Comment Stream

Re: TOS S3: And the Children Shall Lead

Once upon a time, circa 1968, two famous lawyers walked into a bar. One was a notable California trial attorney named Melvin Belli, who sat down to have dinner with the other esteemed litigator, F. Lee Bailey. Bailey had notably defended Sam Sheppard at the time (and later defended Patty Hearst, and of course O.J. Simpson). As all lawyers do, they began to argue at the table over who was the more famous one. They made a bet with each other that whoever gets recognized first gets their dinner paid by the loser. Cue a starstruck young couple who approached them nervously at the table. “Excuse me, sir, are you Melvin Belli?!” Belli, proud as a peacock and stoked at his newfound bragging rights, enthusiastically confirmed it and asked if they were law students. “Well, no,” they said. And then the kicker: ”Why do you ask?” Belli told them that since he was a well-known lawyer, he assumed they must have recognized him as such and were in the legal profession. To which they said, “Oh, wow, you’re a lawyer?! We just thought you were that Gorgan guy from Star Trek!” Melvin Belli, Esq., has been destined, it seems, to be more remembered for being backlit by a green hue and wearing a silly shower curtain on an episode of Star Trek than he ever was for his trial-lawyer career, which says a lot about our society. Now that’s a lawyer joke.

As a father, I hesitate to speak ill of any child -- unless they deserve it, of course! Comedian George Carlin and I are on the same page about this: “Kids are like any other group of people; a few winners, and a whole lot of losers!” There’s no better example of the latter than “And the Children Shall Lead.” This episode has the most atrociously annoying gaggle of little jackass jackanapes ever filmed. The Enterprise is essentially taken over by the Little Rascals, but these kids aren’t nearly as charming as Buckwheat or Alfafa. When Kirk picks Mary up and she starts poking him incessantly, for instance, I turned to my wife and whispered, “Honey, gouge my eyes out just like that, please.” What I wouldn’t have given at that moment for a little “Bonk, bonk, bonk!”

It’s fitting that I watched this episode on the date that I did, for this is one giant prank of an episode. There are silly plot implausibilities and incompetencies on the part of the crew (seriously, come on -- “Lock Them Up! Lock Them Up!”), adding up to an hour of pointless, dreadful irrelevance. There’s a silly shot of Old Decrepit Uhura that had me laughing at the criminally negligent makeup job (poor Nichelle!) There’s a character named “Tsing Tao,” which is a brand of Chinese beer if I recall correctly. There’s an absolutely clumsy mess of a setup as the ship is overtaken (A Spock line that’s so bad it’s good: “Captain, why are we bothering Starfleet?”) And, William Shatner follows his best performance yet with his worst performance yet: “I’m losing command. I’m losing the Enterprise. I’m losing my ability to command. I’m losing the Enterprise. I’m losing command. I’m losing the Enterprise. The ship is sailing on and on. I’m alone. Alone. Alone. I’m losing command.” (I’m losing my mind.)

This piece of crap tries to say something deep about the 1960’s palpable fear of youth culture and activities leading adult society to ruin, or perhaps we can now read into it as a treatise on the current palpable fear of children being groomed and coerced by dirty old men or filthy influencers like Logan Paul, Jimmy Donaldson (“Mr. Beast”) and Andrew Tate, but it’s hard to care about anyone’s troubles here when the catalysts for all the shenanigans are a non-actor reciting lines off a teleprompter that completely excuses him from attempting any semblance of performance skill along with a series of masturbatory fist motions on the part of the child minions to the soundtrack of a guy blowing chunks into a trumpet.

I just wanted to BEAT THE SHIT out of every one of those little brats. Stevie perpetually looks like he’s trying to fall asleep for a nap and just can’t for some reason--you just want to smack the stupor out of him. Tommy the Red-Haired Nightmare usurps Charlie X’s place as the worst teenager ever. And that Mary is one frightening little soul, her eyes completely dead with a full-on psychopathy. The only one who’s even remotely tolerable (mostly because I don’t think he even speaks) is the chubby kid played by Brian Tochi.

For sure, one of the best consequences of “And the Children Shall Lead" is this message thread. I’ve been reading through the comments--quite of a few of them advocating for child murder or arson--over the past ten minutes and laughing myself silly. These are my favorites:

>> Peace of Landru -- “I just want to smack that ginger kid.”

>> R -- "I would love to see a YouTube video with scenes from this episode re-edited to feature the farting Preacher as the alien."

