Yesterday I submitted some comments for two blog posts at Hatewatch, the blog of the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The first one was about how workers are exploited. What I said I'm sure has been said better by others, but I have never seen an explanation of exploitation like this one. I think it's pretty good and might be helpful for people.
The post is here. A few things I need to clarify about my comments:
1. When I talk about workers exerting themselves, I mean PHYSICALLY exerting themselves.
2. Of course the wealth re-distribution of progressive taxation involves funding stuff like free universal health-care, free day-care, etc.
3. The figure of 300 (actually something like 100-400 is a better way of putting it) only makes sense with national corporations; with small businesses 20 is probably much more accurate and small business owners probably work more than their employees do (in general, what I'm talking about doesn't apply much to small businesses (there are certainly plenty of exceptions where it DOES apply), depending on how you define small- I lean towards saying it's 1 to somewhere around 50 employees)
Here's the comment:
"
Tom Shelley said,
on October 21st, 2010 at 11:57 am
A response to Rick Nettleton:
How have Democrats contributed to hate? You seem to think that Democratic hate for conservatives is comparable to the hatred against Muslims, LGBT people. I mean the problem with the Tea Party isn’t that they hate liberals, it’s the racism, and homophobia and anti-muslim bigotry. You can’t compare that with hating conservatives.
No, corporations and rich people are not paying their share of taxes. They can easily give more and still live better than the rest of us. Progressive taxation is an important way to re-distribute wealth. And why is it necessary to do so? Because to one degree or another, workers are exploited by the bosses. The details differ a bit from job to job, but for the most part, workers are exerting themselves A LOT more than the people at the top of the corporation; they’re also using their heads almost as much as those at the top. And yet the people at the top make about 300 times more than the workers at the bottom. That is obscene.
As far as business and the nation’s wealth- 1) the WORKERS are responsible for building this country and 2) that wealth is not enjoyed by the overwhelming majority of the population.
Tom"
The second comment is here. Some things I need to clarify:
1. The 9.12 project is partly based on the following (from the 9.12 website, here):
"This is a non-political movement. The 9-12 Project is designed to bring us all back to the place we were on September 12, 2001. The day after America was attacked we were not obsessed with Red States, Blue States or political parties. We were united as Americans, standing together to protect the greatest nation ever created.
That same feeling – that commitment to country is what we are hoping to foster with this idea. We want to get everyone thinking like it is September 12th, 2001 again."
Here's the comment:
"
#
Tom Shelley said,
on October 21st, 2010 at 11:26 pm
Some thoughts on the 9.12 project:
I hadn’t heard of it beforte this post (I am not following current events and politics as much as I should). I looked at the web-site and I find the idea of Glenn Beck promoting civic unity and bringing Americans together ridiculous. First there is what he has been saying recently (see http://mediamatters.org/search/index?qstring=glenn+beck&x=0&y=0 for some good examples (certainly his talk of hunting progressives the same way Israel went after Nazis)). I mean, he called Obama an anti-white racist and now he wants us to all come together? Then, as far as the spirit of American unity since 9/11 we have plenty of evidence that a new McCarthyism took over the political right, as The Progressive has docuemented at- http://www.progressive.org/list/mccarthy?page=18 .We have Coulter writing a book that calls all liberals/leftists traitors. She said that the American Taliban (the teenager captured sjortly after 9/11) should be executed because she believes that liberals need to be physically intimidated.
During WWII the UK had a coalitiion government because they saw that in that war they needed unity. Bush could have had a few cabinet positions given to Democrats (Cllinton, in the late 1990s when we were NOT in a major and prolonged war, had a Republican for a Secretary of Defense) but he didn’t, and instead used 9/11 to push his radical agenda.
i think I’m missing ione more element of this, but I think I’ve made my point. It’s a joke for Beck to talk about unity.
Tom"
Friday, October 22, 2010
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Newt Gingrich, anti-colonialism, and Obama
I am a little late on this one, but it seems as if very few people have said what I'll say. This post is about an aspect of Newt Gingrich's comment that Obama has a "Kenyan, anti-colonial" world view. MANY people have pointed out that this is partly about suggesting that Obama might have been born in Kenya. What gets more of my attention is the "anti-colonial" part. Is Gingrich saying that opposing colonialism is bad? it sounds like that to me. Specifically, is he saying that the Kenyan anti-colonial struggle was wrong? I'd like to see someone grill him on that.
