Essays
|
|
These are thoughts, articles etc of mine that I have written over time. Unless otherwise noted, the comments are mine. Please feel free to comment.
Is Star Fleet A Military Organisation?
X Files - Is The Truth Out There?
Some Random Thoughts About Science Fiction
Note, this was written a few years ago, before Deep Space 9 and Voyager
While browsing through some computer bulletin boards, I came across these two items.
According to ST:TNG Writer's/Director's guide (1987): "Starfleet is NOT a military organization.... No saluting. We may hear the word 'Sir, ' but it is intended as the same kind of courtesy used by junior and senior officers on commercial airliners.... No stories about warfare with Klingons or Romulans and no stories with Vulcans." Granted the Romulan / Klingon / Vulcan rule has laxed, Starfleet is still basically non-military (except when they are cornered, like the Borg situation). The fourth season ST:TNG Writer's Technical Manual says to mentally merge NASA, the Coast Guard and research ships like Calypso to gain a concept of the Enterprise's mission.
I read a description of Starfleet one time in one of the "official" Star Trek manuals. Starfleet was compared to a cross between NASA and the Coast Guard. They are not supposed to be the official military for the federation. The term the book used was quasi-military. Evidence of this is apparent in the fact that families are on the ships, not just officers and enlisted.
Tribble Droppings.
Despite claims to the contrary, Star Fleet is first and foremost, a military organisation.
I have recently seen a movie (Grey Lady Down) which is based in the U.S. Navy of today. There were 2 (count them, two) salutes, both in formal situations, and the uniforms worn, were considerably less strict than those worn by Star Fleet personnel. Yet who would argue that the U.S. Navy is non-military? So much for non saluting.
Let us now examine the Articles Of Federation concerning the nature of Star Fleet. Article 54 clearly states:
"The training of base personnel and ship complements shall include all fields of science and technology as well as the military arts in Star Fleet. It is the intent of these articles of federation that Star Fleet shall be used to conduct missions of scientific exploration and investigation within the treaty exploration territory whenever its services are not required in the maintenance of the interplanetary peace and security."
There are many more articles which clearly show the military nature of Star Fleet.
Now, let us see what can be determined by examining both the classic series and The Next Generation, and the various motion pictures.
The original series (and the movies)
The Next Generation.
The Federation has fought several wars using Star Fleet, including against the Tholians and the Cardassians (who the hell are they?)
Also look at the names of the ships, Yamato, Enterprise, Hood, Reliant, Valiant, which were all major combat vessels of World War Two.
This is only some of the evidence, there is much more to prove this point. Clearly any comparison between Star Fleet and NASA, the US Coast Guard and ships like the Calypso is at best wishful thinking, at worst Federation propaganda.
However, there is a distinction that needs to be made. Star Fleet, while being clearly a military organisation, designed for combat, is not an aggressive force. All the evidence shows that while they will fight, they must let the enemy fire the first shot.
One of the best programmes on television at the moment is the X-Files. (In fact it is so good that I'm stunned the TV company has not scrapped it yet, like they do with almost any other intelligent science fiction program). A recurring question that is often asked is 'Do the X Files exist'?
I don't know if the events shown in the X Files are real, or are based on real events, or not. What I will attempt to answer is whether they could be real.
A major element of the X Files background involves government conspiracy and cover ups. Such things could not happen in the 'land of the free'. Also there is a large element of in fighting (some times literally). As they are all on the same side, surely the various government agencies would not carry on in such a fashion.
With regard to the first point, let me quote a few examples:
In 1944, the Allied forces were holding dress rehearsals for the D-Day landing in Normandy. Mainly these passed without incident, but in one case disaster struck. German E Boats attacked and sunk several troop carriers off a British beach, and several hundred US soldiers died. The relevance of this story is that the US government denied this ever occurred until a few years ago, despite the fact that is was well known.
In the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's the US government carried out experiments to monitor the effects of radiation exposure on people. You may think this was worthwhile research, but not when it is done secretly and with out asking the people involved. One extreme example was that pregnant women were given what they were told were iron tablets, but in fact contained radioactive substances. This was to see what would happen to the developing foetus. These experiments were carried out by the 'good guys'. (By the way, if the X Files were based in the UK or the former Soviet Union, I would be quoting examples from their histories. I am not indulging in Yank bashing.)
