(since Jay Knott emphasizes the person whom my old blog is named after, I should emphasize that, as I have noted elsewhere, this blog is not approved by her and what I write does not neccessarily reflect what she believes (UPDATE 8/2/26 The first 3-5 years my blog was around, the URL involved the name of Bernadette Devlin-McAliskey and then I changed that (although it was overall very inappropriate to name it after her, she does represent the intersection of fighting racism in America and fighting British Imperialism in N. Ireland more than any other person)))
A member of a group (the Pacifica Forum) described as anti-semitic by the Southern Poverty Law Center has initiated a debate with me, which started in comments of this post. The next part was a post on the PF site, and this is my response.
This is a partial response to what was written by Jay Knott on the PF site in response to my writing. His piece is here. I’m not going to respond to everything- for example, I can’t remember if the SPLC DID try to get PF expelled and don’t feel like digging to find out.
Also, unless I have some kind of really good reason, I won’t be responding to Knott’s response to this. We’re just not going agree, and I think with this response of mine, I've probably said everything that needs to be said. Anything that hasn’t been said yet probably won’t change any minds and I’m just tired of it.
I typed this up as I read Knott’s piece, so the first 1-3 paragraphs of this are in response to the first 1-3 paragraphs of his piece, etc. etc. You might want to read his piece, then mine. Also, he likes editing his blog post, so what I’m responding to has changed a little bit. I don’t know when he’s going to stop editing that post, so I’m just going to post this now.
I remain confident that the SPLC is a good source. As far as them exaggerating hate crimes and suppressing critcism of Israel, in one of their articles which was partly about the PF, they wrote: “pro-Israel advocates sometimes questionably accuse critics of Israeli policy, especially Muslim critics, of being anti-Semitic...” (see this). They’re saying that, yes, people are sometimes unfairly attacked as anti-semites for criticizing Israel. That’s a very powerful statement from a group like the SPLC which is clearly hostile to anti-semites. (MacDonald is clearly an anti-semite and is a target for the SPLC because of that, must be the same thing with Robinson). They have also approved comments which are both against anti-semitism and pro-Palestinian on their blog.
As far as paranoia about anti-semitism, I don’t think it’s paranoia to be concerned about that. European Jews came close to being wiped out through complete genocide, which is very serious. Just because it doesn’t result in them being an oppressed group in America (and probably most countries) (I don’t consider Jewish-Americans to be oppressed) doesn’t change the fact that they experience de-humanizing bigotry. Also, I have good reason to believe that anti-semitism, in multiple ways, hurts the left. If you’rre referring to the quanity of material about anti-semitism on my blog, that’s just how it worked out, considering what I know about Jews in Ireland, WWII and the IRA, and something I found that undermines Holocaust Denial.
I’m not sure how you would call my approach touchy-feely. It’s called analysis. You’re saying, as a supporter of the Palestinians and with an audience of people who are likely in support of the Palestinians, that an increase in anti-semitism would be helpful to the cause of the Palestinians. That’s trying to whip up hatred. It’s telling people who want to help the Palestinians that one way to help is by spreading anti-semitism.
And I’ll repeat what I said on my blog- you’re wrong. Not only would I oppose such an increase because I oppose bigotry, it also won’t help and going in the opposite direction would help. An increase in anti-semitism (unless it was some huge majority of the American population) would strengthen pro-Israel forces who can then more easily slander (it’s often slander) critics of Israel as anti-semitic. Defenders of civil liberties had a more dificult job after 9/11, and an increase in anti-semitism would have a similar effect. What WOULD help would be a decrease in anti-semitism. That would mean it would be less common among supporters of the Palestinians which would make that movement more attractive to more Americans, and it would also make it more dificult for pro-Israel forces to slander people as anti-semitic.
In connection with your comment about an increase in anti-semitism I did not say anything about recruiting fascists. I said something connected to my concern about the far right recruiting leftists.
