This is amazing! (UPDATE 12/26/11 maybe not "amazing," but something close to that- as I mention below, their talk about re-writing the law will almost certainly make it even easier to prove they're racists, and I'm a bit surprised because I thought they would be smarter than that)
UPDATE 12/10/11
What will be really important is to see HOW the authors of that law will re-write it. I can't imagine them re-writing it in a way that won't be easy to condemn as even more racist than the original bill. Anyway, here is another article worth reading.
UPDATE 12/16/11 A news item from the Southern Law Poverty Center has some more important info.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Israeli Apartheid and Palestinian Civil Disobediance
Yesterday I found a very interesting and encouraging article on the BBC web-site. It's about a civil disobedience action by Palestinians, which highlights the fact that Apartheid IS an appropriate term for Israel's treatment of Palestinians.
Tom
UPDATE 11/17/11
I forgot to mention a few other things about using the term "Apartheid" when referring to Israel. I don't remember the details, but there are laws that make it very difficult for married couples to live in Israel if one of them is from certain parts of the Middle-East (including the Occupied Territories) and the other one is an Israeli citizen. (UPDATE 1/12/12 More on that here)
And it's not just buses that are basically segregated, there are also roads that are segregated, too. (UPDATE 12/3/12 More on segregation here (In all fairness, they canceled that policy, see this)) UPDATE 3/9/20 An article about this is here, and here are some more of my thoughts on this. I'm not saying there aren't legitimate security concerns among settlers, but A) the hostility from Palestinians is largely because of their treatment by Israel, and this is just one more reason that needs to end; B) if they don't want to be around Palestinians, maybe they should live somewhere else, besides what used to be called Palestine, and C) these policies of segregation only reinforce the anti-Arab bigotry that, to one degree or another, most Jewish Israelis are afflicted by.
And then there is the fact that the State is officially defined by a Jewish identity. People who support that should be asked if they think there will ever be an Palestinian-Israeli Muslim or Christian or Druze President or Prime Minister in Israel (according to the Israeli government at some point in recent years around 17% of Israel's population is Muslim). More generally, the Palestinian-Israeli population does experience a fair amount of inequality.
UPDATE 11/27/11
As the article I link to above says, Israel says that keeping Palestinians without permission outside Jerusalem is for security reasons. But instead of banning the small minority of Palestinians who Israel could credibly consider security risks, the burden is placed on all Palestinians to get permission. In a similar situation (both areas include natives and a settler populations of one sort or another) even the British didn’t go that far in relation to N. Ireland (they only banned a small number of nationalists from Britain, which was bad enough). The policy that Israel has is very similar to the S. African Apartheid laws about controlling the movements of Blacks and generally keeping them out of white cities unless they had permission to be there.
(UPDATE 12/5/12 I forgot to mention that, whether they're going to Jerusalem or somewhere else in Israel, Occupied Territories Palestinians have to pass through some number (probably around five) of security checkpoints)
If security is the motivation, I’d also have to ask, what about extremist settlers? MANY of them FREQUENTLY clash with the Israeli security forces (in both the West Bank and in Israel), and it was a supporter of settlers who assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Are any of them, for security reasons, not allowed into Jerusalem? I didn’t think so. (UPDATE 12/15/11 here's a recent article about this sort of thing) (UPDATE 8/7/15 After a Palestinian baby was killed by settlers Israel has announced that measures usually reserved for Palestinian suspects will be used against suspects in this case; see this) UPDATE 2/12/20 A relavent article is here. See another article about hate crimes against Palestinians and the response of the police.
So, security is not the reason. Bigotry is. (UPDATE 12/4/12 Another article about anti-Palestinian racism (I believe the idea behind the loyalty oath is to discourage Palestinians from trying to get citizenship and to encourage Palestinians who are currently in Israel to leave; The thing is, in a self-defined Jewish State, the Palestinians are 2nd Class citizens and would likely and reasonably feel uncomfortable swearing loyalty to such a state)
UPDATE 2/5/12 To be fair, SOME action is NOW taking place against the settlers, but it's new and seems pretty limited- there is still a huge gap between how specific Israelis suspected of militancy are treated, and how pretty much the entire Palestinian population of the Occupied Territories is treated. The article is here.
UPDATE 1/23/16 An update from the US Ambassador on (among other things Israel is doing wrong) how the Israeli criminal justice and security systems are treating Palestinian and Jewish settler militants differently.
******
UPDATE 12/11/11 Juan Cole wrote a great essay about the Palestinians, largely aimed at the idea that their identity is invented and therefore they have no claim to Palestine.
******
UPDATE 12/5/12 There is also something Apartheid-esque about the withdrawal of settlers and soldiers from Gaza- the South Africans created several ostensibly independent states for blacks, but they weren't really independent.
UPDATE 3/2/14 I need to nail this down, but an Israeli leftist said that when she visits her Palestinian friends in the Occupied Teritories, she is breaking the law.
UPDATE 3/17/14 An article about why the Palestinians won't recognize Israel AS A JEWISH STATE.
UPDATE 4/29/14 An article that goes into some detail about the Apartheid comparison (That article includes a link to another important one here).
UPDATE 11/13/14 A post at Informed Comment about talk by the Israeli PM suggesting that Palestinian-Israelis should be stripped of their citizenship. UPDATE 3/5/20 Articles here and here explain that Israel's longtime and current and maybe future PM believes, essentially, that Palestinian-Israeli MKs (MPs) shouldn't be counted when it comes to forming a government. An opinion column here is also worth reading (the author is described here).
UPDATE 3/28/15 Another relevant article about the treatment of Palestinian-Israelis.
UPDATE 5/27/18 A couple days ago I was at an event about Palestine when a member of the audience said that it's illegal for Palestinians to convert to Judaism. I did a search and might do more and found an article here (I've been told the site is both conservative and pro-Israel). If this is true, to any degree, that is sickening and completely racist.
UPDATE 8/3/18 The biggest piece of evidence in favor of using the word Apartheid- see this. This also has some important things to say.
UPDATE Feb. 2020 One more article, this one about suppressing the Palestinian vote inside Israel.
