This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Frame of Mind” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Suspicions” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Rightful Heir” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Second Chances” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Timescape” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it four stars out of five.
“Descent” parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary.
A non-political two-parter. I give it two stars out of five.
“Liaisons” See this for a plot summary.
There is one bit of feminism when Riker criticizes Worf for saying something sexist.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Interface” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Gambit” parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary.
A non-political two-parter. I give it three stars out of five.
“Phantasms” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Dark Page” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Attached” See this for a plot summary.
I’d agree with Riker that neither of the nations should be allowed to join the Federation. The Kes, who Picard was supposed to talk with about joining, demonstrated amazing levels of paranoia, becoming hostile towards the Federation.
I give it three stars out of five.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Friday, December 18, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews GG
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Aquiel” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, I give it two stars out of five.
“Face of the Enemy” See this for a plot summary.
Although I can’t figure out how undemocratic the Romulan Star Empire is, the security forces are feared by (probably) most of the citizenry and that makes it at least fairly undemocratic. With that in mind, I like the episodes about the dissidents in the RSE. The struggle for freedom and/or greater democracy is inspiring. That’s partly why I like this episode.
I give it four stars out of five.
UPDATE 1/12/12 I should have added this a long time ago, but I DO find the Arab Spring inspirational and I do support it.
“Tapestry” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, although Picard does sound like an agnostic rather than an atheist (I like to see some of that, not much but some, in ST because ST generally ignores Old Earth religions as if they're inconsistent with the values of the Federation)
“Birthright” Parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary.
For the most part a non-political two-parter. At one point Worf says something which goes beyond his usual comments about Romulans and is basically bigotry. He criticizes marriages between Romulans and Klingons. He later changes his mind about that.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Starship Mine” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Lessons” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“The Chase” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Aquiel” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, I give it two stars out of five.
“Face of the Enemy” See this for a plot summary.
Although I can’t figure out how undemocratic the Romulan Star Empire is, the security forces are feared by (probably) most of the citizenry and that makes it at least fairly undemocratic. With that in mind, I like the episodes about the dissidents in the RSE. The struggle for freedom and/or greater democracy is inspiring. That’s partly why I like this episode.
I give it four stars out of five.
UPDATE 1/12/12 I should have added this a long time ago, but I DO find the Arab Spring inspirational and I do support it.
“Tapestry” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, although Picard does sound like an agnostic rather than an atheist (I like to see some of that, not much but some, in ST because ST generally ignores Old Earth religions as if they're inconsistent with the values of the Federation)
“Birthright” Parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary.
For the most part a non-political two-parter. At one point Worf says something which goes beyond his usual comments about Romulans and is basically bigotry. He criticizes marriages between Romulans and Klingons. He later changes his mind about that.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Starship Mine” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Lessons” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“The Chase” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews FF
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“The Quality of Life” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode (I’m not going to go into the stuff about the exocomps being alive- I am unfamiliar with the scientific and philosophical parts of that). I give it two stars out of five.
“Chain of Command” Parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary.
A fairly political two-parter. Some notes:
1. I usually don't bother making this sort of comment, I’m not sure it made sense for them to have Picard and Crusher go on the Special Op.
2. It’s in this episode where they started having Troi wear her uniform, which is a good thing- she is a Lt. Commander, once took on a leadership role in a crisis, and she should wear her uniform.
3. The largest chunk of politics is the torture of Picard. Clearly ST and Starfleet are against torture, and it was a powerful portrayal of someone being tortured. It also showed that even “good family men” can be torturers. And Picard at one point made an explicit criticism of torture when he mentions that it’s unreliable and self-defeating and it’s a wonder that torture is still used at all.
4. There’s one disappointing thing, the Enterprise uses mines against the Cardassians, although they are mines that somehow attach themselves to the Cardassian ships, which means that maybe they’re an acceptable kind of mine.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Ship in a Bottle” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of fivw.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“The Quality of Life” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode (I’m not going to go into the stuff about the exocomps being alive- I am unfamiliar with the scientific and philosophical parts of that). I give it two stars out of five.
“Chain of Command” Parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary.
A fairly political two-parter. Some notes:
1. I usually don't bother making this sort of comment, I’m not sure it made sense for them to have Picard and Crusher go on the Special Op.
2. It’s in this episode where they started having Troi wear her uniform, which is a good thing- she is a Lt. Commander, once took on a leadership role in a crisis, and she should wear her uniform.
3. The largest chunk of politics is the torture of Picard. Clearly ST and Starfleet are against torture, and it was a powerful portrayal of someone being tortured. It also showed that even “good family men” can be torturers. And Picard at one point made an explicit criticism of torture when he mentions that it’s unreliable and self-defeating and it’s a wonder that torture is still used at all.
4. There’s one disappointing thing, the Enterprise uses mines against the Cardassians, although they are mines that somehow attach themselves to the Cardassian ships, which means that maybe they’re an acceptable kind of mine.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Ship in a Bottle” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of fivw.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews EE
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Schisms” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“True-Q” See this for a plot summary.
There is one bit of environmentalism when an alien society is criticized for using technology to scrub their air of harmful pollution instead of reducing the emissions of pollution.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Rascals” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.
“A Fistfull of Datas” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Schisms” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“True-Q” See this for a plot summary.
There is one bit of environmentalism when an alien society is criticized for using technology to scrub their air of harmful pollution instead of reducing the emissions of pollution.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Rascals” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.
“A Fistfull of Datas” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews DD
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“The Inner Light” See this for a plot summary.
A very non-political episode, but a very special and moving one. I give it four stars.
“Time’s Arrow” See this and this for a plot summary.
A mostly non-political two-parter. There’s some talk by Samuel Clemens about how around 1900 (that’s when most of this two-parter is set) in America the powerful stand on the backs of the poor.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Realm of Fear” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Man of the People” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Relics” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“The Inner Light” See this for a plot summary.
A very non-political episode, but a very special and moving one. I give it four stars.
“Time’s Arrow” See this and this for a plot summary.
A mostly non-political two-parter. There’s some talk by Samuel Clemens about how around 1900 (that’s when most of this two-parter is set) in America the powerful stand on the backs of the poor.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Realm of Fear” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Man of the People” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Relics” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews CC
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“The Perfect Mate” See this for a plot summary.
At the beginning there’s some good political talk as they discuss whether or not a woman is being transported on the Enterprise as some kind of property.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Imaginary Friend” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.
“I, Borg” See this for a plot summary.
The main political question for this episode is, is it okay to completely and totally wipe out the Borg? Some would call that genocide. But most of the main and recurring characters in this episode are okay with doing that, until they saw that Hugh was becoming an individual and was rejecting what the Borg are about. I also would be okay with wiping out the Borg- they are inherently incapable of co-existing with other races and assimilation by the Borg is horrible, as we learned on Voyager.
There is one line which indicates that testing products on animals is a thing of the past.
