Today we return to that fun drive through the old west by continuing on to the Victorian-rich architecture of the southernmost mile-high city in the United States — Bisbee, Arizona.  Strolling through hilly Bisbee is almost like stepping through a time warp and winding up in San Francisco before the devastating 1906 earthquake.  Bisbeen has transformed itself over the decades from an important copper mining center into an artsy community with upscale restaurants (you just know there’s a review in this) and rowdy bars.  First, let’s take a look at the town of Bisbee, and then below those pictures you’ll find information on a delightful dining establishment:

Now for that review of the great Café Roka.  Want to find a great place to eat?  Ask a local.  The locals in Bisbee were pretty unanimous — Café Roka is the place.  Reservations are a must, and we got the last ones available for a reasonable hour, but we had to sit at the bar.  Regardless, I was glad we got in.  Check out the standard menu here, and enjoy the meal as we saw it:

Remember this little satirical gem?  Link:  When Will We Rein in these Deliverers of Death?

Well, it’s happened again.  This time an incredible sixty people were wounded, some critically.  Three had to be helicop0tered out of the carnage, and another dozen or so were transported to hospitals by ambulance.  Here’s the gory story in all its glory:  Up to 60 Injured After Car Drives into Va. Parade

Seeing as how we’re frequently told by some of our elected nannies . . . er, officials . . . that we can’t be trusted with these:

Or especially one of these:

Then by the same logic, and taking into consideration the vastly higher injury and death rate associated with automobiles, I’m sure it’s only a matter of days before Senator Dianne Feinstein and others take action to outlaw these from falling into the wrong hands (meaning your hands):

A Vehicle of DEATH

This is not hyperbole, my friends.  The argument for depriving you of one also justifies depriving you of the other, or perhaps taking away your access to fast food hamburgers and fried chicken, or denying to you large soda drinks at the theater, or stripping you of that swimming pool in your backyard.

You may not own a firearm.  You may have no desire to do so.  You may even fear and loathe them.  But remember this:  Whenever an elected official tells you — a law abiding citizen with a clean record of responsibility — that you cannot be trusted with something and that they’re limiting your access for your own good, don’t expect them to stop short at just those items with which you personally disagree or don’t own.  They won’t.  New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has proven that point quite conclusively (“Okay, scum — this is the NYPD.  Slowly put down that Big Gulp and very carefully back away.  Let us see your hands at all times, dirt bag.”)

Indeed, as a rule of thumb, you should not trust with your vote any elected official who expresses a distrust in you.

By the way, the so-called “assault rifle” pictured above is a 9mm Beretta Cx4 Storm.  It can also be purchased chambered for the .40 S&W and .45 ACP, which like the 9mm are pistol rounds that are less damaging to living tissue than the .223 round commonly used in more traditional semiautomatic rifles, including so-called “assault” weapons.  That Cx4 is on Senator Feinstein’s list of proposed banned weapons.

Now take a look at the following two rifles:

.223 Caliber Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle

.223 Caliber Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rifle

Both are functionally the same.  Both employ the exact same firing and chambering mechanisms.  Both use the same caliber round.  Both fire at the same rate — one bullet each time the trigger is squeezed (the definition of “semiautomatic” as opposed to “automatic,” which can fire multiple rounds with one squeeze of the trigger).  Both will accept so-called “high-capacity” magazines.  One is on the proposed banned list, the other is not.  Now, quick, what’s the difference that justifies that?

Answer:  The second rifle magically transformed itself into an “assault weapon” when Ruger added that recoil compensator on the firing end of the barrel.  That’s it.  No other modifications whatsoever.  In other words, the Mini-14 Tactical is on the banned list because of one thing, and one thing only — it looks scarier than the Mini-14 Ranch Rifle pictured above it.

And that Cx4 that fires the much more modest 9mm pistol round?  Why was it singled out for banishment, you ask?  Has absolutely nothing to do with function, capability, or destructive potential.  Once again this rifle finds itself on the list because it looks scary — it has a pistol grip and comes with multiple Picatinny rails that can be used to attach to the carbine anything from an optical sight or tactical flashlight to a laser for better target acquisition (which I would think is a good thing — who wants someone using a rifle to accidentally shoot something or someone at which they’re not aiming?)

This is but one reason why Senator Feinstein, Mayor Bloomberg, and others are simply not taken seriously by those who know, understand, and use firearms.  Their demonstrable ignorance on the subject would fill a book.  Indeed, Mayor Bloomberg was just a few months ago positively humiliated on ABC’s Nightline when Cynthia McFadden had to stop the interview to correct him on his insistence that semiautomatics fire multiple rounds for as long as the trigger was pulled.

