Star Trek: SNW Reviews C

I am now starting to do “reviews” of episodes of the new Star Trek series “Strange New Worlds.” Unlike earlier ST review posts this time I’ll be doing, at least MOST of the time, one relatively long essay for a single episode that merits some significant commentary (I wouldn’t be surprised if out of a final total of 46 episodes I’ll do one or two posts that are very brief). I’ll be focusing almost exclusively on the political aspects of the episodes but will usually not comment on the pervasive multiculturalism and gender equality of ST.

“Ghosts of Illyria” Episode Three, Season One. See this for a plot summary. 

This raises the issue of genetic engineering, something I wrote about very briefly in a couple of  places here. I should be more familiar with the Star Trek aspect of this issue- there’s a two part novel about the “Eugenics Wars” and I read the first part about 30 years ago and then, about 10 years ago after I lost that book I bought the second book and then recently bought the first one. I remember very little about the first one, and not well enough that I would like to type up any kind of book report on it. I think that in a couple years or so I will read them both and then type up something on this blog. In the next paragraph I’ll repeat what I DO remember from different sources about the Eugenics Wars.

The EW took place at some point in the 1990s (of ST lore) and I believe they were not a truly global war but took the form of relatively isolated conflicts here and there throughout the globe, unlike WWII which consumed practically all of the European area, and practically all of the Pacific area but practically nowhere else. There was one scientific creator of the augments but they were separated after they were born and joined up many years later. They were advanced in many neurological and physical ways. Somehow they developed into a small movement and might have initially spoken of being for good, but ended up being autocratic, narcissistic, and bloodthirsty. They started many military conflicts and 30-35 million people were killed. They were eventually, somehow, stopped (probably at great mortal cost to democratic forces) and the surviving augments fled Earth. (The fact that they were initially said (by characters in the future) to have taken place in the 1990s is one reason I thought that at some point around 15 years ago maybe ST should have rebooted as the two different histories (reality and Star Trek) conflicted more and more)

In response to this history, the Federation bans genetic engineering, but in DS9 and in this series (beginning with this episode) those in charge of ST in recent decades seem to be saying that maybe it’s not that bad after all. In DS9 Dr. Bashir (a main character) and the station’s Chief Medical Officer is allowed to continue serving AFTER it’s discovered that he was engineered. In general I like that character, but an argument could be made that someone with that background shouldn’t be given room to become some kind of Dr. Frankenstein considering the power he had over medical stuff. I think there’s a conflict between that part of DS9 and most of the EW stuff in ST. Although I can’t remember any details about this in the SNW context except what there is in this episode, I know that Captain Pike defends Chin-Riley (his engineered second in command) when StarFleet comes after her.

Is this mostly new attitude towards genetic engineering reasonable? I don’t think so. I think it’s best said by Spock in “Space Seed” (The Original Series) when he says that “superior ability breeds superior ambition.” Some would say that *I* lack ambition and that’s why I’m saying this. To a small degree I kind of DO lack ambition, although I have some and I think it’s a healthy amount. The thing is, someone who probably CAN be among the very best leaders in a technical sense because of their enhanced abilities will probably think that they deserve to be THE leader at the very top, by any means necessary and with no democratic checks or balances on their power and such people will fight any democratic resistance to this and will fight, with bad effects for anyone nearby, other similar rivals.

Star Trek: SNW Reviews B

I am now starting to do “reviews” of episodes of the new Star Trek series “Strange New Worlds.” Unlike earlier ST review posts this time I’ll be doing, at least MOST of the time, one relatively long essay for a single episode that merits some significant commentary (I wouldn’t be surprised if out of a final total of 46 episodes I’ll do one or two posts that are very brief). I’ll be focusing almost exclusively on the political aspects of the episodes but will usually not comment on the pervasive multiculturalism and gender equality of ST. 

 

“Children of the Comet” Episode Two, Season One. See this for a plot summary.

Although I’m not going to comment on the dialogue, etc. much, this episode contains a lot of stuff about being open-minded about other faiths. I AM going to say a few things about how in general I believe in taking a very open-minded and/or inclusive approach to religion.

