I can't stop anybody from reading what they want to read regardless of the intent. I'm gay myself and I've known and written with Malcolm for five years and he's nowhere near homophobic - he couldn't be more pro-gay without actually being gay. Calling somebody homophobic because he expressed himself ambiguously isn't helping anybody and, frankly, it causes some supporters to remain quiet for fear of being misunderstood. And where you say "Having said that I thought the Spock/Uhura romance was odd because it didn't helped the storyline at all. The relationship wasn't even pivotal to Spock embracing his human side. So it just seemed to be a silly distraction." - you're basically in agreement with Malcolm. You have to remember this is a franchise that specifically had Kirk kiss Uhura in 1968, making a political statement in the process. Absent such a message, you and Malcolm both think the Spock/Uhura relationship is poorly handled.

I think Malcolm was trying to make a slightly different point - albeit perhaps ambiguously. When the first series aired an inter-racial kiss, it was groundbreaking, both socially and in terms of what TV showed. These days, as Malcolm pointed out, one of the principle actors in a film franchise of this magnitude can come out with almost no media or societal response - times have changed and for the better. Which leaves the Spock/Uhura romance without any underlying message and simply seeming somewhat flat. It doesn't carry any groundbreaking social or political significance, especially alongside an inter-species threeway elsewhere in the film - it's just an awkward relationship that I think Malcolm has a hard time reconciling with the characters (independent of who happens to be playing them) I don't think he was saying that because the actor is gay, he shouldn't or can't play a straight role - or suggesting that has anything to do with its believability.

Two cars don't mean twice as much driving and they can result in greener driving. When people have two or more cars, they often have vehicles of different sizes and share the driving between them - and so you get local trips in a Smart/Mini/Fiat/etc and longer trips in a larger sedan or SUV, rather than everything being done in the larger vehicle. This is even true of some people who live alone.

"I don't think it takes a genius to understand that when people are asked to think of Sacramento they generally or almost never be thinking of Natomas or Greenhaven." I don't think this is a true statement, in sentiment (i.e., if it includes other similar areas of the City). I think it would actually be nice if it was true. But the vast majority of Sacramento looks more like those places, and most people live in places like that. So their visitors/friends/family also see those places more. And for many (sadly), Downtown and Midtown are trip destinations for once a month Second Saturdays or occasional excursions to K Street. Many visitors, or those passing through town, are also limited to views of the airport or the area immediately surrounding the current arena, for example. Others who come for conventions see an area of Sacramento limited to a 2-3 block radius of places like the Hyatt and the Sheraton. For those of us who run events at places like the Crest (my home away from home), It's incredible the number of people we talk to who say they simply never come into the central City - almost to the point of forgetting it's there. People who say they're confused by one-way streets and can never find parking (despite the Crest having validated, covered parking one block away). And I'm constantly disappointed by people from other cities/countries who've visited Sacramento and describe it as a wasteland of strip malls and cookie-cutter suburbia, having obviously never been downtown. The other recurring and consistent refrain from others is that Sacramento is a neat place because it's close to other, nicer places. I've seen that from recruiters, residents, visitors, etc. And they're not coming to that conclusion based on a love of Downtown/Midtown - it's based more on a false assumption that one would have to travel to SF to get anything artsy or cool/urban. So I don't think there's any great evidence that Downtown/Midtown is what most people think of when thinking of Sacramento.

But that dynamic is often embedded in many of the conversations around here. The whole arena debate has been that way - "Build in downtown, it will be great for Sacramento!" - while ignoring the fact that the Natomas site is also in Sacramento. So, it sometimes is a case of pitting one part of the City against another. Folks in Midtown, for example, don't want to live in the shadow of big box stores or live alongside car lots. But many would like those things to exist elsewhere within the City if the alternative is that the retail sales taxes get siphoned off the the Roseville Galleria, or to auto malls in Roseville, Elk Grove, and Folsom. Midtown folks, and those in toney neighborhoods like East Sac and Land Park should be thrilled that there are people happy to live in areas like Arden and Natomas - because it's a symbiotic relationship we've all got going on.