>> Tarn Vedra -- "Only positive thing about this episode is the fact that Edward J. Lakso is dead and will never make anything so horrible again."

>> Cinnamon -- “I would love to kill the kids, esp that red-haired brat from hell. … The way Trek people live is some misguided jerk’s dream.”

>> Ovadohr -- “Belli has feathers in his hair and feathers in his head.”

>> Mal -- “omg. just shoot the fucking kids. shoot everyone. blow up the ship. burn the whole fucking thing to the ground. Aaaghhhh!"


Jammer, you have the best audience in the business!


Many of you declare “And the Children Shall Lead” to be the worst episode of the entire Star Trek franchise. To that, I say that I sincerely hope you are correct. I truly wish that no other episode I watch will ever sink to the depths that this junk did, for that would mean that the worst is over.


“Tommy the Red-Haired Nightmare
Has a very shiny head
And if you ever saw him
You’d want him to end up--”


Okay, you get the idea. That’s more creativity than this episode deserves. NEXT, PLEASE!



Speak Freely:

Don -- “Parents like stupid things.”
Chapel -- “Oh, I don’t know about that. Parents like children.”
(I’ll let you figure it out.)



My Grade: A --pril Fools! LOL!

My Real Grade: F

Re: VOY S4: Concerning Flight

This was a fun one. I like how they used a practical location (some kind of factory?) as the setting for the storehouse.

I always get John Rhys-Davies and Brian Blessed confused for some weird reason, but still his role as Leonardo da Vinci was well done. Good to see him brought back from a previous episode with a much bigger role.

Also, I like how respectful Janeway was to him. It is neat seeing a hologram of a historical figure react to the future as fantasized in Star Trek (Moriarty did this too in TNG-although of course he is fictional)

I think I am in the minority, but I am sorry that they never let Janeway finish her holonovel in the earlier seasons. To me, this kind of comes close to it (albeit, it is 200 years and a nation off)

Re: TNG S4: The Wounded

I was thinking what Steve wrote. The Cardassian uniforms DO look like they are made of chocolate.

I found this episode particularly uneven. Warp 4? You are pursuing a starship that has blown up a "research station" at warp 4?

The gul is asking for Maxwell's prefix code so his ships can intercept, but all he needs to do is tell his ships to protect the transport. Picard fails to realise this?

To counter that is red Dukat's deliciously ambiguous behaviour, setting a pattern for all future Cardassians. Gosh, but Marc Alaimo can act.

And the scene where Chief O'Brian ends the crisis with a song....... That was just good tv. (Okay, take a look at the date I am posting this.)

2.5/4

Re: TOS S3: Plato's Stepchildren

First time watcher. Cringeworthy humourless embarrassing unwatchable lazily written dreck, which is like watching a community theatre group do a series of interpretive experimental warm-up exercises. Minus five stars for lazy use of costumes/sets, repetitive boring middle two-thirds that had me reaching for the FF remote, a good guest star totally wasted, shabby and hasty ending to a stupid concept that should have gone directly to the rubbish bin, whoever gave the greenlight to this episode must-have wanted the franchise dead. No redeeming qualities whatsoever, makes Spocks Brian look like a masterpiece of TV.

Re: DS9 S4: Rules of Engagement

for a courtroom drama to work, there have to be *rules* - even if they're just the generic rules that the layperson "knows" from watching law and order - or well defined rules set out by the show itself (ie, obrians insane cardassian trial)


without those rules, the story falls apart to the point where it's not nitpicking, it actually detracts from the ability of the story to work

there's a decade+ of examples above me, so no need to get too much into it, but it bothered me enough come to comment about it, as i normally really enjoy episodes like this

(but, for example,

1. the entire premise of extraditing to an empire you're at war with
2. putting someones 'heart on trial' - and having a vulcan judge be ok with that.... what??? this isnt miracle on 34th st, T'Lara should have ended it right there
3,4,5,6 etc)

the directing style was really cool, but really wish they had either tightened up the court procedures, or just changed the venue to something that worked better - why not just make it an """informal investigation""" (with the clear implication that it will have serious consequences), but then allowing the format to make sense

ie, the whole drama of 12 angry men works because it takes place in the context of a legal setting, but, the actual interactions between the characters dont need to follow strict procedure during those deliberations

Re: Trek's musical problems

I was disturbed to read about Ron Jones' account that was captured in the phone interview (mentioned above by @Brian back in 2015). It must have been hell for TV soundtrack composers. Composing for Trek shows must still be a wild and crazy job today.

