT are resolved with a THRILLING SIMULTANEOUS CLIMAX.

This leaves Act 4 Scene 2 to handle wrapping up the A PLOT of a FAMILY RIFT between Spock and Sarek. Kirk, still MORTALLY WOUNDED, returns to sick bay to find out if Spock and Sarek have survived. McCoy coyly refuses to answer, building up tension. Then, all tension is released as Amanda leads Kirk into the recovery room where Spock and Sarek lie in bed awake and alert.

As is typical of many of 1960s era Trek epidoes, in denouement the tone shifts from concern to humor. Amanda attempts to use EMOTIONAL HEALING to force a resolution between Spock and Sarek. But banter between Spock and Sarek over an ILLOGICAL WIFE / MOTHER leads to an INAPPROPRIATE WIFE JOKE by Spock directed at Sarek, with both playing STRAIGHT MEN. Yet, the joke is on the supposedly logical Vulcans, for they clearly do not understand the subtext manipulation Amanda has undertaken to resolve a FATHER / SON FAMILIAL RIFT. Amanda, realizing the conflict has ended, offers LOVE to Sarek, thus reaffirming their MOTHER-FATHER-SON relationship.

A PLOT crisis resolved, Kirk collapses from SEVERE INJURY and is helped to bed. Whereupon McCoy TEMPORARILY USURPS AUTHORITY and orders both Kirk and Spock lie in bed for NEEDED RECOVERY.

In a curious backhanded almost ‘breaking the 4th wall’ wink to the audience, McCoy gloats at ‘having the last word’, whereupon ACT 4 ends and CREDITS ROLL. This also references the beginning of PROLOG, where McCoy opened the story complaining about the stuffiness of having to wear formal regalia. By the end, McCoy is at home in his sick bay, wearing standard dress, and entirely in control.

Below is a somewhat poorly done chart, drawn by hand, depicting story timeline, split by act numbers, scene numbers, plot threads, and per scene emotional charge. It’s probably a little inaccurate.

 

Act, Scene, Plot Thread, and Emotional Charge Breakdown.

 
  —- BEAT BREAKDOWN —-



CONTROLLING IDEA: Reclaiming a father-son relationship is more important than mere duty to a cause or institution.

TEASER PROLOGUE:
ESTABLISHING SHOT: In orbit at Vulcan.
INT. KIRK’S PRIVATE QUARTERS
A PLOT: OPENS
SCENE 1: McCoy and Kirk preparing in full dress uniform. 
BEAT 1:

  • McCoy complains about the stuffiness of dress / Kirk Consoles him by saying that the last delegates are almost on board.
  • McCoy counters by listing all the things that must be done formally, all the troubles ahead. 
CUT TO: INT. ENTERPRISE HALLWAY
BEAT 2: 
  •  Spock joins group.
  • Chekov informs Kirk over intercom that shuttle from Vulcan is arriving.
At least you don’t have to wear a tie, dude.

CUT TO: INT. AIRLOCK OVERLOOKING SHUTTLE BAY

  • Shuttle arrives.
BEAT 3:

  • Formal ceremony as ambassador exits shuttle.
  • McCoy questions Spock about Vulcan salute / Spock shows.
  • McCoy unable to mimic Spock, expresses continued distaste for formalities of pomp and circumstance.
NOTE: COMIC RELIEF – JOKE: hurts worse than the uniform.
BEAT 4:

  • Ambassador Sarek disembarks / Kirk leads him through ceremony to Spock and McCoy.
  • Sarek shows distaste at seeing Spock, refusing to recognize his existence.
  • Kirk introduces McCoy, Sarek responds by recognizing him.
  • Sarek introduces his aides and wife Amanda to group.
Bugger Off, Spock
 

BEAT 5:

  • Kirk offers Mr Spock to conduct a tour of the ship / Sarek refuses, requesting another guide.
  • Kirk agrees and offers Spock an opportunity to transport down to meet his parents before the ship leaves.
NOTE: AWKWARD SITUATION for Kirk and McCoy.
BEAT 6:
  • Spock REVEALS: Sarek and his wife are his parents.
INCITING INCIDENT: END OF BEAT 5 REVEAL INCITES ALL FORWARD EVENTS IN PLOT LINE A AND IS TURNING POINT FOR SCENE.
END TEASER. FADE OUT: 3m13s
OPENING VALUE: NEGATIVE. MCCOY COMPLAINS ABOUT FULFILLING THE FORMALITIES OF HIS DUTY.
CLOSING VALUE: NEGATIVE. SPOCK REVEALS STRAINED RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS FATHER AND AMBASSADOR SAREK DURING A DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE HE IS OBLIGED TO SUPPORT.
TURNING POINT: BEAT 6: as Spock makes SITUATION REVEAL about Sarek and Amanda being his PARENTS after Sarek’s REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE SON.
SCENE NOTES: McCoy’s discomfort at being forced to wear regalia and formally conduct himself according to pomp and circumstance of a diplomatic mission is not resolved. Instead, the story turns from McCoy and Kirk to Spock and his strained relationship with his father and boarding ambassador Sarek. This functions as a mini-plot twist in a single set up scene that then establishes the primary conflict between Spock and Sarek to be resolved across this story arc.

ACT 1: (Opens 4m17s)
SCENE 1:
ESTABLISHING SHOT: ENTERPRISE LEAVES ORBIT OF VULCAN AND PROCEEDS INTO OPEN SPACE.
A PLOT: CONTINUATION
VOICEOVER EXPOSITION OF CAPTAIN’S LOG.
FADE IN:
NOTE: VOICEOVER EXPOSITION ‘ CAPTAIN’S LOG’ BLEEDS INTO FADE IN AS KIRK PROCEEDS WITH SAREK ON A TOUR OF THE SHIP. SAREK’S WIFE FOLLOWS BEHIND.
CUT TO: INT. ENGINEERING – NEAR DOORWAY
BEAT 1:
  • Kirk leads Sarek and Amanda into INT. ENGINEERING. Spock is at work at a console and stands as they enter.
  • Kirk explains controls to Sarek while Amanda stays behind to speak with Spock.
BEAT 2:
  • Amanda chides Spock for his inability to smile / Spock deflects probe from his mother.
  • Amanda chides Spock for his unwillingness to visit / Spock refers to a ‘situation’ between Sarek and him that remains unresolved.
BEAT 3:
  • Sarek beckons Amanda, ending the discussion.
  • Kirk beckons Spock, requiring that he join the group.

NOTE: TENSION INCREASES AS MEMBERS OF THE PARTY IN CONFLICT ARE FORCED TOGETHER.

CUT TO: INT. ENGINEERING – NEAR SYSTEM CONSOLE
  • Kirk commands Spock to explain to Sarek the ‘computer components’.
NOTE: UNCOMFORTABLE GLANCES BETWEEN SPOCK AND SAREK.
BEAT 4:
  •  Sarek chides Kirk for presumptuousness in having his son explain what he had taught Spock as a child. Implied insult of Starfleet as Spock’s choice of career.

NOTE: TURNING POINT REVEAL: CORE CONFLICT HAS TO DO WITH SPOCK’S CHOICE OF CAREER.

BEAT 5:
  • Spock exits scene in a huff.
  • Kirk attempts to apologize to Sarek / Sarek diffuses situation by politely refusing apology.
  • Sarek exits tour, orders Amanda to finish tour with Kirk.
BEAT 6:
  • Kirk expression confusion over this behavior to Amanda / Amanda one ups him by showing her better understanding of Vulcan speech (as if this could help explain a father-son conflict).
  • Amanda changes subject, requesting to complete tour / Kirk chides Sarek for ordering her.
  • Amanda responds that such is the norm for Vulcans / Kirk changes subject to Spock.
  • Amanda points to Kirk’s ignorance of Vulcan culture, claims the Vulcan way better than human culture but difficult on those who adhere to them. This cultural difference is what keeps Sarek and Spock apart.
  • Kirk defends Spock as both officer and friend / Amanda compliments Kirk for his friendship while patronizing Spock for a difficult childhood and estrangement from both Earth and Vulcan cultures.
  • Kirk brings up Spock’s choice of career / Amanda defends her husband’s view of Starfleet as too violent for a proper Vulcan.
  • Kirk defends Starfleet as using force as a last resort, challenges Vulcan Science Academy as inferior to Starfleet for research opportunities / Amanda does not dispute Kirk’s assertion, instead challenging Spock based on Sarek’s preference that Spock follow his teachings and the Vulcan way.
BEAT 7:
  • Kirk challenges both Sarek and Spock as being ‘stubborn’ / Amanda recognizes this ‘stubbornness’ as not Vulcan but a universal emotional trait.
TURNING POINT:  BEAT 7: IS THE PRIME TURNING POINT OF THIS SCENE.  AS SPOCK AND SAREK CONTINUE THEIR FUED, KIRK AND AMANDA DEBATE THE NATURE OF VULCAN LOGIC IN RELATION TO THEIR DISPUTE. ULTIMATELY, KIRK WINS THE DEBATE, FRAMING THEIR RIFT AS NOT LOGICAL BUT EMOTIONAL STUBBORNNESS. AMANDA IS FORCED TO CONCEDE THIS POINT.
B PLOT: OPENS: (at tail of SCENE 1)

NOTE: INTERCOM INTERRUPTS DISCUSSION BETWEEK KIRK AND AMANDA

  • Uhura via video call informs captain of an unknown signal that she’s intercepted / Kirk orders scans and heightened alert.
B PLOT INCITING INCIDENT:  THE QUESTION OF WHERE AND WHAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ‘MYSTERY SIGNAL.’ RESOLUTION OF B PLOT MUST PROVIDE THAT ANSWER.
OPENING VALUE: NEUTRAL / POSITIVE:
CLOSING VALUE: NEGATIVE: Both A and B PLOTS end DOWN as a conflict between Spock and Sarek continues in A PLOT and a MYSTERY TRANSMISSION shows events in B PLOT are out of CAPTAIN KIRK’S control.

SCENE 2: (ends 8m17s for 4m scene)

CUT TO: INT. RECEPTION ROOM – NEAR TABLE
A PLOT CONTINUATION:
FAST CUT: DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE FUNCTION AS ATTENDEES MINGLE.
VOICEOVER: ‘CAPTAIN’S LOG’ EXPOSITION.
NOTE: KIRK, SPOCK, MCCOY, SAREK AND AMANDA HUDDLE AS A CONFERENCE ATTENDEES TALK IN THE BACKGROUND.
BEAT 1:
  • McCoy asks to confirm Ambassador Sarek’s prior retirement, isn’t he too young? / Sarek corrects doctor by over specifying his age (ONE UPMANSHIP), deflects main question.
French Scene: subscene for A PLOT in Scene 2 with Spock’s kin family and ship family all present .
CUT TO: INT. RECEPTION ROOM – AWAY FROM TABLE
C PLOT: OPENS

BEAT 2:

  • Kirk leads Sarek away from group / Interrupted by Terrerite Ambassador Gav.
  • Gav directly asks Sarek central question about diplomatic conference, his deciding vote / Sarek deflects question.
  • Gav rejects deflection, asks again / Andorian delegate interrupts with question.
  • Gav answers question directly.
French Scene: subscene for C PLOT in Scene 2 with Sarek and Tellorite Gav in verbal conflict

BEAT 3:

  • Sarek insults Gav and his people / Gav tries to respond / Kirk interrupts to diffuse conflict.
  • Sarek agrees with Kirk / Andorian and Tellorite apologize to Kirk.
  • Gav and EXTRA tellorite exit / Andorian questions Sarek / Sarek answers directly.
CUT TO: AMANDA, SPOCK, AND MCCOY HUDDLED TOGETHER.
INT. RECEPTION – NEAR TABLE
BEAT 4:
  • Amanda gloats that Gav lost prior debate with Sarek.
C PLOT: INCITING INCIDENT: SAREK AND TELLORITE AMBASSADOR GAV HAVE VERBAL CONFRONTATION.
NOTE: THIS INDICATES THAT AMANDA WAS OVERHEARING DISCUSSION BETWEEN SAREK, GAV, KIRK AND ANDORIAN. HER GLOATING INDICATES PRIDE AND WILLINGNESS TO OBSERVE HER HUSBAND SURRUPTICIOUSLY.
A PLOT TRANSITION:
BEAT 5:
  • McCoy needles Spock about sensitive subject (his humanity) in front of Amanda, directs question to Amanda about Spock’s childhood / Amanda responds with underhanded indulgence at opportunity to demean Spock in front of his colleague. (Spock’s childhood pet).
  • McCoy takes open pleasure in learning this tidbit / Sarek interrupts and leads Amanda away.
  • Kirk joins group.McCoy demeans Spock over childhood tidbit in front of Kirk / Spock challenges Amanda’s depiction cute depiction of his childhood pet.
  • Spock walks away in constrained huff.
B PLOT:  TRANSITION
CUT TO: INT. RECEPTION ROOM – WALL INTERCOM
BEAT 6:
  • Chekov Interrupts  McCoy and Kirk laughing behind Spock’s back. Informs Captain of unidentified vessel following Enterprise / Kirk orders upgrade of alert status to ‘Yellow Alert’
French Scene: subscene for B PLOT where Kirk discusses MYSTERY SHIP with bridge officer.

OPENING VALUE: NEUTRAL / POSITIVE

CLOSING VALUE: NEGATIVE: Across all three PLOT THREADS, problems compound. In A PLOT, McCoy, and Amanda needle and demean Spock about human traits he finds embarrassing. In C PLOT, Tellarite Ambassador Gav of challenges Sarek about Vulcan diplomatic matters. In B PLOT, Chekov informs Kirk of an unknown ship tailing the Enterprise.
TURNING POINTS: A PLOT, McCoy and Amanda succeed in demeaning Spock over perceived inappropriate humanity both in childhood and today; B PLOT, discovery of MYSTERY SHIP, likely relation to MYSTERY SIGNAL; C PLOT, Kirk shuts down escalating confrontation between Sarek and Gav
NOTE:  ALL CHARACTERS INVOLVED IN A, B, AND C PLOTS ARE PRESENT OR AVAILABLE, ALLOWING THREE PLOT THREADS TO INTERTWINE IN ONE SCENE THROUGH THE USE OF SUBSCENES BY CHANGING LOCATIONS AND GROUPS OF PEOPLE WITHIN ONE SET LOCATION.

SCENE 3:  (11m50s  - 3m33s transpired)
CUT TO: INT. MAIN ENTERPRISE BRIDGE – OVERLOOKING VIEWSCREEN.
B PLOT CONTINUES:
BEAT 1:
  • Kirk enters from turbolift, Spock behind him. Kirk walks up to Chekov, demands report. Spock walks to SCIENCE STATION / Checkov reports detection of ship on VIEWSCREEN, out of WEAPONS range.
BEAT 2:
  • Kirk walks to SCIENCE STATION, demands report from Spock / Spock reports ship small but configuration unknown.
BEAT 3:
  • Kirk walks to COMMUNICATIONS STATION, demands report from Uhuru – is HAIL answered? / Uhuru reports, no communication with vessel.
  • Kirk orders Uhuru to continue attempting communication with vessel.
BEAT 4:
  • Walks away to SCIENCE STATION, orders Spock to check records for ‘authorized ships’.
  • Spock reports, ‘no such authorized ships’.
  • Kirk requests that Spock speculate as to nature of ship / Spock refuses for lack of information.
BEAT 5:
  • Kirk walks to Checkov, orders interception course for a close view.
  • Sits in CAPTAIN’S CHAIR.
OPENING VALUE: NEGATIVE
CLOSING VALUE: POSITIVE: Kirk takes action.
TURNING POINT:BEAT 5, Kirk orders interception course – first action taken intended to force confrontation and resolve issue.
NOTE: MYSTERY OF TRANSMISSION IN PRIOR B PLOT HAS NOW COMPOUNDED TO A MYSTERY OF UNKNOWN SHIP TAILING ENTERPRISE.

