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).
“Marauders” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“The Seventh” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“The Communicator” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode except for the concern about negatively affecting a race by exposing them to technology they’re not ready for, which could be a serious problem.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Singularity" See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Vanishing Point” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it four stars out of five.
“Precious Cargo” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
Star Trek: Enterprise Reviews F
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).
“Carbon Creek” See this for a plot summary.
There is, as there usually is with episodes like this, some talk about the problems humanity had centuries before Starfleet (aggression, nuclear weapons, etc.).
The idea that Vulcans visited Earth basically a century before formal First Contact is interesting and the story is a good one.
I give it four stars out of five.
“Minefield” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode but a very good one. I give it four stars out of five.
“Dead Stop” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it four stars out of five.
“A Night In Sickbay” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it four stars out five. (I LOVE dogs and tell my dog to look at the TV every time Porthos appears)
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).
“Carbon Creek” See this for a plot summary.
There is, as there usually is with episodes like this, some talk about the problems humanity had centuries before Starfleet (aggression, nuclear weapons, etc.).
The idea that Vulcans visited Earth basically a century before formal First Contact is interesting and the story is a good one.
I give it four stars out of five.
“Minefield” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode but a very good one. I give it four stars out of five.
“Dead Stop” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it four stars out of five.
“A Night In Sickbay” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it four stars out five. (I LOVE dogs and tell my dog to look at the TV every time Porthos appears)
Star Trek: Enterprise Reviews E
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.
The Original Series disclaimer:
Also, although this gap in my knowledge is not complete and I will often do research to make up for this, and we are only taking about around 70 episodes, I am not familiar with The Original Series, so if I say something and there’s an exception in that series, that simply means that I was off a little bit. Unfortunately, I don’t like TOS, have see each episode an average of once, on average about 10 years ago, and for various reasons I’m not going to familiarize myself with it anytime soon. Unfortunately I love the three series from 1990s, like Enterprise, and am going to do this anyway. I doubt it’ll more than very slightly affect something like 1% of the reviews I do of the 1990s series- when I’m done with those, that’ll be about 525 episodes, so about 5 reviews, and it won’t affect what I’m saying about real life politics, just what I say about ST, and then probably just a little bit.
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).
“Vox Sola” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars.
“Fallen Hero” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Desert Crossing” See this for a plot summary.
This is partly about a conflict generated by caste discrimination.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Two Days and Two Nights” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Shockwave” Parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary.
A non-political two-parter, but a good one, even if it involves the Suliban and the "Temporal Cold War" (that aspect of this series is something I don’t like). I like the part about Archer and Daniels being trapped in the future. I give four stars out of five.
The Original Series disclaimer:
Also, although this gap in my knowledge is not complete and I will often do research to make up for this, and we are only taking about around 70 episodes, I am not familiar with The Original Series, so if I say something and there’s an exception in that series, that simply means that I was off a little bit. Unfortunately, I don’t like TOS, have see each episode an average of once, on average about 10 years ago, and for various reasons I’m not going to familiarize myself with it anytime soon. Unfortunately I love the three series from 1990s, like Enterprise, and am going to do this anyway. I doubt it’ll more than very slightly affect something like 1% of the reviews I do of the 1990s series- when I’m done with those, that’ll be about 525 episodes, so about 5 reviews, and it won’t affect what I’m saying about real life politics, just what I say about ST, and then probably just a little bit.
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).
“Vox Sola” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars.
“Fallen Hero” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Desert Crossing” See this for a plot summary.
This is partly about a conflict generated by caste discrimination.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Two Days and Two Nights” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Shockwave” Parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary.
A non-political two-parter, but a good one, even if it involves the Suliban and the "Temporal Cold War" (that aspect of this series is something I don’t like). I like the part about Archer and Daniels being trapped in the future. I give four stars out of five.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Star Trek: Enterprise Reviews D
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).
“Rogue Planet” See this for a plot summary.
This episode tells us that decades earlier on Earth, hunting animals ceased. I have weak, negative feelings about hunting- I have basically nothing besides that to say on the subject.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Acquisition” See this for a plot summary.
This episode is about Ferengis, who practice raw capitalism. There is an exchange between Archer and one of the Ferengi about the Rules of Acquisition, a Ferengi code of conduct.