In general, Star Trek soundtracks seem to avoid the use of leitmotifs and recurring themes. Voyager in particular tended to stick with a lot of menacing and disturbing backing tracks that bordered on the atonal. It gave much of the series a dark feel, sort of a sense of despair, I felt. I can now see that it could well have been the producer's decision that vetoed much of the thematic creativity, the more interesting turns that Trek music could have taken.

There have been some nice exceptions. One melody in particular that was written by Chattaway for "Unforgettable" (yes, not one of Voyager's strongest outings) when Kellin was about to get intimate with Chakotay in his (her?) quarters was really haunting, and elevated that particular show up a notch, I felt. A memorable theme to a not-so-memorable episode. Likewise with the blaring brassy themes of Voyager encountering Species 8472 in "Scorpion", parts 1 and 2--this really raised the battle and confrontation scenes up (and those were some of Voyager's better outings, thankfully)"--another Chattaway theme. Also, the themes in "Where No One Has Gone Before" (as @heffalump mentioned back in 2015) were top-notch, mysterious sounding. The music used when Picard "met" his deceased mother in the corridor was also very touching and dignified, while still having that otherworldly feel with the use of synth layers (the Roland D-50 made frequent appearances in Jones' melodies made in this show). This was Ron Jones, as I understand. I think that every composer has done as well as they could under the difficult circumstances, and it's sad that the higher-ups couldn't view the music as more of an integral part of the show.

It's good that the producers saw fit to letting the music speak out when it needed to. Unfortunately, the music of much of Trek is often too indistinct and muted to really bring the scenes up, and we can see that this is more of a producer and executive-level decision than anything else. I can't even remember the theme for Discovery, to be honest.

I imagine that technology has made composing for TV a little easier these days, as there's no need to laboriously write out scores for each and every player, and composers have large and expensive digital libraries of sampled orchestral instruments at their disposal, so they don't need to hire out a full ensemble and rent the studio hall if they just need some filler pads or string layers to thicken the sound. It's truly amazing that new music is actually composed for each and every show"--it's like scoring a film every week, I imagine. It can't be easy to always be creative in such circumstances.

Re: TNG S6: Relics

"The replicated food is created in such a way that the body uses 100% of it. No waste."

Now that's an interesting thought. There's one episode where Troi tries to get the computer to replicate "real" chocolate ice cream, rather than the "perfectly synthesized, nutritionally-complete imitation" or something to that effect. Thisflies in the face of other descriptions of the replicator where they just scan an original dish and it remakes it atom for atom, but maybe standard recipes on star ships are optimized for less waste and better nutrition, etc.

Conversely, they should have the ability to just beam your waste right out of your body. Per Family Guy's "Road to the Multiverse":

BRIAN: Hey, is there a bathroom around here?
STEWIE: Oh, you need to go pee or poop?
BRIAN: Poop.
STEWIE: (speaking into the air) One poop removal.
(Brian's eyes widen as we hear electronic twittering noises)
BRIAN: Wow, did I just go poop?
STEWIE: You sure did.

Re: DS9 S6: The Sound of Her Voice

An interesting episode.

It's curious, Captain Cusack herself is not a character I as the viewer could care too much about, we never see her and I thought her death (through the worlds most contrived plot device) was a rip off. Why *couldn't* the crew get a win here? I agree that just getting there too late would have been enough. Not this 'timeshift' BS.

But of course by the end her death made a bit more sense at the wake. I found I cared more how Lisa Cusack affected the regular characters. I'm not sure which one I liked more, O'Brian or Bashir. My point is the main plot could have been really good, except for the monumental 'time shift' eye roll at the end. Look, I get it you have a great idea but it's OK to let it go and use it elsewhere more effectively. (Did Voyagers 'Blink of an Eye' come from this?)

Plot B... I really liked. I never quite understood the Quark/Odo dynamic. Does Odo hate Quark? Or actually like him? Or they actually do like each other but their roles as law enforcer and nefarious lawbreaker (sorry, Quark never thinks of himself as nefarious) keep them on opposite sides?

Makes me wonder if the Dominion War plot could have been used more effectively with Odo/Quark. When the war REALLY kicks off the differences between them are rendered moot (ie, Quark AND Kira are key 'Solid' relationships that keep Odo onside) and Odo appreciates Quark more when he assists Quarks rebel lawbreaking. But when the war is over it's back to their prickly relationship. Or did they actually do this? Anyway I liked the B plot.