So much for the question could conspiracies and cover ups happen. What about the infighting? Some time ago I read an interesting short science fiction story that concerned World War 3, where the hero was fighting the dirty 'Coms'. At the end of the story he asks a colleague why the enemy were called 'Coms'. The answer was that the decadent Americans were always reading comics. In a footnote the author stated that it was easier to get such political satire published in the Soviet Union rather than the USA. In the USSR, all one had to deal with was the KGB. However in the USA there was, and still is, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency, Defence Intelligence Agency, Army Intelligence, Navy Intelligence, Air Force Intelligence, Marine Intelligence, etc., etc., etc. Far from co operating with each other, they appear to spend more time attacking each other instead of getting on with their work. So yes, the in fighting is all too believable.
What about the actual content of the X Files. Without going into an episode by episode account of the program, each episode contains one or more of the following elements
I have already discussed the idea of conspiracies and cover ups. They do happen, and you do not need to be paranoid to realise this.
Despite all the exploration of our planet, there are still many areas that have not been fully examined. Therefore it is not reasonable to say that there are no life forms left to be discovered on Earth. We just do not know what lies in the vast ocean depths, or in midst of the rain forests, or buried deep underground, just waiting to be exposed to the light of day. Who among us can foresee what the consequences of this would be.
You might think that mutated humans would be extremely unlikely. In the way they are portrayed in the X Files (for example Tooms) it is true there is little evidence of the existence of such people. However, mutated people do exist. During the late 60's there were a number of children born with one or more missing limbs due to a side effect of Thalidomide. In more recent times we have seen the after-effects of the tragedy of Chernobyl with again babies born with deformities. More recent cases involve deformed children whose fathers served in the Gulf War of 1991, victims of the "Gulf War Syndrome" (which may be another cover up). Granted in these cases the majority of mutations have been negative, but the possibility of an enhanced human must be accepted.
The last two X Files elements are probably the most controversial. There is little accepted evidence of 'little green men' visiting our planet. (Incidentally, out of all the descriptions of alien visitors none have ever been of little green men.) Speaking frankly (as if I have a choice) the alleged activities of these alien visitors do not convey to me signs of great intelligence. Scaring people, in lonely out of the way places at night does not appear to me to be a clear sign of extra terrestrial intelligence. In addition it has been proven that you cannot travel faster than light, so that it is impossible for any one out there to visit us. Anyway, do not most sighting of flying saucers turn out to be Venus, or swamp gas, or an aircraft or simply hoaxes.
On the other hand, given the fact that there are many millions of stars in each galaxy, and many millions of galaxies in this universe, is it really likely that only on the third planet of an insignificant star does life exist? Given that most 'flying saucer' sighting are explained, what about the ones that are unexplained? Some of the explanations also leave a lot to be desired. Suppose your local Garda station one night gets 100 calls from people claiming to have seen a lion. The Gardai investigate 99 of these sightings and they all turn out to be of house cats. Does this prove that the 100th sighting is also of a house cat? It probably is, but it is not proven. With regard to the fact that it has been proven to be impossible to travel faster than light, remember that proven facts have been known to have been wrong. At the start of the Railway era, it was proven that a train could not travel faster that 25 MPH. If it did, all the air would sucked out of the carriages and the passengers would suffocate. Note that I am not saying I believe in 'flying saucers'. Rather I accept there are Unidentified Flying Objects which are not explainable by current knowledge.
Not all the aliens in X Files are from some where out there. Remember the devil worshipping high school that was visited by a demon from Hell. Do demons exist? I don't know. However, console yourself with the fact that if there are such forces of evil, then there must also be balancing forces of good. If there was not such a balance, then not only would mankind be up the creek without a paddle, but the canoe would be leaking as well.
In a similar way to the aliens, there is little firm scientific evidence that psychic abilities exist. On the other hand, they have never been disproved. For example the American magician James Randi can perform illusions that have the same effect as performed by Uri Geller (i.e. bending spoons, reading minds etc.) To my knowledge however, he has never proved that Uri Geller was doing it the same way. Also almost everyone has had the experience of something happening just after they think of it (the old "I haven't seen Joe in ages" and then bump into him the next day syndrome). It may not be as spectacular as the psychic events portrayed on TV, but I would call this type of phenomena as psychic.
