Star Trek: Enterprise
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: 24,293 (Showing 1-25)
Page 1 of 972
- Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 12:02am (USA Central)
Birthright, Part II
^ Just clarifying my thoughts a bit more on how the two-part story was handled:
TNG *often* had strong continuity, but storylines were often left to simmer and then return later on (to give the series weekly variety). "Birthright, Parts 1 and 2" contain very different plots, but are connected in the overall tissue of the show, not unlike "The Enemy" and "The Defector" were from Season 3. Or "Sins of the Father" and "Reunion" from Season 3+4. Strong continuity, but not necessarily unified plots or something that would work if aired side by side. I feel like the storytelling of the "Birthrights" is closer to that long-haul type of continuity than it is to the 90-minute plots of "Best of Both Worlds", "Time's Arrow", "Unification", etc.
- Mon, Apr 20, 2015, 11:51pm (USA Central)
Birthright, Part II
I don't dislike this episode, but I don't necessarily like it either. Like most people say, it's boring. Jammer, IMO, accurately points out the whole thing plays out like a simplistic parable. By the end of the episode I was trying to think of a word that described it - and I think "parable" is the perfect label for something that felt so obvious and straightforward from nearly the minute it started. I'd give it 2.5 stars at the MOST - again, I don't dislike it and I think the concept it interesting, but it plays out with about as much life as a dying camp fire. I'm a big fan of how TNG generally handled Klingon culture episodes so this one being so tame is disappointing.
One thing that's interesting to me is the "Part 2" aspect of this episode. In my opinion, it's the most unusual "part 2" in TNG - it plays more like a serialized followup than a standard two-parter. Worf's dilemma (as well as Data's story) were enough to make Part 1 work on its own. But Part 2 doesn't include the Data story (which is wise, since it was perfect the way it was in Part 1), but it also doesn't really involve Worf's story from Part 1 either. What happens in Part 2 is a completely different Worf story - at least plot-wise. Once Mogh is ruled out the rest of the hour tells its own story. Very few elements of Part 1 are present at all, including Data, DS9, Bashir, Mogh, and even the Yridian. This episode is loosely connected to its direct predecessor, but I'd hesitate to call it a conclusion. The "Part 1/Part 2" title scheme seems more like the producers really not knowing how to treat the serialization, so just going with the Part 1/2 convention, subverting the strict episodic nature of the series but doing so in a way that's not too unfamiliar to the regular audience.
- Mon, Apr 20, 2015, 8:12pm (USA Central)
The show is getting to be close to the Seven of Nine show, rather then conventional Trek, but I don't really see a way around that.
The only characters worth a damn who aren't Seven are Janeway, The Doctor and Tuvok. And even Tuvok is dancing on the line of just barely being worth remembering.
Harry, Chakotay, Tom, B'elanna, Neelix. Not much interesting going on there.
They either were never interesting to begin with (Neelix, Tom and Harry) or they already depleted what little material their characters had that was interesting (Chakotay and B'elanna).
Doc remains interesting, because he's the Data of this show. An unconventional piece of technology that attempts to become as human as possible and continuously struggles with achieving the same rights any human being has.
Tuvok remains interesting, even if just barely, because as the Chief of Security as well as Janeway's confidant, he is often involved in whatever alien activity Voyager encounters and thus always able to voice his opinions or give his advice. Basically, Tuvok remains interesting because he simply gets enough screentime to be such.
Janeway was always going to be interesting, simply by virtue of being the captain. She's the main character and everything goes through her.
After 4 seasons, you can't suddenly make uninteresting characters interesting without completely rewriting them. And that would require a lot more effort then just simply focusing on the ones that already work.
- Mon, Apr 20, 2015, 6:05pm (USA Central)
Message in a Bottle
Xylar - turning off lifesupport would presumably just stop replenishing the air / filtering out CO2 etc, and turns off the heat. It doesn't mean that all the air suddenly vanishes, we've seen that else where as well. With only a few unconscious romulans breathing i'm sure there's plenty.
- Mon, Apr 20, 2015, 5:34pm (USA Central)
Nick - "how the hell can Voayger track the bad guys when their computer core is stolen" - I think they made some reference to backup systems coming online but that it would take a few minutes for everything to kick in. Cold standby so to speak.
Kieran - "at one stage Da Vinci is shot and was surprised that he wasn't hurt. I thought he would then realise he's a hologram and have a breakdown which might have been interesting" - there's a reference to the da vinci character interpreting his surroundings through the limited parameters of the programmed character e.g. he interprets the aliens and strange planet as people in "america". He's a hologram of a renaissance character so he couldn't possibly conclude from being shot and unharmed that he's a hologram - something he's never conceived of. Now if it was explained to him that he was an artificial man etc. etc., he could.
