Are Aliens Having Sex With You While You Sleep?

Most of us are familiar with the concept of alien abductions.  If nothing else, we've seen the front pages of tabloids while checking out at the grocery store and read such lurid headlines as "Are Aliens Having Sex With You While You Sleep?" In general, those who claim to have been abducted by extra terrestrials are viewed as anything from attention seekers to lunatics.  When we think of this kind of person, we envision someone like Randy Quaid's character in Independence Day; a harmless quack who just isn't quite right in the head. Like the average American, I believed that alien abductees were anomalies in society; a small group of delusional paranoids who live on the fringes of society.

Recently, while researching for an article on the possibility of extra terrestrial life, my bias regarding alien abductions was shaken.  As I dug into the topic of alien abductions, I expected to uncover a couple of hundred accounts.  Imagine my surprise when I learned that there have been as many as four million cases of abductions in America alone. Four million Americans have been probed by aliens aboard a spacecraft? The thought boggles the mind!

That means that you have a one in 77 million chance of being abducted by aliens in the United States.  Just to put that statistic in perspective, consider the fact that you are twice as likely to be abducted by aliens as you are to win a lottery jackpot. In fact, you have a greater chance of being abducted by aliens than being killed by a shark. So while it may be safe to go back into the water, you'd better keep your eyes on the skies.

Reports of alien abductions hit the news in America in 1961 with the case of Barney and Betty Hill.  The Hills, through weeks of regression hypnosis, were able to reconstruct the details of their experience aboard an alien spaceship.  Since that time, reports of abductions have increased exponentially.  Over the last seven years, there has been an average of 10,000 reports each year of alien abductions.

Most scientists strongly refute allegations that aliens are abducting unsuspecting sleepers.  Psychologist point out that regressive hypnosis is just as likely to plant false memories as it is to bring out repressed memories.  Most recently, scholars have joined to point the finger at sleep paralysis as the most likely cause for the experiences described by those reporting alien abductions.

However, these theories fail to explain the abductions that take place while the subject is wide awake or those, like the case of Travis Walton, where there are multiple witnesses to the same event. After all, the overwhelming number of testimonies cannot be ignored. Something is going on while we sleep and, at least in my case, I'd sleep a lot better if I knew for sure what that something is.

Defiance

The Scy Fy channel has joined the post-apocalyptic television trend with its own offering, Defiance. Set on Earth, decades in the future; but it is not the Earth that we know.  Years of terraforming (following an extensive war) have transformed the landscape of the world, making it barely recognizable. The cause of the apocalypse was the invasion of the Voltan (a conglomerate of seven species) and the war that ensued.  The series begins shortly after both sides declare a truce.

The two main characters in the series are former Marine Joshua Nolan (played by Grant Bowler) and his "adopted" daughter, Irisa (Stephanie Leonadis).  The fact that Irisa happens to be Irathien (think Klingon but cuter) adds to the quirky relationship that the two share.  Nolan's character is your characteristic tough guy who knows how to handle himself in a fight, but there is also another side to him that just can't help from trying to do what is right- despite the trouble it gets him into.  Irisa, like others of her species, just loves a good fight and is anything but the kind of girl who needs daddy to protect her in an apocalypse.

The pair, who are trying to get to Antarctica (the legendary Shangri-La of post-apocalyptic Earth), get side-tracked to the city of Defiance. The city, formerly known as St. Louis, made its mark on history by being the first place that Earthlings and Voltans defied their leaders by putting down their weapons and vowing to live together in peace.  Joshua and Irisa soon learn that the peace in Defiance is only skin deep.  Beneath the surface are enough power struggles, intrigue, and drama to last a life time.

This is the first "pure" science fiction show to come out this decade and good visual effects along with a strong story line may elevate this series above the list of failed shows like V and Terra Nova. For the Scy Fy channel, it is a change from their usual entertaining Scy Fy comedies like Eureka and Warehouse 13, but is strongly reminiscent of the wild west feel of Firefly.  Unlike many recent science fiction shows, Defiance has an underlying sense of hope: a hope that the new inhabitants of Earth can somehow pull together despite their differences.

Defiance is still a diamond-in-the-rough. The characters need more time to develop and the writing could use some tweaking, but the potential is there for a show that can be both entertaining and thought provoking.  As we watch the handful of species struggling to understand the strange customs and worldviews of each other, we cannot help but draw comparisons to real life situations going on around us.  Yes, there is a lot of potential for Defiance, but we'll just have to wait a few more episodes to see if the show will live up to that potential.