On several occasions in the X Files there have been stories involving the dead, either as ghosts or re incarnation. Yet again this is a grey area with little solid evidence to support it. But there is no evidence to disprove it. There is however a great deal of circumstantial evidence to support the idea.
To conclude, do I believe the X Files are real? No I don't, I think it is an excellent program with high quality scripts (usually). Do I believe that they could be real? This is a more difficult question, but I accept the possibility they could happen. This does not mean I believe in ghosts, goblins, aliens etc., but I accept that they may (emphasis on may) exist. What I do believe is that not everything has been learned by mankind. I believe there are more things in Heaven and Earth and that not only is the universe queerer than we imagine but it is queerer than we can imagine.
Of course I can not prove any of this. This is why I understand the reply a folklore researcher made when asked if she believed in leprechauns. "Of course not, but that does not mean they don't exist."
The truth is out there, somewhere.
These are just some random thoughts about science fiction as seen on TV and Cinema today.
Has anyone else noticed that Native Americans have been portrayed in several science fictions programs lately as having knowledge of alien life. This theme has shown up in Star Trek, The Next Generation, The X Files, and even Seaquest. Do you think someone is trying to tell us something.
Speaking of Seaquest, yes I have watched it, but then I'll watch almost anything to do with science fiction. It had some good episodes and some appalling episodes, and some that were worse ( like the one where a 200 foot dinosaur alligator crosses a beach full of people and no one notices. Even for Americans this is dumb). In the final episode of the 2nd season, when the Seaquest is on an alien planet about to make a kamikaze attack on a starship, they throw Lucas out. This was supposed to be for his own good. They left him with a dolphin and a Genetic Engineered Lifeform on an alien planet where they have just attacked the ruling race with no way to contact Earth yet alone get there, and they did this for his own good? Child protection agencies would have a field day with that one.
There has been a welcome trend in science fiction today, and that is in the portrayal of aliens. For a long time, aliens were simply humans with big heads, humans with pointy ears (I apologise to all Spock fans), humans as blobs of slime, or bikini clad bimbos (OK they were very good looking bimbos) who knew nothing about love until kissed by Captain James T Smirk (sorry Kirk). Of course if Kirk kissed the same way that he uses dramatic pauses between each sentence, I don't know how the bimbos learned anything before falling asleep with boredom.
The common element about these aliens is human. We knew nothing about them as aliens. This changed with the arrival of the TV series Alien Nation. At last a real alien race. The Tectonese were humanoid but not human. They had their own taste in food (sour milk and beaver burgers). We learned about their religion, and probably more than we wanted about their biology. They did not understand everything about humans, nor did the humans fully understand them. Frequently explanations were needed. A favourite memory is when George (a Tectonese) and his wife Susan asked Matthew (his human police partner) to be godfather for their newborn child, but was the horse's head really necessary?
Since then, other shows and films have started to develop their aliens. In Star Trek we have learned a lot about Klingon culture, and to a lesser extent about the Bajorans, Cardassians, Romulans and Trills. In fact we know more about Klingon culture in the 24th century than we do about contemporary human culture. In the film 'Enemy Mine' the two pilots teach each other about their races. This is a welcome trend, and long may it continue.
No mention of current science fiction would be complete without mentioning what is probably the best such series of the moment. Of course I am referring to "Space Precinct" (bet that you made sit up). Seriously I am referring to "Babylon 5". Like "Alien Nation" before it, this is a series that treats science fiction as something for mature intelligent adults. What really makes this series stand out is the fact there is a continuing story line. Unlike Star Trek (and I am not getting into a Babylon 5 v Star Trek argument, I happen to enjoy both programs) what happens in one episode has an effect on a future episode. To pick an example of where this does not happen in Trek, remember at the end of Season 1 Picard and crew foiled a takeover attempt by mind controlling parasites. The program ends with the knowledge that the bugs have send the co-ordinates of Earth to presumably their home world. Six seasons and a movie later, these parasites have never been mentioned again. Another strong point for Babylon 5 is the depicting of the darker side. Not every episode has a happy ending. This is a bleaker, but unfortunately a more realistic view of our future.