Ferengi: ... the most important one- “a man is only worth the sum of his possesions.”
Archer: Back on my home world that kind of thinking almost destroyed our civilization.
“Oasis” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it four stars.
“Detained” See this for a plot summary.
A very political episode. The internment of Japanese and Japanese-Americans in most of the US during World War II is mentioned as something similar to what the Suliban are experiencing.
One of the interned Suliban explains that, “they told us it was only temporary, it was for our own safety- ‘once the cabal has been destroyed you will be free to go back to your homes.’ We’re still waiting” (eight years on).
This brings up two things:
1) It kind of reminds me of people being detained without a trial in the War on Terror and how that will probably not end in a few or even several decades.
2) If they were really interested in the safety of the Suliban (who were being attacked violently by Tandarans), the government would have made it very clear that attacks on them were unacceptable, and backed that up with the Army.
In general a good illustration of bigotry and oppression. 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).
“Rogue Planet” See this for a plot summary.
This episode tells us that decades earlier on Earth, hunting animals ceased. I have weak, negative feelings about hunting- I have basically nothing besides that to say on the subject.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Acquisition” See this for a plot summary.
This episode is about Ferengis, who practice raw capitalism. There is an exchange between Archer and one of the Ferengi about the Rules of Acquisition, a Ferengi code of conduct.
Ferengi: ... the most important one- “a man is only worth the sum of his possesions.”
Archer: Back on my home world that kind of thinking almost destroyed our civilization.
“Oasis” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it four stars.
“Detained” See this for a plot summary.
A very political episode. The internment of Japanese and Japanese-Americans in most of the US during World War II is mentioned as something similar to what the Suliban are experiencing.
One of the interned Suliban explains that, “they told us it was only temporary, it was for our own safety- ‘once the cabal has been destroyed you will be free to go back to your homes.’ We’re still waiting” (eight years on).
This brings up two things:
1) It kind of reminds me of people being detained without a trial in the War on Terror and how that will probably not end in a few or even several decades.
2) If they were really interested in the safety of the Suliban (who were being attacked violently by Tandarans), the government would have made it very clear that attacks on them were unacceptable, and backed that up with the Army.
In general a good illustration of bigotry and oppression. I give it four stars out of five.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Star Trek: Enterprise Reviews C
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).
“Sleeping Dogs” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Shadows of P’Jem” See this for a plot summary.
There’s one very good bit of politics in this episode. When looking at an alien city from outer-space, Malcolm and Trip have the following exchange:
Malcolm: From what we can tell, the entire capital is surrounded by a shanty-town- there are almost as many bio-signs on the outskirts as there are inside the city.
Trip: Looks like these people have a lot to learn about building a free society.
Poverty does undermine how free a society is. First, the US Declaration of Independence includes “the pursuit of Happiness” as an unalienable right. And poverty seriously affects democracy in a negative way. If you look at everything involved with an election in a capitalist country, it’s sort of a cross between “one person one vote” and “one dollar one vote.” Poverty makes it difficult for people to pursue their dreams.
I give this episode four stars out of five.
“Shuttle pod One” See this for a plot summary.
Although very non-political and in some ways unattractive for me, this is, overall, one of my favorite episodes in ENT. It is almost entirely about two Enterprise officers in a shuttle craft facing death in space as they are completely isolated and are losing oxygen. Normally I wouldn’t be interested in that sort of thing, but I love this episode.
I give it four stars out of five.
“Fusion” See this for a plot summary.
The way that they talk about what happens to T’pol during and after the mind-meld, is very similar to how people talk about rape.
I like the message sent about rape, but because of other elements of the episode (I’m not a big fan of Vulcan episodes), I am giving it only 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).
“Sleeping Dogs” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Shadows of P’Jem” See this for a plot summary.
There’s one very good bit of politics in this episode. When looking at an alien city from outer-space, Malcolm and Trip have the following exchange:
Malcolm: From what we can tell, the entire capital is surrounded by a shanty-town- there are almost as many bio-signs on the outskirts as there are inside the city.
Trip: Looks like these people have a lot to learn about building a free society.