SCENE 4:  (12m45s – 55s transpired)

CUT TO:  INT. SAREK’S QUARTERS

A PLOT TRANSITION
BEAT 1:
  • Sarek Sits, Amanda stands behind.
  • Sarek chides Amanda for embarrassing Spock in front of his colleagues, Vulcans do not deserve such treatment / Amanda deflects charge by asserting Spock’s human traits.
BEAT 2:
  • Sarek defends Spock’s role and formal position in Starfleet / Amanda changes subject to Sarek’s disapproval of Starfleet.
BEAT 3:
  • Sarek asserts the factual nature of Spock’s association with Starfleet , his need for respect among peers to fulfill his duty / Amanda changes subject to Sarek’s EMOTIONAL PRIDE for his son’s success.
  • AMANDA challenges Sarek in FEELING ‘human pride’ for his son / Sarek deflects charge, asserting FEELING pride is not necessary to recognize proper respect for Spock’s role.
  • Sarek asserts this respect as universal to the Starfleet role and not specific to Spock as his son
BEAT 4:
  • Sarek asks Amanda to confirm she ‘understands’ his position / Amanda refuses, but proffers FEELING of LOVE for her husband.
  • Sarek expresses annoyance at Amanda’s expression of LOVE / Amanda recognizes LACK OF LOGIC in her LOVE FOR SAREK.

Actor Mark Leonard as Vulcan Sarek emoting microexpression ‘exasperation’.
BEAT 5:
  • Sarek smiles and reticently offers tender moment with wife Amanda.
OPENING VALUE: NEGATIVE
CLOSING VALUE: POSITIVE: Expression of emotional tenderness.
TURNING POINT:  BEAT 4 – Central issue of Amanda demeaning Spock in public remains unresolved, but the two temporarily resolve the conflict through a tender moment.
NOTE: IMPLIED VULCAN EMOTIONS SUPRESSED, THESE ARE NOT AEMOTIONAL BEINGS.
SCENE 5: (13m49s – 1m3s transpired)
CUT TO: INT. ENTERPRISE BRIDGE – SCIENCE STATION
B PLOT TRANSITION:
BEAT 1:
  • Spock informs Kirk and BRIDGE CREW that MYSTERY VESSEL is charging ENTERPRISE.
INT. BRIDGE  - CAPTAIN’S CHAIR
  • Kirk orders Checkov WEAPONS READY / Checkov confirms WEAPONS READY.
BEAT 2:
  • TENSE MOMENT as Kirk does NOT order WEAPONS FIRE.
  • MYSTERY SHIP passes by without ramming or firing.
BEAT 3:
CUT TO: INT. BRIDGE – SCIENCE STATION
  • Spock informs Kirk and BRIDGE CREW of MYSTERY SHIP’s extreme speed, unmatchable by ENTERPRISE.
BEAT 4:
CUT TO: INT. BRIDGE – CAPTAIN’s CHAIR
  • Kirk orders ENTERPRISE back on course and to report to Starfleet on MYSTERY SHIP’s movements.
CUT TO: INT. BRIDGE – COMMUNICATIONS STATION
BEAT 5:
  • Uhura confirms Starfleet receipt of ENTERPRISE STATUS REPORT and also confirms that MYSTERY SHIP is TRAVELING UNAUTHORIZED.
CUT TO: INT. BRIDGE 
BEAT 6:
  • Checkov confirms new course heading to original destination, confirms MYSTERY SHIP has resumed tailing ENTERPRISE.
CUT TO: INT. BRIDGE: CAPTAIN’S CHAIR (PAN IN TO CLOSEUP OF KIRK)
BEAT 7:
  • Kirk PARAPHRASES situation (EXPOSITION IN DIALOG FOR AUDIENCE MEMBERS WHO DIDN’T CATCH ON).
  • Kirk orders Spock to perform a sensor analysis.
OPENING VALUE: NEGATIVE: Situation unknown as Kirk and Spock enter the ENTERPRISE BRIDGE.
CLOSING VALUE: NEGATIVE: Situation remains unknown, but has now escalated to dangerous as MYSTERY SHIP nearly rammed and threatened the ENTERPRISE.
TURNING POINT: MYSTERY SHIP NEARLY RAMS ENTERPRISE, SHOWING ITSELF TO BE A DIRECT THREAT.

SCENE 6: (14m50s – 1m3s transpired)
CUT TO: INT. DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE FUNCTION ROOM
C PLOT: TRANSITION.
BEAT 1:
  • Gav pours a drink / Sarek enters room, walks to table for drink.
  • Gav watches Sarek, steps forward to question him.
Closed eyes, tight face, Mark Leonard emotes ‘annoyance’ even as his character claims Vulcans don’t feel.

BEAT 2:

  • Gav challenges Sarak to speak / Sarek accepts challenge.
  • Gav questions Sarek on his vote again / Sarek deflects question, then answers directly on his vote (in opposition to Gav’s hoped for vote).
  • Gav challenges Vulcan vote choice / Sarek responds directly with Vulcan rationale.
  • Gav challenges Vulcan interests / Sarek provides selfless rationale in support of contested resources and population (of planet Coridan), implies Gav’s government is engaged in illicit self-interested conduct. 
  •  Gav challenges Sarek over charge that Tellerite government is engaged in illicit behavior / Sarek notes that Tellerite ships have been found containing illicit resources from Coridan.
  • Gav takes affront at Sarek’s charge, escalates to violence, attempting to strangle Sarek.
  • Sarek breaks Gav’s assault, throwing him back against wall.
BEAT 3:
  • Kirk enters room, restrains Gav from continuing violence, deescalates situation.
  • Kirk demands order from both Sarek and Gav.
  • Both Sarek and Gav agree with Kirk’s command (DEFERRING TO HERO’S AUTHORITY)
BEAT 4:
  • Gav moves to leave, threatens Sarek for ‘slandering’ Tellerite government.
  • Sarek discounts Gav’s threat (bad dialog, ‘payment is expensive?’ Duh).
  • Gav exits room.
BEAT 5:
-        PAN IN: for CLOSEUP of Kirk’s scowl and CUT TO: Sarek’s muted smirk.
OPENING VALUE: NEUTRAL
CLOSING VALUE: NEGATIVE: Violent confrontation between conference delegates interrupted by Kirk at last minute.
TURNING POINT: BEAT 3: Escalation of violent conflict between Sarek and Gav interfered with by Kirk, who barely restores order.

SCENE 7: (16m50s – 2m0s transpired)
CUT TO: EXT. ESTABLISHING SHOT: ENTERPRISE IN TRANSIT
C PLOT: CONTINUATION
CUT TO: INT. JEFFRIES TUBE
BEAT 1: 

SHOCK TURN:

  • Gav hanging upside down dead.
  • Guard discovers Gav’s body, contacts Kirk over INTERCOM.
CUT TO: INT. KIRK’S PRIVATE QUARTERS.
BEAT 2:
  • Guard informs Kirk of Gav’s murder.
PAN IN: Kirk’s REACTION SHOT
FADE OUT:
OPENING VALUE: NEGATIVE
CLOSING VALUE: NEGATIVE: This short scene serves expository purposes only to show outcome of Gav’s death.
TURNING POINT OF PROLOG AND ACT 1: Gav’s death is a primary turning point for C PLOT.
NOTE: By RULE OF THREE (Booker, Seven Basic Plots, pg. 229), Events in A PLOT repeat twice – Spock is disrespected by father and demeaned by mother; mother challenged by father; B PLOT, MYSTERY SIGNAL DISCOVERED, MYSTERY SHIP DISCOVERED, MYSTERY SHIP THREATENS ENTERPRISE; C PLOT, Gav challenges Sarek, Gav assaults Sarek and threatens him, Gav is found dead. THUS: Three escalations of events across three plot threads lead to MAJOR TURN.
END ACT 1: (17m21s – 31s transpired)
—–

OPEN ACT 2:
SCENE 1:
FADE IN: INT. ENTERPRISE HALLWAY
C PLOT: CONTINUATION

BEAT 1:
  • McCoy conducts emergency treatment of dead Gav.
  • Kirk questions McCoy on manner of death / McCoy confirms death by ‘expertly’ broken neck.
  • Kirk demands explanation / McCoy confirms only an expert assassin would know how to perform this killing.
  • Kirk questions who could do this thing / McCoy looks to Spock.
BEAT 2:
  • Spock confirms that a Vulcan would know how to do this. Spock continues with terminology of this as an ancient method of ‘merciful’ execution.
  • Kirk notes prior violent encounter between Sarek and Gav / Spock ignores obvious implication that these NEW FACTS make Sarak the PRIME SUSPECT.
BEAT 3:
  • McCoy challenges Spock for refusing to suspect Sarek / Spock defends Sarek.
  • Kirk questions Spock, is it impossible? / Spock confirms Sarek’s capacity to kill, but declares such a murder ‘ILLOGICAL’.
  • Kirk presses point – is it possible? / Spock concedes, Sarek competent and capable of killing in this manner under certain circumstances.
OPENING VALUE: NEGATIVE
CLOSING VALUE: NEGATIVE – Determining PRIME SUSPECT would seem a POSITIVE outcome, yet because the suspect is SECONDARY HERO this turns scene NEGATIVE.
TURNING POINT: Beat 3: Confirmation that Sarek is competent to kill in the exact manner of Gav’s death.

SCENE 2: (18m50s – 1m21s transpired)
CUT TO: INT. SAREK’S PRIVATE QUARTERS
C PLOT: CONTINUATION
BEAT 1:
  • Kirk, Spock and McCoy interrupt Amanda as they enter without notification.
  • Kirk apologizes to Amanda for disturbance, demands to speak with Sarek / Amanda confirms that he’s no present but busy ‘meditating’ away from quarters
NOTE: GIVING SAREK NO ALIBI FOR MURDER
  • Amanda demands from Spock explanation for intrusion / Sarek enters before anyone can answer.
  • Sarek questions Kirk on nature of intrusion / Kirk directly informs Sarek of Gav’s murder.
BEAT 2:
  • McCoy informs Sarek of Gav’s broken neck and the relation to Vulcan methods of execution, thereby informing Sarek he is PRIME SUSPECT / Sarek responds by accepting facts while ignoring implication of suspicion.
BEAT 3:
  • Kirk presses Sarek on his location during murder, seeking alibi.
  • Amanda interrupts, affronted by the implied accusation / Spock consoles Amanda and confirms that Sarek is a ‘LOGICAL SUSPECT.’
BEAT 4:
  • Sarek voices agreement to Kirk that he is a REASONABLE PRIME SUSPECT.
  • Kirk presses Sarek again for alibi / Sarek refuses to provide alibi, Vulcan meditation matters are private, asks Spock to confirm this.
  • Kirk derides Sarek’s statement as CONVENIENT EXCUSE.
BEAT 5:
  • Sarek collapses from apparent illness / McCoy rushes to his aid.
  • McCoy conducts spot diagnosis, determines heart trouble / Kirk asks if he can be treated.
  • McCoy is uncertain about treatment.
Members of both Spock’s ‘kin family’ and ‘institutional family’ present to witness Sarek’s collapse

OPENING VALUE: NEGATIVE
CLOSING VALUE: NEGATIVE – Sarek collapses with apparent deadly illness.
TURNING POINT: Challenging Sarek on the murder of Gav leads to symptoms of HEART FAILURE.
NOTE: Sarek’s HEART FAILURE is COINCIDENT with his and Spock’s family conflict and estrangement – a physical symptom metaphorically representing an emotional breach of the heart. This IMPLIES an intertwining of C PLOT and A PLOT.

SCENE 3: (20m29s – 1m39s transpired)
CROSS FADE TO: INT. ENTERPRISE BRIDGE, SCIENCE STATION.
A PLOT: TRANSITION
BEAT 1:
  • Spock conducts sensor analysis / Kirk approaches from behind.
  • Kirk interrupts Spock, presumed concern for Spock’s emotional welfare / Spock deflects concern, provides factual statement about MYSTERY VESSEL.
  • Kirk offers condolences about Sarek / Spock negates emotional sorrow and REFRAMES matter as one of MISSION SUCCESS.
  • Kirk directly questions Spock about matter, aren’t you worried about him? / Spock deflects emotional matter as human, claims to accept facts at hand.
BEAT 2:
  • Spock moves away to other area of SCIENCE STATION CONSOLE, separating himself from Kirk, TURNING AWAY from Kirk’s line of questioning.
  • Spock informs Kirk of NEW FACTS about MYSTERY SHIP / Kirk responds to subtext of Spock’s unwillingness to express emotion, ignoring factual analysis of MYSTERY SHIP.
NOTE: Kirk’s gaze upon Spock as the scene opens. Spock sees but ignores. Then Kirk forces the issue of his concern for Spock’s feelings about events that have transpired, which Spock refuses to recognize by CHANGING THE SUBJECT to matters of official business. Nimoy uses micro facial expressions to depict annoyance at Kirk’s intrusion into matters of private life. 

B PLOT: TRANSITION

BEAT 3:
  • Kirk transitions to FACTUAL ANALYSIS about MYSTERY SHIP, ruling out potential suspects (Romulans, Federation, Neutral planets). Asks about Klingons / Spock refutes this speculation.
  • Kirk questions Spock – Who?
BEAT 4:
  • Uhura interrupts, informs Kirk of new MYSTERY TRANSMISSION.
  • Kirk strolls away from Spock to Uhura.
  • Uhura continues informing Kirk about MYSTERY TRANSMISSION / Kirk investigates Uhura’s COMMUNICATIONS CONSOLE.
  • Kirk informs Checkov of EXTERNAL location of MYSTERY TRANSMISSION.
  • Checkov confirms MYSTERY TRANSMISSION comes from MYSTERY SHIP.
BEAT 5:
  • Kirk orders Uhura to route MYSTERY TRANSMISSION to Spock’s SCIENCE STATION CONSOLE.
  • Another MYSTERY TRANSMISSION.
  • Uhura notices that reception point is within ENTERPRISE.
BEAT 6:
  • Kirk RESTATES OBVIOUS of EXPOSITION IN DIALOG for AUDIENCE (walks to Science Station and Spock, as if speaking to Spock).
  • Spock confirms possibility, states that decoding signal is impossible.
  • Kirk questions Spock: Conclusions? / Spock can determine nothing more than signal is ALIEN in nature.
BEAT 7:
  • Kirk walks to Uhura’s COMMUNICATIONS CONSOLE, musing to himself (and AUDIENCE), linking MYSTERY TRANSMISSION to MYSTERY SHIP to MYSTERY MURDER.
  • Kirk notices error on Uhura’s COMMUNICATIONS CONSOLE setting, making it difficult to determine location of reception point in ship. Chides her for the mistake.
  • Uhura confirms, deferring to Kirk’s command and reconfigures CONSOLE setting.
BEAT 8:
  • Kirk muses to himself in EXPOSITION IN DIALOG for AUDIENCE UNDERSTANDING (now if alien vessel transmits we’ll get ‘em)
OPENING VALUE: NEGATIVE – concern for Spock’s emotional state
CLOSING VALUE: POSITIVE – One step closer to determining crucial facts about MYSTERY SIGNAL, MYSTERY SHIP, AND MYSTERY MURDER.
TURNING POINT: BEAT 7: After determining in BEATs 4 and 5 that MYSTERY SIGNAL comes from MYSTERY SHIP and that the reception point is within ENTERPRISE, in BEAT 7 Kirk has Uhura set her COMMUNICATIONS CONSOLE to detect reception point within ship.