I should first explain a few things about me. I was Catholic since either baptism or not many years after that and now, at the age of 50, I am early in the process of converting to a Protestant Church (the Episcopalian Church). I am doing that primarily because of the situation with the role of women in the Catholic Church (they can’t be priests) and to a lesser degree because of the abortion issue, my belief that homosexuality is not a sin, and my anger about the sex abuse scandal. If it were just 1-2 of those four, I probably would have stayed in the Catholic Church as my late mother would probably prefer. But I have to leave. I did briefly consider leaving Christianity but I have no reason to stop believing that Christ was the Son of God. My fiancé identifies partly as Jewish and largely as Buddhist.

I should be more familiar with Buddhism but I am not and I believe there is some debate about whether or not it is a religion like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism, etc. are religions. So I will not be including it in this essay.

So, one aspect of this issue of religious ecumenism is something I have thought of recently. I wrote in July of this year, in an email to another Protestant Church:

“I probably should study the Bible more before I say this, but I believe that the God I believe in is the same as the God that theist Jewish people believe in and is the same as the God that Muslims believe in. I’m not sure how to alter that statement in favor of inclusion for all the other religions, but if it’s possible to believe that we all see some of our faith in other faiths, or something like that, I’d like to say that.”

(When I write about religion and it’s relevant I often forget to mention that the Druze- a Middle-Eastern religion that incorporates some of Judaism, some of islam, and some of Christianity- are Abrahamic (a term that refers collectively to the religions I refer to in that quote))

I was saying something perhaps better than a similar statement I used to make earlier- that I’d like to add, for example, Hinduism and American Indian faith, to that first sentence if possible. What I may have figured out as I was typing that in July is that wanting to say that I pray to the same God as non-Abrahamic religions is probably a flawed approach in general and I think worse or much worse than that when it comes to the two examples I mention above. Hinduism is polytheistic while Judaism, Christianity and Islam are monotheistic and I simply need to accept that and find some other way of establishing some kind of religious fellowship as a Christian with Hindus. They probably feel just as passionately about their religion as Christians do and it is mathematically impossible for me to believe in the same God(/Gods???######%% as they do (if I make the statement “I believe in the same God that Hindus do” that doesn’t work, and neither does “I believe in the same Gods that Hindus do” and I was thinking of a computer trying to square that circle and smoke coming out of it). It might be even worse when it comes to the American Indian faith. First, I think I’m a lot less familiar with that than I am with Hinduism. And considering that what White Americans have done to Natives is MUCH worse than what Americans have done to Hindus (a big part of my BA is Native American Studies, and I know that we have not, for example, bombed India, or forced them to accept heroin, or something really imperialistic like that), I think it might be even more inappropriate (than what I said about trying to embrace Hinduism) for White American Christians like me to express a desire to put our hands on American Indian faith as if part of it is partly ours (true, I would be doing that in the spirit of it going both ways, but I think American Indians have been asked and “asked” to believe in Christianity enough times already).

As far as the second sentence in the quoted statement above, I have less to say. I am not as familiar with Christianity as I would have to be if I wanted to write a lot about that and I am of course much less familiar with other religions, ESPECIALLY those that aren’t Abrahamic. I’m also not sure which religions I would include besides Hinduism and American Indian faith. I imagine that if I took a shallow but still deeper look at Hinduism and American Indian faith I would find some common themes with Christianity- about “brotherhood” or peace for example (I put “brotherhood” in quotes because I and many people take that concept and make it broader when we apply our religious documents to the real world). It might make sense to say that Christian Churches very committed to environmentalism would find some commonality with aspects of American Indian faith, although that approach, counting a POLITICAL division of Christianity as if it’s a theological division, might be flawed.