Oblivion

There is a lot of buzz about Tom Cruise's newest film, Oblivion, which premiers in theaters on Friday, April 19th. The trailers are real teasers; giving us just enough to whet our appetites, but not enough to give away the story line behind the movie. Touted as an "intelligent sci-fi action" film, the movie is set 60 years in the future- after Earth has sustained an alien attack.  The movie revolves around Jack Harper (played by Tom Cruise), who is the last man on Earth.

Trivia: This is the third movie in which Tom Cruise has played a character named Jack.  The other two are Legend and Jack Reacher.

In a recent interview with Fandango, Tom Cruise talked about his perspective of the movie, which is unique in several ways. To him, the movie expresses the personal, emotional journey of Jack Harper. (A large part of the movie is made up of solo scenes with Cruise.) Along that journey, our protagonist finds love when he meets the tough and sexy, Julia (played by Olga Kurylenko). Jack and Julia's romance is set among a backdrop which Fandango calls "visually stunning."

For those who have been disappointed with the recent flood of predictable and recycled sci-fi offerings, this movie is for you.  Oblivion is reputed to provide a fresh and unexpected story line with lots of plot twists and surprises.  Be on the lookout for the scene which Cruise calls "the most unique fight scene I have ever done."

If the previews are any indication of the movie, Oblivion seems destined to be a hit.

The Nerdist

I became a fan of Chris Hardwick after watching his highly entertaining show, Talking Dead, on AMC. His quirky sense of humor and knowledge of all things geek were the perfect combination for a talk show centered around a zombie apocalypse. (It also helped that he is a southerner like me.)It was a pleasant surprise when the network decided to expand the show from 30 minutes to an hour because of its popularity with the viewers of Walking Dead.

Now, television viewers in Britain have discovered the hilarious Hardwick and given him his own show on BBC America.  The Nerdist comes on Saturdays at 10 PM, following the hit series, Doctor Who. This season's first episode aired immediately after the premier of part two of Season 7 and, appropriately, covered what was going on with the Doctor and Clara.

The second episode covered the zombie craze, a topic of which Hardwick is well versed.  The Nerdist does not allow itself to fall into the quagmire of talk shows in which the guests just sit around and talk about themselves. In this most recent episode, guests Michael Rooker and Robert Kirkman played "Fantiques Roadshow," in which they attempt to rate the worth of several collectibles.

Another highlight was the appearance of former Doctor Who companion, Karen Gillan (Amy Pond), as a zombie in a series of faux commercials for post-apocalyptic cosmetics.  Only Amy Pond could make a zombie look beautiful, sexy, and scary- all at the same time.

Slated to appear on upcoming episodes of The Nerdist are Arthur Darvill, Elijah Woods, Betsy Brandy, and Eliza Dushku.  I don't know about you, but I plan to grab a cuppa, turn on the telly, and enjoy season 2 of The Nerdist.

What's Up With The Hobbit?

It is practically impossible to take a novel and make it into a movie that its readers like, but Peter Jackson managed to do it in Lord of the Ring. His daring epic series consisted of three three-hour movies, but that was fine.  After all, three movies to cover three books wasn't at all unreasonable or unexpected. LOR fans would have been disappointed with anything less.

However, more is not always better; and this is painfully true in the case of Jackson's newest production.  The Hobbit, stretched to another trilogy through the addition of material from other Tolkien manuscripts, is not the hit with fans that the LOR movies were. With part one, An Unexpected Journey, now out on DVD and part two, The Desolation of Smaug, hitting theaters in December; much of the hype surrounding the LOR movies is missing.

Now, there is no question that The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey delivers on action and special effects.  It is a good movie in and of itself. However, fans of Tolkien's book (published in 1937) will hardly recognize the book and the movie as being one and the same.  While Jackson largely remained faithful to the original in his LOR series, he takes sweeping liberties with The Hobbit.

Unfortunately, the fate of The Hobbit trilogy seems to be the sad but common tale of the desire to make a buck outweighing the desire to make a great movie. There is no question that Warner Brothers will make money from the trilogy.  Already, the first installment has grossed more than a billion dollars. With two more to go, these movies will keep Warner Brothers in the black for some time.

But while the studio prospers, it is the hard core Tolkien fans that suffer. We may never get to see a movie made that is closely based on the original book.  In the meantime, I'll still go and see the remaining two movies.  But I won't buy the DVDs.

Where Have All the Good Shows Gone?