Re: TNG S4: Data's Day

one of my favorite episodes, and while data is clearly a main character, well done episodes that take a different perspective (lower decks, b5's view from the gallery, ds9's nog and jake ep) are some of my favorites


i wish there was an another ep in this exact same format, the letter to maddox allowing internal narration is perfect

others have mentioned all the specific gags, but all the data jokes land and are amazing. when he's offering obrian "a pillow", "a more comfortable chair" - fantastic

Re: BSG S4: Revelations

Right you are, Brian. I’m rewatching the series for the first time and this episode still leaves me sour because no one holds D’Anna to account for fucking TERRORISM AND MURDER. As soon as Lee puts Tigh in the airlock and D’Anna tells him, “We have no wish for further bloodshed,” he should’ve cut her off with, “Pity you didn’t consider that before you spaced my crewman without even GIVING US YOUR TERMS FIRST. Now you can trade yourself for Tigh or own a Pyrrhic victory when we nuke one another into dust.” Once D’Anna is thrown in the brig, the guard would tell her, “The man you killed, he was my cousin’s kid—the only family I had left. Hey, want to play the blue-face game? Learned it from Mr. Agathon.”

Because no one is even remotely displeased that D’Anna escapes justice, the impact of finding Earth is ruined. I have no exultation when the fleet arrives in orbit or shock when the characters land amongst the ruins. The reveal doesn’t disappoint me because I was already disappointed 33 minutes in when Lee and D’Anna shook hands. And that sappy music accompanying the scene, as if to say, “There now, doesn’t it feel good to forgive and forget?” NO, IT DOESN’T.

Re: ENT S3: Harbinger

As someone who saw this episode in first run and was absolutely angry that I missed seeing Brian Seltzer guest judge on American Idol that week to watch this, it's funny looking back on this review and the older comments lamenting the lack of professionalism in light of all the complaints I see in Twitter about this on modern Trek shows. xD

With that out the way, while it's not a great episode by any stretch of the imagination, the one thing I think Jammer was too hard on was the morning after scene. I mean, *of course* it's blatantly obvious T'Pol was lying off her ass that it was meaningless. And with ENT having 24 episodes that season, they could take a break between episodes before fully addressing it rather than shoving it down our throats aagain in the next one.

That said, the execution for this and the Reed/Hayes plot was lacking. While one could argue the T/T'P plot has been setting up for years if you squint, Rd and Hayes came out of nowhere. They were in one scene together before this where they didn't even look at each other. Made for good slash fodder but in canon? Naw, this wasn't it.

I can't even remember enough about the Archer and Phlox interrogation to comment on that, which says everything.

I do agree with the two other women who say that this show often degraded Jolene Blalock and both she and T'Pol deserved better from this franchise than either were given and it's ironic that the one Trek show that absolutely could sorta get away with rampant sex jokes has given their Vulcan lady character (who has lost all control!) More dignity and respect in the ten episodes she's been apart of than T'Pol got in nearly 100 and if there's nothing else about modern Trek, I am beyond glad that women are treated like actual characters instead of props nowadays.

Re: DS9 S5: Empok Nor

By coincidence I watched "The Ship" this morning. Didn't like that episode, but it was supposedly about not losing crew members to futile risks. Upon rewatching it, the premise didn't even work, because none of the characters made any meaningful choices that led to the situation they found themselves in, except for mining on some planet that happened to have a warship crash.

O'Brian especially featured in that episode, feeling guilty about the death of Muniz/Munez. And yet here we are, a few episodes in and everyone is "ok, let's go to plunder an abandoned but also booby trapped Cardassian space station for some heating pipes, because what could possibly go wrong" and all the crew dies.

Didn't even watch the ending. It's probably irrelevant.

I wouldn't have minded one bit to see more of Garak trying to corrupt Nog though!

Re: VOY S2: Tattoo

Our place in the world....Family and descendants, a blessing to all peoples: a contrary view with reason:

KOLOPAK: Come. I want you to understand this. It's a blessing to the land, an ancient healing symbol. A chamozi. They probably cut this down for firewood.
YOUNG CHAKOTAY: The Rubber Tree People?
KOLOPAK: Well, the closest thing to the ancient Rubber Tree People that we'll ever see. The people in this tribe are their descendants, just like we are. But they never left this jungle, and they rarely intermarry with other tribes.
In the Star Trek: Voyager episode called Tattoo, Chakotay explains to Captain Janeway how when he was younger, his father, Kolopak wanted to track down their descendants in the Central American jungle:
CHAKOTAY: … here we were in the middle of a brutal Central American jungle looking for the descendants of the ancient Rubber People.
JANEWAY: It must have been very important to him.
CHAKOTAY: Believe me, it was. And he was very disappointed that I didn't share his enthusiasm. He'd been tracking down the origins of our tribe for years.