As terrible episodes go at least this one made efforts to explain the terribleness....and yes i'm answering 5 year old questions
- Mon, Apr 20, 2015, 4:07pm (USA Central)
Future's End, Part I
I couldn't help but think how Paris and Tuvok came off like a gay couple when Tom laid into Sarah Silverman about obscure B-Movies and promptly shot her down. That and the shirt he was wearing.
- Mon, Apr 20, 2015, 2:40pm (USA Central)
I totally agree with Jammer on this. Brilliant episode.
As for one of the comments above, they couldn't simply lock the false O'Brien, because they had to wait for his rescue first. Locking him too early could have meant the death of the true O'Brien held captive somewhere!
- Mon, Apr 20, 2015, 12:43pm (USA Central)
The worst aspect of this episode is the order in which it aired. Why show two child-centered stories back-to-back like this? Had the show just been moved to a Saturday morning time slot?
Standing on its own, it wasn't so bad. I found it believable that an emotionally devastated child would choose to emulate the emotionless strength of his android rescuer. I also found the boy's acting, right down to imitating some of Spiner's vocal inflections and mannerisms, to be pretty impressive. We're talking about a 10 or 11-year-old actor here.
While it may be contrived, I also liked the way it turned out that the "attack" on the Vico was not an actual attack. Although, again, the science of gravity fields having such an effect on most of the Enterprise's systems seems implausible. Doesn't the ship encounter strong gravity fields on a daily basis? If it's a question of sheer scale in the black sector (100's of collapsed proto-stars), wouldn't that be a good argument for a ship to study the area from a relatively safe distance?
As others have pointed out, this episode also demonstrates why it's not a good idea to have children on starships. Not only is it risky, it also apparently leads to terrible education! Story time, playing with blocks, and "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" singalongs for 10 and 11-year-old students?!? Judging by what little we saw in Alexander's classroom in the previous episode, it looks like the curriculum gets simpler as the kids get older. So I guess failing schools have become an even worse problem a few centuries from today. "EVERY child left behind!" might be the motto of the Federation's education ministry. Or is this just subtle way to highlight what an auto-didactic young genius Wesley Crusher must have been?
- Mon, Apr 20, 2015, 10:22am (USA Central)
What You Leave Behind
Sorry, typo, Cardies, that is!
- Mon, Apr 20, 2015, 10:20am (USA Central)
What You Leave Behind
They killed Bareil, they killed Ziyal, they gave the spectacular stupendous unique Gul Dukat, the single best character in all of ST a trivial end, and they killed the second best character ever, Damar. Sisko ended up in the never never of the celestial temple idiocy. Every time an awesome promising character or story line was suggested by these mentally challenged and LAZY scriptwriters it was not allowed to go anywhere. The dusgusted smirking look on Weyoun's face when the horrid female changeling is peeling was a dramatic opportunity these idiot scriptwriters missed. Weyoun should have snapped HER neck and the Vorta should have co-ruled the universe with the Carries. I officially loathe DS9, a dozen or so outstanding episodes over the 7 seasons but all the promise of the most inventive ST series ever tossed out the scripwriting airlock.
- Mon, Apr 20, 2015, 10:13am (USA Central)
I agree with Jammer's rating on this episode. It wasn't terrible, but it could have been better. My main problem was a scientific quibble with the wave, which I initially found to be a very interesting idea, although I did not get quite as excited about it as Geordi. It seems that the Law of Conservation of Energy would preclude the wave from becoming ever-stronger as it neared the planet. What was driving such an increase?
The more important plot, of course, is Worf's reunion with his son. I enjoyed that part more and also found it more believable than the other plot. I must admit to a certain satisfaction in learning that school kids in TNG sometimes encounter problems such as misbehaving in class. To me, the idea that humanity has somehow been perfected in the future has always been laughable. Some kids will always act out and need guidance, and other parts of society will also always be less than exemplary.
That said, I liked how Worf handled his new role of father, and liked the idea that the boy will remain with him on the Enterprise. I liked both Worf's and the boy's acting, and also liked seeing Troi doing her job well for once instead of just stating the obvious. ("I sense he may be hiding something, Captain.") I must question, however, why the Enterprise in TNG is carrying families in the first place. It's not like the ship isn't threatened with destruction in every other episode. It seems like Starfleet realized that a starship was a dangerous place for kids in TOS but forgot about that a few decades later.
- Mon, Apr 20, 2015, 8:51am (USA Central)
John Anderson lost his wife shortly before filming "The Survivors". He claimed the episode was one of the most difficult of his career because of its subject matter.
The final scene moved me to tears, in part out of sympathy for Kevin Uxbridge and in part out of sympathy for the actor who played him.