After the crew start changing their minds about using Hugh as a weapon, Picard, says that if they did use him, they would be “no better than the enemy that we seek to destroy.”
I give this episode three stars out of five.
“The Next Phase” See this for a plot summary.
The only sort of political thing to mention here is that some of the dialogue indicates that Ro and perhaps Geordi as well, are better described as agnostic instead of atheist. That’s a welcome, small departure from the generally atheist position on religion that ST takes.
I give this episode four stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“The Perfect Mate” See this for a plot summary.
At the beginning there’s some good political talk as they discuss whether or not a woman is being transported on the Enterprise as some kind of property.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Imaginary Friend” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.
“I, Borg” See this for a plot summary.
The main political question for this episode is, is it okay to completely and totally wipe out the Borg? Some would call that genocide. But most of the main and recurring characters in this episode are okay with doing that, until they saw that Hugh was becoming an individual and was rejecting what the Borg are about. I also would be okay with wiping out the Borg- they are inherently incapable of co-existing with other races and assimilation by the Borg is horrible, as we learned on Voyager.
There is one line which indicates that testing products on animals is a thing of the past.
After the crew start changing their minds about using Hugh as a weapon, Picard, says that if they did use him, they would be “no better than the enemy that we seek to destroy.”
I give this episode three stars out of five.
“The Next Phase” See this for a plot summary.
The only sort of political thing to mention here is that some of the dialogue indicates that Ro and perhaps Geordi as well, are better described as agnostic instead of atheist. That’s a welcome, small departure from the generally atheist position on religion that ST takes.
I give this episode four stars out of five.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews BB
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“The Outcast” See this for a plot summary.
I have heard that many people don’t think this episode takes a good swing at homophobia. I’m not sure why. The two things I’ve heard are A) since almost all (possibly all) the J’naii are played by women, some have said that the J’naii seem less like a homophobic society and more like man-hating lesbians; and B) that Star Trek higher-ups thought it should put an end to calls for more movement in ST on the issue of homophobia.
To the former I say that I don’t see it that way and probably almost everyone who watched that episode understood the anti-homophobic message. To the latter I say that that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a good anti-homophobic episode, it just means that there is a problem with some people responsible for ST and they need to be pressured some more (even today, 15 years later, they STILL need to be pressured).
When in front of the judge, Soren says: “I am female. I was born that way. I have had those feelings, those longings all of my life. It is not unnatural. I am not sick because I feel this way. I don't need to be helped, I don't need to be cured. What I need and what all of those who are like me need is your understanding and your compassion. We have not injured you in any way. And yet we are scorned and attacked. And all because we are different. What we do is no different from what you do. We talk and laugh, we complain about work and we wonder about getting old, we talk about our families and we worry about the future. And we cry with each other when things seem hopeless. All of the loving things that you with each other, that is what we do. And for that we are called misfits and deviants and criminals. What right do you have to punish us? What right do you have to change us? What makes you think you can dictate how people love each other?”
It’s a pretty good speech.
A few other notes on the episode:
1. Dr. Crusher says that the inequality of women has disappeared.
2. Worf shows that Crusher is not 100% right when he makes some sexist comments. He’s also bigoted towards the androgynous J’naii. (this is not an example of progressive politics in ST, but is the exception to the rule)
I give the episode four stars out of five (since DS9 and VOY are my favorite series and TNG is behind them, I have decided I will give no TNG episode five stars)
“Cause and Effect” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“The First Duty” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“The Cost of Living” See this for a plot summary
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“The Outcast” See this for a plot summary.
I have heard that many people don’t think this episode takes a good swing at homophobia. I’m not sure why. The two things I’ve heard are A) since almost all (possibly all) the J’naii are played by women, some have said that the J’naii seem less like a homophobic society and more like man-hating lesbians; and B) that Star Trek higher-ups thought it should put an end to calls for more movement in ST on the issue of homophobia.
To the former I say that I don’t see it that way and probably almost everyone who watched that episode understood the anti-homophobic message. To the latter I say that that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a good anti-homophobic episode, it just means that there is a problem with some people responsible for ST and they need to be pressured some more (even today, 15 years later, they STILL need to be pressured).
When in front of the judge, Soren says: “I am female. I was born that way. I have had those feelings, those longings all of my life. It is not unnatural. I am not sick because I feel this way. I don't need to be helped, I don't need to be cured. What I need and what all of those who are like me need is your understanding and your compassion. We have not injured you in any way. And yet we are scorned and attacked. And all because we are different. What we do is no different from what you do. We talk and laugh, we complain about work and we wonder about getting old, we talk about our families and we worry about the future. And we cry with each other when things seem hopeless. All of the loving things that you with each other, that is what we do. And for that we are called misfits and deviants and criminals. What right do you have to punish us? What right do you have to change us? What makes you think you can dictate how people love each other?”
It’s a pretty good speech.
A few other notes on the episode:
1. Dr. Crusher says that the inequality of women has disappeared.
2. Worf shows that Crusher is not 100% right when he makes some sexist comments. He’s also bigoted towards the androgynous J’naii. (this is not an example of progressive politics in ST, but is the exception to the rule)
I give the episode four stars out of five (since DS9 and VOY are my favorite series and TNG is behind them, I have decided I will give no TNG episode five stars)
“Cause and Effect” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“The First Duty” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“The Cost of Living” See this for a plot summary
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews AA
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“The Masterpiece Society” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Conundrum” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it four stars out of five.
“Power Play” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Ethics” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political but very moving episode. I give it three stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“The Masterpiece Society” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Conundrum” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it four stars out of five.
“Power Play” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Ethics” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political but very moving episode. I give it three stars out of five.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews Z
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“A Matter of Time” See this for a plot summary.
There’s one bit of politics with a reference to efforts to avoid global warming.
I give it three stars out of five.
“New Ground” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Hero Worship” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Violations” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“A Matter of Time” See this for a plot summary.
There’s one bit of politics with a reference to efforts to avoid global warming.
I give it three stars out of five.
“New Ground” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Hero Worship” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Violations” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews Y
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Disaster” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“The Game” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Unification” Parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary.
In some ways a political two-parter but I can’t really compare it to Ireland. It’s more comparable to the re-unifcation of Germany, which was a good thing. So I have basically nothing to say.
I give it four stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Disaster” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“The Game” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Unification” Parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary.
In some ways a political two-parter but I can’t really compare it to Ireland. It’s more comparable to the re-unifcation of Germany, which was a good thing. So I have basically nothing to say.
I give it four stars out of five.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews X
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“In Theory” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, I give it one star out of five.
“Redemption” parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary.
In this two-parter we hear and see more about how A: Klingon women are second-class citizens and B: Romulan women seem to be full partners with the men in government and the military.
When Data submits himself for discipline because he disobeyed Picard’s orders, Picard explains that “Starfleet doesn’t want officers who blindly follow orders without analyzing the situation.” He also says “the claim ‘I was only following orders’ has been used to justify too many tragedies in our history.”