SCENE 4: (22m46s – 2m17s transpired)
CUT TO: INT. ENTERPRISE SICK BAY
A PLOT: TRANSITION
BEAT 1:
  • Nurse Chappell attends to Sarek
PULL OUT and PAN LEFT:
  • Chappell takes tray to counter, Pass McCoy in background attending to Sarek.
  • Amanda stands by door.
  • Kirk and Spock enter SICK BAY.
BEAT 2:
  • Kirk asks for STATUS REPORT on Sarek’s condition / McCoy confirms Sarek suffering from HEART FAILURE.
  • McCoy asks Amanda about previous ill health / Amanda confirms not / Sarek Confirms YES. Lists prior incidents and doctor response.
  • Amanda confronts Sarek for keeping information private / Sarek asserts her inability to help made informing her irrelevant.
BEAT 3:
  • Kirk presses Sarek on timeline for prior HEART ATTACKS / Sarek, three attacks, two before on Vulcan, one during Gav’s murder.
  • Kirk presses for witnesses / Sarek can provide no alibi.
BEAT 4:
  • Spock to McCoy, asking if surgery is an option / McCoy expresses concern he is incompetent to operate on a Vulcan.
  • Spock proposes type of surgery / Sarek agrees.
  • Kirk asks McCoy’s opinion / McCoy expresses disdain at his exclusion from proposed surgical solution.
BEAT 5:
  • McCoy to Kirk: Problem: Such a surgical procedure requires considerable  blood / Nurse Chappell, not enough blood on board to fulfill surgical objective.
  • Kirk proposes solution, transfusion from other Vulcans / Sarek counters his is a rare blood type.
  • McCoy agrees with Sarek / Spock counters that his blood is compatible.
  • Nurse Chappell notes Spock’s blood contains human impurities / Spock counters that filtering out these impurities is possible.
  • McCoy counters Spock saying such a large blood donation is too dangerous.
BEAT 6:
  • Kirk leads McCoy away for private discussion.
  • McCoy interrupts start of private discussion with Kirk to inform Amanda that chance of success at finding sufficient blood is poor / Spock agrees, attempts to ‘estimate odds.’
  • Amanda interrupts Spock to silence him before he gives a number.
NOTE: COMIC RELIEF by GALLOWS HUMOR. ALSO: Kirk and McCoy private discussion is cut off and either takes place off scene or not at all.
OPENING VALUE: NEGATIVE
CLOSING VALUE: NEGATIVE
TURNING POINT:  In BEAT 4 Spock and Sarek propose a surgical solution. But there isn’t enough blood on hand to successfully perform the operation. In BEAT 5 Kirk proposes a blood transfusion solution, which is countered by Sarek. By BEAT 6 McCoy is consoling Amanda about Sarek’s impending death. NEGATIVE EMOTIONAL CHARGE then diminished with COMIC RELIEF by using GALLOWS HUMOR as Amanda prevents Spock from calculating Sarek’s odds of survival.

—-

SCENE 5: (25m23s – 2m37s transpired)
CUT TO: EXT. ESTABLISHING SHOT OF ENTERPRISE: TRAVELING TO DESTINATION
CUT TO: INT.  MEDICAL LAB
A PLOT: CONTINUES
BEAT 1:
  • Spock questions McCoy (unstated about what) / McCoy challenges Spock about thesis on grounds of ‘different physiology’.
  • Spock counters about similarities / McCoy disagrees – ‘too experimental’.
  • Spock presses on this unstated ‘proposed solution’ / McCoy counters that even if this DRUG SOLUTION were to work, it wouldn’t solve primary problem of providing Sarek with needed blood to perform surgery.
  • Spock agrees it’s dangerous but the only option / McCoy expresses fear of failure, he’s never done this before. Exposes a hidden assumption that Sarek would take this drug.
BEAT 2:
  • Amanda enters. Asks McCoy for specifics on DRUG SOLUTION / McCoy provides explanation to Amanda (EXPOSITION IN DIALOG FOR AUDIENCE AS WELL).
  • Spock counters its success in other contexts / McCoy notes that proposed DRUG SOLUTION would be lethal to Sarek.
BEAT 3:
  • Spock has SOLUTION EPIPHANY, asks Nurse Chappell about results of recent physical exam / Chappell confirms Spock’s top notch health.
  • McCoy challenges Spock on relevance of his health.
  • Interrupted by Amanda, EXPOSITION IN DIALOG for AUDIENCE, explains Spock will take drug instead.
  • Spock confirms proposal.
  • Amanda expresses relief and respect for Spock’s willingness to risk his life to save Sarek.
  • McCoy notes severe risks to the procedure, confirming RISK OF DEATH.
  • Amanda’s face shows concern and respect.
BEAT 4:
  • McCoy refuses to perform procedure / Amanda agrees, refusing to risk both Spock’s and Sarek’s life. 
  •  Spock counters UNACCEPTABLE CONSEQUENCE: then Sarek will die – / Amanda shows fear of POTENTIAL OUTCOME.
  • Spock walks to McCoy, demands procedure as being the ONLY ALTERNATIVE.
  • Spock reiterates his volunteer status as WILLING TO RISK DEATH to SAVE FATHER’S LIFE and thus HEAL BROKEN HEART and RESOLVE FAMILIAL BREACH.
BEAT 5:
  • Spock exits in triumph at having proposed VIABLE IF RISKY SOLUTION.
  • Pregnant pauses and shots of both Amanda and McCoy as they consider Spock’s proposal.
OPENING VALUE: NEGATIVE – ALL HOPE LOST
CLOSING VALUE: POSITIVE: – NEW PROPOSED RISKY SOLUTION
TURNING POINT: BEAT 4, after debates in BEATs 1 and 2, Spock has epiphany in BEAT 3 which leads to PROPOSED RISKY SOLUTON in BEAT 4. Further, Spock ONE UPS McCoy with SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE and COURAGE, demanding he perform PROPOSED RISKY SOLUTION even though McCoy fears the consequences.
—-

SCENE 6: (28m09s – 2m14s transpired)
SLAM CUT TO: INT. ENTERPRISE HALLWAY
B PLOT: TRANSITION
BEAT 1:
  • Andorian functionary ATTACKS Kirk with knife, they begin apparent FIGHT TO THE DEATH.
  • Both SCUFFLE, falling to floor and getting up.
  • Andorian corners Kirk, whose back is to the wall.
  • Andorian comes in for KILL.
  • Kirk finds POINT OF WEAKNESS, presses ATTACK, drops Andorian to floor.
  • Kirk presses attack that drops him to floor / Andorian stabs Kirk in back.

NOTE: KIRK’S RIDICULOUS WWE MOVE.

  • Kirk gets up and knocks Andorian unconscious with knee to face.
  • Kirk goes to INTERCOM and CALLS FOR HELP.

CUT TO: INT. ENTERPRISE BRIDGE – CLOSE UP OF SPOCK

  • Spock responds at ENTERPRISE BRIDGE in COMMAND.

CUT TO: INT. ENTERPRISE HALLWAY

  • Kirk informs Spock of VIOLENT CONFRONTATION, then falls unconscious from SEVERE MORTAL WOUND.
  • Spock fruitlessly calls to Kirk over INTERCOM
WORST. WWE MOVE. EVER.

FADE OUT:

END OF ACT 2: (29m17s – 1m8s transpired)
OPENING VALUE: NEGATIVE – SURPRISE VIOLENT CONFRONTATION BETWEEN HERO AND ANTAGONIST IN PROGRESS.
CLOSING VALUE: NEGATIVE – VIOLENT CONFLICT ENDS IN POSSIBLY FATAL WOUND TO HERO, CAPTAIN KIRK.
TURNING POINT: KIRK IS STABBED IN THE BACK.
NOTE: Now both FATHER FIGURES, Sarek (Spock’s familial father) and Kirk (FATHER OF ENTERPRISE) are gravely ill, one by HEART FAILURE, the other by VIOLENT CONFRONTATION.

ACT 3:  (29m19s – 2s transpired)
SCENE 1:
FADE IN: EXT. ESTABLISHING SHOT OF ENTERPRISE ON ROUTE TO DESTINATION. VOICEOVER OF CAPTAIN’S LOG, NOW GIVEN BY SPOCK, PROVIDES EXPOSITION ON STATUS.
CUT TO:  INT. ENTERPRISE SICK BAY
B PLOT AND C PLOT APPARENTLY MERGE. HERE, QUESTION OVER THE MYSTERY SIGNAL, MYSTERY SHIP AND MYSTERY MURDER HAVE BEEN ANSWERED WITH MYSTERY ANDORIAN ATTACK ON CAPTAIN KIRK. QUESTION: HOW IS THIS RELATED TO GAV’S MURDER?
BEAT 1:
  • McCoy exposition Kirk’s bad knife wound / Spock assigns himself task of questioning Andorian prisoner.
BEAT 2:
  • Nurse Chappell interrupts with bad news about Sarek / McCoy informs Spock he must operate immediately (blocking Spock from his duties).
BEAT 3:
  • Spock refuses on grounds of duty to the ship / McCoy offers alternative command – Scotty.
  • Spock maintains he lacks authority to refuse command responsibilities to resolve a personal matter.
BEAT 4:
  • Spock exits room to interrogate Andorian prisoner.
OPENING VALUE: NEGATIVE – Both Sarek and Kirk are mortally ill or wounded.
CLOSING VALUE: NEGATIVE – Spock refuses to relinquish command for reasons of DUTY.
TURNING POINT: BEAT 3: Spock’s refusal to relinquish command sentences his father to UNNECESSARY DEATH.

SCENE 2: (30m42s – 1m23s transpired)
CUT TO: INT. ENTERPRISE BRIG – Andorian Prisoner ‘Theliv’ interrogation
B PLOT: TRANSITION
BEAT 1:
  • Andorian Ambassador names prisoner ‘Thelev’ and asserts he has served adequately.
BEAT 2:
  • Spock reveals they have harshly interrogated prisoner yet learned nothing. Proposes conspiracy / Andorian rejects Andorian conspiracy theory.
  • Spock focuses on Thelif’s motivations / Rejects Andorian conspiracy as without motivation.
BEAT 3:
  • Spock asserts both attack on Kirk and Gav’s murder are without logic / Andorian Ambassador responds to at motivations of passion not logic
OPENING VALUE: NEUTRAL
CLOSING VALUE: NEUTRAL – No outcome positive or negative, nothing factual learned from questioning.
TURNING POINT:  BEAT 3: Andorian Ambassador makes clear Spock is unsuited as interrogator and investigator as his QUEST FOR LOGIC impedes understanding the passions that drive MURDER.

SCENE 3: (31m36s – 52s transpired)
EXT. ESTABLISHING SHOT – ENTERPRISE ON ROUTE TO DESTINATION
INT. SPOCK’S PRIVATE QUARTERS – AT WORK WITH COMPUTER TERMINAL
A PLOT: TRANSITION
BEAT 1:
  • Spock is interrupted working at computer terminal by door buzzer / Amanda enters Spock’s private quarters.
BEAT 2:
  • Amanda demands Spock relinquish command to save Sarek / Spock refuses on grounds of DUTY.
  • Amanda, Spock alone has capacity to save Sarek / Refuses on grounds that Spock alone has DUTY to ENTERPRISE (lists reasons for SPECIAL DUTY)
BEAT 3:
  • Spock turns back on Amanda.
  • Amanda claims primary duty to family not service to ship / Spock rejects on grounds of DUTY TO SHIP precedence (lists ways he could fulfill duty to family that cannot be met). 
BEAT 4:
  • Spock claims Sarek would understand Spock must fulfill SPECIAL DUTY / Amanda counters that she does not understand this principle. Claims it ‘inhuman’.
  • Spock turns to face Amanda / Amanda begs Spock feel his humanity (and save Sarek).
  • Spock chides Amanda for not understanding VULCAN WAYS /  Amanda REJECTS VULCAN WAYS
BEAT 5:
  • Amanda turns away from Spock / Spock follows her to stand face to face.
  • Spock gives LESSON IN VULCAN WAYS / Amanda rejects these principles as less important than Sarek’s life.
  • Spock scolds Amanda on grounds that Sarek would disrespect Spock had he agreed with Amanda’s position / Amanda appeals to Spock’s FEELINGs and INNER HUMANITY by evoking childhood memories of teasing and abuse.
  • Spock walks around to turn his back on Amanda
BEAT 6:
  • Amanda GUILT TRIPs Spock ‘if he lets Sarek die, she’ll hate him for the rest of her life’ / Spock rejects Amanda’s guilt trip.
  • Amanda slaps Spock across the face, exits room in huff / Spock accepts blow with VULCAN DIGNITY as she leaves.
BEAT 7:
  • In private, Spock presses hand against closed door to PRIVATE QUARTERS and expresses HUMAN EMOTION (loneliness / sadness)
  •  

MONEY SHOT SCENE: Here Spock’s Mother Attempts Guilt Trip

OPENING VALUE: NEUTRAL (at work)

CLOSING VALUE: NEGATIVE (Spock has lost respect of MOTHER)
TURNING POINT: BEAT 6: As last ditch effort to convince Spock to change his mind and relinquish DUTY TO SHIP, Amanda guilt trips Spock, threatening to disown him if he ignores DUTY TO FAMILY and let’s Sarek die.