There is one more non-Abrahamic religion I’d like to briefly mention. The Yazidis are a religious community in northern Iraq and although I just read a Google AI fact-sheet about them, I’m going to kind of ignore that because I don’t consider it a good source. The thing is, some religious people, including extremists, have labelled them devil-worshippers. They have historically experienced persecution and in 2014 the Islamist group based in Syria ISIS (also known as Islamic State) attacked the Yazidis in Iraq in a way that was (to one degree or another) genocidal, killing hundreds of thousands, enslaving thousands of women and girls, and driving off more. I am a little concerned about the devil-worship accusations, but A) that has never stopped me from being horrified by what happened in 2014, and B) I am open-minded that the spirit of inclusion should be extended to them even IF they are devil-worshippers. And by “spirit of inclusion” I don’t mean just opposing their persecution and being horrified by the genocide. I mean inviting them as friends to religiously ecumenical conferences, etc.; celebrating intermarriage, etc.

The episode that triggered this is largely about atheists accepting the legitimacy of other beliefs about a deity (StarFleet was, at that point early in Federation history probably more human than it was later on and probably more atheist since it didn’t include a lot of aliens with religions that the various creators of ST allowed them to have (i.e. the Bajorans)). I am, to one large degree or another, fine with atheists in general. I have a problem with the New Atheists but I should say that I doubt that many of the various creators of ST are or were New Atheists- as I say, they don’t totally eradicate religion among characters you’re supposed to like (i.e. the second-in-command of the space station on Deep Space Nine (main character!), Kira Nerys, who was a devout follower of the Bajoran faith). I did write an essay about New Atheists about 4 years ago here.                          
               

Besides the last item below this, that is it for this review. I believe that as much as possible, religious people should be ecumenical and interact with each other in a open-minded, curious and respectful spirit. Some times that might not work (possibly with the Yazidis and possibly in some other situations) but even in those situations, the goal should be a campaign of non-compulsory conversion that is as respectful as possible (i.e. don’t go anywhere near eradicating all traces of the unsuccessful religion, which would be a lot more than slightly genocidal and might make things even more traumatic for those who do convert).

At the end of the episode, Captain Pike looks up (on the computer) a small group of future StarFleet officers who are special to him (he has seen his future and they are involved). One of the five names is Muliq Al Alcazar, a Muslim name (that’s the subtitled version- I get the impression from Google that it’s not a common spelling, but I also get the impression from Google that it is a Muslim name). It’s not the first time we’ve had the appearance of Islam on ST- the Muslim world made a much bigger splash with Julian Bashir (almost definitely an atheist with Muslim ancestors (his parents briefly appear, but as far as we know they are also devout atheists with Muslim ancestors)), a main character on Deep Space Nine. It’s true that we don’t know for sure that his heritage was Muslim, but the vast majority of Arabs are Muslims, so it’s reasonable to assume that his ancestors were and although the show says nothing about that, that could be because the human characters are all atheists- a lot of viewers of the show, including those whose opinion of Muslims was improved by the show, very likely assumed that his ancestors were Muslims) (Wired magazine ranked him 25th from the top out of 100 important ST characters). On The Next Generation, Picard makes a brief comment that is respectful of Islam. I’m sure there’s about 5-10 other examples as minor as what Picard said that I can’t remember and probably 1-2 more recurring characters that I can’t remember. But in the last 10-24 years we have had more or much more islamaphobia in this country than we had in the 1990s and I believe that this sort of thing that ST does can help address that, in a small way.

Support Starbucks Strikers and Oppose Racism

UPDATE 11/13/25 Although I could explain why this is less damning of me than most would think, I got it wrong- it's an indefinite strike. BOYCOTT STARBUCKS! 

 

Below is a guest opinion I got published in the Daily Camera Wednesday the 12th. Thursday the 13th is the strike. What they published is here. There is an even longer essay focusing on my theory about unions and racism here.

 Tom

 

On Nov. 13th many Starbucks workers, hopefully thousands, will strike for one day and you can support them by not buying from Starbucks during the strike. Although, nationwide, more than 12,000 workers there are represented by Starbucks Workers United, the company has, for four years now, barely come close to engaging in the legally mandated collective bargaining process where a contract is negotiated.