Among other things that would be a reference to Germany in World War II. I’ve heard that in the decades since the war the German military does something that more or less gives members of the military guidance on when to disobey an order, sort of encouraging them to disobey under certain circumstances.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Darmok” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.
“Ensign Ro” See this for a plot summary.
This episode is about the Cardassian occupation of Bajor, “terrorism” and Starfleet’s Prime Directive. for my thoughts on ST’s idea of “terrorism” see this, towards the end of the review of “Defiant.”
The episode appeared to be an effort to raise the issue of the Palestinians, as elements of the Bajoran story are also found in the Palestinian story. I’m almost certain that on Deep Space Nine there was no talk about Bajoran refugees while Cardassia occupied Bajor, and yet in this episode it’s explained that the Bajorans were expelled from Bajor by the Cardassians.
There are three items about Bajoran culture.
1. Bajorans identify themselves by first saying their last name and then saying their first. Ro says that many Bajorans have stopped correcting people about that because they want to assimilate.
2. Towards the beginning, Riker tells Ro to take off her earring, an item of some significance for Bajorans. At the end, it’s implied that Picard will let her wear the earring.
3. Picard says that ancient Bajorans had an advanced culture when humans were not yet standing erect.
Then there’s the Prime Directive. It’s mentioned as why the Federation did nothing to support the Bajoran resistance to the Cardassians. A Bajoran leader criticizes the Federation for that. In general I’ve got kind of mixed feelings about the PD and generally support Starfleet commanding officers when they bend or break it. It seems like in general it’s a very good thing. But the Cardassian occupation of Bajor is one situation where the Federation should have intervened, at least by giving aid to the Bajorans (I’m open-minded about the idea of Starfleet pushing the Cardassians out themselves (one of my favorite books is about Cuban forces invading S. Africa to put an end to Apartheid (I wouldn’t be surprised if, if it had happened in reality, the ANC would have objected for various reasons, but it’s still overall a good story (it’s called “Vortex” by Larry Bond)))). It was not an internal matter for Cardassia, it was an inter-stellar issue. I mean Cardassia was only able to annex Bajor through massive force (and to one degree or another expelling the Bajorans). That annexation shouldn’t be recognized as legitimate. At one point Picard says of the resistance- “arming these people is a violation of everything the Federation stands for.” Ro says that she agrees, but then explains about how her father was tortured to death while she was forced to watch. She seems fairly sympathetic to the resistance. Picard is wrong about Starfleet arming the Resistance (not long after making that statement he becomes critical of an Admiral for his sympathetic attitude towards the Cardassians).
Lastly, although it was revealed that the Bajoran resistance had not carried out the attack on the Federation settlement, I would say that trying to get attention for your cause by attacking a 3rd party is a bad idea- if the resistance had the capability, they could have found Cardassian targets in Federation territory and attacked them. The IRA attacked British targets in other European countries (Germany and the Netherlands). On one hand it seems like it had little effect on what people in those countries thought about the North; on the other (and this was probably their main reason for doing it) it does make it easier to convince people that the IRA’s campaign was largely aimed at the British security forces and specifically the British Army.
I give this episode four stars out of five.
“Silicon Avatar” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“In Theory” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, I give it one star out of five.
“Redemption” parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary.
In this two-parter we hear and see more about how A: Klingon women are second-class citizens and B: Romulan women seem to be full partners with the men in government and the military.
When Data submits himself for discipline because he disobeyed Picard’s orders, Picard explains that “Starfleet doesn’t want officers who blindly follow orders without analyzing the situation.” He also says “the claim ‘I was only following orders’ has been used to justify too many tragedies in our history.”
Among other things that would be a reference to Germany in World War II. I’ve heard that in the decades since the war the German military does something that more or less gives members of the military guidance on when to disobey an order, sort of encouraging them to disobey under certain circumstances.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Darmok” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.
“Ensign Ro” See this for a plot summary.
This episode is about the Cardassian occupation of Bajor, “terrorism” and Starfleet’s Prime Directive. for my thoughts on ST’s idea of “terrorism” see this, towards the end of the review of “Defiant.”
The episode appeared to be an effort to raise the issue of the Palestinians, as elements of the Bajoran story are also found in the Palestinian story. I’m almost certain that on Deep Space Nine there was no talk about Bajoran refugees while Cardassia occupied Bajor, and yet in this episode it’s explained that the Bajorans were expelled from Bajor by the Cardassians.
There are three items about Bajoran culture.
1. Bajorans identify themselves by first saying their last name and then saying their first. Ro says that many Bajorans have stopped correcting people about that because they want to assimilate.
2. Towards the beginning, Riker tells Ro to take off her earring, an item of some significance for Bajorans. At the end, it’s implied that Picard will let her wear the earring.
3. Picard says that ancient Bajorans had an advanced culture when humans were not yet standing erect.
Then there’s the Prime Directive. It’s mentioned as why the Federation did nothing to support the Bajoran resistance to the Cardassians. A Bajoran leader criticizes the Federation for that. In general I’ve got kind of mixed feelings about the PD and generally support Starfleet commanding officers when they bend or break it. It seems like in general it’s a very good thing. But the Cardassian occupation of Bajor is one situation where the Federation should have intervened, at least by giving aid to the Bajorans (I’m open-minded about the idea of Starfleet pushing the Cardassians out themselves (one of my favorite books is about Cuban forces invading S. Africa to put an end to Apartheid (I wouldn’t be surprised if, if it had happened in reality, the ANC would have objected for various reasons, but it’s still overall a good story (it’s called “Vortex” by Larry Bond)))). It was not an internal matter for Cardassia, it was an inter-stellar issue. I mean Cardassia was only able to annex Bajor through massive force (and to one degree or another expelling the Bajorans). That annexation shouldn’t be recognized as legitimate. At one point Picard says of the resistance- “arming these people is a violation of everything the Federation stands for.” Ro says that she agrees, but then explains about how her father was tortured to death while she was forced to watch. She seems fairly sympathetic to the resistance. Picard is wrong about Starfleet arming the Resistance (not long after making that statement he becomes critical of an Admiral for his sympathetic attitude towards the Cardassians).
Lastly, although it was revealed that the Bajoran resistance had not carried out the attack on the Federation settlement, I would say that trying to get attention for your cause by attacking a 3rd party is a bad idea- if the resistance had the capability, they could have found Cardassian targets in Federation territory and attacked them. The IRA attacked British targets in other European countries (Germany and the Netherlands). On one hand it seems like it had little effect on what people in those countries thought about the North; on the other (and this was probably their main reason for doing it) it does make it easier to convince people that the IRA’s campaign was largely aimed at the British security forces and specifically the British Army.
I give this episode four stars out of five.
“Silicon Avatar” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews W
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“The Drumhead” See this for a plot summary.
This episode is basically about political witch-hunts, there’s a lot of good stuff from Picard about that sort of thing. It reminds me of something close to that issue, and that is how dissidents in America have been treated since 9/11. The Progressive magazine has a great section they’ve been doing since December ‘01 which keeps track of stories of a new “War on Terror” McCarthyism. It’s here.