Also, of course, as far as I can tell, Obama is very far from being some kind of anti-colonial crusader. He isn't putting tons of pressure on Israel about the Palestinians; he is not doing that with the British about N. Ireland; and there are other similar situations.
Also, of course, as far as I can tell, Obama is very far from being some kind of anti-colonial crusader. He isn't putting tons of pressure on Israel about the Palestinians; he is not doing that with the British about N. Ireland; and there are other similar situations.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Responding to opponents of the "Ground Zero Mosque"
Part of this is a bit late, but there is something I’d like to mention about anti-Muslim bigotry.
This is about a response to opponents of the “Ground Zero Mosque.” I’m not sure how many people have figured it out or been told about it, but it can’t hurt to get the word out some more. When the opponents say that the people behind the community center/mosque should build it someplace else to put an end to the controversy and not offend people (i.e. relatives of people killed on 9/11) there’s a great response I thought of a few days ago. Compare their request with the request that Rosa Parks move to the back of the bus (in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955). She didn’t and those behind the Mosque/community center shouldn’t be pressured by people to back down over where to build it.
There is something similar in N. Ireland’s recent history. In 2001, for about 3 months residents of a loyalist area tried to block Catholic children from going to a Catholic school just inside the area. Some parents and their children took a different route to the back door. Many/most took the normal route to the school, even though the loyalists hurled a lot of verbal abuse and objects at them. I found a flyer in Belfast not long after that which compared their decision to take the normal route with Rosa Parks’ action.
This is about a response to opponents of the “Ground Zero Mosque.” I’m not sure how many people have figured it out or been told about it, but it can’t hurt to get the word out some more. When the opponents say that the people behind the community center/mosque should build it someplace else to put an end to the controversy and not offend people (i.e. relatives of people killed on 9/11) there’s a great response I thought of a few days ago. Compare their request with the request that Rosa Parks move to the back of the bus (in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955). She didn’t and those behind the Mosque/community center shouldn’t be pressured by people to back down over where to build it.
There is something similar in N. Ireland’s recent history. In 2001, for about 3 months residents of a loyalist area tried to block Catholic children from going to a Catholic school just inside the area. Some parents and their children took a different route to the back door. Many/most took the normal route to the school, even though the loyalists hurled a lot of verbal abuse and objects at them. I found a flyer in Belfast not long after that which compared their decision to take the normal route with Rosa Parks’ action.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Dr. Laura, Sarah Palin, and Racism
I was a little behind on reading about this, but I am really offended by the comments Dr. Laura made and the defense that Palin has offered. (to see what I'm talking about, go here)
There's more info, including a partial transcript and a partial audio recording (they're not the same parts of the discussion) here.
I agree with what is written here.
I might add some analysis to this, but Media Matters has done a good job of doing that, so for now I'll just let you read the links, especially the last two.
There's more info, including a partial transcript and a partial audio recording (they're not the same parts of the discussion) here.
I agree with what is written here.
I might add some analysis to this, but Media Matters has done a good job of doing that, so for now I'll just let you read the links, especially the last two.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Live Long and Prosper
I just posted the last Star Trek review. As I explained somewhere, the main idea I had was to highlight the progressive politics of ST. That was about 1/3; using the plot of the episodes as an excuse, about 1/3 of the time I was discussing real world politics similar to what was happening in the episodes; and 1/3 I was making brief, non-political comments about the episodes, as well as rating them with between one and five stars.
I wish there was more political content- I had nothing to comment on politically for about 1/2 of all the episodes, even more for Voyager and The Next Generation. But I’m still glad I did it.
I’m now going to start watching Star Trek: Enterprise, but from what I remember there’s almost zero political content at all, except for one whole season which seems to be inspired by a moderate (not progressive) look at 9/11. So I’m not going to do any reviews of that. UPDATE 1/29/10 After watching the first of four seasons, I think there might be enough good liberal-progressive material to justify doing reviews; If that's what I notice with the last 3 seasons, then next time I watch ENT, in about 2 years, I'll do reviews.
Unless I start doing a better job of following the news (looking at everything, I’ve been reading about 60 articles a week) this will probably be the last post I do. The blog contains almost nothing that will be affected by current events. Which also means that you can and should read the earlier posts and feel free to comment on them. (the earlier posts are NOT Star Trek reviews, they are mostly essays about the themes of this blog)
I think that’s it.
