Mass Effect And The Rebirth of Optimistic Science Fiction Part 2

Click here for Part I

Cinematic Science Fiction In the 1990s

Towards the end of the 1980s there was a trend for science fiction to return to emphasising the present with the aid of futuristic settings. ‘Robocop’ is one example. ‘The Running Man’ is another. A nation controlled by the mass media that has very few morals? Hmmm, familiar. This trend ran into the 1990s, a decade in which science fiction films were smothered with sequels and CGI. The Alien series should have been killed off with ‘Alien: Resurrection.’ The Robocop franchise should have been killed off after the first one. Independence Day was for the destruction fetishist. ‘Star Wars: Episode I’ erased all happy memories of the initial trilogy. ‘Doctor Who,’ that true testament to the future (before it became London-centric), almost died with the terrible 1996 film. Continue reading

An Inquiry Concerning Chilcot Understanding…

iraq inquiry

INQUIRY OR ENQUIRY?

Finally, the Chilcot Inquiry will be published! It brought to mind a blog I wrote when the Iraq Inquiry was first announced. So, here it is, with a few amendments…

Now, I’ve set up a little inquiry as to the difference between inquiry and enquiry. Sure, I could easily consult a dictionary. But why do that when I could set up an Inquiry (or Enquiry?)? It doesn’t seem to matter, anyway, as this Inquiry is fairly pointless. Let’s look at the beginning. For one, it was conceived as a private inquiry to look into our role in the Iraq war. But our then-esteemed Prime Minister Gordon Brown backtracked on that when the Tories and Lib Dems had a hissy. So the inquiry was made public, and according to Brown “no British documents and no British witness [would] be beyond the scope of the inquiry.” Well, that was true until the October Protocol, stating that certain evidence would not be publicized and gave nine reasons why. So Brown lied to us all along! And disputes on what can be released would be resolved by the Cabinet Secretary. No evidence is to be given under oath. No barrister is present to cross-examine the witness. So nothing can guarantee truth. Continue reading