I give it four stars out of five.
“Half A Life” See this for a plot summary.
More or less a non-political episode, but I will briefly state that the “Resolution” is wrong (of course).
I give it two stars out of five.
“The Host” See this for a plot summary.
There’s one bit of environmentalism in this episode.
I usually don’t bother with this kind of comment but in this case it’s just too much- things Trill in this episode are very different from how they are on Deep Space Nine. Partly because of that, I can give this episode only one star out of five.
“The Mind’s Eye” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“The Drumhead” See this for a plot summary.
This episode is basically about political witch-hunts, there’s a lot of good stuff from Picard about that sort of thing. It reminds me of something close to that issue, and that is how dissidents in America have been treated since 9/11. The Progressive magazine has a great section they’ve been doing since December ‘01 which keeps track of stories of a new “War on Terror” McCarthyism. It’s here.
I give it four stars out of five.
“Half A Life” See this for a plot summary.
More or less a non-political episode, but I will briefly state that the “Resolution” is wrong (of course).
I give it two stars out of five.
“The Host” See this for a plot summary.
There’s one bit of environmentalism in this episode.
I usually don’t bother with this kind of comment but in this case it’s just too much- things Trill in this episode are very different from how they are on Deep Space Nine. Partly because of that, I can give this episode only one star out of five.
“The Mind’s Eye” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out five.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews V
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Night Terrors” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Identity Crisis” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“The Nth Degree” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Qpid” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Night Terrors” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Identity Crisis” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“The Nth Degree” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Qpid” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews U
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Devil’s Due” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Clues” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“First Contact” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Galaxy’s Child” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Devil’s Due” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Clues” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“First Contact” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Galaxy’s Child” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews T
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Final Mission” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“The Loss” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Data’s Day” See this for a plot summary.
Something kind of political is a mention of the Hindu Festival of Lights being celebrated on the Enterprise, a sign that there are some in Starfleet who still believe in “Old Earth” religions
“The Wounded” See this for a plot summary.
This episode has some interesting stuff about war, and also about one of my favorite characters, Miles O’Brien.
1. Although later in TNG and DS9 we see O’Brien’s intermittent hostility (which could be called bigotry) towards the Cardassians, there’s one moment where he talks as if he has no problem with the Cardassians. His wife Keiko has to explain to him that there are people in the Federation who don’t like the Cardassians.
2. In the ship’s bar O’Brien talks with one of the Cardassians. He apologizes for a minor incident earlier. The Cardassian says that a massacre of civilians they carried out was a “terrible mistake,” and that they’d been told it was a military target.
O’Brien talks about an incident when he incinerated a Cardassian soldier with a phaser and how that was the first time he killed anything. He says “it’s not you I hate, Cardassian- I hate what I became, because of you.”
I give it two stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Final Mission” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“The Loss” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Data’s Day” See this for a plot summary.
Something kind of political is a mention of the Hindu Festival of Lights being celebrated on the Enterprise, a sign that there are some in Starfleet who still believe in “Old Earth” religions
“The Wounded” See this for a plot summary.
This episode has some interesting stuff about war, and also about one of my favorite characters, Miles O’Brien.
1. Although later in TNG and DS9 we see O’Brien’s intermittent hostility (which could be called bigotry) towards the Cardassians, there’s one moment where he talks as if he has no problem with the Cardassians. His wife Keiko has to explain to him that there are people in the Federation who don’t like the Cardassians.
2. In the ship’s bar O’Brien talks with one of the Cardassians. He apologizes for a minor incident earlier. The Cardassian says that a massacre of civilians they carried out was a “terrible mistake,” and that they’d been told it was a military target.
O’Brien talks about an incident when he incinerated a Cardassian soldier with a phaser and how that was the first time he killed anything. He says “it’s not you I hate, Cardassian- I hate what I became, because of you.”
I give it two stars out of five.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews S
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Remember Me” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it four stars out of five.
“Legacy” See this for a plot summary,
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five
“Re-Union” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five
“Future Imperfect” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Remember Me” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it four stars out of five.
“Legacy” See this for a plot summary,
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five
“Re-Union” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five
“Future Imperfect” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews R
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Transfigurations” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“The Best of Both Worlds,” Parts I and II See this and this for a plot summary.
A non-political two-parter. I like the Voyager Borg more than the TNG Borg. But the latter is okay. I give it three stars out of five.
“Family” See this for a plot summary
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Brothers” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Suddenly Human” See this for a plot summary.
The only bit of politics is that the Talarians are “rigidly patriarchical.”
I give it two stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Transfigurations” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“The Best of Both Worlds,” Parts I and II See this and this for a plot summary.
A non-political two-parter. I like the Voyager Borg more than the TNG Borg. But the latter is okay. I give it three stars out of five.
“Family” See this for a plot summary
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Brothers” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Suddenly Human” See this for a plot summary.
The only bit of politics is that the Talarians are “rigidly patriarchical.”
I give it two stars out of five.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews Q
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Hollow Pursuits” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“The Most Toys” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Sarek” See this for a plot summary
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Menage a Troi” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Hollow Pursuits” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“The Most Toys” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Sarek” See this for a plot summary
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Menage a Troi” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews P
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Sins of the Father” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Allegiance” See this for a plot summary.
There is a reference to anarchists, but it sort of describes an anarchist society as being very violent. I'm not sure how inaccurate that is- if things got to the point where anarchists were strong enough to do away with the state it probably would be a much less violent society than what we have today (of course, as I explain below, I think that most approaches to anarchism probably won't work, but some would and their vision is of a non-violent society).
My thoughts on anarchism are:
1. I consider something like half of left-wing anarchists to be my allies.
2. I don’t believe that the State is inherently oppressive. I believe that to one degree or another the state reflects the power of various parts of society (I got that from something Noam Chomsky said). Thus, a weak labor movement will lead to a state that is anti-union, to one degree or another. If the labor movement gets stronger, legislation about labor will make it easier for even more workers to be organized. Since this means that the labor movement won’t get stronger until the right politicians are elected, and the right politicians won’t get elected until the labor movement is stronger, I should say that much of my blog is about things that we can accomplish that will strengthen various liberal-progressive movements in America.
3. I’m not convinced that anarchism can provide services such as transportation or health care- it seems like the state would be more appropriate, and based on what I said in the item above, I’m comfortable with a democratic state. On the other hand, I get the impression that anarchists would be happy to see some functions of the federal or state government devolved to state or local governments, and I’m more or less okay with that, depending on exactly what we’re talking about.
4. It seems like decision-making in an anarchist society might result in an INFORMAL political elite- that the people best at political maneuvering would dominate decision-making. A problem with that is that you can’t un-elect those people. Additionally the the use of consensus decision-making results often in some minority who either defeat whatever proposal is being discussed and is supported by a majority, OR they vote the way the majority voted without their opposition being recorded; Lastly, it also would give people an inaccurate picture of how the community feels about that idea that was unpopular with a minority. (I think that consensus decision-making in small groups is a good idea- small groups being around 5-10 people; I have seen consensus decision-making not work at a meeting of about 25 people)
5. I know of one anarchist who, when her proposal was defeated because of consensus decision-making, she announced that her proposal would go ahead anyway.
