ST: Original Series
ST: Feature Films
ST: Next Generation
ST: Deep Space Nine
Articles & Misc.
The Rating Scale
About the Author
Copyright & Disclaimer
Tools & Delivery
Share this page
By Comment Text
By URL (where posted)
By Comment Author
RSS for this
Total Found: 24,272 (Showing 1-25)
Page 1 of 971
- Sat, Apr 18, 2015, 10:50pm (USA Central)
Michael said: "We never went on an expansionist spree all over the world, we never sought to forcibly convert anyone to our values or beliefs"
Seriously? Take 1900 to 2014. You have the massacres committed against the Indonesian independent movements (over half a million civilian deaths). From 1903-1936, Panama, Haiti and Nicaragua became bloody, defacto US Colonial holdings, whilst the US began supporting the White Rebels and the Tsars/aristocracy during the Russian Civil War. In the 1940s, right-wing dictators were backed in the Philippines, Peru, Ukraine, Syria (Colonel Al-Zaim's dictatorship), Albania, South Korea, and Italy (the CIA bought every Italian election from 1948-76), with local democratic elections subverted and "non compliant" politicians/movements murdered. President Lyndon Johnson's "F**k your parliament and your constitution", uttered to Greek ambassadors epitomizes US policy during this period. The West then couped Greece in 1949, 1967 and 1973, with US backed dictatorships running for decades. Our arming and backing of the Kai-Shek family in China would lead to some 18 million deaths. Then we couped Iran in the 1950s, and then Guatemala, Albania, Poland, Lebanon, Jordan, Guyana, Hungary, Oman, Portugal, Haiti, Taiwan, Cuba (the CIA overthrows Socorras and puts in place Batista), Costa Rica, Jamaica, Bolivia, Dominican Republic and Ecuador. In Pakistan, we armed and funded General Yahya and his genocide. In 1971 the US put the genocidal Idi Amin in power of Uganda (he stayed at the white house while we sweet talked him). In Puerto Rico, independence movements were violently crushed. From 1950 to 75, the US supported fascist dictators in Spain. In Laos, one coup a year was instigated by the US almost 2 decades. Similar coups were spearheaded in Brazil, Honduras, Fiji, Congo, Columbia, the Balkans, Romania, Liberia, Turkey, Dominican Reublic, Uruguay, Bolivia and Indonesia...all with bloody fallouts. In Vietnam, the 1952 Saigon bombings were faked and blamed on "terrorist communists" to justify US intervention. About 5 million south east Asians would die in that "conflict", 40,000 to the CIA's assassination programme, Phoenix. Meanwhile, the US supported dictators in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, installs dictator Kamuza Banda in Malawi and starts copious coups in Ghana.
In 1970 the CIA installs a puppet in Cambodia (the US also sponsor Pol Potists with 89 million dollars). Presidents in Bolivia and Chile are overthrown and replaced with dictators around the same time. From 1962 onwards, the US sponsors pro apartheid movements in South Africa, and engages in proxy wars in Angola, Lesotho, Chad, Surinam, Mozambique, Seychelles, Namibia, Kenya, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Ethiopia and many more African countries. In 1975, the CIA and Britain overthrow the left leaning government of Australia, whilst backing brutal dictators in Angola. In the late 1970s, they arm psychos in Afghanistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama and Iran, and back Indonesia's invasion of and massacres in East Timor. In the 70s and 80s it also spoonfed the Contras in Nicaragua. Grenada was invaded for similar reasons whilst Operation Condor removed the last vestiges of left leaning movements in Latin America. Actions against Panama, Bosnia, Venezuela, Croatia, Yugoslavia (Serbia/Kosovo) and Libya follow, then Iraq, home of CIA asset Saddam Hussein. Then came Ukraine (a billion dollar coup in collaboration with neo Nazi groups - Right Sector and Svoboda) and Syria. Not to mention that various global bodies (WB, BIS, IMF) which the West uses to exert its will upon smaller nations.
And of course the old British Empire (itself more a collection of mega-corporations sanctioned by the Crown) behaved exactly as the contemporary "West" behaves today. People simply have a cartoonish view of how "looting" and "meddling" took place in the 1700s-1800s.