UPDATE Feb 2020 An article about efforts to reduce the % of the Israeli population that is Palestinian. Although it doesn't change my opinion of Netanyahu, here is an important update.
UPDATE 2/9/20 An article touching on the fact (or at leat that people including Palestinian-Israelis, can be blocked from running for office if they feel so strongly about supporting the Palestinians that they support attacks on Israeli soldiers. A very senior politician also says she should be in the Palestinian parliament, not the Israeli one (she's an Palestinian-ISRAELI). It also mentions that inciting racism can get you disqualified, but I as far as I can tell it has only been applied to members of one ridiculously small and ridiculously bigoted Zionist party.
UPDATE 2/12/20 Although this isn't news I just confirmed something I was pretty sure of anyway. Read this article about Israel demolishing the homes of Palestinian terrorists, especially the following part:
UPDATE 2/27/20 An article here about how the Israeli government is helping settlers break the law in the West Bank by not destroying illegal settlements, and at the same time destroying Palestinian structures.
UPDATE An article describing a poll showing a lack of support in Israel for key elements of a democratic society and political system. That's a reference to such things in Israel and although those who are unconcerned about, for example, civil liberties probably are anti-Arab, if they're so unconcerned about democracy for the Israeli population in general (which is 80%) Jewish, I can only imagine what they would say if they were asked about these things exclusively in relation to the Palestinian-Israeli population or the Palestinians in the West Bank.
UPDATE 2/29/20 I wish it were more explicitly about anti-Arab racism and anti-Muslim bigotry, but a senior figure in the Likud party says "hate is what unites our camp," and although it appears to be hatred on several topics, I have no doubt that part of it is about Muslims and Arabs.
UPDATE 3/6/20 An article about Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza normally allowed into Israel to work, are barred on and around national and Jewish holidays, while Jewish settlers in the West Bank can continue to enter Israel.
UPDATE 3/7/20 An article about how a government minister apparently wants to expel the Palestinian-Israeli population (I am transitioning to use that term instead of the apparently inappropriate term "Arab-Israeli").
UPDATE 3/13/20 An article more or less about the Nation State Law.
From an article about a US State Department report on Jerusalem:
I think that when the PA complains about using the word "Arab" instead of "Palestinian" that is largely just about resident of Jerusalem. On the other hand, I am probably going to get off my butt and change "Arab-Israeli" on my blog to "Palestinian-Israeli" which I know is to one degree or another preferred.
UPDATE 3/1/4/20 Even the US State Department accused Likud of anti-Arab racism.
UPDATE 3/14/20 An article about an effort to change two things about how the leader of the opposition is treated by the State. The idea is to deny them intelligence briefings the usually get, and, even worse, deny them a security detail from the domestic security/intelligence agency Shin Bet and this is explicitly because that position might soon be held by a Palestinian-Israeli MK (MP). The part about intelligence briefings is just basic racism, but the part about a security detail takes it to a new level. That can't be construed in any way as a threat to national security, they just like the idea of a high-profile Palestinan-Israeli MK being killed by right-wing Zionists.
Tom
UPDATE 11/17/11
I forgot to mention a few other things about using the term "Apartheid" when referring to Israel. I don't remember the details, but there are laws that make it very difficult for married couples to live in Israel if one of them is from certain parts of the Middle-East (including the Occupied Territories) and the other one is an Israeli citizen. (UPDATE 1/12/12 More on that here)
And it's not just buses that are basically segregated, there are also roads that are segregated, too. (UPDATE 12/3/12 More on segregation here (In all fairness, they canceled that policy, see this)) UPDATE 3/9/20 An article about this is here, and here are some more of my thoughts on this. I'm not saying there aren't legitimate security concerns among settlers, but A) the hostility from Palestinians is largely because of their treatment by Israel, and this is just one more reason that needs to end; B) if they don't want to be around Palestinians, maybe they should live somewhere else, besides what used to be called Palestine, and C) these policies of segregation only reinforce the anti-Arab bigotry that, to one degree or another, most Jewish Israelis are afflicted by.
And then there is the fact that the State is officially defined by a Jewish identity. People who support that should be asked if they think there will ever be an Palestinian-Israeli Muslim or Christian or Druze President or Prime Minister in Israel (according to the Israeli government at some point in recent years around 17% of Israel's population is Muslim). More generally, the Palestinian-Israeli population does experience a fair amount of inequality.
UPDATE 11/27/11
As the article I link to above says, Israel says that keeping Palestinians without permission outside Jerusalem is for security reasons. But instead of banning the small minority of Palestinians who Israel could credibly consider security risks, the burden is placed on all Palestinians to get permission. In a similar situation (both areas include natives and a settler populations of one sort or another) even the British didn’t go that far in relation to N. Ireland (they only banned a small number of nationalists from Britain, which was bad enough). The policy that Israel has is very similar to the S. African Apartheid laws about controlling the movements of Blacks and generally keeping them out of white cities unless they had permission to be there.
(UPDATE 12/5/12 I forgot to mention that, whether they're going to Jerusalem or somewhere else in Israel, Occupied Territories Palestinians have to pass through some number (probably around five) of security checkpoints)
If security is the motivation, I’d also have to ask, what about extremist settlers? MANY of them FREQUENTLY clash with the Israeli security forces (in both the West Bank and in Israel), and it was a supporter of settlers who assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Are any of them, for security reasons, not allowed into Jerusalem? I didn’t think so. (UPDATE 12/15/11 here's a recent article about this sort of thing) (UPDATE 8/7/15 After a Palestinian baby was killed by settlers Israel has announced that measures usually reserved for Palestinian suspects will be used against suspects in this case; see this) UPDATE 2/12/20 A relavent article is here. See another article about hate crimes against Palestinians and the response of the police.
So, security is not the reason. Bigotry is. (UPDATE 12/4/12 Another article about anti-Palestinian racism (I believe the idea behind the loyalty oath is to discourage Palestinians from trying to get citizenship and to encourage Palestinians who are currently in Israel to leave; The thing is, in a self-defined Jewish State, the Palestinians are 2nd Class citizens and would likely and reasonably feel uncomfortable swearing loyalty to such a state)
UPDATE 2/5/12 To be fair, SOME action is NOW taking place against the settlers, but it's new and seems pretty limited- there is still a huge gap between how specific Israelis suspected of militancy are treated, and how pretty much the entire Palestinian population of the Occupied Territories is treated. The article is here.