6. I think anarchism would have a better chance of working AFTER a period of democratic socialism gets the vast majority of people thinking more in terms of solidarity and cooperation and less in terms of greed and power. Also, I wouldn’t object if, under socialism, there could be some small areas of the country where people would more or less have a large degree of autonomy and can experiment with anarchism (I don’t know exactly how that autonomy would work, but I think it’s still a good idea, and could from the start or after a few years be INDEPENDENCE for that area). Also, Democratic Socialism could, and maybe should, involve the devolution of some powers and responsibilities to the local or state level.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Captain’s Holiday” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Tin Man” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Sins of the Father” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Allegiance” See this for a plot summary.
There is a reference to anarchists, but it sort of describes an anarchist society as being very violent. I'm not sure how inaccurate that is- if things got to the point where anarchists were strong enough to do away with the state it probably would be a much less violent society than what we have today (of course, as I explain below, I think that most approaches to anarchism probably won't work, but some would and their vision is of a non-violent society).
My thoughts on anarchism are:
1. I consider something like half of left-wing anarchists to be my allies.
2. I don’t believe that the State is inherently oppressive. I believe that to one degree or another the state reflects the power of various parts of society (I got that from something Noam Chomsky said). Thus, a weak labor movement will lead to a state that is anti-union, to one degree or another. If the labor movement gets stronger, legislation about labor will make it easier for even more workers to be organized. Since this means that the labor movement won’t get stronger until the right politicians are elected, and the right politicians won’t get elected until the labor movement is stronger, I should say that much of my blog is about things that we can accomplish that will strengthen various liberal-progressive movements in America.
3. I’m not convinced that anarchism can provide services such as transportation or health care- it seems like the state would be more appropriate, and based on what I said in the item above, I’m comfortable with a democratic state. On the other hand, I get the impression that anarchists would be happy to see some functions of the federal or state government devolved to state or local governments, and I’m more or less okay with that, depending on exactly what we’re talking about.
4. It seems like decision-making in an anarchist society might result in an INFORMAL political elite- that the people best at political maneuvering would dominate decision-making. A problem with that is that you can’t un-elect those people. Additionally the the use of consensus decision-making results often in some minority who either defeat whatever proposal is being discussed and is supported by a majority, OR they vote the way the majority voted without their opposition being recorded; Lastly, it also would give people an inaccurate picture of how the community feels about that idea that was unpopular with a minority. (I think that consensus decision-making in small groups is a good idea- small groups being around 5-10 people; I have seen consensus decision-making not work at a meeting of about 25 people)
5. I know of one anarchist who, when her proposal was defeated because of consensus decision-making, she announced that her proposal would go ahead anyway.
6. I think anarchism would have a better chance of working AFTER a period of democratic socialism gets the vast majority of people thinking more in terms of solidarity and cooperation and less in terms of greed and power. Also, I wouldn’t object if, under socialism, there could be some small areas of the country where people would more or less have a large degree of autonomy and can experiment with anarchism (I don’t know exactly how that autonomy would work, but I think it’s still a good idea, and could from the start or after a few years be INDEPENDENCE for that area). Also, Democratic Socialism could, and maybe should, involve the devolution of some powers and responsibilities to the local or state level.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Captain’s Holiday” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Tin Man” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews O
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Deja Q” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“A Matter of Perspective” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Yesterday’s Enterprise” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. It’s widely considered the best TNG episode. I give it four stars out of five.
“The Offspring” See this for a plot summary.
There was one good bit of politics in this. When Guinan was talking with Lal about love, she was supposed to say “When a man and a woman are in love ...” but Whoopi Goldberg, who played Guinan, had it changed to "When two people are in love” which suggests that two people of the same sex can have a romantic and/or sexual relationship without it being controversial in the 23rd century. When the script change was made there were plans to have some same-sex couples in the background, but the higher-ups killed that idea.
I give it three stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Deja Q” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“A Matter of Perspective” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Yesterday’s Enterprise” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. It’s widely considered the best TNG episode. I give it four stars out of five.
“The Offspring” See this for a plot summary.
There was one good bit of politics in this. When Guinan was talking with Lal about love, she was supposed to say “When a man and a woman are in love ...” but Whoopi Goldberg, who played Guinan, had it changed to "When two people are in love” which suggests that two people of the same sex can have a romantic and/or sexual relationship without it being controversial in the 23rd century. When the script change was made there were plans to have some same-sex couples in the background, but the higher-ups killed that idea.
I give it three stars out of five.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews N
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“The Vengeance Factor” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“The Defector” See this for a plot summary.
This could have been a really good episode, if the defector had been commenting on the grip of the Tal Shiar (like the KGB) on Romulan society or more generally democratizing the Romulan state. It’s still good (the defector wanted peace between the Romulan state and the Federation), but would have been better if the cause was democracy.
At one point there was some brief dialogue which sounded supportive of the US Army when it was fighting/massacring Indians in the 1800s. That’s disappointing, but is the exception to the rule with ST.
I give it three stars out of five.
“The Hunted” See this for a plot summary.
What the state was doing with their soldiers, programming them, is extremely questionable. What’s even worse is how those soldiers were treated after the war. The state didn’t even try to reverse the programming.
When the Prime Minister tells Picrad that it’s a matter of internal security, Picard describes that as “the age old cry of the oppressor.”
“The High Ground” See this for a plot summary.
This episode looks at what is often called “Terrorism.”
Some of my thoughts about this are here, towards the bottom of the review for the episode “Defiant.”
Some other parts to point out:
1. Picard says “history has shown us that strength may be useless when faced with terrorism.” If he was talking about the sort of people who are better called Freedom Fighters instead of terrorists, I like that statement.
2. The Rutians were keeping track of people who took part in marches and general strikes in support of the goals of the Ensada(??) (the "terrorists"). Riker doesn’t seem too worried about that, which is unusual for ST.
3. When bombs accidentally kill civilians, for example republican bombs in N. Ireland, the fact that they were not intended to kill civilians should be considered when judging the organization responsible. It doesn’t make it less of a tragedy- those people are dead and their family and friends have suffered a great loss.
4. Data, after surveying armed rebellions, says that “terrorism” (his word, apparently for any kind of armed rebellion) is often effective at forcing political change. He refers to Irish unification in 2024. The Brits didn’t like that very much as this explains
I give it three stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“The Vengeance Factor” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“The Defector” See this for a plot summary.
This could have been a really good episode, if the defector had been commenting on the grip of the Tal Shiar (like the KGB) on Romulan society or more generally democratizing the Romulan state. It’s still good (the defector wanted peace between the Romulan state and the Federation), but would have been better if the cause was democracy.