Concerning the origins of the Jewish people, using imagery and a metaphor from mining, the prophet Isaiah wrote:

“Consider the rock from which you were cut, the quarry from which you were mined.
Yes, think about Abraham your ancestor and Sarah who gave birth to your nation.”

Isaiah used names of specific, historic people, not just a generalised term like the Chakotey’s father used when he said the “ancient Rubber People”.

As humans we do seek to know and understand our immediate family, and the connections to the origins of “our tribe”, but also our wider family, which does have a link to our meaning of our existence. Isaiah was reminding the people of Israel to consider, or think about carefully, of their beginnings as a nation, with significance for the understanding of their existence. There was a connection to real people, family ties by blood and ancestry, not a myth story. Who and where we are from – people and place, is connected to our understanding of ourselves now.

In the Star Trek:Deep Space Nine episode from season 3, The Search, Part 2, the character Odo finds his family on a planet. Up until that time, he had never met someone like himself:

ODO: You really are just like me, aren't you?
FEMALE: Yes.
ODO: And you're saying this is where I'm from?
FEMALE: This is your home...
ODO: Tell me, do I have any family at all?
FEMALE: Of course.
ODO: I'd like to meet them, if that's possible.
FEMALE: You already have. We are all part of the Great Link.
Later the female Chageling tells Odo the significance of being in the family connected to the so called Great Link:
ODO: Yes. Please, what exactly is this Great Link?
FEMALE: The Link is the very foundation of our society. It provides a meaning to our existence.

Our understanding of our existence, which does give meaning to who we are, is connected to our family and forbears, and our very origins.

In the original Star Trek episode, The Menagerie (Part 2) a human female, Vina, the lone survivor on a planet, Talos Four, is saved by an alien species, the ,Talosians, which wanted to “perpetuate the species” of humans by finding a suitable male mate. When the alien species captures a human male- Captain Christopher Pike from the United Federation of Planets USS Enterprise, they seek to match him with Vina, the female.

VINA: We are like Adam and Eve.

Pike the male then responds back to the Talosian character, the Keeper:

KEEPER: We wish our specimens to be happy in their new life.
PIKE: Assuming that's a lie, why would you want me attracted to her? So I'll feel love in a husband-wife relationship? That would be necessary only if you intend to build a family group or perhaps a whole human community.

Jesus affirmed the Scripture that says humankind, the whole human community or family, has always been humankind, “from the beginning” that is, “the life form we’re familiar with” biologically, male and female humans, and was not produced by a long process. (Human after all...) Humankind has indeed “stuck around” a long time since Adam, since time memorial into antiquity...

The moving from, or to “migrate from”, as Brian Greene , American theoretical physicist calls it, one form to another species of humanoid to another, is implicit in the foundational reasoning of the basis of different life forms in Doctor Who and Star Trek shows.

DALEK 1: This is the dawn of a new age.
MARTHA: What does that mean?
DALEK 1: We are the only four Daleks in existence, so the species must evolve a life outside the shell. The Children of Skaro must walk again.
Elsewhere:
DALEK SEC: No, the experiment must continue. Administer the solution. We must evolve. Evolve. Evolve!

In the Voyager episode, Tattoo, the original humans as named Adam and Eve are portrayed as mythical, with humans specifically stated as descending in a “single evolutionary process” presumably from a single cell organism:

CHAKOTAY: How much faith do you put in Adam and Eve? Hasn't science proved that all humans developed from a single evolutionary process?
JANEWAY: That's what I was always taught. On the other hand, none of my teachers ever spent much time in the Delta Quadrant.

Jesus Himself , who was born into the real tribe of Judah, a tribe from the original family descended from Abraham, had existence before His Earthly life, as Peter the apostle who knew Jesus in person wrote:

“He was chosen before the creation of the world.”

Jesus existed before the creation of the Earth. He knows how people came to be, as in fact all things were created by Him and for Him.

“For in Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through Him and for Him.”

All things created by Christ includes human beings, which are described as being created separately to other creatures. Christ Himself came to Earth as a man. He:

“made Himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man”

Jesus was not evolved from a lower species of life form. Christ who came in the image of man, originally created male and female in the beginning in the image of Himself- God. As Doctor Who would also say:

“Totally not ape!”