There seems to be a paucity of good science fiction shows on American television today.  But, unfortunately, that has often been the story.  A great deal of the problem lies in the fact that network executives often just don't get the whole genre of sci-fi.   In the very early days of television, sci-fi was largely just a repackaging of the popular westerns.  Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers (even his name shouts "wild west") were recycled cowboys and the original Star Trek was pitched as a Wagon Train in outer space. 

 In the early days of television (which consisted primarily of variety shows), anthology science fiction, like Outer Limits and Twilight Zone, were popular.  However, as the television series took hold (I Love Lucy and Gunsmoke), networks tried their hand at the science fiction series. Historically, traditional science fiction series (stories set in outer space and involving species from other planets) are short lived. Star Trek struggled to survive four seasons, Lost in Space made it three, and Battlestar Galactica a mere eighteen months. Only during the Golden Age of science fiction on American television (in the 90's), did traditional science fiction find its niche with the Stargate  and new Star Trek franchises. By the new millennium, however, these shows were again on the decline and exceptional sci-fi shows, like Firefly (which, ironically, was a western in space), quickly got the axe.

More palatable to the tastes of the average American viewer were shows that fell into the category of urban science fiction (stories set primarily on earth, but including elements of science fiction).  Among the early shows of this genre are Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, The Time Tunnel, and My Favorite Martian. The appeal of this style of sci-fi series is evident in the success of shows like Mork and Mindy, The Incredible Hulk, and the Six Million Dollar Man.  Even during the Golden Age, urban sci-fi reached the masses with shows like X-Files and Third Rock from the Sun. 

The new millennium showed a marked decline in traditional science fiction televisions series.  The Star Trek and Stargate franchises were in their decline, but shows like Lost, Eureka, and Fringe were all the buzz.  As this decade began, apocalyptic shows were all the rage; from Falling Skies to Walking Dead.  Only one traditional sci-fi show seems to be taking hold of Americans- and it isn't even produced in America.  The new Doctor Who has taken sci-fi fans by storm and promises to be as brilliant as its predecessor (which aired for an amazing 26 seasons).

We can only hope that American television networks will sit up and take note of the popularity of Doctor Who and decide that it is time to create our own traditional science fiction series. Until then, I'm not about to miss the Doctor's new exploits, but I am keeping my fingers crossed that American television will soon be back in the game.

Doctor Who: The New British Invasion

In the 1960's, the Beatles burst onto the music scene, taking the American public by storm in a media frenzy that was dubbed "the British Invasion." Now, again, the Brits are making their presence felt across the pond, but this time on television with the incredibly popular series, Doctor Who. Like the Star Trek franchise, the original Doctor Who series premiered in the 1960's; but unlike Star Trek, the British sci-fi show managed to survive an astounding 26 seasons. The new series, which premiered in 2005, has proven to be just as popular as the original series.

Doctor Who was revolutionary in its concept; the story of a Time Lord who could travel through both time and space.  The creators of the show took another daring step by creating a main character who periodically regenerates into a completely new persona; thereby regularly employing a new actor to play the part of the series' main character. It was a risky endeavor, but it apparently paid off.  At present, the series is portrayed by the eleventh doctor in the series, actor Matt Smith.

The Doctor, who is the last of the Time Lords, seems to have the mission of tying up the loose strings of time and space.  He knows what events are fixed points in time and which are fluid.  The Doctor makes sure that the fixed points remain constant, managing to repeatedly save Earth in the process. He travels with one or two companions, usually humans and always young adults.  He gives them the adventure of a lifetime and they help to keep him from becoming a brooding megalomaniac (like the Master).  It's seems like a fair enough trade off- if they survive the adventure.

The series manages to keep a whimsical side by disguising the Doctor's ship (a Time and Relative Dimension in Space vehicle known by the acronym, Tardis) as an old, blue police box. Over the years, the Doctor appears to grow younger rather than older and each manifestation of the venerable Time Lord is unique and original.  Some are more popular than others, but all bring their own depth to the character of the Doctor.

If you are new to the franchise, I recommend that you begin with the newer series.  It took the writers of the new series a year or so to really get into stride, but a little patience will pay off.  You'll love the quirky contradictions in the tenth doctor's personality (played by David Tennant, who is my favorite doctor in the series) and the innocent charm of the current doctor (Matt Smith). Many of the old villains are back, including the Daleks; but the new series introduces some chilling new ones- such as the infamous Weeping Angels.