Poverty does undermine how free a society is. First, the US Declaration of Independence includes “the pursuit of Happiness” as an unalienable right. And poverty seriously affects democracy in a negative way. If you look at everything involved with an election in a capitalist country, it’s sort of a cross between “one person one vote” and “one dollar one vote.” Poverty makes it difficult for people to pursue their dreams.
I give this episode four stars out of five.
“Shuttle pod One” See this for a plot summary.
Although very non-political and in some ways unattractive for me, this is, overall, one of my favorite episodes in ENT. It is almost entirely about two Enterprise officers in a shuttle craft facing death in space as they are completely isolated and are losing oxygen. Normally I wouldn’t be interested in that sort of thing, but I love this episode.
I give it four stars out of five.
“Fusion” See this for a plot summary.
The way that they talk about what happens to T’pol during and after the mind-meld, is very similar to how people talk about rape.
I like the message sent about rape, but because of other elements of the episode (I’m not a big fan of Vulcan episodes), I am giving it only two stars out of five.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Star Trek: Enterprise Reviews B
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).
“Fortunate Son” See this for a plot summary.
There is one little bit about torture, and StarFleet’s opposition to it. Besides that a non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Cold Front” See this for a plot summary.
This episode has something pretty rare in Star Trek- references to “Old Earth” religions, including Christianity. I like that, because it erodes this idea that the sort of progress among humanity that is central to ST requires ditching religion.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Silent Enemy” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Dear Doctor” See this for a plot summary.
This is a fairly political episode. It’s partly about how the (seemingly) inferior of two humanoid races indigenous to same planet is treated almost like children. It’s a fairly good example of bigotry.
There is also talk about if, when and how Star Fleet should interfere in the affairs of other races (this is a hint of what will be known decades later as the Prime Directive, which is drafted sometime not long before the events in The Original Series). As far as I can tell, the exact text of the Prime Directive is not available anywhere, so that affects what I can say about it. I sort of like it, but generally support Star Fleet officers when they bend or break it. It also seems to never be explained if it only applies to another race’s domestic situation, or if it also applies in inter-planetary conflicts.
I give this episode 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).
“Fortunate Son” See this for a plot summary.
There is one little bit about torture, and StarFleet’s opposition to it. Besides that a non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Cold Front” See this for a plot summary.
This episode has something pretty rare in Star Trek- references to “Old Earth” religions, including Christianity. I like that, because it erodes this idea that the sort of progress among humanity that is central to ST requires ditching religion.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Silent Enemy” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Dear Doctor” See this for a plot summary.
This is a fairly political episode. It’s partly about how the (seemingly) inferior of two humanoid races indigenous to same planet is treated almost like children. It’s a fairly good example of bigotry.
There is also talk about if, when and how Star Fleet should interfere in the affairs of other races (this is a hint of what will be known decades later as the Prime Directive, which is drafted sometime not long before the events in The Original Series). As far as I can tell, the exact text of the Prime Directive is not available anywhere, so that affects what I can say about it. I sort of like it, but generally support Star Fleet officers when they bend or break it. It also seems to never be explained if it only applies to another race’s domestic situation, or if it also applies in inter-planetary conflicts.
I give this episode three stars out of five.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Star Trek: Enterprise Reviews A
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).
“Broken Bow” parts 1 and 2 (see this for a plot summary)
There is only one bit of politics in this where Archer’s father discourages him from speaking about Vulcans in a way that’s bigoted. In general, the conflict between Starfleet and the Vulcans doesn’t seem (in general) to be racist on the part of the former.
On one hand, I’m not a big fan of the Suliban and “Temporal Cold War” aspects of this series. On the other hand, looking at the series premieres for the four series that I like, this one might be my favorite. In general, while watching this series for the 2nd or 3rd time (this is the 3rd or the 4th) I decided I really like this series- more than The Next Generation, and almost as much as Voyager and Deep Space Nine. I think that’s partly because it’s so interesting to see Starfleet at a point in it’s history where they are not as advanced technologically as they are in all the other series. I mean, they used shuttles almost all the time and only rarely used the transporter for people.
I give this two-parter four stars out of five.
“Fight or Flight” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Strange New World” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Unexpected” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Terra Nova” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“The Andorian Incident” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Breaking the Ice” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars.