If I had to single out any characters from Babylon 5 they would have to be Ivanova and Londo. Ivanova I like because in her we see a woman who is attractive and feminine but at the same time is more than capable of making command decisions and of leading her people. She is aggressive but still retains a soft side. Maybe Captain Janeway may match up to her, but we'll just have to wait and see.
Londo must stand out as one of the best characters in television fiction. He has gone from being a comic figure at the start of the series, to being a sinister agent of evil, to being a tormented soul at the end of season 2. Alone among the ambassadors he did not see Kosh as an 'angel', or maybe he did. My impression is that he saw the 'angel', or knew that he should have, but also knows that because he has 'sold his soul' he is no longer worthy to see such beings. Despite what he has done, I still feel sympathy for the character. He knows what he has done, but is powerless to change anything. Incidentally I met Peter Jurasik at the first Jumpgate, and he is indeed a fine actor. When he answered questions, sometimes he spoke as Peter Jurasik the actor, but at other times he was Londo Molari, Ambassador of the Centauri Republic. At one stage, he was so intense, and so into character that, to me at least, he was Londo and we were seeing him on Babylon 5. You had to be there to fully appreciate this.
To go back to "Space Precinct", I was not impressed with it when it started, and did not bother to watch it after the pilot. However after some gentle persuasion from a good friend of mine (actually it was the phrase "watch it or I'll rip your lungs out" that did the trick) I started viewing it again. To be honest, I was pleasantly surprised and I enjoyed the episodes that I saw. It is not as good as say "Babylon 5", "X Files" or "Alien Nation", but is was way better than "Something Is Out There", "Space 1999" and "Star Cops" (this was a BBC series from the mid 80's where the special effects where so bad you saw the string pulling a lunar buggy across the Moon's surface). I was puzzled however about the Lieutenant in charge of the station. He had a definite Irish accent, despite the fact he is a bug eyed non human. However it was the final episode that really got me in this regard. After his people saved the planet from being destroyed he poured a round of drinks for them, raised his glass, and said "Slainte". It just goes to show that you just can't beat the Irish, we're everywhere.
Since Star Trek, The Next Generation started being shown, I have always found it more enjoyable than the original series. There are several reasons for this.
I have noticed a major difference between the crew on the Enterprise in TOS, and that in TNG. The difference is that the TNG crew have families and background. In other words they have something that exists outside the ship, unlike Kirk and co.
Lets look at the TOS crew. Spock is an exception here, apart from being the only non human. He has a father, Sarak, and a mother Amanda, who we meet in the series. Kirk has a brother who is married with one son. The brother we do not meet, as he is killed but his sister-in-law and his nephew we do meet. Apart from these few details, what do we know about the background of the crew. Practically nothing. In most cases we do not even know their first names. Where do they come from? Why are they in Starfleet? Just who are they? Take away the Enterprise, and we are left with nothing. This, in my not so humble opinion, is one reason why I prefer the TNG crew over the TOS. Kirk, Spock, etc. are one dimensional people.
Now take a look at the Next Generation crew. Picard has a brother, again who is married, with one son. Like Kirk, they were killed (being the brother of a Star Fleet Captain seems to have risks). Riker's mother died while he was young and his father was away. This was something that he could not forgive his father for, until they were reconciled during a mission. Wesley Crusher is the son of Dr. Beverley Crusher. Her husband Jack was killed during a mission with his old friend Jean-Luc Picard, who returned the body to the family. Deanna Troi had a close relationship with Riker some years before they met again on the Enterprise. Of course, we all know who her mother is. In the case of Worf, we met the human couple who raised him, the brother he did not know he had, his girlfriend Khelarr, and his son Alexander. Last, but not least there is Data the android. So far we have met his father Dr. Soong, his brother Lore and his daughter Lal. For someone who is considered to be a sophisticated toaster (by some but not by me) that is not bad going. Incidentally, the episode with Lal made me laugh, and cry. This was one of the best programmes that I have ever seen.
The episodes were generally better in TNG, and I not just talking about the special effects. I mentioned the TNG episode with Data and his daughter. I have found humour in a number of TNG episodes, far more so than in the TOS (Trouble with Tribbles excepted). I know that TOS broke new ground in its subject matter, but maybe I was too young to realise this. Mind you, the episode 'Let This Be Your Last Battlefield' is one that stuck in my mind. It showed clearly the stupidity of racism, something that I always knew was stupid anyway. But a lot of the episodes had a similar theme, i.e. Enterprise encounters a new race and Kirk either destroys their way of life and / or wipes out the race. Occasionally, despite his genocidal behaviour he manages to persuade another alien race that mankind is not really bad after all. In case you think I exaggerate, look at the episodes
All in all, not a very impressive record, is it?