Convincing supporters of the Palestinians that anti-semitism is helpful to that cause WOULD affect their opinion of Jewish people. And yes, you would make statements about anti-semitism being helpful if you wanted to win over supporters of the Palestinians to anti-semitism.
Looking at your paragrapgh that refers to Atzmon and to S. Smith, the author of the article I was commenting on made it clear he agreed with the position he attributed to Atzmon. The author then followed that with a quote from another person on basically the same theme. Also, I was responding more to the bit about Leon Rosselson than the bit about Atzmon. Anyway, the article’s author made it clear what he thinks and I stand by my analysis. I don’t care if you don’t explicitly tell people how to identify, that piece (see this) came pretty close to telling secular, non-/anti-Zionist Jews to stop identifying as Jewish.
As far as Chomsky’s analysis, I think I know what it is more or less. Here’s my understanding of why America is so pro-Israel. You have most American Jews; you have a large chunk of Christians (i.e. Pat Robertson), who for religious reasons support Israel; and a lot of Christians and non-Jewish atheists who support Israel for foreign policy reasons. The motivation for America’s pro-Israel foreign policy seems to be where you disagree with Chomsky (and I wouldn’t be surprised if you ignore the Christians who for religious reasons support Israel). I’m not saying they’re right because in at least one way they’re wrong, but yes, there are a lot of people who think that supporting Israel is good for the US. The fact that in many ways they’re wrong, doesn’t mean that there aren’t such people, many of whom are in positions of influence. They do believe that Israel is a good ally to have, that Israel has helped their foreign policy agenda (Central America, South Africa, (probably) intelligence, etc.). Since 9/11 they believe that America and Israel have a common enemy (of course they’re wrong to think that supporting Israel makes America safer, but they do believe that). I’m not sure how well my understanding of this is aligned with what Chomsky says, but your theory that it’s the Jews is wrong. The influence that Jewish-Americans have on US foreign policy would be nothing if not for the huge number of Christians and non-Jewish Atheists who support Israel because they believe that is good for America and/or their religious agenda, not because they're pro-Jewish (overwhelmingly I don't think they ARE). (According to a 2006 Pew poll, 36% of Americans believe that Israel fulfills Biblical Prophecy, and more than half of those people sympathize with Israel (only 34% of such people sympathize with the Palestinians) (see this (that web-page also says: “That survey also finds that white Evangelicals are significantly more pro-Israel than are Americans in general -- with more than half of saying they sympathize more with Israel in its dispute with the Palestinians, compared with 40 percent of Americans overall who held this view. Further, white Evangelicals who self-identified as political conservatives were more than three times as likely to back Israel as were Evangelicals who identified themselves as moderates.”)).
I don’t really care if some of your sources are Jewish. That doesn’t mean you’re not anti-semitic. The Orange Order in N. Ireland have used Ruth Dudley Edwards as a supporter and that doesn’t mean they’re not anti-Catholic (she was raised as a Catholic). And we know from history that yes, anti-semites will use Jews to advance their goals.
On the murder in Portland, I read a review of the Langer book by someone who was NOT an employee of the SPLC (it was published by the SPLC, but was written by an outside expert) and Langer’s thoughts on it are flawed. She criticized Portland for doing something about the murder because Portland has a history of racism. That’s a ridiculous idea (would you say that America shouldn’t change it’s policy on Israel because it has a history of supporting Israel?). She also made it quite clear she had developed a fondness for Metzger because he’s a good husband and father. The jury in the civil trial were convinced and it makes sense- it doesn’t matter that the killing was unplanned- Nazi skinheads killed a black man who had been trying to make peace between his friends and the Nazis. It was a hate crime.