However, the characters that viewers most identify with are the Doctor's companions.  Whether it is the sweet and loving Rose or the brash and loud-mouthed Donna, we share their fears, their courage, and their admiration for the Doctor. We laughed and loved right along with Amy and Rory- and by the time that they left us, it was like losing our own family. And who could not love the funny (yet deadly) River Song?  Can't wait to hear that familiar phrase, "Hello, Sweetie," again!

For those of you who are already fans of the series, I'll be joining you on Saturday, March 30th to watch the newest episode of season 7.  I'll be the one wearing a Tardis blue t-shirt that says "Stay calm and don't blink." (I found this, and other great Doctor Who merchandise, at Amazon.) See you there!

Star Trek: Into the Future

In 1966, America had just landed its first space probe on the moon and the Apollo program was just taking its first steps. We were a mere three years from landing a man on the moon. However, what most people don't realize is that, in 1960's more than half of all Americans believed that the space program was a waste of money. The Cold War, which had initially spurred the drive into space, had cooled down- and with it the American fervor for conquering space.

When Star Trek aired in September of 1966, most Americans just didn't get it.  Touted as a "Wagon Train to the stars," Gene Roddenberry tried using the popularity of westerns as a selling point since the idea of a science fiction show was unpalatable to the television executives of that time. Though he managed to sell the idea eventually, the show struggled from the beginning. Star Trek was too visionary and too controversial (portraying the first televised interracial kiss) for those raised during the Great Depression. When it was cancelled in 1969, the network never expected it to become the icon it is today. What the executives failed to understand was that the show epitomized the hopes and dreams of the youth in the 1960's. The parents may not have been watching the show, but you better believe that the kids were!

Since that time, numerous television series and feature films have spun-off from the original Star Trek series.  While everyone has their own likes and dislikes regarding each one, the Star Trek franchise itself has not diminished in our affections.  Not only have the shows entertained us, but they have inspired advances in technology that have enriched our lives:from automatic doors to cell phones. The franchise hit the peak of its visibility in the 1990's with three television shows and four movies.

Now, eight long years have passed since the last Star Trek series, Star Trek: Enterprise, aired on television. With the reboot of the timeline in the 2009 movie, Star Trek, and its upcoming sequel, Into the Darkness, there is a lot of discussion regarding the possibility of a new television series.  While rumors fly about a possible series by Bryan Fuller about the decline of the Federation in the far, far future, as yet there is nothing on the horizon.

I'm just one voice in a sea of Star Trek fans, but I would love to see a series based on the struggles and successes of Star Fleet cadets.  Too long has the spotlight been on the older generations.  Let me see what life is like for the struggling students.  What are their ideas for the present and their vision of the future?  How do they handle the intense competition and colliding ambitions among their peers?

Whatever the subject of the next Star Trek series may be, my greatest wish is that networks won't wait another 8 years to get it started.  And since we're talking about wishes, I might as well sneak in another one: that the producers of the next series maintain Roddenberry's vision for the franchise.  Instead of a dark and brooding tale coupled with unlikeable characters (as is so popular with current producers), keep the hopeful and inspiring vision of the future that Roddenberry cast for us in his original series.

Until then, live long and prosper.

Captain Jonathan Archer: Corporate Mogul?

Over the last few weeks, I have been examining each of the Star Trek captains to determine how they would measure up as leaders in the corporate world.  In this, my sixth and final installment, our subject is Captain Jonathan Archer, who served as the first captain of the starship, Enterprise, and became President of the United Federation of Planets in 2184. In the episode, In a Mirror, Darkly, from the original series, Archer is recognized as being "the greatest explorer of the 22nd century."

On paper, Archer's career is quite impressive. During his ten years as captain of the Enterprise, Archer most likely initiated first contact with more species than any other Enterprise captain.  His was the foremost voice that championed Earth's readiness to begin exploring space and he continuously fought against Vulcan intervention in the humans' quest to reach the stars. His sense of human destiny and steely determination refused to take "no" for an answer. It was largely thanks to Archer that the Enterprise was sent into space in the first place.

However, it cannot be said with certainty that Archer was correct in his assertions. Humans, and especially Archer himself, may not have been ready for the challenge. The truth is that Archer managed to alienate (excuse my pun) more species than he befriended. His poor diplomatic skills (to which he willingly admitted) also placed a constant strain on Earth's relations with the Vulcans and the Klingons and often pushed Earth onto the brink of war. In the corporate world, this inability to "play well with others" would be equally disastrous. 

Much of Archer's ambivalence to other species can be found in his history.  Archer believed that the Vulcans had held humans back and damaged the career of his father- the inventor of the warp five engine.  As a result, he traveled into space with a chip on his shoulder and that attitude made many situations worse.  In addition to the problems with alien cultures, Archer's anger and bitterness impacted the crew on more than one occasion.

