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.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
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 infrequent 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 infrequent 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)