In relation to what you say about Apartheid S. Africa and how people weren’t worried about being anti-white or anti-Afrikaaner, there are two reasons why people weren’t worried about that. First, there was not a problem of anti-white racism comparable to the problem of anti-semitism. Second, the anti-apartheid movement included a lot of white people. I haven’t read anything about Jews in the Palestinian movement. It’s safe to say that some kind of majority of supporters of the Palestinians are anti-semitic, and even if it were just a small minority, they are spreading a message of hate that A) dehumanizes people and B) makes it more dificult to attract support to that cause. Speaking out against that hate and at the same time supporting the Palestinians is the best way to enlarge the numbers of people who support the Palestinians.
You have still not explained what you mean about Klein, Chomsky and Goodman defending Jewish privilege. I don’t see how supporting Israel is taking advantage of Jewish privilege. It doesn’t seem comparable to, for example, white people being treated by the police differently than black people are treated by the police. And Klein, Chomsky, and Goodman are NOT supporting Israel.
Listen FUCK FACE, my first concern when Palestinians get bombed is NOT to defend Jews. Just because I speak out against anti-semitism that doesn’t mean that’s my first concern. And as I’ve explained, speaking out against that is HELPFUL to the Palestinian cause- according to your pamphlet on mass psychology, Arafat spoke out against it too.
Obviously this is something we totally disagree on, but yes, people SHOULD care about anti-semitism. It, like all bigotry, dehumanizes people, it divides people in a way that people should not be divided. They don’t deserve harrassment, vandalism, and violence. Jewish people have made great contributions to America and the world in multiple ways, just like any other religious or ethnic group.
People can both support the Palestinians AND oppose anti-semitism at the same time. So, you spend a little bit of time on the latter and a little less time on the former, so what. Looking at my work on both, I’ve probably spent 6 times more time on supporting the Palestinians than I have spent on opposing anti-semtism. And, one more time, A) anti-semitism is simply wrong and B) saying so while expressing support for the Palestinians is helpful. And as far as the time I put into opposing anti-semitism instead of supporting the Palestinians, that effort probably wasn’t going to go into supporting the Palestinians anyway- there’s a limit to how interested I am in that.
So people like me are useless? There are people like me who do a lot of organizing in support of the Palestinians and in general there are people like me who to one degree or another put pressure on the US government to change it’s policy on Israel and force Israel to transform it’s relationship with the Palestinians. Without people like me, the number of people supporting the Palestinians would be much less, probably somewhere around 2/3 of what it is today. Among many other things I’ve done to support the Palestinians, in late 2002 when it was a pretty strong group, I got Students for Justice in N. Ireland (a group at CU-Boulder) to take a position in support of the Palestinians and we put out copies of a statement on that (as well as information about the campus pro-palestinian coalition) when we would table at events or at the student center. And I remember a few members of the group wanting to be reassured that the pro-Palestinian coalition (which we endorsed) was not anti-semitic. The coalition was so grateful for our endorsement that they published an article by me in their (nationally distributed?) publication. I’m currently exploring the possibility of getting militant anti-fascist groups to explicitly support the Palestinians. About 5% of the huge amount of material on my blog is in support of the Palestinians, and the Palestinians are NOT one of the 3-4 themes of my blog.
Allegations of anti-semitism have NOT paralyzed the Palestinian solidarity movement and they have not been completely effective, and yes, the more truth there is to those allegations, the more effective they are- I have no idea why you think otherwise.
You seem to be talking about the countries that invaded Iraq when you talk about the power of Jewish people. First, the allegation that Iraq was connected to 9/11 had a much bigger effect than support for Israel (70% of Americans believed that Iraq was responsible for 9/11). And as I explained, support for Israel is overwhelmingly non-Jewish. Going back to Iraq, there were multiple reasons that people had for supporting the invasion. A lot of businesses expected to do and did do very well as a result. Support for Israel was a small part and those motivated by that would have been overwhelmingly non-Jewish.
You say that America supports Israel because of left-wing reasons. But according to Pew, support for Israel is incredibly concentrated among conservative white Evangelicals.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Friday, August 28, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, August 17, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)