At one point there was some brief dialogue which sounded supportive of the US Army when it was fighting/massacring Indians in the 1800s. That’s disappointing, but is the exception to the rule with ST.
I give it three stars out of five.
“The Hunted” See this for a plot summary.
What the state was doing with their soldiers, programming them, is extremely questionable. What’s even worse is how those soldiers were treated after the war. The state didn’t even try to reverse the programming.
When the Prime Minister tells Picrad that it’s a matter of internal security, Picard describes that as “the age old cry of the oppressor.”
“The High Ground” See this for a plot summary.
This episode looks at what is often called “Terrorism.”
Some of my thoughts about this are here, towards the bottom of the review for the episode “Defiant.”
Some other parts to point out:
1. Picard says “history has shown us that strength may be useless when faced with terrorism.” If he was talking about the sort of people who are better called Freedom Fighters instead of terrorists, I like that statement.
2. The Rutians were keeping track of people who took part in marches and general strikes in support of the goals of the Ensada(??) (the "terrorists"). Riker doesn’t seem too worried about that, which is unusual for ST.
3. When bombs accidentally kill civilians, for example republican bombs in N. Ireland, the fact that they were not intended to kill civilians should be considered when judging the organization responsible. It doesn’t make it less of a tragedy- those people are dead and their family and friends have suffered a great loss.
4. Data, after surveying armed rebellions, says that “terrorism” (his word, apparently for any kind of armed rebellion) is often effective at forcing political change. He refers to Irish unification in 2024. The Brits didn’t like that very much as this explains
I give it three stars out of five.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews M
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“The Bonding” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Booby Trap” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“The Enemy” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“The Price” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. But it does lay the basis for a Voyager episode about 5 years later.
I give it two stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“The Bonding” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Booby Trap” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“The Enemy” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“The Price” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. But it does lay the basis for a Voyager episode about 5 years later.
I give it two stars out of five.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews L
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Peak Perforrmance” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Shades of Gray” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Evolution” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“The Ensigns of Command” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“The Survivors” See this for a plot summary.
One bit of politics when Picard says that refusing to fight is a right, sort of a statement in favor of conscientous objectors, and maybe could be seen more broadly as anti-draft.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Who Watches The Watchers” See this for a plot summary.
This episode contained a fair amount of anti-religious stuff, although it could be interpreted as only being hostile to fundamentalists. I think there’s probably a large minority of religious people who do NOT take their religious beliefs that seriously- among the Christians they rarely if ever ask themselves “what would Jesus do?” (a lot of those asking that question would be progressives thinking about politics (I’ve even read something by an atheist who talked about this sort of thing from a progressive standpoint)). And they don’t beliieve in creationism (they probably believe in Intelligent Design, which is different from Creationism, or something else similar).
So, to whatever degree ST was using that episode to bash any form of religion (and it’s not very clear how far they were taking it) I disagree with that. I’m basically the sort of Christian I described above.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Peak Perforrmance” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Shades of Gray” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Evolution” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“The Ensigns of Command” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“The Survivors” See this for a plot summary.
One bit of politics when Picard says that refusing to fight is a right, sort of a statement in favor of conscientous objectors, and maybe could be seen more broadly as anti-draft.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Who Watches The Watchers” See this for a plot summary.
This episode contained a fair amount of anti-religious stuff, although it could be interpreted as only being hostile to fundamentalists. I think there’s probably a large minority of religious people who do NOT take their religious beliefs that seriously- among the Christians they rarely if ever ask themselves “what would Jesus do?” (a lot of those asking that question would be progressives thinking about politics (I’ve even read something by an atheist who talked about this sort of thing from a progressive standpoint)). And they don’t beliieve in creationism (they probably believe in Intelligent Design, which is different from Creationism, or something else similar).
So, to whatever degree ST was using that episode to bash any form of religion (and it’s not very clear how far they were taking it) I disagree with that. I’m basically the sort of Christian I described above.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews K
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Samaritan Snare” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Up The Long Ladder” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Manhunt” See this for a plot summary.
I hate saying this because the actor has been a significant part of ST, but I don’t like the episodes with the character Lwaxana Troi.
“The Emissary” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, but a good one. I like the idea of Klingons returning from a deep space assignment and not knowing about the peace between the Federation and the Klingons.
I give it four stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Samaritan Snare” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Up The Long Ladder” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Manhunt” See this for a plot summary.
I hate saying this because the actor has been a significant part of ST, but I don’t like the episodes with the character Lwaxana Troi.
“The Emissary” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, but a good one. I like the idea of Klingons returning from a deep space assignment and not knowing about the peace between the Federation and the Klingons.
I give it four stars out of five.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews J
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Time Squared” See this for a ploy summary
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“The Icarus Factor” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Pen Pals” See this for a plot summary.
One small political thing. At the beginning, Picard, who is a horse enthusiast says: “the Arabs believe that Allah gathered the south wind and made the horse.” Considering the multiculturalism of ST, this is a good statement against anti-Arab and anti-muslim bigotry.
Besides that it’s one of the worst episodes I’ve seen (it’s possible that’s because of the little alien girl). I give it one star out of five
“Q Who?” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. But it is the first time the Borg are encountered, so that’s good. I give it three stars out of five
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Time Squared” See this for a ploy summary
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“The Icarus Factor” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Pen Pals” See this for a plot summary.
One small political thing. At the beginning, Picard, who is a horse enthusiast says: “the Arabs believe that Allah gathered the south wind and made the horse.” Considering the multiculturalism of ST, this is a good statement against anti-Arab and anti-muslim bigotry.
Besides that it’s one of the worst episodes I’ve seen (it’s possible that’s because of the little alien girl). I give it one star out of five
“Q Who?” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. But it is the first time the Borg are encountered, so that’s good. I give it three stars out of five
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews I
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“The Measure of a Man” See this for a plot summary.
This could be a political episode, but I’m not interested in the rather philosophical question- is Data sentient?
I give it three stars out of five.
“The Dauphin” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Contagion” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“The Royale” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“The Measure of a Man” See this for a plot summary.
This could be a political episode, but I’m not interested in the rather philosophical question- is Data sentient?
I give it three stars out of five.
“The Dauphin” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Contagion” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“The Royale” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews H
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Loud as a Whisper” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“The Schizoid Man” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, although I missed about half because of the DVD having problems. I give it two stars out of five.
“Unnatural Selection” See this for a plot summary.
Could barely watch because of problems with the DVD. Might try again later.
UPDATE 1/6/12 I have now seen this episode (for the first time since about 6 years ago). It's non-political, although there is one thing to mention. It partly involves genetically created (not engineered) children. I imagine that genetically created is the sort of thing that the movie Gattaca is about. Is that considered acceptable in the Federation when genetic ENGINEERING isn't?
I give it four stars out of five.
“A Matter of Honor” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I like the idea of Riker serving on a Klingon ship. I give it four stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Loud as a Whisper” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“The Schizoid Man” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, although I missed about half because of the DVD having problems. I give it two stars out of five.