- Sat, Apr 18, 2015, 10:28pm (USA Central)
"All I see amid your bloviations are idle hypotheses. If X hadn't done this, if Y hadn't done that, if Z had done the other, A would have happened, B would have happened differently, C would not have happened at all, yadda-yadda-yadda."
What a stupid thing to say. Yes, if the West didn't support the Iraqi monarchy, coup Iraq, destroy Iraq's first elections, put Saddam in power and arm and finance Saddam in a ten year war against Iran because the West's puppet in Iran was ousted, Iraq would be a better place. Anyone who says otherwise is deeply uninformed. Iraq would have progressed like Turkey or a better version of Egypt (itself a country messed up by the West's incessant attacks on Nasser), and would be several generations away from major religious reforms and civil rights movements. Now they're too busy dodging bombs.
Or look at Afghanistan; it was the most secular middle eastern country in the 1960s, with more women in political office than the then contemporary United States, and better women's rights than most Mid East countries too. To be a right-wing muslim nutcase in Afghanistan was to be ridiculed. It was a way of life and thinking that was dead, until the CIA started arming and financing nutjobs and promising them political powers, which they eventually got.
"I'd infinitely rather have the West running the world than someone like Russia, China, Iran, Brazil, etc."
What a stupid and false binary: "We can behave like colonialists because if we don't behave like colonialists someone else will behave like colonialists!"
"As far as the Islamic State, it originated in Syria (where, (in)famously, there was ZERO U.S. involvement)."
Nonsense. The US has been "involved" in Syria since the 1950s. "We've" been funding and arming what became "Isis" in Syria for the last 8 years. Since the 1960s, it has been US policy to Balkanise the Middle East.
"America, for all its faults, has been by far the most benevolent and altruistic superpower ever seen in recorded history."
Only a psychotic would think this. Almost 800 unconscionable wars by the US since 1775 - three and a half times a year to preserve the American Way of life - and coups in over 80 percent of the countries on the planet, all across Asia, Latin America, Africa, the Mid East, the West Indies and even First World nations like Australia and Greece; over fifty million deaths since the 1980s alone, either overtly thanks to US wars, embargoes, puppets and militias, or covertly via economic policies.
"The sub-animals slicing off innocent people's heads by the thousand, kidnapping/raping/enslaving girls as young as eight by the thousand, stoning people, throwing people off tower blocks, etc., etc., etc"
Gee, if only "they" had stable governments with laws against these things. I wonder why they dont...
It's like complaining about the state of Somalia and Ethiopia whilst ignoring that you're funding dictators there and arming them to invade each other. Anything to keep the oil cheap!
"No. The answer is found in their ideology. You obviously don't know s**t about the history of Islam."
Islam is a magical ideology which forces all muslims to suddenly transform into crazy killers? What is this, Battlestar Galactica?
Stoning (not in the Koran), beheading, rape, genital mutilation etc have very little to do with religion, and everything to do with global politics, global economics and local patriarchal/conservative cultural practises, practises which are themselves a product of global politics and global economics.
Not to mention that the very practises which you deride and ascribe to Islam are practised in even GREATER degrees in many Hindu, Christian and Buddhist countries.
By all means, criticise Islam, criticise all religion, but criticise it with nuance, with historical context, and dont use it as a tool to promote your moronic philosophies.
"There have been HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people throughout human history who had (and hey, are STILL having to!) to endure FAR worse that what those mofos supposedly experienced; yet, they did not turn into savage beasts."
There are billions of muslims in the world. The vast majority are not "savage beasts". The actions of those you deem "savage" are a result of external conditions. Not to mention that the United States has higher rape rates, murder rates, and war crime rates than many of these supposed "savage" Third World countries, and that most terrorist acts aren't by muslims and that all major studies (Robert Pape et al) show that terrorism commited by muslims have nothing to do with Islam and eveyrthing to do with specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory. The CIA itself publishes reports which lay this out clearly. But when does the US ever listen to its own intelligence reports?
"If you did, you would recognize that their actions are both catalyzed and endorsed by the Islamic creed."
It doesn't matter, you idiot. The Bible or the Koran or the Torah - primitive, patriarchal, stupid books - could have huge chapters specifically demanding that believers kill every baby on the planet. It doesn't matter. This behaviour is a crime, and governments punish crimes. That's all. Muslim commit crime, muslim go to jail. There is no existential horde trying to take your freedeeerms, nor can it if it existed.