Remember this level of ignorance the next time you listen to the gun control debate.  Then, the next time you’re at the airport removing your shoes, belt, and then entering a scanner for a virtual strip search, I want you to consider this:  When did you become the threat to national security while Congress’ laws allow real terrorists unfettered access to the our nation under the guise of “asylum,” are then given taxpayer funded assistance, and then turned loose unsupervised so that they may plant bombs at marathons?  And these same elected officials want to then disarm you because you’re the threat?

Really?

Star Trek Into Darkness

Science Fiction, Action, Adventure; U.S.; 2013; 133 minutes; directed by J. J. Abrams.

Medium:  Currently in Theaters (including 3-D)

Rating:  4.5 (5-point system)

Versus

Iron Man 3

Science Fiction, Comic Book Character, Action, Adventure; U.S.; 2013; 130 minutes; directed by Shane Black

Medium:  Currently in Theaters (including 3-D)

Rating:  3.5 (5-point system)

Star Trek Into Darkness

First up:  Star Trek Into Darkness.  I have a confession to make before you delve deeper into this review.  I’m a Trekker from way back.  How far back?  Try September 8, 1966.  That’s when the first episode aired on NBC.  I also consider latter characters and offshoot developments a departure from the original concept, and not in a good way.  And just how big a fan am I?  Someday I’ll have to post photos of my studio-grade, museum-quality replica of the original USS Enterprise NCC-1701, complete with exterior lighting.

That’s not to say that I was all that happy with the 2009 remake using new actors in the original roles.  There was much in this movie about which to be disappointed.  The Captain Kirk of 1966 was not nearly the rebel portrayed in the remake.  The Enterprise was incapable of landing on a planet; the gravitational field would rip it apart, which is why starships were built in orbit (not on the surface of the Earth as depicted).  Most of the actors chosen came very close to nailing their respective characters, but Chris Pine was a bit of a disappointment.  It was a good effort, but it simply fell short.

Chris Pine as Captain James Tiberius Kirk

Not so this sequel.  I like action, but not when it gets in the way of storyline and character development.  This action-packed visual extravaganza served up heaping helpings of all three, and Chris Pine actually took this role seriously this time.  Alas, some of the mistakes carry over from the 2009 version, including ridiculous depictions of the Enterprise not only enduring a planetary landing (and departure), but even substituting for an oceanic submersible at one point.  Gene Roddenberry would probably have slapped J. J. Abrams up the side of the head and yelled, “Don’t you understand the physics of all this?

Benedict Cumberbatch as John Harrison

Still, the storyline and characterizations quickly overcame such distractions.  This was, quite frankly, just a fun movie on every level.  And the star of this show?  That distinction has to go to Benedict Cumberbatch, whose acting ability I’ve greatly admired ever since I viewed him in BBC’s Sherlock Seasons 1 and 2.  His portrayal of the villainous John Harrison, aka (well, that’s a secret) was stunningly brilliant.  All in all, of the entire Star Trek film franchise, this effort is probably the best or at least a very close second to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

* * *

Iron Man 3

The next film Ursula and I viewed this past Sunday was the less-than-stellar Iron Man 3.  Not much I can say here except that it suffers from the same affliction that in my opinion taints all the recent offerings from the Marvel stable of comic book heroes — story and character development don’t just take a back seat to the visuals and over-the-top special effects; rather, they get left standing at the curb searching their collective pockets for enough change between them for a cup of coffee and a stale doughnut.

Now for the good.  It’s better than Iron Man 2.  Alas, that’s not saying a whole lot, as Iron Man 2 was a huge disappointment on almost every level.  Fortunately, all is not lost.  We get much more of Tony Stark in this film, and with the incredibly talented Robert Downey, Jr., that’s an immensely pleasurable thing in itself.  Mr. Downey owns the role of the self-absorbed, ego-driven Tony Stark, and in this outing he goes out of his way to prove that.

* * *

In this battle of the blockbusters, Star Trek came out by far the clear winner between the two.  And that’s not a lifelong fan talking now.  Ursula, who has never enjoyed Star Trek, absolutely loved this film and everything about it.  She was enthralled from beginning to end.  Not so the latest Iron Man effort.  Indeed, if I were to allow her to influence my rating, I’d have to knock off at least another half point, and possible a whole one taking it down to a dismal 2.5 rating.

In conclusion, if you want an action flick for the kiddies then send them off to Iron Man 3.  If, on the other hand, you want entertainment that will engage the whole family, get in line for Star Trek Into Darkness.

Shot data:

• Exposure — 30 seconds
• f-Stop — f3.3
• ISO — 800
• Focal Length (35mm equivalent) — 25mm

And here is Milky Way Amongst the Pines:

Milky Way Amongst the Pines