Still, I don't think it's a perfect episode. It's not the kind of mystery where you're kicking yourself in the head at thend for not figuring it out, because there's simply not enough clues given for you to make a guess. The Troi scenes were grating as well.
- Mon, Apr 20, 2015, 5:07am (USA Central)
The Vengeance Factor
Space diaspora. Interesting I guess. I found the gatherers entertaining and interesting although I don't completely buy why the federation is involved. These guys could make a show in and of themselves but this is Star Trek, not the space gypsy hour.
- Mon, Apr 20, 2015, 4:00am (USA Central)
Another episode that just went nowhere and made me dislike the characters more except T'pol. This ship is so important to Earth but they put a bunch of people on it who are so unprofessional that is belies any disbelief. Yeah, I get it that it was the singularity causing this behavior, but some of them should have noticed its effect at some point. And the plot device is one that Trek has done so many times before. This is why people eventually stopped watching Enterprise, it didn't boldly go anywhere new in Trek storytelling.
- Sun, Apr 19, 2015, 10:44pm (USA Central)
Very interesting reading Wisq. I liked the parallels you drew.
This was like watching Dear Doctor. Except the victims are now humans as opposed to being the alleged saviors. Interesting to see how desperate we became in our hour of need. Archer's speech about "playing God" in the aforementioned episode gets quickly put on the backburner when the shoe's on the other foot.
I do wish the writers had chosen to not let the aliens help the crew, though. They should have been made to accept the inevitable just as the Valakians were forced to. No reason why the Prime Directive shouldn't cut both ways.
I also agree with Markus. Travis gets more screen time, just not as himself. The irony of that wasn't lost on me either.
- Sun, Apr 19, 2015, 8:49pm (USA Central)
Might’ve been fun to revisit this later on, not for the proto-universe thing but to see what happened to Arjin. Maybe he got drummed out and turned, like Verad, to stealing a symbiont to realize his (father’s) dreams. Maybe he got a symbiont but went insane from incompatibility, making for a massive cover-up by the Symbiosis Commission. Or maybe, whether he got the symbiont or not, he decided that the whole process was unfair and became a black-market symbiont broker. (Perhaps it could have had some interesting implications between seasons 6 and 7, for example.) As it is, it’s not one of the better Dax episodes, and it’s not one of the worst. It just exists.
I do, however, love the Klingon restauranteur. He should have been a recurring character, at least until Worf showed up.
- Sun, Apr 19, 2015, 11:59am (USA Central)
In my opinion, the show had a good premise and poor execution.
I like the idea of Chakotay confronting his fear of mental illness. (As an aside, how impressive that a treatment could turn off a single gene and prevent mental illness, presumably without having other unintended consequences.) I like the idea of showing the potential value of being insane by other people's standards. Here, the value is that the aliens could communicate with Chakotay and save Voyager in the process. (Usually, the "value" of insanity is portrayed as enhanced creativity or productivity.)
I did not like boxing and Boothby as mediums for conveying Chakotay's struggle. Why couldn't the struggle have been portrayed solely through Chakotay's flashbacks of his grandfather? Or perhaps flashbacks of other times in Chakotay's life when he was concerned about being vulnerable to mental illness. I couldn't wait for this episode to be over, which is too bad. More could have been said or implied about the nature of mental illness and what constitutes lucidity.
- Sun, Apr 19, 2015, 11:41am (USA Central)
"Unfortunately that whole sexual attraction half of the equation is kind of a major hurdle that one dinner and one dance doesn't cure."
I'll grant your other arguments (his earlier betrayal was overlooked way too easily, apparently entirely during a long conversation at Dax's party a few episodes ago) but I wanted to touch on this statement because it resonated with me personally.
I've been married now for 17 years to a woman who, for the 10 years prior to that, thought of me only as a casual acquaintance and then for that last 3 of those as a good friend. She even admitted in a journal entry back then (that she later revealed to me in a moment of weakness) that though she appreciated our friendship, she found the idea of anything beyond friendship with me to be "repugnant" (her exact word), which I've occasionally teased her about ever since.
How did we move from the "friend zone" to a romantic relationship that eventually lead to a long-term stable marriage?
I took her dancing.
I'm totally serious - there was this girl's choice dance at the university that she really had her heart set on going to, but the guy she wanted to ask become unavailable. Not wanting to miss out on the dance itself but having no one she was truly interested in going with as a date, and knowing that I happened to be trained in ballroom dancing, she asked me to go as a friend just so she could attend and wear the dress she had been wanting to wear for it.
After that dance, she suddenly saw me in a whole different light and we began dating, fell in love, got married, and have been together ever since.
My point is, don't underestimate what effect dancing might have on a woman who previously saw you only as a friend!