"She is a "brown" Arab"
And where are her parents from?
"I am Libertarian."
Of course you are. Because you're a silly individual.
You hate Muslim fanatics but you endorse the "logical" and "sane" belief in deregulated free markets and the holy powers of the unimpinged Invisible Hand.
Tell me, how come no libertarian economist has a clue about how money is created? How come even those who do - the Ron Paul nutjobs who (rightfully, if naively) want to nationalise the Fed - are still in denial that capitalism itself must create unpayable debts and so poverty? Do you know why?
How come libertarians are so obsessed with "cutting down welfare" when, historically, welfare sprung up to prevent capitalism from collapsing? Didn't your own god, the nutty Ayn Rand, tell you that that capitalism cannot provide full employment? Don't you know this? Do you realize that "capitalism" deems an 8 to 15 percent unemployment rate ideal? Do you know why? Do you know why anything less causes inflation? If capitalism must lead to millions unemployed, don't you think this will lead to millions of uppity, violent people? Doesn't welfare placate them? Who do you think profits most from placated people?
Tell me, why are libertarians obsessed with "big governemnt" (such an innane term)? Doesn't history tell us that capitalism needs a "big government" to protect itself, its values and spread? Could the land enclosure policies in 1400-1600s England, which enshrined private property rights, ever be enacted without massive government? Doesn't profit lead to power and monopoly and so the hijacking of government anyway?
How come no libertarian has a clue about all the scientists and post-neoclassical economists (Adrian Dragulescu, Victor Yakovenko etc) - you know, REAL economic scientists not sponsered by banks - who are running computer models of capitalism (complete with billions of AI "consumers")? Do you know that we can fast-forward these simulations? You know what the end results of these simulations always are?
Being a libertarian in the 21st century is like worshiping Loki with a straight face thousands of years ago. You're a relic oblivious to the irony of your hatred of relics.
- Sat, Apr 18, 2015, 7:42pm (USA Central)
Garret Wang himself complains that much like WIl Wheaton, Rick Berman had it out for him from the get-go which is why we saw Wesley Crusher ultimately sidelined more and more shortly after Gene Rodenberry's death.
Berman actually wanted to fire Wang, but Wang made it on the cover of some magazine and helped give the show some recognition and ultimately I think he was chosen over Kes. His punishment (in his mind) was that his charcacter would never be full developed beyond geeky sidekick. Wang himself complains that towards the end that the series had become nothing more than the, "Doctor/7 show"
- Sat, Apr 18, 2015, 5:43pm (USA Central)
Zane314 - yes even as a Tucker and Reed fan I can understand why people thought some of the caving sequences were "skippable", although in my opinion the cliffhanger scene was genuinely exciting and well shot.
As with a lot of others - Billingsley's excellent performance here lifted an otherwise competent (but not outstanding) script.
- Sat, Apr 18, 2015, 4:37pm (USA Central)
Tinker Tenor Doctor Spy
In a word: sublime. This comedic outing was as near to perfect as I could imagine: a simple but thoroughly engaging plot, refreshingly free technobabble and deadwood subplots; brilliantly crafted gags which all hit the bullseye; pitch perfect performances from the entire ensemble including a star turn from our alien(s) of the week; and last but not least a virtuoso performance from Picardo. For me this was delicious from start to finish.
In retrospect I almost wonder if Jammer got his rating for Barge of the Dead mixed up with this weeks offering. For me, BOTD was a very enjoyable 3 to 3.5 stars, whereas this was easily a 4 star episode. An absolute joy to watch and without a doubt one of the my top 3 Voyager picks. Bravo indeed.
One minor observation that I found amusing: is it just me or is there an implicit joke in the depiction of our aliens of the week? Their vessel, (based on the brief close ups we got while ensconced in the nebular thingy) to my mind is very reminiscent of a fly, while the species themselves bear an uncanny resemblance to walking turds.....am I the only one seeing a "flys on sh*t" visual gag here?!?!
- Sat, Apr 18, 2015, 2:12pm (USA Central)
The garbage scow thing was too ridiculous for me to enjoy. For heaven's sake, just tractor the thing some distance away from the planet, bring it to A STOP so it doesn't crash into the asteroids, and come back for it later. Or put it on a trajectory away from the planet where it won't crash into anything - that has to be possible because it made it to the planet to begin with. It doesn't have to go into the sun RIGHT NOW.