Archer's emotional baggage made him a volatile captain.  In any given situation, the crew could not anticipate whether Archer would act with circumspect caution or with reckless abandonment.  With no prime directive to follow, the Enterprise needed a leader with a strong moral compass.  Archer just didn't seem to fit the bill. Against T'Pol's recommendations of non-interference, he would get involved with alien disputes; but a week later, he would rant at a crew member for doing the same thing. As a boss, this arbitrary type of leadership would be extremely frustrating!  In addition, it would not be unusual for Archer to take his anger out on his employees. 

It may be true that Captain Jonathan Archer was the most "realistic" captain in the Star Trek franchise, being free to show the weaknesses and drawbacks of his personality; however, most employees would probably prefer to work under a boss who has evolved- both personally and professionally- rather than under a leader who settles for being "only human."

Captain Kathryn Janeway: Corporate Magnate?

In the fifth post of a series on how the Star Trek captains would measure up as leaders of the corporate world, we are examining the leadership style of Captain Kathryn Janeway. Under the direction of Janeway, the crew of the starship, Voyager, explored the uncharted Delta Quadrant as they struggled to make it back to their home in the Alpha Quadrant.

Just as Picard is viewed as the patriarch of the Enterprise, Janeway certainly comes across as the matriarch of Voyager. Her leadership style is very reminiscent of what we think of as a good mother.  She is warm and caring and places a lot of trust in her crew. Nevertheless, like any good mother, she has her fingers on the pulse of the ship and always knows what is going on in the lives of each of her crew members. Janeway is friendly and open, but never chummy.  Try to step over that line and she will quickly remind you that she is first, and foremost, the captain.

It is true that, occasionally, Janeway lets her emotions influence her decisions, but that same tendency makes her more compassionate and supportive toward the weaknesses of her crew.  Undoubtedly it is her big heart that inspires such total loyalty as we saw in the episode, "The 37's." Only a captain like Janeway could have helped a Borg re-discover her own humanity.

However, how would Janeway's style of leadership translate in the corporate world?  Is she too "warm and fuzzy" to face down the competition?  It wouldn't seem likely, given her track record.  Despite a skeleton crew and minimal resources, Janeway manages to defeat such powerful opponents as the Borg and Species 8472.  I don't doubt that she would get the upper hand in any attempt at a hostile takeover.

She also seems uniquely adept at reaching her goals.  In Star Trek: Voyager, Janeway's primary goal was to get the ship and crew back to the Alpha Quadrant; a trip that should have taken 75 years. Through a combination of tenacity and networking (yes, those relationships that she developed along the way really paid off), she manages to get the ship home in just seven. I'm sure that same determination and indomitable spirit would be evident in her corporate dealings.

Working for Janeway would be no picnic.  Like all Federation captains, she has a very high standard for her crew and expects 100 % from them every day.  However, she would be a fair and caring boss who would be willing to help you out in a personal crisis instead of handing out a pink slip.  Her goals for you and the company would be clearly outlined and she would work alongside her employees to accomplish them.

However, there might be some conflicts under her leadership. Present-day America has not yet reached the idyllic level of equality found in the Federation. Not everyone might feel comfortable working under a woman- and especially a strong-willed woman like Janeway.  This could very well cause problems within the ranks that weren't there on Voyager. Working for Kathryn Janeway in a primarily male-dominated industry might have more challenges than might be expected.

Next week, we'll look at the fifth, and final, Star Trek series: Enterprise, and take a look at how its captain, Jeffrey Archer, would perform in the corporate world.

Benjamin Sisko, Chairman of the Board?

As the fourth post in a series investigating which Star Trek captain would make the best CEO of a company, we are looking at Captain Benjamin Sisko of the space station, Deep Space Nine.

Unlike his Star Trek predecessors, James T. Kirk and Jean-Luc Picard, Benjamin Sisko is not widely-known.  His series, Deep Space Nine, did not follow in the footsteps of TOS and TNG, but was a spin-off of TNG. Instead of being on a starship, the action takes place aboard a space station orbiting Bajoran, which had formerly been under Cardassian rule, but had come under the joint administration of the Federation and the Bajoran Provisional Government. The station maintains a Star Fleet flavor, but its occupants are primarily civilians.  In a nutshell, DS9 is most reminiscent of an international airport, with its constant influx of travelers, shops, and bar. Star Trek enthusiasts either loved the series- or hated it.