- Sun, Apr 19, 2015, 9:47am (USA Central)
It's Zephram Cochraine!!!
- Sun, Apr 19, 2015, 6:27am (USA Central)
Jammer, my friend, I apologize for what's been happening on this board, including my own contributions. Feel free to delete every message written this year. It seems not one of them has anything to do with the Fortunate Son episode!
- Sun, Apr 19, 2015, 6:24am (USA Central)
If ever there comes a time of severe shortage of fertilizer, this Sparrow personage would have us covered. The above assortment of comments alone constitutes fine, premium-grade manure to keep the global wheat fields going for years.
All you, Sparrow "old chap," do is regurgitating a bunch of prooftexted, fact-mined events and incidents to validate your normative biases. You decided as a college freshman that the West was the embodiment of evil and you set out to "prove" it. Oh, if the demonic old West hadn't arisen, what a glorious kumbaya place the world would be! Such reasoning is so obtuse as to commit the fallacy of being not even wrong ("es ist nicht einmal falsch"). You are as far gone in your bigotry as the most fanatical of religionists. You spurn all views and nuances not conforming to yours with the exact same zeal, arrogance, and self-assured obstinacy as the religionists dump on, say, evolution. Just like they assert a huge wall of silence among scientists, you also throw in a few cockeyed conspiracy theories gleaned from rt.com. And just like they, you, too, believe yourself to be uniquely privy to the whole of self-evident truth while the other saps are hopelessly misguided. Ah, if only you were in power, you could "reeducate" us dissenters, in good old Commie style, whether we liked it or not.
Anyway, this is neither the time nor place to engage in a detailed exegesis of each other's comments. My remarks enumerated above show you are clearly not worth the effort of a protracted, candid discussion anyway. The others on here can easily see who between us is the more openminded, moderate, and reasonable.
Three points though:
(1) So, the terrorist sub-animals are not raping, kidnapping, enslaving, beheading, stoning, executing, immolating, acid-attacking, oppressing women and minorities, etc. because they hate the West. Rather, on your planet, it is on account of their not having been able to form strong and stable enough governments to outlaw such behaviors... - BECAUSE OF THE WEST, naturally. That is SO empirically and historically incorrect as to be beyond risible. While a dozen cases may indeed indicate such to be the case, hundreds of others disprove it categorically. It is also illogical: Individual morality should dictate that throwing off a person from a tower block because of whom they sleep with is fucking W-R-O-N-G, but since governments--whom you posit as the ones alone tasked with stopping such acts--are composed of INDIVIDUALS, your whole premise is petitio principii. (That, of course, explains the barbarism prevalent in almost every Moslem-majority country in the world. It likewise explains why non-Moslem-majority states, which, ironically, experienced Western interference on a much larger, lengthier, and far more intrusive scale, are almost wholly devoid of the brutality and victimization evidenced in most Moslem communities.) But one has to take a dispassionate, academic distance from the matter in order to recognize all that, which you do not have. All one can do is guffaw at your juvenile highschool-grade attempts at polemic.
(2) Re the "billions"(?!?) of Moslems around the world who are not savage beasts. Well, there are ca. 1.6 billion Moslems in the world. Of those, 1.4 billion hold that a wife "must obey" her husband. More than 1.1 billion maintain that shari3a should be law (and no, not just the fuzzy interest-free mortgages facets of shari3a; ALL of it). Three quarters of a million (that's 47% of the world's Moslems) think that adultery should be punishable by death, whereas just under 600 million insist that leaving Islam should entail death. Those are not "moderates," pal. But I suppose it can all somehow be traversed down to the evil West's "interference" in their sovereignty. Your racism of lower expectations is at once laughable and depressing.
Or is it that none of these are connected to Islam? Not in the Koran. They are all "culture." How about you--the consummate Islamic theologian, I am sure--go explain that to your buddies in the Islamic State? Or maybe to their victims as they're getting rocks thrown in their heads.
(3) My wife's parents are from Oman, the U.A.E., Yemen, and (distantly) Somalia. Is that "brown" enough for you? Is that enough for her to be a "victim" on your hierarchy of "privilege"? Or is that, because she shacked up with an "Islamophobe," etc. like me, she is now a self-hating sellout (possibly like Ayaan Hirsi 3Ali) not worthy of your "enlightened" "protection," "respect," and deference?
How are you not ashamed of yourself to be even asking me where her parents are from?!? Like a commissar in totalitarian Soviet Russia, examining people's lineage to weed out "undesirables."
Honestly, the bigotry, racism, ignorance, and bare-faced apologia for some of the most depraved, barbaric, anti-human acts in modern history perpetrated on a genocidal scale make me despair. You should do some serious self-examination, son.
- 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.
Page 1 of 972