- Sat, Apr 18, 2015, 11:56am (USA Central)
I'm re-watching TOS , and started with the most well-regarded episodes and with my personal favorites. Now I'm going through the rest of the not-so-hot episodes. This one is dull and creepy, with an "ick" factor regarding Kirk's manipulation of Miri's crush on him. Looks like he's grooming her for something. I agree with others that the "duplicate Earth" thing was a clanger--all they had to do was say the planet was an M-type, and they could have made it look a little like Earth without showing the continents…and it would have been fine. Also thought that all four leaving their communicators in the empty room was an obvious device to move the plot forward. The crew never would have done that. (And didn't the two redshirts have communicators? Where did they go, anyway?)
But it's worth watching, sort of, for Spock's line about the "Beaker of Death!!" Hahahahaha.
- Sat, Apr 18, 2015, 5:46am (USA Central)
Once again the writers decide humans can fix every problem every species across the quadrant has had. Since when did humans somehow become saviors for Vulcans? The Vulcans themselves are just like humans but with pointy ears throughout this. Not buying it. This is just lazy writing and not the least bit consistent with what Vulcans are supposed to be about.
Yet another reason why this show tanked. The writers couldn't help but revert to sanctimonious ways of putting humanity at the top as the answer to all the galaxy's ills in spite of the fact they're the children of the galaxy at this point.
- Sat, Apr 18, 2015, 2:44am (USA Central)
Although I really enjoyed Russ' acting and script while not having emotions. That was well done and at least the writers didn't make the Vulcan culture conform to trendy liberalism.
- Sat, Apr 18, 2015, 2:31am (USA Central)
Oh, good old Trek... forcing its anti-death penalty propaganda on an episode.
- Sat, Apr 18, 2015, 12:41am (USA Central)
If it wanted us to ask questions, it wouldn't need to or implement a loading of the dice. Which is certainly did.
- Fri, Apr 17, 2015, 8:04pm (USA Central)
I assume the Doctor 'forgot' about her because his program is part of the ship's systems and would thus have been affected by the virus that erases all trace of their existence.
It's not exactly credible, but then again very little in this episode is.
The name of this episode is very ironic since I highly doubt that a lot of people will remember it at all. And why should they? Nothing actually happened. No impact was made on anyone or anything. Why even bother?
- Fri, Apr 17, 2015, 7:07pm (USA Central)
Actually, what's interesting about this episode is that I feel it takes viewpoints that usually don't go together and many characters change their views. The criminal is reformed, quite literally and magically, but their crime system is about punishment, not really reform our public safety. I think in the end the episode is more about WHY we punish than how. And Neelix, presented as the "social justice warrior" gets taken. And several characters change their views and several don't. I loved this one.
- Fri, Apr 17, 2015, 3:29pm (USA Central)
Very thoughtful and well-balanced episode. Contrary to some of you, I think the story was neither pro or con death penalty. Rather, I was left with the impression the writers wanted us to question our opinions toward this issue. With regards to those of you voicing their stance on the matter quite loudly, I feel the writers have accomplished their mission. 3.5 stars.
- Fri, Apr 17, 2015, 2:32pm (USA Central)
For my 2 cents about Brooks... I don't know if he's a good actor... I haven't seen him in anything else.
I can tell you who is NOT a particularly good actor. Samuel L. Jackson. Samuel L. Jackson is really good at playing Samuel L. Jackson. And since he's AWESOME, we don't care. I'd watch Mace Windu L. Jackson or Nick Fury L. Jackson or whoever else. In the wrong roll that could be a problem, but he doesn't ever seem to take the wrong roll.
There are good actors out there. Hugh Jackman sells me in WHATEVER he does, all the way from "X-Men" to "The Boy From Oz". It sometimes annoys me when people start dissecting acting technique like it matters. If you cast your show really well it doesn't matter if everyone there is literally just playing themselves. Jackman is impressive, but you don't have to be that good to do your part service.
As for me, the 3 most important parts of a character are
1) Do I enjoy their scenes (see Garak)?
2) Do I believe their relationships (this is a really, really big one)?
3) Do I get immersed (ie, can I tell they are acting)?
For me, Avery's Sisko comes up with pretty high marks.