UPDATE 1/23/16 An update from the US Ambassador on (among other things Israel is doing wrong) how the Israeli criminal justice and security systems are treating Palestinian and Jewish settler militants differently.
******
UPDATE 12/11/11 Juan Cole wrote a great essay about the Palestinians, largely aimed at the idea that their identity is invented and therefore they have no claim to Palestine.
******
UPDATE 12/5/12 There is also something Apartheid-esque about the withdrawal of settlers and soldiers from Gaza- the South Africans created several ostensibly independent states for blacks, but they weren't really independent.
UPDATE 3/2/14 I need to nail this down, but an Israeli leftist said that when she visits her Palestinian friends in the Occupied Teritories, she is breaking the law.
UPDATE 3/17/14 An article about why the Palestinians won't recognize Israel AS A JEWISH STATE.
UPDATE 4/29/14 An article that goes into some detail about the Apartheid comparison (That article includes a link to another important one here).
UPDATE 11/13/14 A post at Informed Comment about talk by the Israeli PM suggesting that Palestinian-Israelis should be stripped of their citizenship. UPDATE 3/5/20 Articles here and here explain that Israel's longtime and current and maybe future PM believes, essentially, that Palestinian-Israeli MKs (MPs) shouldn't be counted when it comes to forming a government. An opinion column here is also worth reading (the author is described here).
UPDATE 3/28/15 Another relevant article about the treatment of Palestinian-Israelis.
UPDATE 5/27/18 A couple days ago I was at an event about Palestine when a member of the audience said that it's illegal for Palestinians to convert to Judaism. I did a search and might do more and found an article here (I've been told the site is both conservative and pro-Israel). If this is true, to any degree, that is sickening and completely racist.
UPDATE 8/3/18 The biggest piece of evidence in favor of using the word Apartheid- see this. This also has some important things to say.
UPDATE Feb. 2020 One more article, this one about suppressing the Palestinian vote inside Israel.
UPDATE Feb 2020 An article about efforts to reduce the % of the Israeli population that is Palestinian. Although it doesn't change my opinion of Netanyahu, here is an important update.
UPDATE 2/9/20 An article touching on the fact (or at leat that people including Palestinian-Israelis, can be blocked from running for office if they feel so strongly about supporting the Palestinians that they support attacks on Israeli soldiers. A very senior politician also says she should be in the Palestinian parliament, not the Israeli one (she's an Palestinian-ISRAELI). It also mentions that inciting racism can get you disqualified, but I as far as I can tell it has only been applied to members of one ridiculously small and ridiculously bigoted Zionist party.
UPDATE 2/12/20 Although this isn't news I just confirmed something I was pretty sure of anyway. Read this article about Israel demolishing the homes of Palestinian terrorists, especially the following part:
"A similar "standard" was never applied to a Jewish terrorist. For instance when a Jewish settler, Baruch Goldstein, slayed 29 Muslim worshipers in the Cave of Patriarchs, no one suggested to demolish his home as a deterrence."
UPDATE 2/27/20 An article here about how the Israeli government is helping settlers break the law in the West Bank by not destroying illegal settlements, and at the same time destroying Palestinian structures.
UPDATE An article describing a poll showing a lack of support in Israel for key elements of a democratic society and political system. That's a reference to such things in Israel and although those who are unconcerned about, for example, civil liberties probably are anti-Arab, if they're so unconcerned about democracy for the Israeli population in general (which is 80%) Jewish, I can only imagine what they would say if they were asked about these things exclusively in relation to the Palestinian-Israeli population or the Palestinians in the West Bank.
UPDATE 2/29/20 I wish it were more explicitly about anti-Arab racism and anti-Muslim bigotry, but a senior figure in the Likud party says "hate is what unites our camp," and although it appears to be hatred on several topics, I have no doubt that part of it is about Muslims and Arabs.
UPDATE 3/6/20 An article about Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza normally allowed into Israel to work, are barred on and around national and Jewish holidays, while Jewish settlers in the West Bank can continue to enter Israel.
UPDATE 3/7/20 An article about how a government minister apparently wants to expel the Palestinian-Israeli population (I am transitioning to use that term instead of the apparently inappropriate term "Arab-Israeli").
UPDATE 3/13/20 An article more or less about the Nation State Law.
***************
UPDATE 3/14/20
From an article about a US State Department report on Jerusalem:
The human rights report, however, did express criticism of the Jerusalem Municipality for not providing adequate services to Palestinians living in the eastern half of the city.
“The Jerusalem municipality failed to provide sufficient social services, education, infrastructure, and emergency planning for neighborhoods where the majority of residents were not Israelis, especially in the areas between the security barrier and the municipal boundary,” it said.
Even though Palestinians in East Jerusalem make up 38% of the city’s more than 900,000 residents, the Jerusalem Municipality only invests 10-12% of its budget in their neighborhoods, according to Daniel Seidemann, an expert on Jerusalem affairs.
I think that when the PA complains about using the word "Arab" instead of "Palestinian" that is largely just about resident of Jerusalem. On the other hand, I am probably going to get off my butt and change "Arab-Israeli" on my blog to "Palestinian-Israeli" which I know is to one degree or another preferred.
***********
UPDATE 3/1/4/20 Even the US State Department accused Likud of anti-Arab racism.
UPDATE 3/14/20 An article about an effort to change two things about how the leader of the opposition is treated by the State. The idea is to deny them intelligence briefings the usually get, and, even worse, deny them a security detail from the domestic security/intelligence agency Shin Bet and this is explicitly because that position might soon be held by a Palestinian-Israeli MK (MP). The part about intelligence briefings is just basic racism, but the part about a security detail takes it to a new level. That can't be construed in any way as a threat to national security, they just like the idea of a high-profile Palestinan-Israeli MK being killed by right-wing Zionists.