The unique dynamics of the series actually gives us a better idea of how its leader, Captain Benjamin Sisko, would perform in a corporate world since his character must deal with a lot of the elements of running a company. We see Sisko dealing with mergers (as he works through the difficulties of merging Bajoran and Star Fleet staff), public relations (between the Federation and dozens of species), and even the occasional attempt at a hostile takeover ( as in "Invasion Procedures").  Through these events, Sisko proves his ability as a corporate leader.

But what of the man himself?  In the series, Sisko proves himself firm, but fair.  He holds others to a high level of excellence, but uses the same yardstick for himself.  Like Kirk and Picard, his fellow Star Fleet officers follow him willingly, but Sisko is also able to inspire a following among the civilians on the station; who look up to him as a leader; and, among the Bajoran, even as a spiritual emissary. Though a warm and loving father, that persona does not bleed over into his leadership style.  Rather, Sisko is more of a take-no-crap captain who expects you to get the job done and doesn't want to hear about your personal problems.

Though Sisko inspires a confidence in his ability to lead, he just doesn't seem to inspire the affection that Kirk does or the engender loyalty as Picard does. This seems evident in the fact that his character is one of the least favorite of the captains, even though he is often characterized as the most realistic of the group.  And since we are talking about how Sisko would perform in the real world, we can be certain that he would successfully captain any company just as satisfactorily as he captained Deep Space Nine.

Jean-Luc Picard, Captain of Industry?

Instead of entering the age-old debate of which Star Trek captain is the best, I am examining each in the light of how they would measure up as a corporate CEO.  In this third installment, I will be looking at the pros and cons of working at a company "captained" by Star Trek's Jean-Luc Picard; having already put Captain James T. Kirk under the microscope. 

Picard's style of leadership might most be termed as patriarchal in nature.  As the oldest of the captains of the Enterprise, it isn't surprising that he became a father figure to his crew- and to the viewers.  Picard seemed to believe the old adage that familiarity breeds contempt because he kept a firm, arm's length between himself and the men and women who served under him.  However, his approach did not come across as cold and indifferent, but rather the unshakable confidence of an experienced leader.  So, while his crew would hardly be chummy with him, they would feel that they could come to him for advice and help on any issue.

The Next Generation's captain was much more cautious and pedantic than the other captains; probably due to his age, his nature, and the era to which he was born.  He was more intent on maintaining the final frontier than exploring it and tended to be inflexible and a little too wrapped up in himself and his image. However, Picard certainly loved his ship and his crew; and was willing to lay down his life for either. 

In the business world, Picard's leadership style would make for a pleasant work atmosphere, but might not inspire the loyalty that Kirk would.  Like children are prone to do, his employees might decide to eventually leave home to make a name for themselves, but he seems the type to be willing to help further their career, even if it means working for the competition.  He would most likely guide the company on the safest path, rather than taking innovative risks; so his workers would probably have job security but his company would be unremarkable.  Overall, working under Picard in the corporate world, would be a safe (if dull) job.  And honestly, when it comes to earning a living, that isn't such a bad thing.

Captain James T. Kirk, CEO

As I mentioned in my last post, the debate continues to rage over which of the five Star Trek captains was the best.  Rather than rehash that discussion, I plan to look at each one and examine how they would measure up at the helm of a corporation rather than a starship.  I'll let you, my readers, decide which captain you would prefer to work for at your company.

First on the list, as he was first to appear on television (though not chronologically first) is Captain James Tiberius Kirk.  As a captain, what is there not to love about a dashing leader who is good with his fists and good with the ladies? Kirk is charismatic, innovative, and a risk-taker. He expects a lot of his crew, but is not a slave driver. One of his most defining characteristics is his refusal to accept defeat,as evidenced by his rigging of the Kobayashi Maru test.

How would those qualities translate into the corporate world?  As the head of a business, Kirk certainly has the drive and ambition to be successful. His innovative thinking could certainly lead him to open new frontiers in his field of business. His unorthodox and often risky way of doing things might propel him to the top of his field or, just as easily, bankrupt him.  However, even if the worst happened, his inability to to admit to defeat would not keep him down for long.  He'd be back at the helm of another company in no time.

What would it be like to work for James T. Kirk? I believe that his charisma would make him a popular boss and engender loyalty among his employees. Unfortunately, that loyalty may not be reciprocated.  Though he is friendly and compassionate toward his underlings, it is unlikely that he will remember your name- unless you are one of the chosen few that make up his inner circle. In addition, his spontaneity might be a bit to take on a daily basis.  His workers might come in one day and find that Kirk has decided to head the company in a completely different direction because a new idea has popped into his mind.