As the City of Boulder, and to lesser degree Boulder County, become more and more middle-class, it’s unclear how many readers are pro-union. I’m not sure how many readers will be swayed by talk about health care benefits, wages, and respect for unskilled workers on the job, three of the several issues on which unions do great things for the workers they represent. Consider that, to one degree or another unions often play a critical role in getting Democrats elected- not in Boulder, of course, but in more working-class places whose elected Dems contribute, for example, to their leader becoming Speaker of the House. Unions also can play a crucial role in making a workplace more democratic (as you might call it) when it comes to equity for women, people of color, LGBTQ+ folks, and religious minorities.

There is one aspect of this issue that I am very passionate about and which I believe will resonate with the more middle-class Boulder liberal readers who think unions do nothing for them. I believe that unions, inside and outside the workplace, help stop or at least slow and reverse the spread of racism in the white working-class. The labor movement overall became very anti-racist with John Sweeney as President of the AFL-CIO from 1995 to 2009 and with subsequent AFL-CIO leadership. I believe that if, after 1995, the unionization rate hadn’t continued it’s long decline and had instead increased, Donald Trump would have been defeated in the Electoral College in 2016, 2020 and 2024.

Although I’m sure there is something similar in the statements of the American labor movement I have rarely heard of them and this theory I have was initially inspired by an analysis of the conflict in Northern Ireland. In a column included in a 1998 collection of his work in previous decades, Northern Ireland journalist Eamonn McCann wrote that the labor movement had the most potential to eradicate religious bigotry in N. Ireland. He wrote: “No other institution brings Catholic and Protestant workers together on a regular basis in pursuit of a common purpose, which is antipathetic to sectarianism.” McCann’s columns have been published by an average of 1-2 professionally staffed and edited publications (magazines or newspapers) at any given time in the last 40 years and he has held senior positions in Ireland’s labor movement in recent decades and he was one of the main leaders of the N. Ireland civil rights movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In 2016 he was elected to the N. Ireland Assembly and in 2019 he was elected (from a very progressive and very working-class urban district) to the local government of Derry and Strabane. He is an expert on fighting sectarianism in N. Ireland and believes that organized labor has a crucial role to play.

Many people believe there are great similarities between the conflict in N. Ireland during The Troubles and the conflict over racism in the United States. This includes people like Angela Y. Davis and, in 1972, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. I believe unions here play a role in combating racism and that that can be greater when the unionization rate returns to where it was before it's decline began about five decades ago. If racist working-class whites see multicultural, anti-racist unions negotiating collective bargaining agreements that help them, many will start to question racism.

Unfortunately, many fiscally moderate and conservative Democrats refuse to vote in favor of strengthening unions. I’m sure these Democrats are alarmed at the rise of Donald Trump and at the existence of the Proud Boys. What’s more important to them: protecting capitalism or fighting racism?

Please support the Nov. 13th Starbucks strike.

(I am more a supporter of Sinn Fein than I am a supporter of Eamonn McCann, but he is the one who made that statement) 

Star Trek: SNW Reviews A

I am now starting to do “reviews” of episodes of the new Star Trek series “Strange New Worlds.” Unlike earlier ST review posts this time I’ll be doing, at least MOST of the time, one relatively long essay for a single episode that merits some significant commentary (I wouldn’t be surprised if out of a final total of 46 episodes I’ll do one or two posts that are very brief). I’ll be focusing almost exclusively on the political aspects of the episodes but will usually not comment on the pervasive multiculturalism and gender equality of ST.

“Strange New Worlds” Episode One, Season One. See this for a plot summary.

This episode promises that the series will be roughly as political and progressive as most ST TV episodes are. I’ll get to the more important and general topics in a minute. One minor thing is that there are wind generators conspicuously visible in the background of a scene on Earth.