Tom
I wish there was more political content- I had nothing to comment on politically for about 1/2 of all the episodes, even more for Voyager and The Next Generation. But I’m still glad I did it.
I’m now going to start watching Star Trek: Enterprise, but from what I remember there’s almost zero political content at all, except for one whole season which seems to be inspired by a moderate (not progressive) look at 9/11. So I’m not going to do any reviews of that. UPDATE 1/29/10 After watching the first of four seasons, I think there might be enough good liberal-progressive material to justify doing reviews; If that's what I notice with the last 3 seasons, then next time I watch ENT, in about 2 years, I'll do reviews.
Unless I start doing a better job of following the news (looking at everything, I’ve been reading about 60 articles a week) this will probably be the last post I do. The blog contains almost nothing that will be affected by current events. Which also means that you can and should read the earlier posts and feel free to comment on them. (the earlier posts are NOT Star Trek reviews, they are mostly essays about the themes of this blog)
I think that’s it.
Tom
Star Trek: The Next Generation 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).
“Firstborn” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Bloodlines” See this for a plot summary.
We learn that people sentenced to do time in the Ferengi prison system can BUY their way out. Makes the Ferengi state and ferengi society even less attractive.
I give it one star out of five.
“Emergence” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Pre-Emptive Strike” See this for a plot summary.
This is about the Maquis. My feelings about them are discussed here where I am reviewing the two-parter “The Maquis.” I’d say that this episode has nudged me a bit towards being fairly sympathetic to the Maquis.
I give it three stars out of five.
“All Good Things...” See this and this for a plot summary.
A non-political two-part series finale. I would 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).
“Firstborn” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Bloodlines” See this for a plot summary.
We learn that people sentenced to do time in the Ferengi prison system can BUY their way out. Makes the Ferengi state and ferengi society even less attractive.
I give it one star out of five.
“Emergence” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Pre-Emptive Strike” See this for a plot summary.
This is about the Maquis. My feelings about them are discussed here where I am reviewing the two-parter “The Maquis.” I’d say that this episode has nudged me a bit towards being fairly sympathetic to the Maquis.
I give it three stars out of five.
“All Good Things...” See this and this for a plot summary.
A non-political two-part series finale. I would give it three stars out of five.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Star Trek: The Next Generation 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).
“Masks” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Eye of the Beholder” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Genesis” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Journey’s End” See this for a plot summary.
A fairly political episode, largely about how American Indians were treated the first several centuries after Colombus crossed the Atlantic. The Indians also discover that an ancestor of Picard’s took part in the brutal repression of an American Indian rebellion centuries earlier.
I give it three stars out of five (the part about Wesley Crusher kind of annoys me- if it weren’t for that I’d give four stars).
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).
“Masks” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Eye of the Beholder” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Genesis” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Journey’s End” See this for a plot summary.
A fairly political episode, largely about how American Indians were treated the first several centuries after Colombus crossed the Atlantic. The Indians also discover that an ancestor of Picard’s took part in the brutal repression of an American Indian rebellion centuries earlier.
I give it three stars out of five (the part about Wesley Crusher kind of annoys me- if it weren’t for that I’d give four stars).
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Star Trek: The Next Generation 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).
“Force of Nature” See this for a plot summary.
A very environmental episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Inheritance” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Parallels” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“The Pegasus” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Homeward” See this for a plot summary.
A sort of political episode as it raises issues about technologically advanced cultures interacting with indigenous populations who are much less advanced. I have mixed feelings about what they do- they risked exposing such a population to advanced technology- an experience that would probably be traumatic for most of them. On the other hand, they did save that culture from being extinguished.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Sub Rosa” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give one star out of five.
“Lower Decks” See this for a plot summary.
Although he seems more concerned about peace than democracy, and he seems to not be a dissident regarding the occupation of Bajor, there is a Cardassian dissident providing intelligence to the Federation. That sort of thing, work for peace and in the direction of democracy (with peace, the power of Cardassian senior military officers would diminish and that would probably make creating a democracy on Cardassia more possible) is fairly inspirational.
UPDATE 1/12/12 I should have added this a long time ago, but I DO find the Arab Spring inspirational and I do support it.
I give it four stars out of five.
“Thine Own Self” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political story. I give it four 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).
“Force of Nature” See this for a plot summary.
A very environmental episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Inheritance” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Parallels” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“The Pegasus” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Homeward” See this for a plot summary.
