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.

 

UPDATE 3/27/26 Another reason I am so anti-Genetic Engineering is that I have a PhD in Genetics. No, I don’t  :  ). To be honest, the additional argument/source I have is a non-documentary movie. In the 1997 film “Gattaca,” we see a dystopian future where the first decade or three of genetic engineering has created a two-tier society reinforced by discrimination against those who aren’t engineered. The movie is about such a person who becomes successful anyway (by assuming the identity of someone with better genes), but I think it does an okay job of illustrating how bad things would be for the under-class. So, as I admitted earlier, I am not familiar with how fair or how unfair discrimination based on your genes would be. In the movie the guy who succeeds anyway is an example of how flawed a genes-based estimate of your ability/potential could be. And it just seems like such a bad thing the way the movie illustrates it. So, it does contribute to my hostility to both genetic engineering and the apparent softening of Star Trek’s opposition to that practice. 

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.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Reviews MM

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 It Rains...” See this for a plot summary.

This episode is partly about Section 31’s effort to spread an fatal infection throughout the Founders, something Bashir correctly identifies as genocide. Bashir and O’Brien are determined to find a cure, since Odo is infected as well.

There’s also more about the Cardassian resistance to the Dominion. Although it seems that many of the Cardassians involved are not democrats, it’s still sort of inspiring that they are fighting the Dominion. At the very least, it improves the odds of the Dominion being defeated. I also like how Kira is sent to help them, since she’s familiar with the sort of hit and run tactics they need to use. It reminds me of something I wrote in an earlier post here. I suggested that the IRA, instead of doing business with the Nazis, should have supported the Allied effort, and that could have included sending members to Nazi-occupied areas to train and advise resistance groups. It probably would have been very helpful and might have resulted in an earlier defeat for the Nazis. (I realize that if the IRA had done this it probably would have involved the British learning the identities of some IRA members, but if the IRA had done that (which would have been the right thing to do) after the war the IRA’s cause would have been a lot more popular)


“Tacking Into The Wind” See this for a plot summary.

Towards the end, Damar says something which probably means that he does believe in a democratic Cardassia. In response to another rebel Cardassian officer talking about restoring Cardassia to what it once was (an empire) Damar first kills him and then says “his Cardassia is dead and it won’t be coming back.”


“Extreme Measures” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a good one, I give it two stars out of five.


“The Dogs Of War” See this for a plot summary.

There are three political aspects to this episode:

1) First, Ferengi society and the Ferengi economy are dramatically transformed into something just to the right of social democracy.

2) When Odo confronts Sisko about how Section 31 tried to wipe out all/almost all changelings Sisko tells him that the Federation considered giving the cure to the Founders but chose not to because it would strengthen their hand while millions of men and women are still fighting against the Dominion. But wiping out the Changelings or at least about half of them, WOULD be genocide.

3) Damar’s rebellion on Cardassia takes on more of a popular, mass character, which is good. In that kind of situation armed attacks by small groups are helpful, but mass action is at least as important. As I explained here Irish republicans could have done a better job of mobilizing mass struggle during most of the conflict.


“What You Leave Behind, Parts One and Two” See this and this for a plot summary.

One bit of politics is that the rebellion on Cardassia takes on even more of a mass character as a work stoppage is planned.

It ends with Sisko as some kind of super-natural being, or at least an alien VERY different from a human (and apparently existing on a different plane of existance). I’m not crazy about that. Starfleet Captains should not be like that.

Overall a good end to the series, I give it three stars out of five.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Reviews LL

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).

“Penumbra” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a good one, I give it three stars out of five.


“’Til Death Do Us Part” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a good one, I give it three stars out of five.


“Strange Bedfellows” See this for a plot summary.

Since I have earlier explained that i don’t like Kai Winn (almost the entire series, she’s a conservative religious fundamentalist), I should say that although I’m not a big fan of the Pah-Wraith aspect of the last couple seasons, I do kind of like the idea of Winn following them. She’s so bad it’s easy to believe that she would go down that path.