SCENE 4: (35m14s – 3m20s transpired)
CUT TO: INT. SICK BAY (Closeup of Sarek in bed)
A PLOT:  CONTINUATION
BEAT 1:
  • Nurse Chappell calls McCoy as Kirk regains consciousness.
  • Kirk seemingly jokes about killing assailant / Chappell asks meaning.
  • Kirk turns joke around, diffusing implied murderous threat
NOTE: SERVES TO SHOWCASE KIRK’S POSITIVE QUALITIES
BEAT 2:
  • Kirk tries to sit up but FAILS / McCoy chides Kirk for foolishness of trying to move in his state.
  • Kirk asks for update on Sarek / McCoy gives bad news.
  • McCoy implies he can’t perform surgery / Kirk questions problem.
  • McCoy gives update on Spock’s refusal to relinquish command / Kirk refuses to allow Spock to commit patricide, gets up in GREAT PAIN.
BEAT 3:
  • McCoy warns Kirk about risks of moving in this condition.
  • Kirk offers to take command from Spock, thus free him for surgery, then relinquish to Scotty / McCoy agrees.
OPENING VALUE: NEGATIVE (Image of Sarek dying in bed)
CLOSING VALUE: POSITIVE (Kirk proposes solution to free Spock for surgery)
TURNING POINT: BEAT 3: At significant pain and risk to himself, Kirk makes GREAT SACRIFICE of taking command from Spock to free him for surgery, so Spock need not be caught by conflicting obligations of DUTY TO SHIP against DUTY TO FAMILY. This shows Kirk to be GREAT FRIEND to Spock and DESERVING HEROISM.

SCENE 5: (36m37s – 1m8s transpired)
CUT TO: INT. ENTERPRISE BRIDGE (wideshot)
A PLOT: CONTINUATION
BEAT 1:
  • Kirk enters bridge with McCoy / Spock shows surprise at his arrival.
  • Kirk takes command, orders Spock to SICK BAY / Spock questions Kirk’s ability to command.
  • McCoy intervenes, certifying Kirk as CAPABLE OF COMMAND / Kirk gives friendly order to leave (with smile)
BEAT 2: 
  •  Spock (without dialog) shows quizzical expression then decides to leave with McCoy.
BEAT 3:
A PLOT and B PLOT mix
  •  Showing ABILITY OF COMMAND, Kirk orders STATUS REPORT on MYSTERY SHIP from Checkov / Checkov provides report of NO CHANGE.
  • Kirk orders STATUS REPORT from COMMUNICATIONS STATION officer Uhura / Uhura reports NO CHANGE.
NOTE: Kirk making GREAT SACRIFICE to avoid showing EXTREME PAIN while taking command as Spock witnesses his COMMAND ABILITY.
BEAT 4:
  • Spock exits bridge with McCoy.
  • With Spock unable to witness, Kirk drops guard and expresses EXTREME PAIN to rest of BRIDGE CREW.
  • Orders Scott to the bridge to relinquish command.
A PLOT: closes, leaving B PLOT: CONTINUATION
BEAT 5:
  • Checkov informs Kirk of CHANGE with MYSTERY SHIP / Kirk takes over, refusing to relinquish command as SITUATION CHANGES.
BEAT 6:
  • Uhura informs Kirk that MYSTERY SIGNAL is transmitting again, now from within ENTERPRISE.
  • Kirk requests origin / Uhura determines from the brig (where Andorian assailant is held).
Beat 7:
  • Kirk orders SECURITY to the brig.
OPENING VALUE: POSITIVE – Kirk makes GREAT SACRIFICE to free FRIEND and COLLEAGUE Spock from COMMAND DUTY so he may fulfill FAMILY DUTY unhindered.
CLOSING VALUE: NEGATIVE – As Kirk takes COMMAND, MYSTERY SHIP changes course and MYSTERY SIGNAL is located where Andorian PRISONER is held.
TURNING POINT: BEAT 7: After learning in Beat 5: and Beat 6: of NEW FACTS about MYSTERY SHIP and MYSTERY SIGNAL, Kirk TAKES ACTION based on these events.

SCENE 6: (37m47s – 1m10s transpired)
CUT TO: INT. SICK BAY (Preparation for Surgery)
A PLOT: RESUMES
BEAT 1:
  • McCoy pushes button, green blood flows from Spock to Sarek, as Spock watches in the background.
BEAT 2: (PAN OUT TO WIDE VIEW WITH SAREK AND NURSE CHAPPELL IN FRAME)
  • McCoy begins surgery, orders status report from Nurse Chappell / Chappell provides report.
  • Amanda watches with concern.
  • McCoy expresses IGNORANCE OF VULCAN PHYSIOLOGY (negating value of Chappell’s report).
NOTE: More GALLOWS HUMOR for COMIC RELIEF in order to reduce AUDIENCE TENSION????
BEAT 3:
  • McCoy orders TECHNICAL MATTER / Nurse Chappell Complies.
BEAT 4:
  • Spock attempts to sit up during surgery / McCoy intervenes / Spock demands to see Kirk
  • McCoy refuses Spock / Spock makes PROPHETIC STATEMENT about MYSTERY SHIP.

BEAT 5:

  • Nurse Chappell sedates Spock with DRUG.
  • Spock passes out from effects of DRUG, thereby prevented from warning Kirk of PROPHETIC STATEMENT.
OPENING VALUE: POSITIVE (McCoy takes action to save Sarek’s life with help of Spock)
CLOSING VALUE: NEGATIVE (Spock has epiphany on nature of MYSTERY SHIP that he is prevented from communicating to Kirk. But also POSITIVE in that with Spock’s help, Sarek has a chance to survive surgery.
TURNING POINT:  BEAT 5: Spock passes out, unable to fulfill DUTY TO SHIP as he fulfills DUTY TO FAMILY.

SCENE 7: (38m51s – 1m4s transpired)
CUT TO: INT. ENTERPRISE HALLWAY (OVERLOOKING INT. BRIG WHERE ANDORIAN PRISONER IS HELD CAPTIVE)
C PLOT: TRANSITION
BEAT 1: 
  •  GUARD searches Andorian Prisoner for MYSTERY transceiver to determine cause of MYSTERY SIGNAL.
  • Andorian Prisoner attacks GUARD.
BEAT 2:
  • SECOND GUARD shoots Andorian with STUN GUN.
BEAT 3:
  • Andorian falls to ground, breaking FALSE BODY PART (‘antenna’), thus REVEAL -> MYSTERY transceiver.
  •  GUARD discovers FALSE BODY PART and MYSTERY TRANSIEVER.
BEAT 4:
  • GUARD informs Kirk over INTERCOM of NEW FACTS crucial to resolving C PLOT: MYSTERY.
CUT TO: INT. ENTERPRISE BRIDGE
  • Kirk takes report over INTERCOM from Guard.
NOTE: THOUGH THERE’S A FAST CUT TO A NEW LOCATION, THIS IS PART OF THE SAME SCENE AS INDICATED BY GUARD DIALOG CONTINUING ACROSS SETS FROM ONE PLACE TO THE NEXT.
BEAT 5:
  • Checov reports to Kirk change in MYSTERY SHIP course and speed, in THREATENING POSTURE.
  • Kirk orders GUARD to bring prisoner to the bridge.
BEAT 6:
  • Kirk orders ship in DEFENSE POSITION, HIGHEST ALERT STATUS, ATTACK READY / Checkov confirms order.
BEAT 7:
  • Kirk orders Checkov to SCIENCE STATION in place of Spock / Checkov confirms order and moves to new station (EXTRA takes Checkov’s place at the helm).
BEAT 8:
  • MYSTERY SHIP makes FAST PASS and ATTACKS.
  • Signs of ATTACK as ENTERPRISE BRIDGE SHAKES.
CUT TO: INT. ENTERPRISE SICK BAY  (CLOSEUP of Sarek)
A PLOT: TRANSITION
  • SIGNS of ATTACK as ENTERPRISE SHAKES, disrupting surgical procedure. 
  •  (REACTION SHOTS from McCoy, Amanda, and unconscious Spock in background)
CUT TO: INT. ENTERPRISE BRIDGE  (CLOSEUP of Kirk)
B PLOT: TRANSITION
BEAT 9:
  • Kirk requests STATUS REPORT on TARGET of MYSTERY SHIP / Checkov provides report.
  • MYSTERY SHIP comes around for another PASS and ATTACK.
  • Kirk orders fire against MYSTERY SHIP FOR COUNTERATTACK.
  • Enterprise COUNTER ATTACK FAILS / Checkov reports miss.
BEAT 10:
  • Kirk demands report on MYSTERY SHIP available WEAPONRY / Checkov reports MYSTERY SHIP WEAPONRY of EQUAL OR LESS POWER to Enterprise.
  • Kirk (EXPOSITION IN DIALOG FOR AUDIENCE) We can match them.
BEAT 11:
  • Uhura reports problem with SHIP INTERCOM (Delegates overusing SHIP RESOURCE).
  • Kirk orders SHIP INTERCOM cleared of UNAUTHORIZED USE / Uhura complies.
BEAT 12:
  • Checkov reports another MYSTERY SHIP PASS of ATTACK.
  • MYSTERY SHIP PASSES and ATTACKS.
  • SIGNS of ATTACK as ENTERPRISE BRIDGE SHAKES.
CUT TO: INT. ENTERPRISE SICK BAY (WIDE SHOT of Chappell and McCoy performing surgery, and unconscious Spock in background).
A PLOT: TRANSITION
  • SIGNS of ATTACK as ENTERPRISE SHAKES, disrupting surgical procedure.
  • McCoy warns that if these ATTACKs continue, both Spock and Sarek might DIE.
  • (REACTION SHOT of a fearful AMANDA at DIRE SITUATON)
FADE OUT: ACT 3 ENDS (40m42s – 1m49s transpired)
OPENING VALUE: POSITIVE – GUARD PERFORMING SEARCH OF PRISONER
CLOSING VALUE: NEGATIVE – ATTACKS OF MYSTERY SHIP HAVE CREATED A DIRE SITUATION, THREATENING THE ENTERPRISE, THE DELEGATES, AND SAREK’S AND SPOCK’S LIFE. ALL THREE PLOT THREADS OF STORY AND MAIN MISSION OF SERIES ARE AT RISK.
TURNING POINT:  BEAT 5: After the MYSTERY TRANSCIEVER is discovered on the Andorian Prisoner in BEAT 4:, the MYSTERY SHIP begins ATTACKS against the Enterprise. From BEAT 6 through to BEAT 11: we see the outcome of this CHANGE OF ENEMY TACTIC.
NOTE: ACT 3 ENDS ON CLIFFHANGER
>
ACT 3 Transitions to ACT 4 in a Continuation of Scene

ACT 4:
SCENE 1 – CONTINUEATION FROM SCENE 7 ACT 3: (40m45s – 3s transpired)
NOTE: SCENE 7: IN ACT 3: AND SCENE 1: IN ACT 4: RUN TOGETHER. CUTS BETWEEN INT. ENTERPRISE BRIDGE AND INT. ENTERPRISE SICK BAY DO NOT CONSTITUTE SEPARATE SCENES BUT COMPARE AND CONTRAST CONFLICT ON ENTERPRISE BRIDGE IN WITH MYSTERY SHIP IN B PLOT: WITH POTENTIAL DIRE CONSEQUENCE OF DEATH FOR SECONDARY HERO SPOCK AND FAMILY MEMBER AND SAREK IN DURING SURGERY IN A PLOT:. THELEV, BROUGHT TO BRIDGE, WILL TIE IN C PLOT:, INTERWEAVING ALL THREE PLOTS IN ONE CLIMAX SCENE.
FADE IN: INT. ENTERPRISE BRIDGE – WIDE SHOT
B PLOT: TRANSITION
BEAT 1:
  • MYSTERY SHIP makes pass and ATTAKS Enterprise.
  • SIGNS of ATTACK as Enterprise BRIDGE SHAKES.
BEAT 2:
  • Checkov informs Kirk WEAPONS READY to FIRE / Kirk prepares WEAPONS FIRE SPREAD.
  • Checkov confirms / Kirk orders WEAPONS FIRE.
CUT TO: EXT. EXTERPRISE (WEAPONS FIRE)
CUT TO: INT. ENTERPRISE BRIDGE (SCIENCE STATION)

  • Checkov reports: WEAPONS FIRE RESULT: MISS.
BEAT 3:
  • ATTACK on Enterprise.
  • SIGNS of ATTACK as Enterprise BRIDGE SHAKES
A PLOT: TRANSITION
CUT TO: INT. ENTERPRISE SICK BAY (McCoy and Chappell conducting SURGERY on Sarek, Spock unconscious in background)
  • SIGNS of ATTACK as ENTERPRISE SICK BAY SHAKES, disrupting surgical procedure.
  • LONG SHOT of Amanda reacting to the threat of ATTACKS on Sarek and Spock’s life.
BEAT 4:
  • CLOSE UP of Chappell -> Warns McCoy that Sarek’s heart has stopped (IMPENDING DEATH).
  • McCoy orders TECHNICAL SOLUTION.
CUT TO: CLOSE UP REACTION: Spock (now ALERT and CONCERNED), Sarek (unconscious) and Amanda near PANIC.
BEAT 5:
  • SIGNS of ATTACK as ENTERPRISE SICK BAY SHAKES, disrupting surgical procedure.
  • SHIP POWER FAILURE.
  • Confluence of DIRE SITUATONS where Sarek is NEAR DEATH due to HEARTH FAILURE while HIGH TECHNOLOGY providing critical LIFE SUPPORT fail simultaneously due to ATTACKS by MYSTERY SHIP.
  • McCoy orders OBSOLETE TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVE to save Sarek’s life.
BEAT 6:
  • Chappell gives McCoy OBSOLETE TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVE.
  • McCoy orders Chappell to contact MAIN ENGINEERING to PRIORITIZE providing ENERGY to systems in SICK BAY / Chappell confirms, rushes to follow order.
PAN RIGHT: (following Chappell until Amanda in LONG SHOT enters FRAME – camera hangs on Amanda, letting Chappell exit FRAME, Amanda in LONG SHOT expresses WORRY from DIRE CIRCUMSTANCES.
CUT TO: INT. ENTERPRISE BRIDGE (SCIENCE STATION)
B PLOT: TRANSITION
BEAT 7:
  • Checkov reports failed DEFENSIVE SHIELD (increasing RISK TO SHIP).
  • Kirk orders use of ALTERNATIVE POWER SOURCE.
  • Checkov confirms, reports continued DEFENSIVE WEAKNESS (continued RISK TO SHIP AND MISSION).
BEAT 8:
  • SIGNS of ATTACK as ENTERPRISE BRIDGE SHAKES
CUT TO: INT. ENTERPRISE SICK BAY
A PLOT: TRANSITION
  • SIGNS of ATTACK as ENTERPRISE SICK BAY SHAKES, disrupting surgical procedure during Sarek’s HEART STOP. 
  • BUT: Readout indicators show HEART RESUMPTION, Sarek regains CHANCE OF LIFE. (POSITIVE INDICATION)
CUT TO: INT. ENTERPRISE BRIDGE (WIDE SHOT)
NOTE: B PLOT and C PLOT begin to merge by IMPICATION that MYSTERY SIGNAL, MYSTERY SHIP in B PLOT is RELATED to MYSTERY MURDER in C PLOT in bringing Thelev to ENTERPRISE BRIDGE.
B PLOT: TRANSITION / C PLOT:  RESUMPTION as both PLOT threads INTERTWINE.
BEAT 9:
  • Andorian PRISONER Thelev enters BRIDGE in background via TURBOLIFT accompanied by two GUARDS.
  • Kirk sarcastically complements Thelev’s compatriots aboard MYSTERY SHIP / Thelev admits DESTRUCTION OF ENTERPRISE goal of MYSTERY CONSPIRACY.
  • Kirk challenges Thelev’s RACIAL / PLANETARY ORIGIN (not Andorian).
CUT TO: INT. ENTERPRISE SICK BAY (CLOSE UP SAREK)
B PLOT: TRANSITION
BEAT 10:
  • SIGNS of ATTACK as ENTERPRISE SICK BAY SHAKES, disrupting surgical procedure.
CUT TO: INT. ENTERPRISE BRIDGE (CLOSE UP COMMUNICATIONS STATION AND UHURA)
BEAT 11:
  • Uhura reports WIDE SPREAD DAMAGE across ENTERPRISE / Kirk orders RESPONSE to DAMAGE REPORT.
  • Kirk informs Thelev of WEAPONS POWER SYMMETRY between ENTERPRISE and MYSTERY SHIP (EXPOSITION IN DIALOG FOR AUDIENCE).
BEAT 12:
  • Checkov reports DEFENSIVE SYSTEMS FAILURE / Kirk orders ENGINEERING to CUT POWER (seemingly suicidal move).
BEAT 13:
  • Kirk questions Thelev (who are you?) / Thelev refuses to answer.
  • Kirk provides answer: Thelev a SPY / Thelev refuses to confirm.
BEAT 14:
  • Kirk orders ENGINEERING to CUT additional POWER, setting ENTERPRISE adrift (SET UP TRAP)
BEAT 15:
  • Kirk orders Checkov to leave SCIENCE STATION and take over HELM / Checkov complies.
BEAT 16:
  • Thelev glances around at POWER LOSS confused and asks Kirk his purpose / Kirk refuses to answer.
  • Checkov reports ENTERPRISE ADRIFT, requests to CORRECT COURSE / Kirk refuses.
  • Kirk orders STANDBY WEAPONS / Checkov (confused) confirms order.
CUT TO: EXT ESTABLISHING SHOT OF ENTERPRISE ADRIFT.
CUT TO: INT. ENTERPRISE BRIDGE (CLOSEUP OF KIRK)
BEAT 17:
  • MYSTERY SHIP RETICENT TO COME IN FOR KILL.
  • Kirk (EXPOSITION IN DIALOG OF SITUATION FOR AUDIENCE).
  • Thelev (CONTINUES EXPOSITION IN DIALOG OF SITUATION FOR AUDIENCE) (You’re baiting him).
BEAT 18:
  • MYSTERY SHIP makes run for FINAL KILL of ENTERPRISE.
  • MYSTERY SHIP COME IN SLOWLY, WITHIN CAPACITY of ENTERPRISE to HIT.
  • Kirk order Checkov to hold FIRE.
NOTE: MOUNTING TENSION AS FINAL CONFRONTATION NEARS.