“Unnatural Selection” See this for a plot summary.
Could barely watch because of problems with the DVD. Might try again later.
UPDATE 1/6/12 I have now seen this episode (for the first time since about 6 years ago). It's non-political, although there is one thing to mention. It partly involves genetically created (not engineered) children. I imagine that genetically created is the sort of thing that the movie Gattaca is about. Is that considered acceptable in the Federation when genetic ENGINEERING isn't?
I give it four stars out of five.
“A Matter of Honor” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I like the idea of Riker serving on a Klingon ship. I give it four stars out of five.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews G
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Conspiracy” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“The Neutral Zone” See this for a plot summary.
As far as politcs go, there’s some talk about how humans in the Federation are very different from many humans in the last century. It’s explained that hunger has been ended, greed is no longer an issue, etc.
I also like this episode because it’s the first time we hear about the Borg (I’m certain that it’s the Borg who are responsible for the destruction along the Demilitarized Zone).
I give it three stars out of five.
“The Child” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Where Silence Has Lease” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give two stars out of five.
“Elementary, Dear Data” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give two stars out of five.
“The Outrageous Okona” See this for a plot summary.
This is fairly non-political. I give it three stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Conspiracy” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“The Neutral Zone” See this for a plot summary.
As far as politcs go, there’s some talk about how humans in the Federation are very different from many humans in the last century. It’s explained that hunger has been ended, greed is no longer an issue, etc.
I also like this episode because it’s the first time we hear about the Borg (I’m certain that it’s the Borg who are responsible for the destruction along the Demilitarized Zone).
I give it three stars out of five.
“The Child” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Where Silence Has Lease” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give two stars out of five.
“Elementary, Dear Data” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give two stars out of five.
“The Outrageous Okona” See this for a plot summary.
This is fairly non-political. I give it three stars out of five.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews F
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Arsenal of Freedom” See this for a plot summary.
Generally non-political, but could be interpreted as hostile to the defense industry.
Another aspect of it is one of the funniest things I’ve heard in an ST episode. When Riker is asked about his ship (the Enterprise) he says it’s the “Lollipop”- and then adds “it’s a good ship.”
I give it three stars out of five.
“Symbiosis” See this for a plot summary.
This reminds me of the allegations that the CIA was involved with crack flooding black communities in the 80s. I read a pretty convincing book by Gary Webb called “Dark alliance: the CIA, the Contras, and the crack cocaine explosion.” That is significantly different from what happens in this episode but it still reminds me of the CIA/crack story.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Skin of Evil” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, but it’s also the one where Tasha Yar dies. Since she died before the show got better, I can’t say I really care about her being killed.
I give it two stars out of five.
“We’ll Always Have Paris” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Arsenal of Freedom” See this for a plot summary.
Generally non-political, but could be interpreted as hostile to the defense industry.
Another aspect of it is one of the funniest things I’ve heard in an ST episode. When Riker is asked about his ship (the Enterprise) he says it’s the “Lollipop”- and then adds “it’s a good ship.”
I give it three stars out of five.
“Symbiosis” See this for a plot summary.
This reminds me of the allegations that the CIA was involved with crack flooding black communities in the 80s. I read a pretty convincing book by Gary Webb called “Dark alliance: the CIA, the Contras, and the crack cocaine explosion.” That is significantly different from what happens in this episode but it still reminds me of the CIA/crack story.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Skin of Evil” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, but it’s also the one where Tasha Yar dies. Since she died before the show got better, I can’t say I really care about her being killed.
I give it two stars out of five.
“We’ll Always Have Paris” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews E
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“When the Bough Breaks” See this for a plot summary.
There’s a little bit of politics in this one, as it refers the depletion of the Ozone layer on Earth in the 21st century.
Overall I give it two stars out of five.
“Home Soil” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Coming of Age” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
”Heart of Glory” See this for a plot summary.
This episode discusses how Worf was treated poorly by the Federation residents of the planet he grew up on. On the other hand, the two Klingons gave him a hard time because of his associating with the Federation.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“When the Bough Breaks” See this for a plot summary.
There’s a little bit of politics in this one, as it refers the depletion of the Ozone layer on Earth in the 21st century.
Overall I give it two stars out of five.
“Home Soil” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Coming of Age” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
”Heart of Glory” See this for a plot summary.
This episode discusses how Worf was treated poorly by the Federation residents of the planet he grew up on. On the other hand, the two Klingons gave him a hard time because of his associating with the Federation.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews D
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Datalore” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Angel One” See this for a plot summary.
This is a fairly political episode. It’s about a matriarchal society where males are considered stupid and are denied the vote. It’s sort of illustrating for men what women have gone through during many centuries and across most of Earth. One of the planet’s leaders label those who dissent “anarchists.”
Lastly, it also includes the Federation’s opposition to the death penalty.
I give it three stars out of five.
“11001001” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Too Short A Season” See this for a plot summary.
The political aspect of this episode is the issue of giving weapons to one or both sides in a conflict. I’d say that this is always a bad idea, considering which States are manufacturing weapons (and ships, planes, etc.). I imagine South Africa might be closest to being ethical arms dealers. In general, the world needs less arms and arms dealers are fairly repulsive (for more of my thoughts on that see this where I discuss the episode “Business As Usual”).
When I think of anyone selling/giving arms to both sides in a conflict, that is a horrible idea. Sometimes giving arms to one side (for example the Soviet Union giving training and arms to the ANC’s military wing) is good, but aiding both sides simply results in a longer war with all that that entails.
I give it two stars out of five.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews C
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“The Battle” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give two stars out of five.
“Hide and Q” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give one star out of five.
“Haven” See this for a plot summary.
It’s explained that in decades past, a planet was engulfed in a war between two groups of people. At one point, one side used biological weapons, which killed or at least infected much of the population they were aimed at. But the side that used biological weapons ended up getting infected too and almost all humanoid life on the planet died. Just one more reason why every nation on Earth should get rid of WMD. My thoughts on WMD are here, while discussing the episode “Armageddon Game.”
I give it two stars out of five.
“The Big Goodbye” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“The Battle” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give two stars out of five.
“Hide and Q” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give one star out of five.
“Haven” See this for a plot summary.
It’s explained that in decades past, a planet was engulfed in a war between two groups of people. At one point, one side used biological weapons, which killed or at least infected much of the population they were aimed at. But the side that used biological weapons ended up getting infected too and almost all humanoid life on the planet died. Just one more reason why every nation on Earth should get rid of WMD. My thoughts on WMD are here, while discussing the episode “Armageddon Game.”
I give it two stars out of five.
“The Big Goodbye” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews B
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“The last Outpost” See this for a plot summary.
This is a fairly political episode. We meet the Ferengi and get some more information about them. They’re uber-Capitalists and sexists. My thoughts about them are in this post when I discuss the episode “A Man Alone.” Riker says that Ferengis are just like Humans on Earth several centuries earlier.