***********************
My best post in support of the Palestinians is here.
***************************
UPDATE 3/29/16
As you might know there is a lot of controversy about using the word "Apartheid" in relation to Israel's relationship with the Palestinians. Some part of the European Union even said it's anti-Semitic to do that. I think I do a pretty good job here of proving that it's accurate enough that it's definitely not anti-Semitic. But since I have kind of stepped up my criticism of Israel with this post, I thought I should repeat here something I've said twice elsewhere on this blog, something that might be the most important thing to explain if you want to defeat the actual anti-Semites among us Palestine supporters. And that is that Jewish-Americans are only a tiny minority of those Americans who strongly support Israel, and the rest have their own interests/agendas and not some kind of allegiance or compliance to a majority of the Jewish community as their reason(s) for supporting Israel. There are tons of Christians motivated by obscure Biblical reasons to support Israel and there are tons of people (both atheists and Christians) who support Israel for foreign policy reasons (their views of Israel's role in the Cold War and more recently the "War on Terror"). And on a related note, there is a growing minority of Jewish-Americans who are critical of Israel in support of the Palestinians.
(At the risk of being silly and patting myself on the back too much for being a good Christian ally, I want to high-light that I did a post here that you might want to note. A) in general it shows that I go to extraordinairy lengths to oppose anti-Semitism, and B) I describe the NUREMBERG LAWS (specifically and not Nazi anti-semitism in general or the Final Solution) as creating "a kind of Apartheid for German Jews")
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Star Trek: The Original Series Reviews P
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.
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).
“That Which Survives” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.
“The Lights of Zetar” See this for a plot summary.
Overall a non-political episode, but there are a few things to mention:
1) More sexism than usual. A female StarFleet officer is frequently referred to as either a girl or a lass. Sulu makes a joke which seems to endorse thinking of women as brainless.
UPDATE 11/9/11 I think that with this post and maybe a couple others where I accused ST *TOS* of being sexist I went a little too far. I mean, there ARE two statements by kirk that are sexist, and I think the whole thing with women crewmembers wearing skirts (or dresses?) thing is sexist. But when it comes to Kirk and in this case also Scotty, referring to adult female crewmembers as "girl" or "lass" I have to wonder, how often has kirk called adult male crewmembers "boy?" I think probably rarely or never, but I'm not going to re-watch the series anytime soon, so I don't know. It is possible I'm being too harsh with the characters and writers over the use of "lass" and "girl." And I could be wrong about the skirts.
2) The idea of an electronic repository for all the knowledge in the Federation, which is open to anyone, sounds like a good idea.
3) The last members of an alien race (less than a hundred of them) whose planet died a long time ago is eliminated in order to save a StarFleet offcier from being inhabited by them, which seems reasonable.
“Requiem for Methuselah” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. But I liked the idea that Flint was immortal and had actually been many historical figures (such as da Vinci).
I give it two stars out of five.
“The Way to Eden” See this for a plot summary.
You could possibly call this episode “StarFleet versus the Hippie.” Although Spock likes them, it’s fairly negative towards the hippies.
I give it three stars out of five.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Star Trek: The Original Series Reviews O
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.
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).
“Elaan of Troyius” See this for a plot summary.
There is one bit of politics, bad ones, when Kirk says that except for Vulcan women, women are all illogical. Not an example of ST’s progressive politics.
I give it one star out of five.
“Whom Gods Destroy” See this for a plot summary.
There is a lot of political aspects to this episode.
The setting is a prison housing the few remaining, un-rehabilitated criminally insane. There’s not much said about what the prison is like, but there is a painless therapy machine that helps with rehabilitation, although in general it apparently makes people docile, and at the end, it seems to also destroy memories, which is very disturbing.
It centers on one prisoner, a former Captain of StarFleet. He had tried to use his ship to destroy a peaceful people’s planet, but his crew mutinied, something I find fairly inspiring. More generally he had become a Federation imperialist and used torture.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Let That Be Your Last Battlefield” See this for a plot summary.
This is one of the most political episodes of all ST. There are two main themes, which kind of contradict each other, at least as I see it. The first theme is of a people fighting national oppression, dictatorship, and possibly genocide. The second is of two population groups that hate each other and end up killing everyone on their planet.
Although it isn’t completely clear this is the case, it seems very likely to me that the struggle Lokai was engaged in was for a good cause and probably conducted honorably. There’s talk of slavery of his people, followed by another form of inequality (probably comparable to Jim Crow in the American South). Genocide is mentioned as a goal of his oppressors, many of whom were on the verge of seizing power and creating a dictatorship.
At one point when Lokai is educating some of the Enterprise crew about his plant, he says “you don’t know what it would be like to to be dragged out of your hovel into a war on another planet- a battle that will serve your oppressor and bring death to you and your brothers.” It seems like that line was probably inspired by looking at who was being disproportionately placed in combat units during the Vietnam War (hint- it wasn’t affluent white people). That war was of great benefit to the military-industrial complex, and, if the US had been successful, there probably would have been other benefits for some more elements of the white population.
Regarding his use of violence, Lokai has a couple good lines:
“I led revolutionaries, not criminals- I demand political asylum”
and “why should a slave show mercy to the enslaver.”
Although it’s unclear if he means slave revolts in the past when his people WERE slaves, or if he means killing civilian officials and leaders of the “Jim Crow-”type of oppression they experienced after slavery (which could possibly be questionable (the IRA rarely engaged in such attacks and I'm not sure if they were a good idea)), it’s a good line.
The first of the two lines reminds me of how IRA POWs resisted criminalization.
At one point Bele, the government official hunting Lokai, says that Lokai wants “utopia in a day” in reference to Lokai’s grivences. Lokai says something about how he wasn’t that impatient and suggested that Bele would be happy if it took one hundred thousand years. It kind of reminds me of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s “Letter From Birmingham Jail,” in which he told white Christian clergy members that there was nothing wrong with oppressed people wanting justice to develop rapidly in the very near future.