And what about the women?  In today's workplace, a womanizer is a sexual harassment suit waiting to happen. However, it is unlikely that Kirk would suffer from this fate.  If you will notice, in the series, Kirk keeps his escapades off the ship.  With the exception of the forced kiss (Plato's Stepchildren) and some extenuating circumstances (The Enemy Within), there is no hanky-panky with women under his command- despite the obvious attraction between him and Yeoman Rand. He might sleep with his business associates, but never with his employees.

Overall, it would be exciting and exhilarating to work for James T. Kirk, but professionally it could be a gamble. Kirk would always be willing to take risks to reach his goals, but would any of us really want to live like that at work?

The Captains of Star Trek

Like many Americans, my  first introduction to the world of science fiction was through the fantastically popular Star Trek franchise.  Being of a certain age, my "first contact" was with the explorers of the original Trek series.  For those of that generation, it truly was a brave, new world that Roddenberry served up to us.  One that our parents just didn't seem to get.

Since those early days of Captain James T. Kirk, we have had the pleasure of exploring the universe with four other Star Trek captains (yes, I include Benjamin Sisko; even though he "captained" a space station rather than a starship). Recently those five captains met at Comic Con in Philadelphia; together for the first time ever.

The event got me to thinking.  We often debate about the merits of each captain and are quick to express our opinion about who we would want to serve under on a starship. The personalities of each are uniquely their own and each one brings his own distinctive style of leadership to the bridge.  The merits and shortcomings of each captain have been dissected and discussed ad nauseam and I would have little that is new to add to that debate.

However, another question did occur to me.  Given their diverse styles of leadership, exactly how would that translate into the real world of today?  In other words, if each of these captains were placed in management positions in an office, which would make the better boss?

Over the next few weeks, I am going to examine each of the captains in this light; objectively (as much as is possible) looking at the strengths and weaknesses that they would bring to the corporate world. At the end of that time, I'll have a poll available and you (my readers) can decide which captain you would want at the helm of your company.

I hope that you will join me each week as we journey through the psyches of the Star Trek captains. Engage!

The Appeal of a Zombie Apocalypse

Zombies are all the rage right now. Whether watching Walking Dead or racing in a local Zombie Run, there is nothing like the Living Dead to get your adrenaline pumping.  The question that no one seems to be asking is "What is the appeal of a Zombie Apocalypse?" After all, can we imagine any more horrible situation to be in than a world overrun by the walking corpses of our friends and families, whose only desire is to devour us alive.

To me, the answer is in that perverse tendency in human nature to push the envelope.  Throughout time, the human race has sought the danger and excitement of new frontiers. We explored new continents, reaching into every remote corner and climbing to the top of every mountain. We plumbed the depths of the oceans and conquered flight. And when there were no frontiers available on this planet, we turned our gaze to the stars.

The only problem was that this "final frontier" was only open to a privileged few.  For those born with an adventurous heart, there was no more promise of exploration or adventure- only the monotony of everyday life. And so those with an explorer's spirit must live vicariously through the lives of fictitious adventurers like James T. Kirk and Amelia Pond.

Yet no other adventure challenges the mettle of an individual than a zombie apocalypse.  We sit, comfortably secure on our own couches, and imagine how we would respond to the end of the world.  Would the horrors of that reality reduce us to a trembling blob of zombie jello? Or is there, at the very core of our being, a seed of greatness that only needs the field of adversity to germinate and grow?

Yes, a zombie apocalypse is possibly the worst thing that could ever happen.   But in contemplating its possibility, we cannot help but take a long, hard look at ourselves and wonder what that inner person is really like. In the most horrific of circumstances, our true self comes to light- no longer shackled by the niceties of civilized society. Deep inside us, is there a villain or a hero? A victim or a leader? 

It may be that the appeal of a zombie apocalypse is in the fact that it causes us to look into the depths of our own souls and ask the really hard questions.

Or it could just be that we love a good fright. After all, what is there not to love about a walking corpse that wants to eat your face?!

My Encounter with Bigfoot

I was a child when I was first introduced to the existence of the creature that is called "Bigfoot" - through the old docu-drama, Legend of Boggy Creek. The idea that a massive, bidpedal primate was living in  America both fascinated and terrified me.  For weeks afterwards, I had nightmares about being carried off by a Sasquatch; despite the fact that I lived in metro Atlanta.