“Civilization” 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).
“Broken Bow” parts 1 and 2 (see this for a plot summary)
There is only one bit of politics in this where Archer’s father discourages him from speaking about Vulcans in a way that’s bigoted. In general, the conflict between Starfleet and the Vulcans doesn’t seem (in general) to be racist on the part of the former.
On one hand, I’m not a big fan of the Suliban and “Temporal Cold War” aspects of this series. On the other hand, looking at the series premieres for the four series that I like, this one might be my favorite. In general, while watching this series for the 2nd or 3rd time (this is the 3rd or the 4th) I decided I really like this series- more than The Next Generation, and almost as much as Voyager and Deep Space Nine. I think that’s partly because it’s so interesting to see Starfleet at a point in it’s history where they are not as advanced technologically as they are in all the other series. I mean, they used shuttles almost all the time and only rarely used the transporter for people.
I give this two-parter four stars out of five.
“Fight or Flight” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Strange New World” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Unexpected” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Terra Nova” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“The Andorian Incident” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Breaking the Ice” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars.
“Civilization” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Religious Bigotry of "New Atheists" UPDATE 12/14/10
I have taken part in a discussion on one of the anti-nazi groups at Last.FM. It's about left hostility towards religious people.
The discussion is here. Below is the main contribution I made to it.
Also, antifa is a reference to militant anti-fascism.
UPDATE 12/14/10 I just posted a second comment of significance. It is below the first comment in this post, and you can see what I am responding to by clicking the link above.
Tom
"I generally agree with the post above. There's a lot of people in various religions who are not fundamentalists, they're not bigots. I mean, a survey by one of the Pew centers, found about 45% of American Catholics support gay marriage. Today, I believe that islam IS going through a period where the fundies and bigots are some kind of large majority, but there are plenty of exceptions (for example I've heard that Bosnian Muslims are generally not fundies).
You can oppose their bigotry and pro-life politics without attacking their religion completely. In fact I can think of ways to do that without discussing their religion at all. One problem with the new Atheist approach is that the fundies will have more success convincing people that opponents of homophobia (for example) are anti-Christian, which will strengthen their position. The New Atheists, to whatever degree they are progressives or leftists, are promoting division among those communities and are distracting us from important work that needs to be done.
So, it isn't helpful. And as the poster above says, it is bigotry. If you're hostile towards someone because of their religion, you're a bigot.
And to the person who started this, who is "strictly antifa." You can hate their bigotry without hating their religion. I don't know why you think you can be "strictly antifa" and hate Muslims and Jews because of their religion.
Actually I guess that if you want to attack the fundies FUNDAMENTALISM, go ahead. I say that partly because they're making a big deal about their religion. And I'm sure religiously motivated leftists would be happy to debate you about their religion, but this hatred towards EVERYONE who believes in religion is bigotry. Speaking about myself and millions of others, our faith is something we don't advertise and only talk about it when it comes up. it's not nice knowing that there are people out there who hate me because of my religion.
I think that's about all I have to say.
Tom"
New comment:
"When you say that Atheists are oppressed, to some small degree I agree. Looking at America, they don't have the political representation they should have; there's harrassment based on Atheists' beliefs about God (that harrassment isbigotry); Possibly some other things, although I wouldn't be surprised if atheists are above average financially and are more likely to have gone to College. So, to some small degree, they are oppressed as atheists.
That hostility doesn't justify hostility to all religious people because they are religious.
In response to The Dark Silence:
I don't think you have a good grip what most religious people seek in religion. I am religious as a Catholic and get the following out of it:
1. A theory to explain what happens when we die.
2. Reading the Bible when I was young planted the seeds that became my socialist beliefs about 15 years ago.
3. A sense of community (the church that I used to go to was very liberal, and more or less not fundamentalist) (haven't switched churches, just haven't been going to church for a while).
4. I think there's another one I'm forgetting, or it could be what i'll say right here- it's easier for me to deal with my mom's death believing that she is in Heaven.
Tom"
*******
UPDATE 6/15/21 An article here details how the New Atheists merged with the far right.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Glenn Beck, American Unity, Capitalist Exploitation
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"
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"
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)