  • Checkov reports: WEAPONS LOCKED ON TARGET.
  • Kirk orders WEAPONS FIRE.
SERIES OF FAST CUTs:  EXT. ENTERPRISE firing; INT. ENTERPRISE BRIDGE (CLOSEUP REACTIONS of: Checkov, Thelev, and Kirk)

  • MYSTERY SHIP HIT AND SEVERELY DAMAGED
NOTE: CONCLUSION OF FINAL CONFLICT – ENEMY SHIP DAMAGED AND UNABLE TO FULFILL MISSION. (GOOD GUYS WIN!!!)
BEAT 19:
  • Checkov ELATED REACTION.
  • Kirk MUTED ELATION.
  • Thelev DISSAPOINTED REACTION.
BEAT 20:
  • NO ACTION!!!
NOTE: LONG AND SLOW SILENCE TO DISSIPATE EMOTIONAL BUILDUP AND RELEASE!!!
BEAT 21:
  • Kirk orders ENTERPRISE to STAND DOWN FROM RED ALERT.
  • MAIN POWER resumes on ENTERPRISE BRIDGE.
BEAT 22:
  • Kirk orders HAIL at MYSTERY SHIP for SURRENDER.
  • MYSTERY SHIP SELF-DESTRUCTS.
BEAT 23:
  • Thelev informs Kirk that SURRENDER was NOT AN OPTION for MYSTERY SHIP.
CUT TO: INT. ENTERPRISE SICK BAY (CLOSEUP – HEALTH MONITORS SHOW IMPROVEMENT)
A PLOT: RESUMES
BEAT 24:
  • McCoy continues surgery.
  • Sarek shows signs of RECOVERY.
  • Spock shows signs of RECOVERY.
  • Amanda shows signs of RELIEF.
CUT TO: INT. ENTERPRISE BRIDGE (CLOSEUP OF KIRK)
B PLOT: / C PLOT: RESUMES
BEAT 25:
  • Thelev despondent at FAILURE.
  • Kirk orders Uhuru to inform SUPERIORS of NEW STATUS about PRISONER.
BEAT 26:
  • Thelev informs Kirk of his SUICIDE MISSION by POISON / Kirk orders GUARDS to take PRISONER to SICK BAY.
  • Thelev immediately DIES.
  • Kirk makes IRONIC STATEMENT about DEATH OF FOEs.
BEAT 27:
  • Kirk RELINQUISHES COMMAND after fulfilling DUTY TO SHIP by returning ENTERPRISE to SAFETY.
  • Kirk exits BRIDGE.
OPENING VALUE: NEGATIVE – MATTERS ARE NEARING THE WORST AS THIS SCENE OPENS, CROSSING THE END OF ACT 3: WITH THE BEGINNING OF ACT 4: THIS LONG SCENE DEPICTS THE FINAL CONFRONTATION BETWEEN ENEMY FORCES AND KIRK.
CLOSING VALUE: POSITIVE – CENTRAL THREAT ACROSS B PLOT: AND C PLOT: NOW RESOLVED, THE STORY CAN FOCUS ON A PLOT: RESOLUTION OF FAMILY RIFT BETWEEN SPOCK AND SAREK.
TURNING POINT: BEAT 18: MYSTERY SHIP DISABLED AND NO LONGER A THREAT TO ENTERPRISE.

SCENE 2: ( 46m26s– 5m37s transpired since beginning of ACT 4:, 7m36s since beginning of SCENE 7: ACT 3:)
CUT TO: INT. ENTERPRISE SICK BAY
A PLOT: RESUMES
BEAT 1:
  • McCoy enters room smiling.
  • Kirk enters room from different door.
  • McCoy makes IRONIC STATEMENT about RISK TO SHIP.
BEAT 2:
  • Kirk requests STATUS UPDATE on Spock and Sarek CONDITION / McCoy deflects question, complains about effects of VIOLENT CONFRONTATION.
  • Kirk expresses exasperation / Amanda enters room smiling, invites Kirk to join Sarek and Spock.
  • Kirk follows Amanda, McCoy follows Kirk.
BEAT 3:
CUT TO: INT. ENTERPRISE SICK BAY – RECOVERY ROOM

  • Spock, Sarek lie in bed awake and in apparent health, Chappell attending.
  • McCoy makes WISECRACK about VULCAN STAMINA / Kirk responds with IRONIC WISECRACK about physicians in kind.
BEAT 4:
  • Spock attempts to inform Kirk of CRUCIAL FACT / Kirk reports CRUCIAL FACT now irrelevant.
  • Kirk orders McCoy to perform autopsy on Thelev / Spock conjectures to McCoy Thelev’s planetary origin (Orian)
NOTE: RESOLVING ORIGIN OF MYSTERY SIGNAL AND MYSTERY SHIP.

  • McCoy questions Spock / Spock provides EXPOSITION IN DIALOG FOR AUDIENCE to explain B PLOT: THREAD RESOLUTION.
  • Kirk questions Spock on FOE MOTIVATION / Sarek responds, to provoke SUSPICION and WAR.
  • Kirk explains: FOE FALSE NEUTRALITY WOULD ENSURE CONTINUED SUPPLY OF PROFIT FROM SALE OF PRECIOUS RESOURCE TO WARRING PARTIES. (ALL EXPOSITION IN DIALOG)
BEAT 5:
  • Spock makes note of TECHNICAL MATTER about FOE MYSTERY SHIP referred to in ACT: 3 SCENE 7: BEAT 4: when he attempted to get up prior to surgery but had been sedated by Nurse Chappell at McCoy’s order.
  • Continuing, Spock provides more EXPOSITION IN DIALOG, explaining PURPOSE of the FOE MYSTERY SHIP.
  • Spock questions SELF PERCEPTION and performs SELF CRITICISM (why had he not thought of this earlier?)
BEAT 6:
  • Kirk CONSOLES Spock’s failure, noting other pressing FAMILY MATTERS at hand.
  • Amanda gives KNOWING EXPRESSION.
  • Spock deflects Kirk’s statement, maintaining FRONT OF LOGIC to negate the OBVIOUS.
  • Kirk offers SNIDE THANK YOU at Spock’s SELF DELUSION.
BEAT 7:
  • Amanda presses Sarek to thank Spock for saving his life, thus forcing RESOLUTION OF FAMIKLY RIFT / Sarek professes inability to understand Amanda’s ploy.
  • Spock gives KNOWING LOOK at Sarek.
  • Sarek suggests Spock’s LOGIC was the ONLY DRIVING MOTIVATION. Refuses to offer GRATITUDE for Spock’s REASONABLE CONDUCT.
NOTE: STATEMENT BY SAREK BOTH NEGATES EMOTIONAL CONFLICT WHILE SUPPORTING SPOCK IN MATTER OF VULCAN PRIDE. IT SERVES DUAL PURPOSE OF RESOLVING FAMILY RIFT WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE EXISTENCE OF RIFT. IT’S A PARADOX INTENDED TO SUPRESS EMOTIONAL RELIEF AND CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTANDING DEPICTION OF VULCAN CHARACTER TRAITS.
  • Amanda breaks down in fit of anger at absurdity of Sarek’s statement and VULCAN LOGIC.
  • Spock interrupts, speaking to Sarek of Amanda in THIRD PERSON, makes CYNICAL ANALYSIS of Amanda’s EMOTIONAL ERUPTION / Sarek confirms IRRATIONAL EMOTION as Amanda’s normal behavior.
  • Spock questions Sarek on his choice of wife (highly insulting) / Sarek responds with LOGICAL ANALYSIS.
  • Spock QUIZZICAL REACTION SHOT.
COMIC RELIEF. REACTION SHOTS OF AMANDA, KIRK AND MCCOY SHOW ACCEPTANCE AND EXASPERATION BY AMANDA, AND SMILES FOR KIRK AND MCCOY.
NOTE: a core aspect of the comic element is that Spock and Sarek appear to be insulting Sarek’s wife and Spock’s mother Amanda for her emotional outburst. It seems a typical ‘wife joke’.

But, given the context of the resolution of a longstanding father-son family breach, the joke inverts a straight man / wacky nut dynamic, as the audience understands that Amanda’s reaction is reasonable given the circumstances while Spock’s and Sarek’s represent repressed wackiness. By insulting Amanda’s supposed irrationality, it is Spock and Sarek who behave irrationally by projecting a false sense of superiority without self-insight.

Thus, the butt of the joke falls on them in a curious reversal of the stereotypical wife joke.

  • Amanda accepts this ABSURDITY OF SITUATION and makes CONSOLING GESTURE to Sarek, mending a potential WIFE / HUSBAND FAMILIAL BREACH.
 Curious Inversion of a Stereotypical ‘Wife Joke’

BEAT 8:

  • Kirk collapses from NEAT FATAL INJURY sustained by ATTACK in end of ACT 2: SCENE 6:.
  • McCoy and Chappell offers assistance, forces Kirk to bed for NEEDED REST.
  • Spock attempts to RISE FOR DUTY / McCoy forces Spock to bed for NEEDED REST.
NOTE: MIRRORING DOCTOR’S ORDERS OF SPOCK WITH KIRK.
BEAT 9:
  • Kirk challenges McCoy’s PRESUMPTIVENESS at TAKING COMMAND of both Kirk and Spock for MEDICAL REASONS.
  • Spock makes SNIDE REMARK about McCoy’s ENJOYMENT OF ‘TABLES TURNED’ circumstance where McCoy has USURPED TEMPORARY AUTHORITY.
BEAT 10:
  • McCoy ORDERS both Spock and Kirk to SHUT UP and IMMEDIATELY DEFER AUTHORITY, challenging SUPERIOR OFFICERS and ASSERTING POWER.
  • Kirk defers with a dejected expression of FUTILITY.
BEAT 11:
  • McCoy enjoys MOMENTARY REVERSAL OF FORTUNE AND POWER, gloating over his TEMPORARY WIN.
NOTE: MCCOY’S ENJOYMENT OF ‘GETTING LAST WORD’ AND FINAL SHOT STEAL MIRRORS BEGINNING. MCCOY OPENED THE STORY IN PROLOGUE TEASER: COMPLAINING ABOUT FORMALITIES OF REGALIA, HE ENDS THE STORY AFTER HAVING TEMPORARILY OVERTURNED AUTHORITY STRUCTURE OF THE SHIP WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY HAVING SUCCESSFULLY SHORN FORMAL REGALIA.
CUT TO: EXT. CLOSING SHOT OF ENTERPRISE – AS IT CONTINUES TRAVEL IN SPACE.
END CREDITS:
OPENING VALUE: NEGATIVE (CONCERN FOR LIFE OF SPOCK AND SAREK)
CLOSING VALUE: POSITIVE (SPOCK AND SAREK HEALTHY, AND FAMILIAL RIFT RESOLVED.
TURNING POINT: BEAT 7: AMANDA PRESSES SAREK ON RESOLVING FATHER-SON RIFT BETWEEN SAREK AND SPOCK, WHICH LEADS TO A CONVULUTED RESOLUTION IN SUBTEXT WHILE IN SURFACE DIALOG DEMEANING AMANDA’S EMOTIONAL CONCERN AS ‘ILLOGICAL’.
NOTE: REGARDING LACK OF RESOLUTION OF CRUCIAL C PLOT: MATTERS:

  • It’s curious that the question of who murdered Gav has been dropped. Had Sarek been ruled out? No, though seriously ill, he was still the only individual on board with the specific skill set to murder Gav in the exact way he had died. Had it been the ORIAN SPY Thelev? This is what’s implied, but no EVIDENCE is presented IN SCENE or by EXPOSITORY DIALOG to prove this point. THIS PORTION OF C PLOT: IS DROPPED INTO A MASSIVE PLOT HOLE.
  • What happened with the Ambassadorial delegates? Did the ENTERPRISE arrive safely at Babel? Was Sarek able to perform his ambassadorial duties and cast his vote? NONE OF THESE ISSUES ARE EXPLICIATELY RESOLVED.
  • Regarding point 1 on Gav’s death, this is an overt plot hole. Yet one could surmise that because it happens at the end of ACT 1:, by the time of ACT 4: RESOLUTION, most AUDIENCE VIEWERS would have forgotten about its relevance. Given TIME CONSTRAINTS, production staff (writers, director, producers) might have intentionally left the plot hole open without concern.

Draft V. 1.0

VIDEO: Reddit Politics Forum Announces Publisher Blacklist – tl;dr

As reported, on October 28th the Reddit Politics Forum Announces Publisher Blacklist, the moderatation team for the politics forum at Reddit instituted a submissions blacklist covering a large range of journalistic and public policy web sites.