I spent the next decade or so hoping that the beast was real, but not really believing that it was. I saw the Patterson film, along with a dozen shows both proving and disproving its authenticity. Through it all, I remained a hopeful skeptic. The accounts of eye-witnesses (many of which were very compelling) continued to roll in and I kept an ear open for any definitive proof.

It was an unexpected encounter with the elusive creature, while in graduate school, that pushed me toward a belief in Bigfoot. No, I am not one of those who have seen the creature with my own eyes.  Instead, my encounter came in the form of a 170-year-old letter.  Not as awe-inspiring as an actual physical sighting, I admit; but for an archaeologist, this type of documentary support is fascinating.

The letter, dated April 16, 1840, is from Elkanah Walker, the first missionary to the Spokane Indians of Washington. In it, he tells of a visit to the natives in the Cascade Mountains.  They warn him about a race of giants who inhabit a nearby snow-covered mountain and who "hunt and do all their work by night." Walker writes that their footprints are about a foot and a half long.  The Indians complain to him that the giants frequently come into their camp at night and steal their salmon; eating them raw.  The people know when they are near because of the smell, "which is most intolerable."

Though many have asserted that the Bigfoot phenomenon was created largely from the Patterson film and the sensationalism that the media produced following its release, but historical accounts continue to surface that disprove this assertion.  From this letter, we can see that reports of this creature have been around for nearly 200 years in North America. This letter, like many of the eye-witness reports, is from a highly reputable source who have nothing to gain (and probably much to lose) from their connection to Bigfoot.

Of course, this letter, is not enough to prove the existence of Sasquatch.  However, it is one more drop in the tidal wave of forensic and eye-witness evidence that is pouring in about this creature.  While there are many who will not believe until one of these hapless beasts are caught or killed; the sheer volume of evidence that supports the existence of Bigfoot is enough to give the most die-hard skeptic pause.

Roswell Revisited

For those of you who continued reading after seeing the title of this blog, I commend you!

The mere mention of Roswell, New Mexico is sure to elicit a strong response in most Americans. For a great many people, that response is skepticism and scorn; the stalwart shields of the unbeliever.  Yet even among the increasing number of Americans who believe that we are not alone in the universe, Roswell has become so overdone our minds that we too fail to realize the real significance of that watershed event.

What makes Roswell so important?  It did not have the distinction of being the first UFO report.  In fact, as UFO sightings go, it didn't seem to have much going for it.   The government quickly stepped in; effectively squelching the story with its own account of a misidentification of a weather balloon. The whole incident held the nation's attention for a mere two days before it seemingly sunk into oblivion.

However, the fact that it refused to remain in oblivion is more significant that we may realize.  Thirty years after the incident, Jesse Marcel, a veteran of World War II and retired army intelligence officer dared to speak out.  He announced that what had been recovered in the desert was not a weather balloon but an alien spacecraft.  His claims ignited a firestorm of controversy about the incident that continues to this day.

Sixty-five years later, the event at Roswell, New Mexico is seared into the American consciousness.  Ask any college student about what happened at Nagasaki in 1945 or at Antietam in 1862 and you will most likely get a blank stare; despite the fact that these events are duly recorded in our history books.  However, ask them about what happened in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947 and you are sure to get a quick response, even though those events are not found in any textbook.

Whether what happened in Roswell was the cover-up of a top secret military aircraft or, as most believe, the crash of a "flying disk" from outer space; it is vital that we remember that Roswell marks the birthplace of American ufology. Because of that distinction, it is important that we periodically revisit Roswell, shake off the commercialism and sensationalism that surrounds it, and look again at the event that forever changed the way that Americans look at the stars.

My Search for the Unearthly

For thousands of years, mankind has been interested in the unearthly things that are an inescapable part of our earthly existence.  We have feared those things that "go bump in the night;" while, at the same time, maintaining a fascination with all that is paranormal.   As a child, I experienced a series of unearthly events that forever changed the way that I looked at the world.

I grew up under the shadow of that mystery and acquired an insatiable desire to learn more about that part of our world that is termed "supernatural" or "paranormal".  An archaeologist by day, I spent my spare time doing another kind of digging: digging through historic documents, verifying eye-witness accounts, and separating the facts from the fraudulent.

As a scientist, I tend to approach a paranormal subject from an analytical way.  Yet as a person who has actually experienced the paranormal, I realize that there are things that exist which are outside our present understanding of science.

This blog will look at some of the things that I have uncovered while digging for the truth. I hope that you will join me each Thursday as I investigate a topic or event that can only be described as "unearthly."