Another aspect of politics for this episode is Damar turning against the Dominion. It kind of reminds me a bit of how the most threatening resistance to Hitler came from the military. I read somewhere that some of the officers involved did have good democratic politics and weren’t just rebelling because Hitler was losing the war and Germany was bound for destruction. The odds are that many of the Cardassians who join the rebellion have backgrounds in the movements for democracy on Cardassia. On the other hand, based on statements in the next episode, Damar seems unconcerned about democracy but upset about not being treated as a full-partner by the Founders, Vorta, Jem’Hadar and Breen.

Overall, though, a non-political episode. But a good one, I give it three stars out five.


“The Changing Face Of Evil” See this for a plot summary.

One thing I kept forgetting to bring up earlier is the holo-suite program Bashir and O’Brien use about the Alamo. At the very best it wasn’t a good choice by the creative staff. Although I can’t remember many details, and so far cannot find a VERY good source on the internet, the Texas Revolution was more or less part of the Westward expansion by white American settlers. ST should have gone with something else.

Besides that and further development of the Cardassian rebellion, a non-political episode. But a good one, I give it three stars out of five.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine 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).

“Field of Fire” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a good one, I give it three stars out of five.


“Chimera” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a good one, I give it two stars out of five.


“Badda-Bing Badda-Bang” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a fairly special one, I give it three stars out of five.

Sisko makes a good statement about racism in America in the 1960s, but Kassidy Yates makes a better statement.

Sisko: Las Vegas, 1962, that’s my problem. In 1962 black people weren’t very welcome there. Oh sure they could be performers or janitors, but customers, never.

Yates: Maybe that’s how it was in the real Vegas but that is not the way it is at Vic’s. I have never felt uncomfortable there and neither has Jake.

Sisko: But don’t you see, that’s the lie. in 1962 the civil rights movement was still in it’s infancy. It wasn’t an easy time for our people, and I’m not going to pretend that it was.

Yates: Baby, I know that Vic’s is not a totally accurate representation of the way things were. But it isn’t meant to be. It shows us the way things could have been, the way they should have been.

Sisko: We cannot ignore the truth about the past.

Yates: Going to Vic’s isn’t going to make us forget who we are or where we came from. What it does is remind us that we are no longer bound by any limitations. Except the ones we impose on ourselves


Sisko eventually joins the others to help Vic.


“Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges” See this for a plot summary.

A sort of non-political episode, but a good one, I give it two stars out of five.

The political part is the problems with Section 31's existence, which I briefly discuss here while discussing the episode "Inquisition."

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Reviews JJ

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).

“Covenant” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, I give it one star out of five (I’m not a fan of what ST does with the Dukat character since Deep Space Nine was re-taken by the Federation).


“It’s Only A Paper Moon” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a good one, I give it three stars out of five.


“Prodigal Daughter” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a good one, I give it two stars out of five.


“The Emperor’s New Cloak” See this for a plot summary.

A fairly non-political episode. One bit of politics is that two characters are bi-sexual. However, one is a villain and the other is pretty close to a villain, although at the end she becomes more or less a good guy (it’s possible the mirror universe Leeta is also non-heterosexual, but she appears only VERY briefly).

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Reviews II

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).

“Chrysalis” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a good one. I give it two stars out of five.


“Treachery, Faith, and the Great River” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a good one. I give it two stars out of five.


“Once More Unto The Breach” See this for a plot summary.

We hear some about the class nature of klingon society, how people who aren’t from the “right” families have limited opportunities.

A good episode, I give it three stars out five.

“The Siege Of AR-558” See this for a plot summary.

This is an episode that highlights how ugly war is. I like such episodes because, although sometimes it is justified, and/or helpful, and/or necessary, war is (I assume) horrible. There’s some good dialogue and the lighting (or lack of it) really high-lights how desperate the situation is.

There’s one scene where Dax brings up the ethics of using mines. Considering how they are often still buried after a conflict ends and they then often kill or seriously wound civilians, I think mines should be considered unacceptable as a weapon.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Reviews HH

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 Sound Of Her Voice” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a good one, I give it two stars out of five.


“Tears Of The Prophets” See this for a plot summary.