Over ninety-eight publications and twelve entire blogging platforms are covered under the new policy. Including such notable newsgathering publishers as The Huffington Post, Mother Jones Magazine, Salon Magazine, Raw Story, and Vice.

Some left leaning opinion publishers such as Alternet, Thinkprogress and Media Matters and Dailykos are now verboten to submit. But it isn’t only left leading publications that have gotten the ax. The Drudge Report, The Heritage Foundation, National Review, Reason Magazine, and Breitbart are also well recognized right leaning policy and opinion purveyors that have been banned.

Neither my story nor the video can answer the question why those moderators have implemented this policy. But what I can do is quote their words in the announcement and let viewers decide. The video is intended for those who don’t have time or the inclination to read a feature length story on the matter. It’s for the “too long; didn’t read” crowd. I hope it satisfies.

Major sources used in the video include:

Reddit: “Concerning Recent Changes in Allowed Domains

David Corn of Mother Jones Wins the 2012 Polk Award

David Wood of Huffington Post wins the 2012 Pulitzer Prize
Youtube Video

Primary Video Sources:

Reddit Co-Founder Aaron Swartz:

We Can Change The World
Spunout Media

Reddit Co-Founder Alexis Ohanian:

Interview with Russia Today television
What The Internet Will Look Like is SOPA Passes

Reddit Co-Founder Steve Huffman:

How Reddit Began
A Total Disruption Productions

Secondary Video Sources:

PBS NewsHour
April 19, 2013

What is Reddit?
CGPGrey

ABC This Week
Oct 6, 2013

helium makes Dan pass out and his face go numb
(dude!?!?! WTF!)

Movies:

Horse Feathers
Pink Flamingos
The Sweet Smell of Success
Dr. Strangelove

And many smaller clips too numerous to mention.

—-

Copyrights retained by each
respective owner.

Materials reproduced under
17 U.S.C. § 107 “Fair Use”
doctrine as news commentary
for educational purposes.

Quoted material does not
imply agreement with opinions
expressed in this work.

See Youtube Information Tab
for additional details.

Copyright 2013 by James Maynard Gelinas
Underground Research Initiative

Reddit Politics Forum Announces Publisher Blacklist

By James Maynard Gelinas

This afternoon, the moderation team for the popular /r/politics subreddit announced a publication blacklist in a post published on October 28th.

Publications targeted for censorship include,  Alternet, Dailykos, Drudgereport, Heritage Foundation, Huffington Post, Motherjones, National Review, Reason Magazine, Salon Magazine, Thinkprogress, Twitter, Vice.com, and many many more. It’s seemingly across the ideological spectrum and yet targets smaller independent outlets.

With over three million members, the Reddit Politics forum has significant audience share. To block an entire domain and publisher from submission access will have major economic repercussions for any publication on that list. It will also diminish public recognition of any news published at those sites, now denied access. And thus, the free flow of information is diminished.

Mod List Change on /r/politics

The big-daddy of link and content aggregation sites on the ‘net, Reddit has tens of millions of users worldwide. The site bills itself as, “…a source for what’s new and popular on the web. Users like you provide all of the content and decide, through voting, what’s good and what’s junk.”

So it might interest many of these users to learn which sources the moderation team in Reddit’s politics subreddit have sidelined by blacklist. And in so doing, to disenfranchise those users from their supposed vote. It might also surprise the community that what these moderators have blacklisted are some of the most well recognized publishers of political journalism on the web.

The change began about two weeks ago when site administrators replaced many of the old politics mod team by a large number of new moderators. From that point forward, the new mod team took drastic measures to change subreddit policy by fiat.

Moderators behind this policy shift stated:

We have identified one of three recurring problems with the newly disallowed domains:

  • Blogspam
  • Sensationalism 
  • Low Quality Posts

They offer details to these definitions. To summarize the first two, Blogspam refers to a blog or web site that quotes large amounts of text from another publication without offering significant content, analysis, or secondary sources. Sensationalism is as they interpret the word. But the third reason, low quality posts, offers significant insight into the purpose behind their blacklist policy.

The third major problem is pretty simple to understand, though it is easily the most subjective: the domain provides lots of bad journalism to the sub. Bad journalism most regularly happens when the verification of claims made by a particular article is almost impossible. Bad journalism, especially when not critically evaluated, leads to lots of circlejerking and low-quality content that we want to discourage. Domains with a history of producing a lot of bad journalism, then, are no longer allowed. [emphases added]

All of which might seem reasonable until one digs into the details of which sites were banned. Most remarkably, Mother Jones is on that list. A publication that directly impacted the 2012 Presidential election by publishing hidden video of candidate Mitt Romney making disparaging statements about those ‘47% of the population’ who he thought probably wouldn’t vote for him anyway.  As a result, their reporting shifted the electoral landscape and severely diminished Romney’s chances of winning that election. The series won author David Corn and Motherjones a Polk Award for investigative journalism.

One editor for Mother Jones, who identified himself as Nick Baumann when I contacted him and gave approval for the release of his name, wrote about the then unofficial ban on Mother Jones submissions in the Reddit Journalism forum.

Hey folks. I’m an editor at Mother Jones and a long-time redditor. I’m disappointed, but not entirely surprised, by this decision. I like to believe that readers (especially redditors) are smart enough to read a bunch of different sources and make up their minds about what’s true. News outlets should ultimately be judged by whether the stories they report turn out to be correct—i.e., whether they are accurate. A healthy r/politics community would be one that downvotes inaccurate or misleading stories and upvotes accurate ones, not a sub that bans entire domains (except for domains that focus entirely on making things up, like the Onion or whatever). A clarifying example here might be the Economist. Anyone who reads the Economist presumably understands that it has a libertarian point of view. But there’s not a ton of wailing and gnashing of teeth about it because everyone assumes that the readers are smart enough to separate the facts from how the paper sees them. If r/politics community members are having trouble separating op-ed pieces from news reporting, that’s too bad. But that doesn’t mean essential work from great reporters (to pick someone on the other side of the ideological spectrum) such as National Review’s Robert Costa should be banned from the sub. Just an unfortunate decision, and a slippery slope, too. All reporters make decisions that are affected by their personal biases—who to call, what to cover, whom to trust. Is the sub going to start taking seriously the complaints of conservatives who think the New York Times or the Guardian have too much of an agenda? What about liberal complaints about Fox News? Where does this end?

Which prompted an interesting response by user townsley to that self-proclaimed MJ editor. He offered an interesting perspective for context:

Unfortunately, /r/politics has extremely weak moderation right now and one moderator in particular (/u/theredditpope) combined with some hardcore conservatives (and other complacent and inactive mods) to make sure that redditors won’t see reporting like this on mass shootings in America.

This was a huge win for the hardcore right – good investigative fact based journalism has repeatedly been damaging to the right on reddit. It is really important for them – and now /u/theredditpope apparently – that they don’t allow redditors access to a factual catalogue of shootings as a part of their political discussion.

In what world does this make sense in a sub called /r/politics? You got me.

But it’s not just Mother Jones that’s been affected. When one respondent asked for examples of sensationalism in Salon Magazine that prompted the banning, a moderator replied:

Sure thing. As soon as we finish our closer look into the domain. If you ask this time next week I’ll be much better positioned to answer that question with specific examples and with what we decided to do with the domain after our closer examination.

I asked if that meant that the moderation team had banned the site without having completed a review of its content. To which another moderator replied simply, “No.” There were no additional details provided.

A majority of comments from the community decried the decision, some some outliers supporting the ban. One comment indicative of popular opinion read:

You are trying to control the source and the free flow of information. Please stop it. Let us post the sources we see fit, then let the votes decide.

You guys are ruining /r/politics, quit trying to fix something that isn’t broken. Also, the bannings are so arbitrary, RT is allowed but not MJ? Youtube takes of Alex Jones going crazy are just fine but actual journalism from Salon is not allowed.

Mother Jones broke the biggest story of the 2012 election and they are banned. Do you guys realize MJ has been around since 1976? Do you guys realize David Corn, who writes for Mother Jones, is an award winning journalist? It’s like you guys made these bannings based on what 22 year olds think is cool. No historical knowledge at all.
I don’t want to see anything banned, I’d like to put the blaze and the weekly standard up against MJ and Media Matters then see what happens.

Stop it mods, just stop it.”

Another wrote:

Do you feel you may have gone to far in an attempt to be ‘fair and balanced’?

The sites you have labelled as ‘right wing’ sites that you have banned are largely conspiracy sites (infowars) or sites that falsified news (briebart) while fox and russian propaganda papers are allowed.

While on the ‘left wing’ side you have banned actual papers, and domains that have won awards and broke large stories.

I see this as forcing a false sense of equality between the content of mother jones/huffington and infowars.

Are you attempting to shape the direction of this subreddit in a more conservative/libertarian direction?

A Moderator replied:

I and others have admitted that perhaps some of these bans are not necessary. We are engaged in an internal process to re-evaluate these domains (among which are salon, HuffPo, and several others that people have been mentioning).

It should also be said that we banned the NationalReview and Heritage.org as well. So it isn’t true that we targetted only the silliest of right-wing material.

Which suggests the question: Why should a nonpartisan political forum ban any publication promoting serious public policy or journalism? Regardless of whether it comes from Heritage or Motherjones.

There were some users less concerned about the decision. One community member responded in support:

These rule changes only affect what is allowed to be posted, not discussed. The main backlash against the banned domain list stems from people thinking their favorite biased news sites are banned from discussion, when they are not.

The criteria the mods used for the banned domain list addresses the issue of biased posts, which start a discussion off with a heavy weight to one side or the other. Since a post title cannot be changed and it is the post’s link that is the topic of discussion, any posts to a biased article or that have a sensationalist title can almost never lead to an equally weighted and completely open discussion.

Some might remember that three years ago on Digg, a then popular link aggregation site similar to Reddit, a conspiracy was revealed whereby a conservative group had colluded to censor content there.

The popular link-sharing website Digg is investigating claims that a group of the site’s “influential conservative” members are systematically downgrading thousands of stories deemed to be “liberal”.

Online magazine AlterNet claimed to have uncovered a group of Digg members – dubbed “Digg Patriots” – who have “censored hundreds of users, dozens of websites, and thousands of stories” from the site. Alternet alleged that the Digg Patriots, thought to number nearly 100 members, are “able to bury over 90% of articles by certain users and websites submitted within 1-3 hours”.

Reddit user PinkSlimeIsPeople extracted a site submission graph from stattit.com, a statistics generation tool for reddit. A reply by OllieGarky noted an interesting trend:

Wow. Looks like those top domains that got banned are all left wing or left-leaning.
So this is an attempt to stop the promotion of left-wing content on Reddit.
Interesting.

As others noted, any conservative publication blacklisted would have had little traffic flow anyway. So while the policy might appear nonbiased in site selection, by user popularity and traffic flow one particular group of publications would appear targeted. I asked the moderators about this concern in a comment to the announcement. PoliticsMod, a new mod account apparently related to this new policy shift, replied:

Popular domains have been banned for two weeks now, and in that time traffic has only grown and our front page has become noticeably less sensational.

There’s no proof yet that political censorship is the underlying motive behind these new policies in the Politics subreddit. But, given past history, that conservative activists might squelch serious journalism in an attempt to skew public opinion isn’t just conspiracy theory. It’s already happened before. Which means that fact based journalism could well be under threat in one of the most popular political forums on Reddit. A matter of significant concern for journalism and a free flow of information crucial to the general public.

One thing is clear, looking through the comments in their announcement a lot of very unhappy users have offered vociferous complaints. And further, that what questions posed to the mods that have not been responded to are more interesting than the ones they have answered.

UPDATE Nov 3rd, 2013:

I’ve created a video tl;dr (too long; didn’t read) for anyone who might be interested in the subject but is too time constrained to read in depth. Enjoy!

US Debt Ceiling Impasse is a Constitutional Crisis in the Making

By James Maynard Gelinas

For nearly a week so-called nonessential services in the US government has shut down due to a budget impasse over a House demands that link deferral of Obama’s signature legislation The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) to a new budgetary continuing resolution. Much discussion in the media has focused on this as a partisan fight over that one issue. But that’s merely a short term rationale for this fight. The House GOP wants much more come October 17th, when if this impasse is not resolved the United States will lack funds necessary to pay interest on Treasury debt. In short, the US government will go into default, an outcome that Yalman Onaran of Business Week argued would be worse than the failure of Lehman Brothers in 2007. And that ultimately led to a worldwide financial crash and economic crisis not seen since the US Great Depression that has been ongoing for years. 

Failure by the world’s largest borrower to pay its debt — unprecedented in modern history — will devastate stock markets from Brazil to Zurich, halt a $5 trillion lending mechanism for investors who rely on Treasuries, blow up borrowing costs for billions of people and companies, ravage the dollar and throw the U.S. and world economies into a recession that probably would become a depression. Among the dozens of money managers, economists, bankers, traders and former government officials interviewed for this story, few view a U.S. default as anything but a financial apocalypse.

But even worse, should the House succeed in this brinkmanship the long-term effect is far more serious to ongoing constitutional functioning of the US democratic-republic. For if the House succeeds in setting a precedent where threatening default on US debt is the norm in achieving nonbudgetary policy goals, then the House will have extra-constitutionally usurped authority from the Senate, Executive, and Judicial in deciding core policy beyond even mere budgetary matters. This is why the brinkmanship represents a constitutional crisis in the making.

How Not to Make Legislative Sausage

The process we all learned in high school civics would have the House of Representatives as expressly assigned the task of debating and passing an initial budget proposal. An alternative is debated and passed in the Senate, where divergences between the two are reconciled in a conference committee hearing. Which is then handed to the President for signing into law or veto as the Executive sees fit. If the legislative and executive branches are unable to resolve disputes within the yearly time frame for a lawful budget, congress may pass a continuing resolution whereby the prior budget is re-instated for a temporary duration until the impasse is resolved. That’s the the normal legislative process for all lawmaking, including the budgetary process. 

The most recent continuing resolution to fund government operations expired. In response, the House leadership has assigned as riders to a new continuing resolution budgetary bill a series of unrelated legislative initiatives. It’s more than just delaying the ACA for a year. According the The Hill, the House GOP has also tied raising the debt ceiling to additional legislative measures.
The House Republican list circulating on K Street indicates the GOP also hopes to kick-start tax reform, permit the Keystone XL oil pipeline and trim a slew of federal regulations in exchange for a borrowing boost.
The move to the debt ceiling comes as Congress moves toward a possible government shutdown on Oct. 1. Moving to the debt ceiling fight, which Republican leaders have long seen as stronger ground, could be a way to convince rank-and-file Republicans to fight their spending and healthcare battles there rather than on a government funding bill.
Their wishlist is long. The House GOP would demand approval of the Keystone Pipeline project, fundamentally alter the Consumer Protection Bureau budgetary process, change medical malpractice law, repeal certain bank regulations that provide temporary liquidity support for failing banks, and on and on and on. K Street apparently sees the debt ceiling fight as a way for the GOP to obtain policy goals that they clearly could not achieve through the normal legislative process.