As I said there are sort of two themes that contradict each other. At least some of the StarFleet crew generally believe that Lokai and Bele are mirror images of hatred, although there are exceptions who are very open to what lokai has to say. But I believe the dominant and accurate theme is the one of national oppression. The hand-full of lines and imagery about the other theme, are, by themselves, good statements about hatred.
Lastly, Kirk once again exaggerates how non-violent StarFleet is.
In general it is a very good episode, and I give it three stars out of five.
“The Mark of Gideon” See this for a plot summary.
There are a couple of political themes that should be mentioned.
The first is this thing that the Federation and StarFleet have about not taking "no" for answer when they try to establish a relationship with alien civilizations. It’s just wrong.
There is also the issue of population growth. I’m not as educated as I could be about the subject and am going to skip it.
I give this episode two stars out of five.
I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.
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).
“Elaan of Troyius” See this for a plot summary.
There is one bit of politics, bad ones, when Kirk says that except for Vulcan women, women are all illogical. Not an example of ST’s progressive politics.
I give it one star out of five.
“Whom Gods Destroy” See this for a plot summary.
There is a lot of political aspects to this episode.
The setting is a prison housing the few remaining, un-rehabilitated criminally insane. There’s not much said about what the prison is like, but there is a painless therapy machine that helps with rehabilitation, although in general it apparently makes people docile, and at the end, it seems to also destroy memories, which is very disturbing.
It centers on one prisoner, a former Captain of StarFleet. He had tried to use his ship to destroy a peaceful people’s planet, but his crew mutinied, something I find fairly inspiring. More generally he had become a Federation imperialist and used torture.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Let That Be Your Last Battlefield” See this for a plot summary.
This is one of the most political episodes of all ST. There are two main themes, which kind of contradict each other, at least as I see it. The first theme is of a people fighting national oppression, dictatorship, and possibly genocide. The second is of two population groups that hate each other and end up killing everyone on their planet.
Although it isn’t completely clear this is the case, it seems very likely to me that the struggle Lokai was engaged in was for a good cause and probably conducted honorably. There’s talk of slavery of his people, followed by another form of inequality (probably comparable to Jim Crow in the American South). Genocide is mentioned as a goal of his oppressors, many of whom were on the verge of seizing power and creating a dictatorship.
At one point when Lokai is educating some of the Enterprise crew about his plant, he says “you don’t know what it would be like to to be dragged out of your hovel into a war on another planet- a battle that will serve your oppressor and bring death to you and your brothers.” It seems like that line was probably inspired by looking at who was being disproportionately placed in combat units during the Vietnam War (hint- it wasn’t affluent white people). That war was of great benefit to the military-industrial complex, and, if the US had been successful, there probably would have been other benefits for some more elements of the white population.
Regarding his use of violence, Lokai has a couple good lines:
“I led revolutionaries, not criminals- I demand political asylum”
and “why should a slave show mercy to the enslaver.”
Although it’s unclear if he means slave revolts in the past when his people WERE slaves, or if he means killing civilian officials and leaders of the “Jim Crow-”type of oppression they experienced after slavery (which could possibly be questionable (the IRA rarely engaged in such attacks and I'm not sure if they were a good idea)), it’s a good line.
The first of the two lines reminds me of how IRA POWs resisted criminalization.
At one point Bele, the government official hunting Lokai, says that Lokai wants “utopia in a day” in reference to Lokai’s grivences. Lokai says something about how he wasn’t that impatient and suggested that Bele would be happy if it took one hundred thousand years. It kind of reminds me of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s “Letter From Birmingham Jail,” in which he told white Christian clergy members that there was nothing wrong with oppressed people wanting justice to develop rapidly in the very near future.
As I said there are sort of two themes that contradict each other. At least some of the StarFleet crew generally believe that Lokai and Bele are mirror images of hatred, although there are exceptions who are very open to what lokai has to say. But I believe the dominant and accurate theme is the one of national oppression. The hand-full of lines and imagery about the other theme, are, by themselves, good statements about hatred.
Lastly, Kirk once again exaggerates how non-violent StarFleet is.
In general it is a very good episode, and I give it three stars out of five.
“The Mark of Gideon” See this for a plot summary.
There are a couple of political themes that should be mentioned.
The first is this thing that the Federation and StarFleet have about not taking "no" for answer when they try to establish a relationship with alien civilizations. It’s just wrong.
There is also the issue of population growth. I’m not as educated as I could be about the subject and am going to skip it.
I give this episode two stars out of five.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Star Trek: The Original Series Reviews N
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 have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.
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 Tholian Web” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Plato’s Stepchildren” See this for a plot summary.
As the title sort of implies, a small amount of this episode is definitely philosophical. A the risk of making a fool of myself (I’m not good at philosophy) I’ll make some brief comments about that.
1) It briefly talks about plato and utopia and democracy. Apparently their idea for a perfect democracy is that anyone can do anything, as long as they are smart enough. This kind of reminds me of the idea that America is a “meritocracy,” which is very untrue, although I think I’ll skip the details on that for now.
2) This episode also brings up the issue of power and corruption. I believe that to a large degree power can (very often does) result in corruption. But I also think that with government there ar ways to keep that problem at a minimum. Checks and balances, whistle-blower protection, strong unions and more generally a strong civil society, a redistribution of wealth that will mean fewer people with the means to bribe government employees, very serious penalties for government employees accepting bribes etc.
As far as corruption outside government, I’d say some fairly similar things, plus more regulation in some areas (i.e. accounting, equality legislation, etc. (which would also apply to the Government)).
I give it one star out of five.
“Wink of an Eye” See this for a plot summary.
There’s one question that is raised in this episode. Because the Scalosians need to abduct members of other races in order to reproduce, Kirk’s efforts to stop them will result in the death of their race- that is, genocide. I’d say Kirk was right- abducting people like that is horrible, and at some point some races (the human race or alien races) just don’t survive.
On a non-political note, the Voyager episode inspired by this episode, “Blink of an Eye” is one of my very favorite ST episodes, and “Wink of an Eye” is nowhere near as good as the Voyager episode.
I give it one star out of five.
“The Empath” See this for a plot summary.
There’s kind of a political aspect to this, which is the idea that civilization requires compassion for others.
