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 Sword of Kahless” See this for a plot summary
A very non-political episode, but a good one, I give it two stars out of five.
“Our Man Bashir” See this for a plot summary
A very non-political episode, but a good one. I give it four stars out of five.
“Homefront” and “Paradise Lost” See this and this for a plot summary
A very political two-parter. It’s largely about preserving democracy and freedom while a nation battles an external enemy.
I think the methods adopted early in the two-parter are okay. The sweeping of certain areas with phaser fire seems like a good idea, although as Sisko’s dad pointed out, the blood tests were not worth the trouble. I have mixed feelings about soldiers on the streets in that situation, although they were thinking a Jem’Hadar invasion could be imminent, so that kind of justifies it.
The admiral’s belief that Starfleet should take over is obviously undemocratic- his claim that it wouldn’t be a dictatorship is ridiculous. Democracy makes nations stronger, it motivates the people to do their best when they’re fighting for democracy.
It’s important to avoid destroying a democracy in order to save a democracy. There are reasonable measures depending on the context that I would support even though they erode democracy and/or freedom. Even better, there are measures that can be taken when a threat increases that don’t erode democracy or freedom at all- many of the measures taken in relation to air-travel security since 9/11 are in that category, as was the suspension of flight for a brief period after 9/11. But many others, including much of the Patriot Act have significantly eroded democracy.
(I can't remember exactly what I was thinking when I wrote the second sentence of the paragraph above. I sort of want to walk it back some and offer as an example, how during WWII the British should have had at least one general election and didn't have any between 1936 and 1944. But they DID have a government of national unity including both Labour and the Tories)
Overall a good two-parter, I give it four stars out of five.
No comments:
Post a Comment