Obamacareless But One Wrench Among Many Gears to Shut Down

But it’s the ACA measure in this shutdown battle that has really roiled widespread protest against these tactics. In a CNN video editorial, Fareed Zakaria does a good job explaining why in simple terms.


In short, his argument is that: Because this is settled law that has already passed through congress, already been signed by the President, and already even been confirmed as constitutional by the Supreme Court, for the House – a single legislative body – to use the threat of default to overrule agreement with the Senate and the President in prior lawmaking, is to extra-constitutionally usurp powers it does not enjoy. Essentially, the House asserts a new postfacto veto authority over prior Senate and conference committee deliberations after reconciliation and passage. Even a law agreed upon by all three branches of government, as is the case of the ACA, could – after the fact – be ‘vetoed’ by only the House of Representatives simply with the procedural move of refusing to pass a budget or continuing resolution. 

This appears unconstitutional. Article I Section VII requires that budgetary bills originate in the House, where they are debated in the Senate. Differences between House and Senate Bills are reconciled in conference committee. The final bill passed is then sent to the President for a signature or vetoed.
Article IV Section I (‘full faith and credit’) of the US Constitution demands the financial solvency of states, and provides the judiciary with the authority to resolve private financial disputes.
The Fourteenth Amendment clearly states that US Federal debt is sacrosanct and must be honored. This was affirmed in 1935 by the Supreme Court in Perry v. United States.
The Fourteenth Amendment, in its fourth section, explicitly declares: ‘The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law , … shall not be questioned.’ While this provision was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War, its language indicates a broader connotation. We regard it as confirmatory of a fundamental principle which applies as well to the government bonds in question, and to others duly authorized by the Congress, as to those issued before the amendment was adopted. Nor can we perceive any reason for not considering the expression ‘the validity of the public debt’ as embracing whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations.
We conclude that the Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, in so far as it attempted to override the obligation created by the bond in suit, went beyond the congressional power.

There is absolutely no rational argument that either legislative body in congress has the authority to withhold fulfilling its constitutional fiduciary responsibilities for the sole purpose of exacting policy concessions otherwise unrealizable through normal legislative practice. Funding the government is explicitly their job. For one legislative body to refuse to fund government without policy concessions from either another legislative body, the Executive, or Judicial clearly expropriates authority in an extra-constitutional manner and thus violates the balance of powers our founders initially intended.


That budget disputes have led to partial government shutdowns many times over the last thirty plus years only indicates that congress has been slowly sliding down a slippery slope toward fiscal Armageddon without judicial challenge. In the 1980s these fights were strictly budgetary and resolved quickly. It was not until 1995, when a dispute between the House under Speaker Newt Gingrich and President Clinton shut down government operations twice for weeks. And even then it was over future budgetary matters and not unrelated legislation that had been previously passed into law.

This time what the House GOP demands is far more than simply winning a minor partisan budgetary fight. For should they win, from an institutional standpoint the House would gain a privilege, regardless of party control, that it has never enjoyed previously. There may have been shutdown fights in the past, but at no time has the House asserted a demand to change prior lawmaking in order to fund interest payments on Treasuries or the basic operations of government.

James Madison may have argued that congress holds the power of the purse to curtail Executive overreach. But he meant congress - all of it. Both the House and Senate acting together with a veto proof majority to constitutionally challenge the Executive. But never did he claim that one legislative body held the power to withhold its elected fiduciary duties in order to thwart duly passed law.
Thus, in this case, the House GOP does not just challenge the President they also threaten basic Senate authority to deliberate on the laws of the nation. If the House does not fulfill its constitutional obligation to pass a debt limit bill and reconcile with the Senate, they will have failed in their most primary constitutional duty. Forget which party in the House asserts this power and instead view the problem as a divisions of power matter within the branches of government and one can see immediately that they threaten a major constitutional crisis in order to expropriate authority our founders intended to be divided.

If a Conservative Dissents in the Woods Will The GOP Listen?
 
There are conservatives who also call this approach by the GOP downright radical. For example, Rod Dreher at The American Conservative directly challengedthe House GOP on this tactic. Quoting Russel Kirk’s Ten Cannons of Conservative Thought, he responded:

Consider one of Russell Kirk’s Ten Canons of Conservative Thought:
Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. Liberals and radicals, the conservative says, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away. As John Randolph of Roanoke put it, Providence moves slowly, but the devil always hurries. Human society being complex, remedies cannot be simple if they are to be efficacious. The conservative declares that he acts only after sufficient reflection, having weighed the consequences. Sudden and slashing reforms are as perilous as sudden and slashing surgery. 
What are the probable long-run consequences of shutting the US Government down over Obamacare? Do the Congressional Republicans care? Do they care what kind of damage they are doing to the ability of Congress to legislate effectively on all kinds of matters? The damage they are doing to the economic stability of the United States? This kind of brinksmanship might — might — have been defensible during the Obamacare fight, but today? I can’t see it. I can’t see any good coming out of this, at least any good that stands to outweigh the bad.
Kirk’s argument is directly descended from Edmund Burke’s support of traditions in government, most eloquently stated in his Reflections on the French Revolution. In that work, Burke argued in support of the French monarchy on the grounds that short-term violation of longstanding tradition in governance would ultimately lead to bloodshed. He did not make that argument because he thought Louis XVI ran a good government (though he did like the British monarchy). But because the institutions of governance had longstanding authority to resolve disputes and once they broke down there would be no lawful and nonviolent means of resolution. And Burke was proved prescient in his prediction when the bloody Reign of Terror followed. One need not like monarchy to understand that a slow transformation to a Republic rather than the shock of revolution might have been a less violent transition.
These are foundational principles of traditional conservatism. Yet the House GOP would eschew such principles, changing the fundamental balance of power and threatening constitutional governance in a mere partisan fight over settled law across all three branches of government. This is not conservatism, it is radicalism. A term David Frum has been using to refer to the current GOP leadership for some time. Recently he repeated the termwhen discussing a debt ceiling battle he clearly believes they should lose.  
Suddenly, the line in the sand between radicals and leadership has ceased to be immigration and has become (again!) shutting down the government and defaulting on the debt. And on those issues, the leadership is overwhelmingly winning. The shutdown caucus is led by Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio: i.e., senators less interested in winning a fight in Congress than in impressing Iowa caucus voters. They are just as happy to lose on the shutdown issue—happier, since they don’t then have to take responsibility for their actions—provided they get enough publicity on the way down.
Dreher ends his American Conservative lament on the same point, that the GOP establishment has eschewed all traditional conservative values for a kind of right wing radicalism.
The Republicans cannot govern. These people aren’t conservatives. They are radicals. What on earth would Russell Kirk say if he were alive to see this?
But what neither Frum nor Dreher consider is: What if the Republicans win this fight? What if Obama or the Senate blinks and sets a precedent whereby the House is given defacto veto over any and all prior legislation? 

Constitutional Schmanstitutional, I Got Mine – Fuck You

Never mind the damage to financial markets predicted by economists throughout the world and across partisan lines. Or the consequences to Obama’s ACA and those millions of Americans who had planned to make use of this law. Or that the GOP win any of the other short-term goals they have on the plate. What happens next time? The time after that? Hell, what happens when roles are reversed and the Democrats take control of the house while the Republicans control the Senate and Executive? Is this a precedent that benefits legislative process in any way?
Further, is it even close to constitutional?
Arguably not. Especially considering that House action to create this crisis was planned months in advance and is thus taken with intent to do harm. According to The New York Times, Republican activists began planning to use a October 1st government shutdown and forthcoming debt ceiling crisis as leverage to achieve a range of policy goals shortly after President Obama had been reelected. Spearheaded by former Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese III and funded conservative interests including the Koch brothers, the group published a plan to defund Obamacare at the nonprofit political organization Freedomworks. 
It articulated a take-no-prisoners legislative strategy that had long percolated in conservative circles: that Republicans could derail the health care overhaul if conservative lawmakers were willing to push fellow Republicans — including their cautious leaders — into cutting off financing for the entire federal government.

“We felt very strongly at the start of this year that the House needed to use the power of the purse,” said one coalition member, Michael A. Needham, who runs Heritage Action for America, the political arm of the Heritage Foundation. “At least at Heritage Action, we felt very strongly from the start that this was a fight that we were going to pick.”

Intent is crucial, for if a financial crisis were to result from mere incompetence or ineptitude by House members, there would be no clear means of showing bad faith. Since a default clearly violates the 14th Amendment and Perry v. United States, and since this move by the House intentionally thwarts traditional balance of powers in government, a constitutional crisis could be argued through the insurrection clause in Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Thus, a real potential for a constitutional crisis forms if one assumes an insurrectionist movement has unconstitutionally usurped powers to thwart constitutional governance. 

Which doesn’t mean President Obama would push to see such an outcome. He’s already rejected a call to use a 14th amendment declaration of emergency powers to resolve the debt crisis. Arguing on the grounds that to invoke an emergency would create controversy over the legality of debt issued, thus diminishing debt value and affecting markets similar to a default. 

“If you start having a situation in which there’s legal controversy about the U.S. Treasury’s authority to issue debt, the damage will have been done even if that were constitutional, because people wouldn’t be sure,” Obama said in a news conference with reporters yesterday. “It’d be tied up in litigation for a long time. That’s going to make people nervous.”


President Barack Obama said, “If you start having a situation in which there’s legal controversy about the U.S. Treasury’s authority to issue debt, the damage will have been done even if that were constitutional, because people wouldn’t be sure.”
“There are no magic bullets here,” he said.

Yet, regardless of what happens with the current budgetary impasse, for the House to succeed in achieving the policy goals by these means, such a precedent would wreck Senate authority in legislative compromise in the long term for a minor short-term gain this election cycle.The crisis in debt default is overshadowed by a deeper separation of powers crisis. Obama appears to realize this by his refusal to stand-down. Yet, ironically, his refusal to seek a direct executive solution also affirms it. 

Writing about Juan Linz, a noted professor of political science from Yale, Chait referred to an essay the professor had written where he said that, “Presidential systems veered ultimately toward collapse everywhere they were tried, as legislators and executives vied for supremacy.” Arguing that the US is in just such a trap proposed by Linz, Jonathan Chait concluded that such a standoff between the executive and legislative branches would ultimately result in a constitutional crisis.

The standoff embroiling Washington represents far more than the specifics of the demands on the table, or even the prospect of economic calamity. It is an incipient constitutional crisis. Obama foolishly set the precedent in 2011 that he would let Congress jack him up for a debt-ceiling hike. He now has to crush the practice completely, lest it become ritualized. Obama not only must refuse to trade concessions for a debt-ceiling hike; he has to make it clear that he will endure default before he submits to ransom. To pay a ransom now, even a tiny one, would ensure an endless succession of debt-ceiling ransoms until, eventually, the two sides fail to agree on the correct size of the ransom and default follows.

While Chait’s argument focuses on the power division between the executive and legislative branches, this current impasse also creates a rift within the legislative between both bodies of congress. From either perspective, it follows that a constitutional crisis over failed power sharing either between the executive and legislative branches or between each chamber of the bicameral legislature is in the making.

One could easily oppose Obama’s ACA and yet still see the serious constitutional problem this creates in disrupting the balance of power within the legislative branch, as well as between the judicial and executive. This is a line in the sand moment. Not because Obamacare is really that important. Or because of predictions that if the United States defaults on its debt there will be devastating economic repercussions worldwide – which there most likely would be. But because the GOP, in their half-hearted claims of ‘defending the constitution’ to defeat Obamacare by any means possible, would themselves destroy constitutional principles of legislative process should they win.

This is a ‘destroying the village to save it’ moment. And every American should be very afraid of not just the short-term but especially the long-term consequences to constitutional balance of power issues should the House GOP succeed. 
Copyright 2013 by James Maynard Gelinas. All Rights Reserved. V 1.5

2001: A Space Odyssey – Discerning Themes through Score and Imagery

Starchild

Given the competition with commercial cinema, a director has a particular responsibility toward his audiences. I mean by this that because of cinema’s unique power to affect an auditorium – in the identification of the screen with life – the most meaningless, unreal commercials film can have just the same kind of magical effect on the uncritical and uneducated cinema-goer as that derived by his discerning counterpart from a real film. The tragic and crucial difference  that if art can stimulate emotions and ideas, mass-appeal cinema, because of its easy, irresistible effect, extinguishes all traces of thought and feeling irrevocably.

Tarkovsky, Andrey. Sculpting in Time. First University of Texas Press, 1989. Pg. 179.

 

Stanley Kubrick’s most popular and enduring film is 2001: A Space Odyssey, a work he co-wrote with noted Science Fiction author Arthur C. Clarke. It’s considered the best of its genre. Which is strange when compared against popular science fiction like Star WarsAlien, and the Star Trek franchises. For unlike typical character and plot driven narrative, its structure is that of an odyssey portraying the span of millennia. There is no central protagonist to root for or conflict with an antagonist to oppose. The few depicted characters seem disconnected from one another, and their dialog is often irrelevant to expository action. Its pacing is slug slow, and excessive montage shots though visually beautiful doesn’t move plot forward. And if classical music seems an odd score choice for a film genre most associated with action-adventure and space-fantasy, much of the music is often disturbingly postmodern. And then there’s that crazy final sequence, a kaleidoscope of moving colors and seemingly incoherent imagery ends without answers and a pile of confusing questions. 

In almost every way this film should have failed. But it didn’t. Instead, it’s considered a great masterpiece. Why?

Even its detractors agree that 2001 was meant to be more than mere entertainment. That, in the tradition of serious film, its creators attempted to explore deep philosophical issues about the nature of humanity and thereby craft a work of art. Something if not timeless, then at least a film with the relevance of longevity. And like it or not, nearly fifty years after release 2001 remains ingrained in culture. It’s iconic imagery is recognized even by those who’ve never seen it. 

Detractors may call it stuffy, slow, and boring, but there’s an emotional release at the end that can’t be explained away by calling it bad. There’s a sense of transcendent human triumphalism to the final star-child shot. It thematically ties together seemingly disparate segments, showing them as having depicted a progression of human evolution. So, even if 2001 steps away traditional call of the hero structure, the climactic ending evokes wish fulfillment toward a universal human hope that we will become something more than the sum of our petty conflicts. Few films can claim such an achievement. 

Yet even if the evolutionary message of the film is obvious, there remains tremendous debate about its meaning. For with every viewer there seems another interpretation. That underneath this hopeful story of ape to man to superman, helped along by beneficent aliens, there’s something more. That, like narrative russian dolls, 2001 is a riddle wrapped within a mystery inside an enigma. One that takes many viewings and much debate to tease apart. This essay is my attempt at adding to that discussion. 

Three layers of message intertwined

There seem to be three layers of message that have been intertwined, often in contrast and not congruence, making for a powerful intellectual and emotional experience at the unconscious level while remaining difficult to interpret rationally.

Realism: The film appears to be a realistic depiction of events that span millennia. There is great attention to detail throughout that appears to suggest that the events on screen exist entirely within a physical and rationalist realm. Even the monolith, which is taken symbolically for extraterrestrial intervention, can be interpreted in positivist terms as a physical object that engenders a cause and effect relationship to those it molds and transforms. This seems to make sense until by the end, with the appearance of the Star Child, the film appears to have transformed from a documentary experience to something more surreal. Viewers are left confused as to the meaning, but having enjoyed a good ride nonetheless.