Although I really liked the Jadzia Dax character, I’m pretty much okay with her dying. It’s realistic if once in a while a main character is killed. Also, the character that replaced her is roughly as good.


“Image In The Sand” See this for a plot summary.

A pretty non-political episode, but we do meet Ezri Dax for the first time, and she makes the loss of Jadzia Dax easier for me.

I give it three stars out of five.


“Shadows And Symbols” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a good one, I give it three stars out of five.

“Afterimage” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a good one, I give it three stars out of five.

“Take Me Out To The Holo-Suite” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a good one. Baseball is one of two sports I still kind of enjoy watching and is the last sport I tried to play. So I like this episode. I give it three stars out of five.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine 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).

“The Reckoning” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a good one. I give it two stars out of five.


“Valiant” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a good one. I give it two stars out of five.


“Profit And Lace” See this for a plot summary.

Another episode about how women are treated in Ferengi society. And it starts with Quark threatening to fire a female employee if she doesn’t engage in a semi-sexual act with him.

The story of female Ferengis experiencing some small degree of equality instead of none is a good one, even though it’s in the context of Ferengi capitalism- it’s still good that they’re experiencing less inequality.

I give it three stars out of five.


“Time’s Orphan” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, I give it two stars out five.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine 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).

“Wrongs Darker Than Death Or Night” See this for a plot summary.

This illustrates an aspect of the Cardassian occupation of Bajor. It also illustrates an aspect of the genocidal nature of the occupation, as women were taken from their families and began new lives as “comfort women” for Cardassian officers. I agree with Kira’s attitude about it at the end.

“Inquisition” See this for a plot summary.

This episode is largely about witch-hunts of one kind or another, including political and McCarthyist ones and how intelligence agencies should have to answer to politicians. I discuss a related matter here when reviewing the two-parter “Homefront/Paradise Lost.” I would add that Section 31’s freedom from oversight and the fact that it’s existence is a closely-guarded secret are not good for democracy. We must not let democracy be destroyed in the course protecting it.

“In The Pale Moonlight” See this for a plot summary.

This episode raises some ethical questions about Sisko’s behavior. Considering that the Dominion were clearly imperialist and were almost definitely planning to attack the Romulans, I’m pretty much okay with what he did. I’m not sure about what Garak did, especially killing the guy who made the fake holo-recording.


“His Way” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a good one, I give it two stars out of five.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine 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).

“Far Beyond The Stars” See this for a plot summary.

A very special and political episode. It’s almost entirely a vision that Sisko has of his crew (and some other characters) as 1950s Americans. Sisko is a science fiction writer whose editor won’t publish his story about a Black Captain in outer space. There’s lots of dialogue about racism in America in the 1950s.

I give it four stars out of five.


“One Little Ship” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a very good one. I really like the idea of the ship, Dax, Bashir, and O’Brien becoming miniature and saving the crew of the Defiant. I give it four stars out of five.


“Honor Among Thieves” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a good one. I give it two stars out of five.


“Change of Heart” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a good one. I like the idea of Starfleet officers engaging in intelligence/covert-ops type stuff. I give it three stars out of five.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine 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).

“Statistical Probabilities” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.


“The Magnificent Ferengi” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a good one. I give it three stars out of five.


“Waltz” See this for a plot summary.

Generally a non-political episode, although there is an interesting dialogue about the Cardassian occupation of Bajor. I give it two stars out of five.


“Who Mourns For Morn?” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode- I give it three stars out of five.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine 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).

“Favor The Bold” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, I give it three stars out of five.


“Sacrifice of Angels” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, I give it three stars out of five.


“You Are Cordially Invited...” See this for a plot summary.

The Klingons are fairly xenophobic. Martok explains that some Klingons believe that “bringing aliens into our families we risk losing as our identities as Klingons.” He then also says “we don’t embrace other cultures, we conquer them.” This makes the marriage of Worf and Dax fairly significant in terms of the multi-cultural theme of ST. I generally skip this sort of thing (i.e. Bashir the human dating Leeta the Bajoran) because it’s very common in ST, but this relationship goes a bit further in terms of promoting multi-culturalism.