The main issues are war, civil war (of the sort that we face at this point in America), and Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Elsewhere I have gotten slightly long-winded about WMD. Bearing in mind that I didn’t come up with that term, it’s true that only one is INCREDIBLY DESTRUCTIVE, but they are all united by how indiscriminate they are or at least can be (it just occurred to me that Anthrax in an envelope might not be that indiscriminate, but Anthrax (for example) in the water supply is pretty horrible). Chemical weapons are totally indiscriminate although the non-persistent ones might not go far beyond a battlefield, but if that battlefield is populated, that’s a serious problem and the persistent ones are much worse. And I imagine a death from most of these weapons is worse than a death from a few bullets in the chest that kill you after an hour. Nukes are INCREDIBLY DESTRUCTIVE AND INDISCRIMINATE, most easily consume entire cities, there are some lasting and regional environmental problems, and radiation is a slow and painful killer. As far as the pinnacle of the nuclear threat (to humanity’s existence) you should read the book review I did here.                                       

The weapon developed by the aliens sounds very destructive- like it could easily destroy a StarFleet vessel. The idea of using such a weapon on the surface of a populated planet is horrifying.

In general I am very much against war, although I stop short of embracing pacifism. Some of my thoughts about war IN GENERAL can be found here and there in the posts here.

As far as the topic of a second civil war in this country… First, for the Trekkers out there, present and future, I have to point out that ST has shifted the date for the Eugenics Wars, I THINK for WWIII, and has now added an American second civil war, which apparently now all blend into each other. I kind of knew this sort of thing might happen- about 15 years ago I silently suggested ST should make a LOT of TV stuff and then, as there was more and more conflict between between the two histories (ST lore and reality) with the passage of time, just stop making ST, or reboot it possibly? 

Anyway, let me say some things about a second civil war here in reality. I sort of talked about this here, when I made a plea for, in some ways, partisan peace. There are probably a total of 2,000 more words scattered in different paragraphs on my blog that are relevant to this. I am not sure how you can find them, although probably about 15% of them are in a recent post here. Some times I think it might be becoming increasingly unavoidable, with Trump as President and the division that that means. His supporters simply do not believe the various sources that most of us (liberals and progressives/leftists) do and you cannot believe the things that people around Trump imply we support. That’s part of something that’s a big part of what’s wrong- there is no respect for the facts. I’m not saying that’s brand new or totally avoidable in politics, but it is much worse today than it usually is, and that worsening is 100% one-sided- CNN, for example, spends a HUGE amount of time fact-checking Trump, and spent about 5% as much time fact-checking Biden. I believe that there are some other fact-checkers out there that are also good and might possibly be more acceptable to Republicans (is it better if they’re NOT part of the media?). If it hadn’t just started requiring subscriptions I would, as I have in the past, strongly recommend the BBC News website- it’s WIDELY respected throughout the world, and it’s coverage of Northern Ireland 1997-2005 was close behind the Irish media in accuracy and not far behind how sensitive it was to the Irish perspective (if you know Anglo-Irish history and the early history of Northern Ireland, you’d understand the importance of that in coverage of The Troubles) (I say 1997-2005 because during that time each week I read an average of about 100 articles from Irish news sources (primarily the Irish News and the Irish Times) and about 25 articles from the BBC). GOPers would do a lot worse than getting their news there. I am not going to do an entire essay here on this topic and I think I have said all I have to say here about a possible second American civil war.

Trump’s “Great Escape” From Prisoner of War Empowerment

  (“The Great Escape” is a classic movie about Allied POWs in World War II) 

(The image is of Guantanamo Bay in Cuba during the early years of the War on Terror) 

 

Below is something I typed up and, since it was way too long to be a guest opinion, I turned it into a PDF pamphlet-like thing with some interesting format stuff that I can't reproduce here. I sent it to about 15 friends and relatives, about 10 Dem politicians, and two veterans groups that lean to the left and three that lean to the right. I sent it to the vets partly because I thought that a majority of them would represent a large chunk of those Americans who are either pro-Trump or are open-minded about him.

*********** 

Although as a progressive I had a mostly negative view of the late Sen. John McCain, when he was attacked in 2015 by President Trump in connection with McCain’s time as a Prisoner of War in Vietnam, I found Trump’s comment offensive. Trump said that McCain was not a war hero, which I agree with (Hugh Thompson was), but crucially also said that “I like people that weren't captured, okay?” (What does he think of American service members who were killed? In France in 2018 he allegedly referred to them as “losers”). Some of Trump’s supporters would probably say that it was in response to McCain calling Trump’s supporters “crazies.” But there are at least two statements indicating that Trump has always been quite hostile to McCain and I wouldn’t be surprised if that is because of the POW issue. For some bizarre reason, Trump seems to have never suffered much political damage from other Republicans for this.
 