The one time that a life form is killed in TNG was the crystal entity. Even here, it was a crazed scientist who killed the entity, not Picard. As a result of her actions, the scientist was sent for medical treatment. If this had been done with Kirk, we never would have seen him.
Also, to me Kirk is not a diplomat but a warrior. Like the song says 'We come in peace, shoot to kill'. On the other hand, Picard is much more suited to the role of a Star Ship captain. Bear in mind that these people are on the frontiers of the federation, and have to make life or death decisions without the benefit of waiting for Star Fleet Headquarters to make a decision. Make the wrong move, and the federation is engulfed in galactic war. Lets be honest, who would you prefer to make these decisions. Kirk would be more likely to start a war. Mind you, Picard would be more likely to end it. In the TNG episode 'The Wounded', Picard proved his superiority. At the end of the episode, he tells the Cardassian captain that they will be watching, and then turns his back on the Cardassian, almost in contempt. To me, this came across that Picard did not want to wage war, and in fact would be the ultimate final option. On the other hand, if it came to war, Picard would win. The reaction of the Cardassian captain showed that he felt this as well. If Kirk was in the same situation, he would have blustered and inflamed emotions on both sides, leading to an escalation of 'incidents' and ultimately to war.
Bear in mind some of the adversaries that Picard has had to deal with. Kirk would be totally unsuited to many of them. Can you honestly imagine Kirk coping with Q, or with Lwaxanna Troi (to be honest I am sure that Lwaxanna would have more taste). In fact Kirk would totally at a loss to deal with the new Klingon empire.
To sum up, I feel that producing 'Star Trek, The Next Generation' has only improved the whole Trek environment. Having seen some of 'Star Trek, Deep Space 9', I can say that the improvement has continued. Those who say that 'If it doesn't have Kirk, it's not really Trek', should really be more open minded, .Some one also said that Kirk had to be a warrior, while Picard does not have to as there are less threats in Picard's time. Oh yeah. Lets look at the facts here in Picard's time.
This does not include several other alien races and beings encountered. If this is someone's idea of a peaceful era, what the smeg do they consider dangerous?
Finally, there was a comment that without Kirk there would not be a new Klingon empire. This statement is totally outrageous. We are talking about the same Kirk who was so incompetent that he allowed the Klingon Emperor to be killed by members of his crew, while he was escorting the Emperor. With friends like this, who needs the Borg? So what if he did save the day, because if he did his job properly, there would not have been a problem to be tidied up in the first place. Also, it was stated ('Yesterday's Enterprise') that the efforts of the Enterprise C under Captain Garrett in defending a Klingon outpost from a Romulan attack were instrumental in bringing the Klingon Empire and the Federation together. As all the TV episodes are 'canon', but the same is not true of the films (Roddenbery was not happy with ST V and ST VI), I am inclined to say that Captain Garrett's act is of far more significance. In fact, one can just as easily say that without Spock, there would have been no change, as he was the initial Federation contact. One must also mention the Klingons who also expressed a desire to talk peace. One can go even farther back and say that without the Organians there never would have been any Federation / Klingon dialogue. As mentioned above it's only eight years since there was a clash between the two. We have no idea of the many diplomats involved on both sides who spend who knows how many hours in finding common ground for both sides to agree on. Given Kirk's track record in dealing with the Klingons, saying he was the sole person involved in developing a peace treaty is like saying that General George Custer could sign a peace treaty with the native American Indians.
PS - actually, I don't dislike Kirk et al that much. In fact I do like them. What I don't like is the automatic 'Kirk is the hero, he can do no wrong, I shall kiss the ground he walks on, life as we know it would cease to exist without him' approach taken by some people. Most of this comes from fans and writers who cannot accept that there can be other Trek heroes than Kirk. For example. in one book Kirk is given the job of protecting a planet from pirate attack. After he declares the planet safe, and grants shore leave (always a good idea to let your crew relax on a planet that's being attacked), guess what? The planet is attacked, six crew are killed and Spock is found unconscious at the foot of a cliff that he fell down. Not only is Kirk not reprimanded for endangering his crew, but Spock, who has suffered brain damage, is awarded the highest Federation award for gallantry, for falling down a cliff. Tribble droppings. It is this attitude and interpretation of TOS that I dislike. Note I would feel just as strong if this were about Picard etc. after some years of DS9.