1) I enjoy his scenes. I think Avery's eccentricities come through a bit sure, but they don't detract from the performance for me. I just attribute those things to Sisko.
2) His relationship with Jake, Dax and Kassidy all score high marks in my book. Especially Jake. His relationship with Dukat scores VERY high marks in my book. Things things all work well for Sisko.
3) The ham didn't bother me here or with Shatner. I just felt like Sisko was a little eccentric. And that's ok.
So in short... we don't need an actor as good as Stewart if the casting people cast the role well, the writers can play up his strengths, the directors can play up his strengths and he has good chemistry with the people he needs to. And I think he does.
- Fri, Apr 17, 2015, 1:33pm (USA Central)
Great episode, nice upbeat atmosphere and Trek spirit. Just what to expect from Star Trek with regards to ideals and optimism despite human flaw. 3 stars.
- Fri, Apr 17, 2015, 9:30am (USA Central)
I thought the script for Part II was able to symbolize and contrast the ideals and styles of the original series and TNG without presenting one as better while also acting as a tribute to Roddenberry (who did consider the latter better and partly created the series as a reaction to the original series and especially movies).
- Fri, Apr 17, 2015, 8:33am (USA Central)
I usually agree with the reviews here, but I have to disagree with this one. I found Devil's Due to be a nicely written story with plenty of suspense (in the Star Trek universe it's quite believable that the entity posing as the Devil could be some kind of superpowered alien; it doesn't have to be the Devil for Picard to be in danger from losing the wager). And I enjoyed the climax. All in all, one of the better episodes.
- Fri, Apr 17, 2015, 7:54am (USA Central)
A Measure of Salvation
Ah, Elliott and co again. Same old liberal clap trap. The belief that being a do-gooder and pacifist is always the correct choice, when generally is actually means you are wiped out. Typical apologist, do-nothing, hope for the best, weak minded nonsense. People like Elliott needs to live in a place where they can see the fruits of their deluded philosophy in action - you know, places like Detroit. Go and move there, Elliott, and then we'll see how your ridiculous progressive ideals hold up, won't we? It's easy for you to moralize from a lovely neighbourhood sat on your couch.
- Fri, Apr 17, 2015, 7:43am (USA Central)
Daybreak, Part 2
Three stars? Really? Can I have some of what you are smoking?
- Fri, Apr 17, 2015, 7:36am (USA Central)
A Measure of Salvation
Haha, if you think this episode is illogical, just wait for Season 4. It's a doozy!
- Fri, Apr 17, 2015, 7:25am (USA Central)
Sigh. It gets really tiresome having to disengage my brain in order to get any kind of enjoyment out of a story. The whole story is littered with issues. The writers simply get anything to happen and don't care for logic, but, in this episode, one thing annoyed me more than anything else:
Voyager is attacked and heavily damaged. It needs to touch down on a planet for repairs. They revive an alien species (which is conveniently on the random planet) that may be hostile. Seven concludes that most humanoids are hostile.. and yet still does it. WHY?
In fact, forget the revive portion... the minute they land, Janeway starts her do-gooder speech about how there might be people who need help. HEY, REALITY CHECK - YOU AND YOUR OWN PEOPLE NEED HELP AT THE MOMENT. Only a complete retard would start seeking out people to help when their own ship is damaged and there is an enemy hovering overhead. It's just so damn basic and stupid from the writers.
Enter the real world.
- Fri, Apr 17, 2015, 12:13am (USA Central)
Starbuck to Kat: "You lied your way into the company of good people."
Starbuck should be tossed out the airlock.
Sorry to see Kat go.
Minor continuity goof:
After the 4th mission, Kat's radiation badge is black. Then, when she sees Enzo on the balcony of the hanger deck, it's white. Later, when she switches badges, it's black again....
- Thu, Apr 16, 2015, 11:49pm (USA Central)
Let me know what you think. I thought this was really well written and acted.
- Thu, Apr 16, 2015, 11:48pm (USA Central)
I liked this episode. It had a meaning and it had a nice twist. That's usually a good sign. The idea of hating another side because of propaganda or treating beings on the opposite side differently has been done before, but it's done very nicely here too. 3 stars.
If you like this, check out the Twilight Zone episode: A Quality of Mercy.
Page 1 of 971