Besides that, a very non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.


“Resurrection” See this for a plot summary.

A mirror universe episode. I’m not a big fan of them, and this might be worse than the others. I give it two stars out of five.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine 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).

“In The Cards” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a good one, I give it three stars out five.


“Call To Arms” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a good one, it starts the Dominion War. I give it three stars out five.


“A Time To Stand” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a good one. I give it three stars out of five.


“Rocks And Shoals” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a good one. I give it three stars out of five.


“Sons And Daughters” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a good one. I give it two stars out of five.


“Behind The Lines” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a good one. I give it three stars out of five.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine 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).

“Soldiers of the Empire” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a good one, I give it two stars out of five.


“Children of Time” See this for a plot summary.

A very non-political episode, but one of my favorites. The idea of them meeting their descendants is pretty neat. I give it four stars out of five.


“Blaze of Glory” See this for a plot summary.

Aside from the politics of the Maquis, a very non-political episode. I describe my feelings about the Maquis here, while discussing the two-parter “The Maquis.”

A good episode, I give it three stars out of five.


“Empok Nor” See this for a plot summary.

A very non-political episode, I give it two stars out of five.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine 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 Simple Investigation” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode but a good one, I give it three stars out of five.


“Business As Usual” See this for a plot summary.

A political episode about arms dealers. Considering how probably some large majority of the time they arm forces I don’t support I’m not very fond of arms dealers. Is that in conflict with me supporting the IRA? Considering that the IRA got a lot of their arsenal from Libya, the Irish military and the British military and manufactured a lot of their weapons themselves, and considering that I’m concerned about the world outside of Ireland, I’m fairly comfortable saying that I support the IRA but not arms dealers. The overall affect of arms dealers is negative.

On the other hand, there are some conflicts where it’s not the flow of weapons that fuels the fighting but the flow of injustice. So, although I’m not fond of arms dealers and I’m sure they usually arm forces I don’t support, the main thing is that we need to change the world so there aren’t conflicts to be fueled by arms, and although the flow of arms often makes that difficult, it certainly doesn't make it impossible.

So, you could say I have mixed, mostly negative feelings about arms dealers, but I see the actions of participants in a conflict as the biggest problem, and it’s possible that those actions can be stopped without necessarily cutting off the flow of arms. Also, crucially, to one degree or another, the flow of arms to the wrong forces can be cut off by the global community (the fact that there will be disagreement about who the wrong forces are, doesn’t matter to me- that argument is inevitable and we can win it). And if we get to a point where there are no longer arms dealers, we’ll probably also be at a point where people aren’t being oppressed. And if not, there are other ways for oppressed people to get arms.

The last thing to consider when I say that I support the IRA and not arms dealers is when the latter sold guns to the former, they did it for money- it’s not like they did it for free and deserve gratitude.

These mixed but mostly negative feelings are well illustrated in the episode when it turns out that the arms dealers on DS9 supplied the Bajoran resistance with arms, and now the Bajoran government is shielding them from the law.


“Ties Of Blood And Water” See this for a plot summary.

This episode is kind of about a movement for democracy on Cardassia and also about the occupation of Bajor. I usually find episodes with one or both of those themes very enjoyable and very inspirational but not so much with this one. I give it two stars out of five.


“Ferengi Love Songs” See this for a plot summary.

Another episode about how Ferengi society treats women. Such episodes are pretty good.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine 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).

“For The Uniform” See this for a plot summary.

Aside from the politics of the Maquis, a non-political episode. I give my thoughts on the Maquis here, while discussing the two-parter “The Maquis.” I have mixed feelings about Sisko making the ex-Federation colony uninhabitable for humans. It seems okay since Cardassians moved there right afterwards and from their perspective the environment wasn’t damaged. But it’s still using an indiscriminate biological or chemical weapon and even with the warning Sisko issued, it could have caused civilian death or illness. But it did get Eddington to surrender. So, I’ve got mixed feelings about it.


“In Purgatory’s Shadow” and “By Inferno’s Light” See this and this for a plot summary.