I give it one star out of five.
I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.
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 Tholian Web” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Plato’s Stepchildren” See this for a plot summary.
As the title sort of implies, a small amount of this episode is definitely philosophical. A the risk of making a fool of myself (I’m not good at philosophy) I’ll make some brief comments about that.
1) It briefly talks about plato and utopia and democracy. Apparently their idea for a perfect democracy is that anyone can do anything, as long as they are smart enough. This kind of reminds me of the idea that America is a “meritocracy,” which is very untrue, although I think I’ll skip the details on that for now.
2) This episode also brings up the issue of power and corruption. I believe that to a large degree power can (very often does) result in corruption. But I also think that with government there ar ways to keep that problem at a minimum. Checks and balances, whistle-blower protection, strong unions and more generally a strong civil society, a redistribution of wealth that will mean fewer people with the means to bribe government employees, very serious penalties for government employees accepting bribes etc.
As far as corruption outside government, I’d say some fairly similar things, plus more regulation in some areas (i.e. accounting, equality legislation, etc. (which would also apply to the Government)).
I give it one star out of five.
“Wink of an Eye” See this for a plot summary.
There’s one question that is raised in this episode. Because the Scalosians need to abduct members of other races in order to reproduce, Kirk’s efforts to stop them will result in the death of their race- that is, genocide. I’d say Kirk was right- abducting people like that is horrible, and at some point some races (the human race or alien races) just don’t survive.
On a non-political note, the Voyager episode inspired by this episode, “Blink of an Eye” is one of my very favorite ST episodes, and “Wink of an Eye” is nowhere near as good as the Voyager episode.
I give it one star out of five.
“The Empath” See this for a plot summary.
There’s kind of a political aspect to this, which is the idea that civilization requires compassion for others.
I give it one star out of five.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Star Trek: The Original Series Reviews M
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 have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.
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).
“Is There in Truth no Beauty?” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Spectre of the Gun” See this for a plot summary.
There are basically three political aspects to this episode:
1) The Enterprise is ordered to make contact with an alien race “at all costs.” When they encounter some kind of space buoy and are told to turn around and not enter the aliens’ space, Kirk acknowledges the buoys message and explains his mission to the aliens. He then takes a small landing party and transports down to the planet.
It reminds me of the United States forcing Japan to open itself to the US. In general, that sort of thing is wrong.
2) There is some talk about how humanity “overcame” it’s “instinct for violence.”
3) At the end, it turns out it’s another episode where an alien race wants to test the Federation citizens to see if they take life when it’s not totally necessary, and then the aliens move towards friendship with the Federation. Some times Kirk goes a bit far in proclaiming the Federation’s commitment to non-violence, but over all it’s fairly true.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Day of the dove” See this for a plot summary.
There are two minor political points made- 1) there’s an incident of sexual assault (or at least attempted sexual assault), which in the context of ST can be seen as a feminist statement (when Chekhov did that, he was under the influence of an alien); and 2) some incidents of racial hostility, which lead to statements against racism.
The political aspect that really deserves some attention comes from Spock: “Those who hate and fight must stop themselves, otherwise it is not stopped.” This presents a problem for me, although I feel comfortable disagreeing with ST on some stuff here and there. But I have gotten the idea that, for example, UN Peacekeepers usually are doing something good that helps with ending conflicts. I also believe in something similar with the non-armed aspects of conflict resolution- for example, I believe that it was a good idea that the International Decommissioning Commission in N. Ireland was led by people from third party countries. In a mid-1990s publication of the Pat Finucane Center in Derry, they called for the police patrolling nationalist areas to be replaced by officers from European Union nations. Partly inspired by those last two items, I wrote up a proposal for resolving the conflict, one that would involve such international elements.
I still believe in such an approach (there’s a possibility that Spock’s theory doesn’t apply to the North, since there is really not much anti-Protetsant bigotry coming from the Catholics) (the Peace-Keepers should come from countries that don't have any selfish interests in the conflict, and civilian 3rd party personel should meet similar criteria). The thing is, when Ireland is close to being united, there will be some degree of loyalist backlash, and I think a UN force dealing with that would be better than either the British Army or the Irish Army would be. That’s because if it were the BA, some soldiers would be sympathetic to the loyalists and hostile to the nationalists, and their presence on the streets might attract attacks by republicans. If it were the Irish Army, that might increase the backlash if they’re suspected of being sympathetic to the nationalists. Third party peace-keepers (who would also have to be conducting raids when necessary) would probably be at least a little better.
I give this episode one star out of five.
“For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.
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).
“Is There in Truth no Beauty?” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Spectre of the Gun” See this for a plot summary.
There are basically three political aspects to this episode:
1) The Enterprise is ordered to make contact with an alien race “at all costs.” When they encounter some kind of space buoy and are told to turn around and not enter the aliens’ space, Kirk acknowledges the buoys message and explains his mission to the aliens. He then takes a small landing party and transports down to the planet.
It reminds me of the United States forcing Japan to open itself to the US. In general, that sort of thing is wrong.
2) There is some talk about how humanity “overcame” it’s “instinct for violence.”
3) At the end, it turns out it’s another episode where an alien race wants to test the Federation citizens to see if they take life when it’s not totally necessary, and then the aliens move towards friendship with the Federation. Some times Kirk goes a bit far in proclaiming the Federation’s commitment to non-violence, but over all it’s fairly true.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Day of the dove” See this for a plot summary.
There are two minor political points made- 1) there’s an incident of sexual assault (or at least attempted sexual assault), which in the context of ST can be seen as a feminist statement (when Chekhov did that, he was under the influence of an alien); and 2) some incidents of racial hostility, which lead to statements against racism.
The political aspect that really deserves some attention comes from Spock: “Those who hate and fight must stop themselves, otherwise it is not stopped.” This presents a problem for me, although I feel comfortable disagreeing with ST on some stuff here and there. But I have gotten the idea that, for example, UN Peacekeepers usually are doing something good that helps with ending conflicts. I also believe in something similar with the non-armed aspects of conflict resolution- for example, I believe that it was a good idea that the International Decommissioning Commission in N. Ireland was led by people from third party countries. In a mid-1990s publication of the Pat Finucane Center in Derry, they called for the police patrolling nationalist areas to be replaced by officers from European Union nations. Partly inspired by those last two items, I wrote up a proposal for resolving the conflict, one that would involve such international elements.