Philosophy: Underneath this surface message depicting explicit realism of events is an implied philosophical message referring to Nietzsche’s Ascent of Man thesis. Here, an eternal recurring cycle of development, stasis in consolidation, decay, and then radical change is proposed whereby man advances due to universal principles of existence. At the beginning, we see Moonwatcher and the apes transformed into the beginning of man. At the end, we then see man transformed into the Star Child. Each step appears to represent the beginning of this cycle.

Irrationality: Upon multiple viewings, the documentary realism appears to break down, becoming less a depiction of linear events with a direct cause and effect relationship within the narrative, and more an aesthetic style that draws the viewer in to enforce preconceived rationalist notions that the filmmaker then dashes.  A series of irrational implications about incommensurable supernatural forces outside human awareness are embedded within thematic repetitions, motifs, and the use of visual superimposition. This layer of the film appears to negate the message presented on the surface level.

It is from combining these perspectives that another interpretation for the ending emerges, one less triumphal for mankind.

The viewer is thus faced with the confusing dilemma of choosing which of these perspectives to use in forming an interpretation. Most take the documentary approach and assume the film depicts events with typical cause and effect relationships. Some perceive the suggested relationship to philosophical theory. But it takes many viewings to recognize repetitions that suggest by theme and motif a message that contradicts both the overt Nietzscean philosophy as well as preconceived notions of rationalism embedded within its documentary aesthetic.

Beyond the conceptual layers of Realism, Philosophy, and Irrationality, one must also consider the filmmaking and storytelling techniques used as well. There are several additional layers to consider: characterization of intent expressed by the actor’s micro-expressions; visual and auditory themes and motifs suggested by repetition across scenes in the frame and soundtrack and musical score; and emotional contrasts evoked by the difference between Kubrick’s often contrapuntal musical score choice in contrast to the imagery and situations presented. Examining all of these elements is necessary to understand Kubrick’s intent.

It is from combining these perspectives that another interpretation for the ending emerges, one less triumphal for mankind. But one cannot see this by looking strictly at plot elements of action and dialog, for it’s embedded within implications presented as repetitions within imagery, sound, and score choice, and not as explicit expository events within the narrative. Thus, underneath that surface presentation of a seemingly realistic imagery that flows across vast spans of time, Kubrick’s use of sound, score, and repetition of imagery suggest theme and motifs often in opposition to a rationalist viewpoint. Instead, these choices seem to imply irrationalist outcomes, leading to an ambiguity of intent by the filmmaker.

This uncertainty for the viewer can be summed up by the question: Did Kubrick intend to create a ‘hard science fiction’ film, one where a depiction of believable technology is crucial to a linear cause and effect narrative? If so, why do many nonhuman elements, such as the monolith and its makers, repeated celestial alignments at crucial plot points, and the formation of the Star Child at the end, appear to be supernatural plot elements? And why did he choose a musical score that seems to evoke emotions contrary to what’s expected by imagery and situations? This essay will attempt to answer those questions with a detailed scene-by-scene analysis. It then ends with a review of cultural antecedents and reactions to the film to provide context of its lasting legacy.

Colleague Confirms NASA Affiliated Physicist Dr. Eric W. Davis’ UFO Research

By James Maynard Gelinas


(See Dr. Davis’ statement 37m30s into video)

Astrophysicist Dr. Eric W. Davis has a curious interest in UFO research. He spoke to the UFO matter while giving an address in 2010 at a Society for Scientific Exploration meeting about a book he had recently co-edited with Dr. Marc Millis, former head of NASA’s Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project.


Furthermore, while working in an official capacity for NASA in 1999, Dr. Millis attended a venture capital event hosted by known UFO enthusiast and potential investor Joe Firmage, who had openly stated his belief in having met an extraterrestrial alien visitor. This event led to an official investigation at NASA over potential loss of intellectual property. That investigation was ultimately dropped.


During the question and answer session, Dr. Davis was asked whether UFOs had “…guided [the] thinking and research” of such speculative matters as warp drive and traversable wormholes.


Dr. Davis responded, “Secretly yes and overtly no.” He explained that because “…UFOs don’t have credibility with mainstream academic researchers,” and because policy-makers and funding agencies “…don’t like the topic of UFOs,” some members of the group were forced to “…consider it under the table.”

Continuing on with his comments, Davis contrasted what he considered relevant observed UFO phenomena with their work. In comparing data taken from UFO investigators such as Jacques Vallee, George Hathaway, and the questioner, he said “we’ve been able to use that data as input to give us an idea, and that data does drive the concepts that we did derive later on [when we did] the book and [that] went into the original NASA program.”

Dr. Davis gave two examples taken from work done at the National Institute of Discovery Science, a place more colloquially known as Skinwalker Ranch, where he said investigators and the ranch owner had apparently twice witnessed wormholes open for transport. “…we had the experience of one scientist and one investigator seeing a wormhole – what looked like a wormhole – with a creature crawling through, and then the ranch owners had seen an opening in the sky in broad daylight with a triangular craft that came through it.” According to Dr. Davis, this was of relevance to some investigators at NASA’s Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project, for it was “…an example of data that indicates there’s a wormhole involved.”

The details of Dr. Davis’ statement about UFOs, including a full transcript, were previously printed in the story, “Dr. Eric W. Davis, of NASA’s Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project, Discussed UFOs During Lecture.”

Dr. Jack Sarfatti, a theoretical physicist who personally knows Dr. Davis, commented on whether the propulsion specialist has a longstanding interest in UFO research. “I know Eric Davis … I am completely aware of his position on this and what his real secret work is/was about.” Dr. Sarfatti then took the opportunity to challenge Dr. Davis on an arcane matter of warp drive physics.

In referring to the possibility of UFOs using some manner of warp drive, Dr. Davis had said, “We haven’t seen UFOs do performances that adhere to the warp drive. … We seem them doing ninety degree turns and rapid motions; they disappear and reappear. That is undetermined yet.”

Dr. Sarfatti disagreed. “Eric is wrong about no evidence for warp drive in near earth flight, “ Dr. Sarfatti argued. “180 degree turns at high speed is evidence [of warp drive], as is sudden stopping and apparent dematerialization.“

Speaking to Dr. Davis’ claim of two wormholes that had apparently been witnessed at Skinwalker Ranch, Dr Sarfatti challenged Dr. Davis’s line of reasoning. “[Dr. Davis] contradicts himself when he talks about the possible wormhole on the [Skinwalker] Ranch. Wormhole and warp drive physics are both essentially the same and the evidence is that there is a low power technology for them.”

Skinwalker Ranch is a property located in Uintah County, Utah that is near an area believed by locals and nearby Native Americans to be a center of anomalous events. There, according to its website, a group with former military and intelligence community connections as well as high academic credentials, along with well known Las Vegas television investigative reporter George Knapp, have worked together investigating alleged anomalous events. According to those SSE statements, Dr. Davis worked for Mr. Bigelow there for six years.

The owner of that property is reclusive billionaire Robert Bigelow, who is a real estate developer and founder of the Budget Suite hotel franchise. He has a longstanding public interest in UFOs and bought the property in 1995 specifically to investigate those claims. Professional skeptic James Randi once gave Mr. Bigelow the Pigasus Award for having funded what he termed a ‘useless study’ of an ‘old haunted ranch.’

But Mr. Bigelow is interested in more than just running a hotel chain and supporting investigative work into UFOs. In 1999 he founded Bigelow Aerospace, which seeks to launch an inflatable space station and possible hotel in orbit and maybe build a base on the moon. Interestingly, Bigelow Aerospace is only one of two organizations that, according to FAA guidelines, pilots are directed to forward UFO reports. A skeptical article on Mr. Bigelow’s UFO aerospace company stated:

…there is one space-related issue troubling Mr. Bigelow, one on which he feels the need to obtain, even at potentially great cost, the best counsel available: UFOs. It is not clear whether he fears that UFOs will interfere with his future orbiting hotel chain or if he believes that UFOs harbor some secrets of propulsion or anti-gravity that his engineers might someday be able to put to good use. Whichever it is, Bigelow has contracted MUFON, the largest UFO group in the U.S., with potentially very large sums of money for the pursuit of first-hand UFO information. Indeed, longtime UFO activist Ed Komarek is suggesting that Bigelow’s goal is nothing less than an “alien reengineering project.”

Dr. Davis currently works at the firm Earth Tech for physicist and owner, Dr. Harold Puthoff; a man who is also listed on the Skinwalker Ranch bio page for having contributed to that project as well. Dr. Puthoff apparently became connected with the ranch project in 1996, when he posted a mission statement in support of Mr. Bigelow’s NIDS initiative.

According to the Skinwalker Ranch website, Dr. Puthoff “…served with the NSA during his tour with the navy … and would later stay on as a civilian.” Information that is not available on the man’s Wikipedia bio page. His main project of public notoriety was government-sponsored research into PSI phenomena back in the 1970s and 1980s. It was conducted at then Stanford University associated Stanford Research Institute, where he ran the Remote Viewing program from 1972 through to 1985.

Dr. Puthoff’s controversial SRI project was funded to see if psychic phenomena could be used for clandestine purposes. That work led to a classified government project called STAR GATE, a CIA and then DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) funded program intended to obtain intelligence information. It was then a Cold War response to Soviet interest in psychic phenomena and was formally terminated in 1995.

Professional skeptics, in responding to a statistical analysis of PSI research findings, have challenged the research in general:

Because even if [they] are correct and we were to find that we could reproduce the findings under specified conditions, this would still be a far cry from concluding that psychic functioning has been demonstrated. This is because the current claim is based entirely upon a negative outcome…
Dr. Puthoff responded to the standard scientific view of skepticism for such phenomena in the book Mind Reach, co-written with SRI colleague Dr. Russel Targ. Noting that they had once attempted to submit a paper and received a response by one journal editor, “This is the kind of thing that I would not believe in even if it existed.” (P. 169, Hampton Roads Publishing ed.)

In 1985, after Puthoff ended his relationship with the PSI program, he shifted direction to a new line of work. From the early 1990s, he began publishing papers on polarizable vacuum and Stochastic Electrodynamics, authoring or coauthoring such works as “Inertia as a Zero-Point Field Lorentz Force,” as well as, “Polarizable-Vacuum Approach to General Relativity,” and, “Polarizable Vacuum ‘Metric Engineering’ Approach to GR Effects.” This material is considered by many physicists in the advanced propulsion community to be highly relevant to their ideas.

Skeptics have a negative opinion on that work as well, contemptuously referring to Dr. Puthoff’s ideas as ‘fringe physics.’ A Skeptical Inquirer article by Martin Gardner spoke to Dr. Puthoff’s polarizable vacuum and zero-point ideas in this impolite manner:

The nation’s number two drumbeater for [Zero-Point-Energy] is none other than Harold Puthoff, who runs a think tank in Austin, Texas, where efforts to tap ZPE have been underway for years. In December 1997, to its shame, Scientific American ran an article praising Puthoff for his efforts.
But it’s not just Dr. Davis who has a connection with UFO researchers. Dr. Marc Millis met with UFO proponents and venture capitalists in 1999, while he was still on payroll at NASA. This led to an internal NASA investigation into the matter.

According to a 1999 report published in the San Francisco Chronicle, the NASA Office of the Inspector General had been conducting an investigation into a planned meeting between NASA Ames Research Center staff and Silicon Valley venture capitalists. They had planned to meet at an International Space Sciences Organization (ISSO) event to discuss potential advanced propulsion technologies. The founder of that organization, Joe Firmage, was at the time and remains today, convinced that extraterrestrial spacecraft exist and further that he had met an alien.

In that article, it was reported that NASA’s concern was that proprietary information owned by the government agency might be leaked to private sources. Dr Sarfatti argued that the investigation had been dropped with no findings of wrongdoing. “[It] was nonsense, “ Sarfatti said. “[B]ureaucratic incompetence at NASA and it came to nothing. Too many Keystone Kop NASA security people with too little to do I suppose.”

Dr. Sarfatti said that the meeting had taken place “…at the Free Mason Hall in San Francisco on Van Ness Ave.” He didn’t recall if Dr. Davis had been in attendance, but a long list of other UFOlogy luminaries and then head of NASA’s BPP was. “Marc Millis, John Alexander, John Peterson were there,” he said, among several others.

In an email, Dr. Marc Millis confirmed that he had attended that event at the “invitation of sponsors.” Dr. Millis also agreed with Sarfatti that the investigation had been dropped with no findings of wrongdoing and that the event was entirely above board.

When I asked Dr. Millis why, while still holding an official role at NASA, he had attended a meeting with luminaries of UFOlogy and a venture capitalist who all openly believe in UFO and alien visitations, he declined to comment.

Regarding the other attendees Dr. Sarfatti listed, Col. John Alexander who wrote, UFOs: Myths, Conspiracies, and Realities, and is often remembered as the man who George Clooney portrayed in the film The Men Who Stare At Goats. John Peterson is a Futurist and founder of the Arlington Institute, and is known for having contacted the Director of Central Intelligence James Woosley in 1993 in order to obtain information on UFOs.

Dr. Sarfatti is a former assistant professor of physics at San Diego State University. He’s held research fellowship positions at Birkbeck College in London, where he worked with renowned physicist David Bohm; the Cornell Space Science Center; Atomic Energy Research Establishment in Great Britain; and the Max Planck Institute in Germany. He is noted for being part of a semi-underground counter-culture physics society called the, “Fundamental Fysiks Group”. MIT physicist and historian David Kaiser detailed that story in his recent book, How the Hippies Saved Physics.

Dr. Davis obtained a PhD in Astrophysics in 1991 from the University of Arizona. He co-founded the NASA-JSC’s (Johnson Space Center) Advanced Deep Space Transport Technology Assessment Group. He is also the author of numerous speculative peer-reviewed papers on wormholes, warp drive, quantum teleportation, and other advanced propulsion studies. And, as referred to earlier, he co-edited a book on the research findings from NASA’s Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project before funding for ongoing work was cancelled in 2002. Dr. Davis is listed on the web page of Millis’ successor organization, the Tau Zero Foundation, as among those of the Tau Zero Network. In addition, Dr. Millis confirmed that Davis had “volunteered some consulting” for the NASA effort, and that both had edited the book, Frontiers of Propulsion Science, together. He is currently scheduled to speak on advanced propulsion at the 2013 Mutual UFO Network Symposium.

Regarding general research into warp drive and gravity manipulation, a recent io9 article quoted NASA physicist Harold White as saying that a bench lab test is in progress. In addition, Bigelow Aerospace and NASA have announced a partnership where the firm:

…will work with a variety of commercial space companies to assess and develop options for innovative and dynamic private and public investments to create infrastructure to support domestic and international government exploration activities alongside revenue generating private sector enterprises.
It should be noted that Dr. Davis’ words and Mr. Bigelow’s interest in UFOs are entirely at odds with the longstanding official NASA position that “…there is no evidence for visits of intelligent aliens to Earth, either now or in the past.”

Neither Drs. Davis nor Puthoff responded to requests for comment.

Copyright 2013
By James Maynard Gelinas