A sort of political episode as it raises issues about technologically advanced cultures interacting with indigenous populations who are much less advanced. I have mixed feelings about what they do- they risked exposing such a population to advanced technology- an experience that would probably be traumatic for most of them. On the other hand, they did save that culture from being extinguished.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Sub Rosa” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give one star out of five.
“Lower Decks” See this for a plot summary.
Although he seems more concerned about peace than democracy, and he seems to not be a dissident regarding the occupation of Bajor, there is a Cardassian dissident providing intelligence to the Federation. That sort of thing, work for peace and in the direction of democracy (with peace, the power of Cardassian senior military officers would diminish and that would probably make creating a democracy on Cardassia more possible) is fairly inspirational.
UPDATE 1/12/12 I should have added this a long time ago, but I DO find the Arab Spring inspirational and I do support it.
I give it four stars out of five.
“Thine Own Self” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political story. I give it four stars out of five.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation 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).
“Frame of Mind” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Suspicions” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Rightful Heir” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Second Chances” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Timescape” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it four stars out of five.
“Descent” parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary.
A non-political two-parter. I give it two stars out of five.
“Liaisons” See this for a plot summary.
There is one bit of feminism when Riker criticizes Worf for saying something sexist.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Interface” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Gambit” parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary.
A non-political two-parter. I give it three stars out of five.
“Phantasms” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Dark Page” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Attached” See this for a plot summary.
I’d agree with Riker that neither of the nations should be allowed to join the Federation. The Kes, who Picard was supposed to talk with about joining, demonstrated amazing levels of paranoia, becoming hostile towards the Federation.
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).
“Frame of Mind” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Suspicions” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Rightful Heir” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Second Chances” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Timescape” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it four stars out of five.
“Descent” parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary.
A non-political two-parter. I give it two stars out of five.
“Liaisons” See this for a plot summary.
There is one bit of feminism when Riker criticizes Worf for saying something sexist.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Interface” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Gambit” parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary.
A non-political two-parter. I give it three stars out of five.
“Phantasms” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Dark Page” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Attached” See this for a plot summary.
I’d agree with Riker that neither of the nations should be allowed to join the Federation. The Kes, who Picard was supposed to talk with about joining, demonstrated amazing levels of paranoia, becoming hostile towards the Federation.
I give it three stars out of five.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation 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).
“Aquiel” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, I give it two stars out of five.
“Face of the Enemy” See this for a plot summary.
Although I can’t figure out how undemocratic the Romulan Star Empire is, the security forces are feared by (probably) most of the citizenry and that makes it at least fairly undemocratic. With that in mind, I like the episodes about the dissidents in the RSE. The struggle for freedom and/or greater democracy is inspiring. That’s partly why I like this episode.
I give it four stars out of five.
UPDATE 1/12/12 I should have added this a long time ago, but I DO find the Arab Spring inspirational and I do support it.
“Tapestry” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, although Picard does sound like an agnostic rather than an atheist (I like to see some of that, not much but some, in ST because ST generally ignores Old Earth religions as if they're inconsistent with the values of the Federation)
“Birthright” Parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary.
For the most part a non-political two-parter. At one point Worf says something which goes beyond his usual comments about Romulans and is basically bigotry. He criticizes marriages between Romulans and Klingons. He later changes his mind about that.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Starship Mine” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Lessons” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“The Chase” 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).
“Aquiel” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, I give it two stars out of five.
“Face of the Enemy” See this for a plot summary.
Although I can’t figure out how undemocratic the Romulan Star Empire is, the security forces are feared by (probably) most of the citizenry and that makes it at least fairly undemocratic. With that in mind, I like the episodes about the dissidents in the RSE. The struggle for freedom and/or greater democracy is inspiring. That’s partly why I like this episode.
I give it four stars out of five.
UPDATE 1/12/12 I should have added this a long time ago, but I DO find the Arab Spring inspirational and I do support it.
“Tapestry” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, although Picard does sound like an agnostic rather than an atheist (I like to see some of that, not much but some, in ST because ST generally ignores Old Earth religions as if they're inconsistent with the values of the Federation)
“Birthright” Parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary.
For the most part a non-political two-parter. At one point Worf says something which goes beyond his usual comments about Romulans and is basically bigotry. He criticizes marriages between Romulans and Klingons. He later changes his mind about that.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Starship Mine” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Lessons” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“The Chase” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)