I still believe in such an approach (there’s a possibility that Spock’s theory doesn’t apply to the North, since there is really not much anti-Protetsant bigotry coming from the Catholics) (the Peace-Keepers should come from countries that don't have any selfish interests in the conflict, and civilian 3rd party personel should meet similar criteria). The thing is, when Ireland is close to being united, there will be some degree of loyalist backlash, and I think a UN force dealing with that would be better than either the British Army or the Irish Army would be. That’s because if it were the BA, some soldiers would be sympathetic to the loyalists and hostile to the nationalists, and their presence on the streets might attract attacks by republicans. If it were the Irish Army, that might increase the backlash if they’re suspected of being sympathetic to the nationalists. Third party peace-keepers (who would also have to be conducting raids when necessary) would probably be at least a little better.
I give this episode one star out of five.
“For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
The anti-Apartheid Struggle and Republicans
I have mentioned Apartheid S. Africa several times on my blog in some connection to the Republican Movement. I've been aware of four connections between the two groups in recent decades, and a couple more connections between the two have just surfaced, which I’ll get to soon (I'm not sure they are as confirmed as I would like them, but the source for the new info seems like a good source).
First, here are the four connections I’ve been aware of for some number of years
1) A plaque remembering the sacrifice of both anti-Apartheid and Irish Republican Prisoners of war, is on Robben Island, which is kind of a monument to the anti-Apartheid struggle. That info was found here.
UPDATE 1/27/17 If that link is dead for some reason, I did a search of http://www.independent.co.uk using google and found a link to the article. It should show up here and is head-lined "Adams pays tribute to detainees' suffering." One quote from the article is:
The ANC changed its mind after Mr Adams's meeting with Mr Mandela who described Sinn Fein as "an old friend and ally''.
2) In 1981, as IRA (and INLA) prisoners went on hunger-strike, there was talk among ANC Prisoners of War of going on a solidarity hunger-strike. That's taken from an on-line only article in The Nation, by Tom Hayden- it was published some time in 2004, or 2005, or 2006. I can't find it online. When I do I'll update this.
3) In 2005 the Minister of Intelligence for South Africa visited Ireland as a guest of Sinn Fein and compared what he did as a member of the ANC's military wing during the anti-Apartheid struggle with what IRA members did during the Troubles. He spoke at republiccan events and at one point, according to the Irish Times said: "I could never accept that Sinn Féin has debased republicanism. They carried the flag of republicanism in the most difficult of times. ... The Irish struggle is a particularly heroic one." You can read at least a little of an Irish Times article about this here. If all you read there is the brief free paragraph, reading this from a Sinn Fein publication will make it clear what the Minister meant with his comments in that brief intro of the Irish Times article. I now have the text of the article and can email it to you if you want
4) In 1992 Nelson Mandela was on a British political talk-show and said that he supported the IRA. That information is found here (it's towards the bottom, says "mandela. and. ira").
There are some more pieces of information about this relationship. Those are found here, here, and here.
UPDATE 4/25/15 Another one here.
Tom
First, here are the four connections I’ve been aware of for some number of years
1) A plaque remembering the sacrifice of both anti-Apartheid and Irish Republican Prisoners of war, is on Robben Island, which is kind of a monument to the anti-Apartheid struggle. That info was found here.
UPDATE 1/27/17 If that link is dead for some reason, I did a search of http://www.independent.co.uk using google and found a link to the article. It should show up here and is head-lined "Adams pays tribute to detainees' suffering." One quote from the article is:
The ANC changed its mind after Mr Adams's meeting with Mr Mandela who described Sinn Fein as "an old friend and ally''.
2) In 1981, as IRA (and INLA) prisoners went on hunger-strike, there was talk among ANC Prisoners of War of going on a solidarity hunger-strike. That's taken from an on-line only article in The Nation, by Tom Hayden- it was published some time in 2004, or 2005, or 2006. I can't find it online. When I do I'll update this.
3) In 2005 the Minister of Intelligence for South Africa visited Ireland as a guest of Sinn Fein and compared what he did as a member of the ANC's military wing during the anti-Apartheid struggle with what IRA members did during the Troubles. He spoke at republiccan events and at one point, according to the Irish Times said: "I could never accept that Sinn Féin has debased republicanism. They carried the flag of republicanism in the most difficult of times. ... The Irish struggle is a particularly heroic one." You can read at least a little of an Irish Times article about this here. If all you read there is the brief free paragraph, reading this from a Sinn Fein publication will make it clear what the Minister meant with his comments in that brief intro of the Irish Times article. I now have the text of the article and can email it to you if you want
4) In 1992 Nelson Mandela was on a British political talk-show and said that he supported the IRA. That information is found here (it's towards the bottom, says "mandela. and. ira").
There are some more pieces of information about this relationship. Those are found here, here, and here.
UPDATE 4/25/15 Another one here.
Tom
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Taxes, the GOP, Texas, and Capitalism
There's a couple recent opinion columns that should be read by as many people as possible. I figure that most people who would read this have already read those columns, but it can't hurt to do this post if it gets more exposure for the columns.
First is one by Harold Meyerson in the Washington Post. It's about how the GOP will raise your taxes if you're working- or middle-class. It's here.
The second one is by Paul krugman in the NY Times. It's about how Rick Perry's "economic miracle" in Texas is not a good model for the nation or other states, and is created on the backs of working people (i.e. low wages). It's here.
Tom
First is one by Harold Meyerson in the Washington Post. It's about how the GOP will raise your taxes if you're working- or middle-class. It's here.
The second one is by Paul krugman in the NY Times. It's about how Rick Perry's "economic miracle" in Texas is not a good model for the nation or other states, and is created on the backs of working people (i.e. low wages). It's here.
Tom
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Star Trek: The Original Series Reviews L
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 have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.
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).
“Spock’s Brain” See this for a plot summary.