There have been and are international agreements about the treatment of  POWs that make those protocols akin to human rights

I need to briefly state that I believe that what we did in Vietnam was wrong and I am to one moderate degree or another hostile to the US military. And that opinion of Vietnam is influenced not just by progressive analyses of the war, but also by a novel written by the late Vietnam veteran and (usually) hawkish fiction author Nelson DeMille.

There have been and are international agreements about the treatment of POWs that make those protocols akin to human rights and I think this partly reflects the fact that most supporters of, for example, the Allies in WWII, were concerned about the treatment of those captured by the Axis. In general this is probably influenced by the fact that POWs are, to one degree or another, vulnerable (they are physically defenseless and entirely dependent on their enemy captors for food, shelter, medical care, information, etc.).

The attachment that many in war have for their side’s POWs might also be inspired by the fact that many POWs respect their obligation to escape, and one benefit of this is that they tie down enemy forces far behind the front. (I have at least five movies about Allied POWs attempting escape)

I attended the 2002 National Conference of Sinn Fein Youth in Galway, Ireland and bought a shirt (at a SF bookstore in Derry) with an artist’s depiction of an attempted escape tunnel made by IRA prisoners (which said “WE ALMOST GOT AWAY, YOU KNOW” (an inside joke among republicans)). I told some of the kids about what I bought and when I mentioned that shirt one kid said “oh, yeah, my uncle was in on that!” In 1981 10 republicans (seven IRA, three INLA) died on hunger-strike demanding that they be treated as POWs. Many will say they were just terrorists with no popular support. They weren’t terrorists (see this) and when such critics examine more closely the facts surrounding the presence of 100,000 people at Bobby Sands’ funeral (see the middle 3rd, starting with “For about 5 years…” of this), they will know that the Hunger-Strike was a traumatic period for about 80% of the Catholic population in N. Ireland.

I do largely spend my time thinking about POWs focusing on the Allies, and the IRA, and the African National Congress, etc. but I also have my own (VHS) copy of “Hanoi Hilton” about US military pilots shot down over North Vietnam, and I believe that even the Waffen-SS in WWII deserved to be treated as POWs, etc.

As I said, these men and some women (probably especially the women) are (were) in harmful situations which could (have) become nightmares if their captors are (were) a state dismissive of POW rights and they end (ended) up with a psychotic jailer. Do I think they are (were) all heroes? I am far from totally objective and non-partisan and no, most of them are (were) not heroes. But I’m willing to bet that at least around half of them are (were) working-class or poor and very likely in a war that is (was) even more nightmarish than the very few ones I am tempted to call “good.” 

Was John McCain a hero? No, and I probably would have disagreed with about 80% of the votes he cast in the US Congress during his career. But Trump doesn’t understand the need to be at least concerned about the rights of those who get captured (IF his feelings about how POWs are treated reflects that concern he has had several convenient opportunities to express that and he has failed to do so). More critically, he frequently uses the word “loser” to describe McCain and this seems connected to the fact that the late US Senator was captured. McCain was, when he made Sarah Palin his 2008 running mate, a horrible person, but his time as a POW doesn’t mean he was a “loser.”

Some would say that Trump was motivated not by hostility to all American POWs but just hostility to McCain, but there is, in his own words, what he SAID (“I like people that weren't captured, okay?”), and there’s the consistency and intensity of his hostility for McCain, connected, in Trump’s own words, to the fact that he was a POW.

After wanting to do something like this for years, I finally wrote this essay now because a couple weeks ago I saw a bit of CNN video footage taken of the White House, and right below the American flag was the POW/MIA flag. I am sure that millions, maybe tens of millions of Americans who stand with that flag also vote for Trump, and these people would threaten physical violence if a Democrat said what Trump said about American POWs.