One complaint. Having watched DS9, which uses Ferengi for laughs and which makes it clear that there are VERY few Ferengis who are skilled in combat, it’s kind of annoying to see them portrayed most of the time on TNG as aggressive and violent.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Where No One Has Gone Before” See this for a plot summary.
In general a non-political episode, but there is, for the second time, a reference to a human colony that’s not part of the Federation and that has a major problem with “rape gangs.”
I give it one star out of five.
“Lonely Among Us” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Justice” See this for a plot summary.
One bit of politics is that Picard explains how the Federation doesn’t sentence criminals to death. On the other hand, he says that using the death penalty was ended in connection with progress towards eliminating crime by some investigative method that ID’ed potential criminals (we’re left to assume that therapy or something is used to turn such people away from criminality). So it’s more or less not saying that the death penalty is wrong today or in recent years, but that’s probably just some bad writing- elsewhere it’s made very clear that Starfleet is against the death penalty.
I give it two stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“The last Outpost” See this for a plot summary.
This is a fairly political episode. We meet the Ferengi and get some more information about them. They’re uber-Capitalists and sexists. My thoughts about them are in this post when I discuss the episode “A Man Alone.” Riker says that Ferengis are just like Humans on Earth several centuries earlier.
One complaint. Having watched DS9, which uses Ferengi for laughs and which makes it clear that there are VERY few Ferengis who are skilled in combat, it’s kind of annoying to see them portrayed most of the time on TNG as aggressive and violent.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Where No One Has Gone Before” See this for a plot summary.
In general a non-political episode, but there is, for the second time, a reference to a human colony that’s not part of the Federation and that has a major problem with “rape gangs.”
I give it one star out of five.
“Lonely Among Us” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Justice” See this for a plot summary.
One bit of politics is that Picard explains how the Federation doesn’t sentence criminals to death. On the other hand, he says that using the death penalty was ended in connection with progress towards eliminating crime by some investigative method that ID’ed potential criminals (we’re left to assume that therapy or something is used to turn such people away from criminality). So it’s more or less not saying that the death penalty is wrong today or in recent years, but that’s probably just some bad writing- elsewhere it’s made very clear that Starfleet is against the death penalty.
I give it two stars out of five.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews A
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Encounter at Far Point” Parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary
From what I remember, most episodes the first three seasons of TNG more or less sucked. This series premiere gets that trend going.. I could probably write several pages worth of things that annoyed me, here’s a summary:
1. Although I can’t put my finger on it, Picard and Riker annoy me.
2. A lot of the dialogue was flawed.
3. They talk about the Ferengi as if they’re even more war-like than the Klingons. This continues through most of TNG until the Ferengi are given a much friendlier role on DS9.
4. I don’t like Q episodes in general.
5. It referred to Farpoint as some far-off place. But the Enterprise gets there very fast.
6. In the marketplace scene, it seemed like about 75% of the extras walking around are dressed as Starfleet members. What’s that about?
In general I just didn’t like it.
There is a bit of politics in the sense that humanity’s dark side (in the past) is discussed, although the specifics barely went beyond vague references to wars.
I give it 1 star out of five, and the only reason I give it that much is that it kicks off what becomes a good series that results in the creation of my two favorite series.
“The Naked Now” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.
“Code of Honor” See this for a plot summary
One bit of politics. In the alien race's society women are not treated equally with men.
I give it one star out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Encounter at Far Point” Parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary
From what I remember, most episodes the first three seasons of TNG more or less sucked. This series premiere gets that trend going.. I could probably write several pages worth of things that annoyed me, here’s a summary:
1. Although I can’t put my finger on it, Picard and Riker annoy me.
2. A lot of the dialogue was flawed.
3. They talk about the Ferengi as if they’re even more war-like than the Klingons. This continues through most of TNG until the Ferengi are given a much friendlier role on DS9.
4. I don’t like Q episodes in general.
5. It referred to Farpoint as some far-off place. But the Enterprise gets there very fast.
6. In the marketplace scene, it seemed like about 75% of the extras walking around are dressed as Starfleet members. What’s that about?
In general I just didn’t like it.
There is a bit of politics in the sense that humanity’s dark side (in the past) is discussed, although the specifics barely went beyond vague references to wars.
I give it 1 star out of five, and the only reason I give it that much is that it kicks off what becomes a good series that results in the creation of my two favorite series.
“The Naked Now” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.
“Code of Honor” See this for a plot summary
One bit of politics. In the alien race's society women are not treated equally with men.
I give it one star out of five.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Star Trek: Voyager Reviews KK
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
“Friendship One” See this for a plot summary.
I’m having some trouble deciding what the political aspect of this episode is. It could be about using certain energy sources without the right controls, or using them at all (in this episode it involves anti-matter, but you could interpret this episode as being anti-nuclear power). I don’t know anything about matter and anti-matter, but it seems like in the ST universe it’s a safe enough source of energy. I wouldn’t be surprised if the problem was that the knowledge they recieved from the probe was radically ahead of where they were technologically and they skipped a few steps- steps which might have resulted in them avoiding the accident.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Natural Law” See this for a plot summary.
This episode has a lot to say about technologically advanced societies not treating indigenous people (at least those who live in a traditional way) with respect for their culture. It also illustrates how many from the advanced society will think that invading an indigenous society and radically changing it is good for the indigenous people.
For some reason I’m having trouble describing this episode better than I have, so I’ll just leave it at that. I give it three stars out of five.
“Homestead” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Renaissance Man” See this for a plot summary.
A non-politiccal episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Endgame” parts 1 and 2. See this and this for a plot summary.
A non-political two-parter, but one that deserves some comment since it’s the series finale. Looking at the series finales for each of the 1990s series, I think this one is the best of the three.
I give it five stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
“Friendship One” See this for a plot summary.
I’m having some trouble deciding what the political aspect of this episode is. It could be about using certain energy sources without the right controls, or using them at all (in this episode it involves anti-matter, but you could interpret this episode as being anti-nuclear power). I don’t know anything about matter and anti-matter, but it seems like in the ST universe it’s a safe enough source of energy. I wouldn’t be surprised if the problem was that the knowledge they recieved from the probe was radically ahead of where they were technologically and they skipped a few steps- steps which might have resulted in them avoiding the accident.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Natural Law” See this for a plot summary.
This episode has a lot to say about technologically advanced societies not treating indigenous people (at least those who live in a traditional way) with respect for their culture. It also illustrates how many from the advanced society will think that invading an indigenous society and radically changing it is good for the indigenous people.
For some reason I’m having trouble describing this episode better than I have, so I’ll just leave it at that. I give it three stars out of five.
“Homestead” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Renaissance Man” See this for a plot summary.
A non-politiccal episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Endgame” parts 1 and 2. See this and this for a plot summary.
A non-political two-parter, but one that deserves some comment since it’s the series finale. Looking at the series finales for each of the 1990s series, I think this one is the best of the three.
I give it five stars out of five.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)