For some odd reason, I had trouble figuring out an important aspect of this episode. That is, is Kirk being sexist when he talks about the low level of intelligence of the women? At one point it’s suggested that, because of the “Controller” that takes care of the women, their brains have atrophied through lack of use- so it probably isn’t sexist, although it sounds like it here and there.
I give it three stars out of five.
“The Enterprise Incident” See this for a plot summary.
There is one bit of politics. We see, for the first but not last time, that women do okay among Romulans, as the officer in charge of a group of three warships is a woman.
I give it three stars out of five.
“The Paradise Syndrome” See this for a plot summary.
This is another ST episode about American Indians and aliens. I have mixed feelings about such episodes, but don’t remember any info about how American Indians feel about them (I also don’t have any info on how the aliens feel about them : )). This one is based on the idea that aliens took some members of three tribes that were in danger of being wiped out from Earth and settled them on a very Earth-like planet.
I give it two stars out of five.
“And the Children Shall Lead” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.
I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.
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).
“Spock’s Brain” See this for a plot summary.
For some odd reason, I had trouble figuring out an important aspect of this episode. That is, is Kirk being sexist when he talks about the low level of intelligence of the women? At one point it’s suggested that, because of the “Controller” that takes care of the women, their brains have atrophied through lack of use- so it probably isn’t sexist, although it sounds like it here and there.
I give it three stars out of five.
“The Enterprise Incident” See this for a plot summary.
There is one bit of politics. We see, for the first but not last time, that women do okay among Romulans, as the officer in charge of a group of three warships is a woman.
I give it three stars out of five.
“The Paradise Syndrome” See this for a plot summary.
This is another ST episode about American Indians and aliens. I have mixed feelings about such episodes, but don’t remember any info about how American Indians feel about them (I also don’t have any info on how the aliens feel about them : )). This one is based on the idea that aliens took some members of three tribes that were in danger of being wiped out from Earth and settled them on a very Earth-like planet.
I give it two stars out of five.
“And the Children Shall Lead” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Star Trek: The Original Series Reviews K
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 have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.
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 Ultimate Computer” See this for a plot summary.
This is generally about automation of jobs that humans do. In general I believe that technology CAN be used for good in the workplace. It is probably involved in addressing some safety issues; probably is involved with addressing some environmental concerns. As far as technology that is used by the bosses to replace workers, I have mixed and mostly negative feelings about that. I mean, some of those jobs have been replaced by new jobs maintaining the new technology and such jobs probably pay fairly well (I don’t know about wages on the assembly line building this stuff). But in general, jobs replacing those terminated by technology tend to pay very little. They don’t have to be like that, but I don’t have much to say about why they haven’t been unionized- I’m very unfamiliar with organizing issues and it seems like it’s very difficult to organize unions ANYWHERE in the US today. So, I have mixed feelings about automation in the workplace.
There is another kind of automation that I want to discuss as well. That is in the military (well, the US military and I think a handful of other countries as well). My thoughts on the military in general are mixed, and right now I’m not going to go into a discussion about that, I’m just going to focus on this aspect of the military. I’m thinking of the Predator drones, armed or unarmed, and probably some other machines. If they start replacing aircraft that require a pilot inside the plane, it could make it easier for our government to launch unpopular wars, as the number of US service men and women in danger will go down. That will probably mean that a lot of people who might otherwise oppose the war partly because more and more Americans are dying, won’t oppose it. So, I’m worried about that as well.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Bread and Circuses” See this for a plot summary.
This episode is basically about the Roman Empire and sort of about converts to Christianity. I’m not very familiar with Rome or the early years of Christianity, so I don’t have much to say. This episode is certainly anti-slavery, and anti-totalitarian.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Assignment: Earth” See this for a plot summary.
First there’s some political stuff to at least mention. In general it focuses on the idea that 20th century humankind was not as advanced politically and socially as they were technologically, and how that could lead to disaster- for example a nuclear war that destroys the planet.
I also like the Gary Seven part of this episode. Long before I watched this episode, I read a ST book which focused on him. I might try to find that book.
I give this episode three stars out of five.
I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.
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 Ultimate Computer” See this for a plot summary.
This is generally about automation of jobs that humans do. In general I believe that technology CAN be used for good in the workplace. It is probably involved in addressing some safety issues; probably is involved with addressing some environmental concerns. As far as technology that is used by the bosses to replace workers, I have mixed and mostly negative feelings about that. I mean, some of those jobs have been replaced by new jobs maintaining the new technology and such jobs probably pay fairly well (I don’t know about wages on the assembly line building this stuff). But in general, jobs replacing those terminated by technology tend to pay very little. They don’t have to be like that, but I don’t have much to say about why they haven’t been unionized- I’m very unfamiliar with organizing issues and it seems like it’s very difficult to organize unions ANYWHERE in the US today. So, I have mixed feelings about automation in the workplace.
There is another kind of automation that I want to discuss as well. That is in the military (well, the US military and I think a handful of other countries as well). My thoughts on the military in general are mixed, and right now I’m not going to go into a discussion about that, I’m just going to focus on this aspect of the military. I’m thinking of the Predator drones, armed or unarmed, and probably some other machines. If they start replacing aircraft that require a pilot inside the plane, it could make it easier for our government to launch unpopular wars, as the number of US service men and women in danger will go down. That will probably mean that a lot of people who might otherwise oppose the war partly because more and more Americans are dying, won’t oppose it. So, I’m worried about that as well.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Bread and Circuses” See this for a plot summary.
This episode is basically about the Roman Empire and sort of about converts to Christianity. I’m not very familiar with Rome or the early years of Christianity, so I don’t have much to say. This episode is certainly anti-slavery, and anti-totalitarian.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Assignment: Earth” See this for a plot summary.
First there’s some political stuff to at least mention. In general it focuses on the idea that 20th century humankind was not as advanced politically and socially as they were technologically, and how that could lead to disaster- for example a nuclear war that destroys the planet.
I also like the Gary Seven part of this episode. Long before I watched this episode, I read a ST book which focused on him. I might try to find that book.
I give this episode three stars out of five.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)