So in view of all this---the worrisome Star Trek future, and the coming anniversary--- I've decided to devote this blog for the foreseeable future to my take on what's most essential about Star Trek: the elements of its legacy, if (as seems entirely possible) the Star Trek we have known is now over, is now all history. Or if there is a future for Star Trek, the essential elements it must have, or at least build on, in order to truly be Star Trek.

These ideas may be even dumber than the ones I’ve just described, but at least I won’t just be carping about somebody else’s notions.

These elements---found in its real-world history as well as in its stories---are also Star Trek's contribution to the real world future. "What is now proved was once only imagin'd," wrote William Blake. The future we get will partly be determined by the future we imagine, out of our dreams and nightmares, especially as expressed in our stories about that future.

That's really been the agenda here from the beginning---this blog is called "Soul of Star Trek", after all. But starting next time, it's going to be more explicitly so.

Some of what I have to say will probably find lots of agreement among Trek fans. But some will not. Which leads me to this final observation: a comment on comments.

I enjoy getting comments on this blog and continue to invite them. Many have been flattering and that's frankly been motivating, since there's no other direct reward involved. I covet corrections, amplifications and contributions, and honor disagreements.

But there is one trend that disturbs me. Because I pointed out what I (among others) felt were the political messages in the latest Star Wars movie---and which George Lucas himself articulated---I was accused of "hating Republicans" and therefore being prejudiced against Republican Trek fans.

In response to a sentence in another post("There is a neocon and Christian fundamentalist fan presence on the net that support political and cultural agendas that GR and most of the Trek writers and actors would not-they'd probably find a lot of it horrifying") I was accused of "apparent bigotry towards Christians and conservatives."

The tendency to call people who disagree with you prejudiced and views that are counter to yours "apparent bigotry" is becoming widespread elsewhere, I've noticed. Some people use it consciously as a form of intimidation, but I do believe that others don't quite understand the gravity of what they are saying.

People are bigoted or prejudiced if they believes that all others of a certain description (race, gender, whatever) are lesser than them by virtue of their race, gender or whatever. It is ugly and inhuman and a very serious charge.

I am not bigoted or prejudiced because I disagree with your political position or interpretation, or your ideas, or if I disagree with the validity of what you assert are facts. I don't assume you are bigoted or prejudiced because you disagree with me.

We are equally human, equal as voices in cyberspace, and we disagree.

The tone of these two responses is otherwise respectful and reasonable, so I believe the writers aren't fully aware that these words are ill-chosen and inflamatory. None of us like to feel we are being excluded because of our views, and I can see that these two statements of mine (which are both observations about others I believe are accurate, but which do reflect my own view) could prompt those feelings. But my intent is not to exclude, though I insist on my right to assert and to disagree.