A very non-political two-parter, but a good one, I give it four stars out of five.


“Doctor Bashir, I Presume?” See this for a plot summary.

I haven’t looked into this much, but I would say that genetic enhancement as they talked about in this episode is a bad idea. The Eugenics Wars (in the ST universe) are a good reason to ban genetic enhancement. There are probably related procedures that I would support- things like curing someone of neurological disorders. But what they describe in the episode seems like a bad idea.

UPDATE 2/24/11 Here's a brief note about the Eugenics Wars (I can't find an article about it on startrek.com). The only thing of any importance that I can remember, is that it was a war on Earth which resulted in 30-35 million deaths, sometime in the 1990s I believe.

A good episode, I give it two stars out of five.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine 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).

“The Ascent” See this for a plot summary.

A very non-political episode, but a good one. I give it two stars out of five.


“Rapture” See this for a plot summary.

A very non-political episode, but a good one, I give it two stars out of five.


“The Darkness And The Light” See this for a plot summary.

This episode fuels my positive feelings about the Bajoran resistance. It was a very inspirational struggle, both because of what they were fighting against and because they conducted their struggle honorably. The bombing described in the movie seems like a pretty legitimate operation- a military figure is still a military figure even in their home, although in some ways it’s better to attack the military somewhere besides their home. The IRA killed a lot of part-time members of the security forces when they were off-duty and those attacks were a little bit easier for people to interpret as sectarian, even though they weren’t sectarian (I discuss sectarianism or the lack of it among republicans 2/3 the way through this post).

A good episode, I give it two stars out of five.


“The Begotten” See this for a plot summary.

A very non-political episode but a good one, I give it two stars out of five.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine 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 Assignment” See this for a plot summary.

A very non-political episode, but one of my favorites. I give it four stars out of five.

“Trials and Tribble-ations” See this for a plot summary.

Although only about 13 years old, this might be considered a classic ST episode. It not only involves time travel, it uses footage from an episode that was part of The Original Series, and has DS9 characters appearing to interact with characters from TOS.

I give it five stars out of five.

“Let He Who Is Without Sin...” See this for a plot summary.

This episode is kind of about the culture wars, although it seems that the conservative side is not motivated by religion. Instead they’re concerned that the pampered, safe, and sometimes hedonistic lifestyle of Federation citizens has made them weak in the face of external threats. Worf does see it as a moral problem. Even though it doesn’t refer to religion, it still kind of makes a good statement about the culture wars from the liberal side.

I give it three stars out of five.

”Things Past” See this for a plot summary.

Although it was well-established much earlier (in the ST universe) that the Cardassian occupation of Bajor was brutal and very unjust, this episode illustrates that more.

We also learn that Garak is sort of racist towards Bajorans, as he says (while cleaning Quark’s bar) that “the Bajorans were much more suited for this sort of thing than we were- servile work is in their nature.”

Gul Dukat’s racism towards the Bajorans is illustrated when he says that the Bajorans are like his children.

It’s also an episode that contributes to how inspirational the story of the Bajoran resistance is.

Overall a good episode, I give it four stars out of five.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine 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).

“Body Parts” See this for a plot summary.

A very non-political episode, but we learn something new about Ferengi capitalism. It has a racist aspect, as contracts with another Ferengi are sacred but contracts with aliens can be broken for any reason. I found that kind of surprising.

Overall, a good episode, I give it two stars out of five.

“Broken Link” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a good one. I give it three stars out of five.

“Apocalypse Rising” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a good one, I give it four stars out five.

“The Ship” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a good one. I especially like the end when Sisko and Dax talk about the minor-very minor Starfleet characters who were killed.

I give it four stars out of five.

“Looking for par'Mach in All the Wrong Places” See this for a plot summary.

A very non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.

“...Nor the Battle to the Strong” See this for a plot summary.

A very political episode about how horrible war is. Although I believe that sometimes, in this fucked up world, it’s necessary, helpful, and/or justified, to fight, but war is still horrible and this episode does a good job of illustrating that. The more people understand how horrible war is, the more people will see it as an option of last resort.

I give it three stars out of five.