There has been discussion about the Borg. To be specific, the debate was if Picard was right or wrong when he decided not to use Hugh to destroy the entire Borg race. The majority opinion that he was wrong. The Borg should be destroyed, removed from the galaxy, exterminated, be ethnically cleansed, undergo the final solution.
You're wrong.
One of the main guiding principles behind the Federation is IDIC. This cannot be switched off or on at a whim. It means that you must accept the bad with the good. The Borg are by our standards an evil race. but in terms of the galaxy, who cares. Even with the more advanced warp drive in TNG, we still only see a small portion of one galaxy, which is only one of hundreds of million of galaxies. For all we know the Borg are the norm and the Federation is the evil aberration. Of course, as 'members' of the Federation we are biased.
What do we know about the Borg? In real terms sweet FA. Much has been made of the fact that the Borg are a collective intelligence, and thus the guilt of one is the guilt of all. I have two objections to this.
First, if this were so, then why didn't Locutus and Three of Five (Hugh) have a complete system crash when they were isolated from the Borg collective. They didn't, which contradicts my understanding of a collective intelligence. They survived the isolation, which means they are individuals. Also if all Borg are one, then when Data transmitted the sleep command, all the Borg should have been affected and not just the one ship that was.
Secondly, if the guilt of one is the guilt of all, then so too is the innocence of one the innocence of all.
By the way, in 'I Borg', the Borg launched a search and rescue mission for their crashed scout ship. This is hardly the action of an uncaring society in which the individual is ignored. They also did not attack the Enterprise or Geordi who was standing in plain sight on the planets surface.
Hugh Borg was indeed a prisoner of war, he was an individual, he was an intelligent life form and he was certainly not sub human, nor a lab rat. It is exactly that line of thought, that the 'other' is less than us that has caused, and is causing so much misery in the world. If Hugh had been treated as a 'lab rat', then will some one explain to me what the hell is the difference between the Federation and the Borg, because so far as I can see there would be none.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the Federation should just roll over and die in front of the Borg, but genocide is and can not be an option in war. Mind you after the Federation exterminate one race, doing again will be easier. The Romulans are a pain, maybe they should be next, or maybe the Cardassians, or the Ferengi or even the Klingons. Once you start, where do you stop?
Let us not exaggerate the threat of the Borg either. So far there has been a minor skirmish with the Enterprise, the battle of Wolf 359 which was costly but ended ultimately in the Borg defeat, and a non hostile encounter in 'I Borg', along with several unarmed colonies and merchant ships being attacked, and the attack on Earth, which was like Wolf 359. This is hardly the end of civilisation as we know it. Given the apparent policy of the Federation, i.e. they cannot fire the first shots in a war, I'm sure that they have not won every single engagement. In fact, in the alternate timeline of 'Yesterdays Enterprise', the Federation were losing the war to the Klingons. Given that information, and given that in the 'real' timeline the Klingons and Federation are allied (more or less), this would represent a potent capability.
(Aside - This also makes me wonder, just what exactly is the Federation? I understood that the Federation was an alliance / grouping of many hundreds of various races. If this is true, then the loss of Earth would not mean the end of the Federation. On the other hand, maybe the Federation is just a polite name for the Terran Empire. What do you think? Now back to the main argument.)
What in fact are the Borg guilty off, looked at from a galactic viewpoint. They are improving the quality of life, by their standards. The fact that some people may not want to be improved is irrational to them. (It also didn't stop Kirk in several episodes, granted not so drastically, for improving other peoples way of life against their will, but that's a different argument). From the Borg viewpoint, some one who did not see that they needed to be improved was obviously in need of help. They do not have a healthy culture, according to the Borg. This should not be a difficult point of view to accept. After all we have many examples of our own:
Need I go on?
Maybe this is why the Borg rouse such strong emotions. The Borg are not really alien, they are us.
P-Con VI March 27th/28th/29th 2009
 |
 |
 |
bravenet.com