Indeed, the genealogy, or family ancestry, of Jesus is recorded specifically in the record of Luke’s gospel (see Luke 3:23-38), as going right back to Adam, who was the first man, and also the first human.

Jesus who was born into the Jewish nation, Israel, the nation stemming from Abraham and Sarah, is a direct descendant of Adam. (Even though He existed before Adam, being the eternal God). This record is not just a Christian record- it also confirms the Jewish record concerning the line from Abraham. Luke recorded the words of Zechariah the father of John the Baptist. John the Baptist grew up to point to Christ:

“Praise the Lord, the God of Israel, because He has visited and redeemed His people,
He has sent a mighty Saviour from the royal line of His servant David....
He has been merciful to our ancestors, by remembering His sacred covenant,
The covenant He swore with an oath to our ancestor Abraham.”

Christ was not born in a “vacuum” that was unlinked to God’s promises and intent for His people. There is a great link. The ancestors the Jewish prophet Zechariah spoke of were meaningful in the context of a genealogical line of the Jewish people to the birth of their Messiah – the Christ, from the royal line of King David.

PRIESTESS: McCoy, son of David, since thou art human... (Star Trek III, The Search for Spock)

Ethan the Ezrahite, the writer of Psalm 89, spoke of the covenant God made to King David. A promise was made by God that David would always have a king descended directly from him on the throne.

“The LORD said, “I have made a covenant with David My chosen servant. I have sworn an oath to him:
“I will establish your descendants as kings forever; they will sit on your throne from now until eternity.”

Jesus was a descendant of David.

The apostle Matthew recorded the number Abraham’s generations in his list of Abraham’s descendants:

“Therefore all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the time of Christ fourteen generations.”

Abraham’s “authenticity” is linked by a blood line of people to events recorded in history- the exile of the Jews to Babylon, and Christ’s birth.
Abraham’s line went back to Shem, the eldest son of Noah (Genesis 11:10-26); and the genetic “earthly” line of Noah went all the way back to Adam (Genesis 5:1-32) Jesus was sent from the “heaven world” to this world, where we all share an “earthy likeness ” so we may share in His heavenly likeness.

“And just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.”

We had to be born into Adam’s family before we can be born into Christ’s family. The “earthy” we share as humans describes the genetic, physical link we have with Adam.

However the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.

“What comes first is the natural body, then the spiritual comes later.”

MACE: How does this android, as you call him, come from another world? There are no other worlds. Any fool knows that.
DOCTOR: Why are Earth people so parochial?

(The Visitation, Doctor Who episode, 1982)

Knowing the genealogy of Christ going back to Adam, and the record that God created “Earth people” as central to His purpose in Christ who was before creation, is not parochial. Modern way of thinking does not accept this genealogy of Jesus going back through Abraham to Adam, nor the centrality of God’s purpose in Christ for humans to share in His heavenly nature.

In Peter Grehan’s commentary on Dr Who androids, ( Connecting Who Artificial Beings, Candy Jar Books, AD 2016) he states that such genealogy is a myth:

“According to the creation myth of Abrahamic religions, God created the first man, Adam, from the dust of the earth.”

He does not implicitly say Abraham was a myth, or that Jesus was a myth, but implies Adam was a myth, which reflects Doctor Who reasoning or ontology, (the schematics of that which is perceived as real, or “that which is”) which reflects modern, atheistic teaching, which is passed on to us like Janeway said- "that's what I was always taught." .

Jesus spoke of Adam as real, as well as Adam’s son, Abel as real. Abraham did have a genealogy, and it is recorded. Jesus does have an earthly genealogy, and it is recorded. Both go back to the person Adam.

Adam did not have any ancestors, so there were no “evolutionary struggles” or “survival of the fittest” type competitions or severe struggles, of any life forms before him to produce humans. Adam was the first man, as Paul wrote- “the first man from the earth.”

The genealogy of Jesus that goes back to Adam, confirms that there was no human, or any other creature, prior to Adam, that Jesus or any of us were physically descended from. We all share in the likeness of the first earthly man Adam, who was a real person. Jesus was born into the human kind family, even though He existed before His birth as the Son of God. He became like us. He came for us. This is central.

“Because God’s children are human beings- made of flesh and blood- the Son also became flesh and blood....We also know that the Son did not come to help angels, He came to help the descendants of Abraham. Therefore it was necessary for Him to be made in every respect like us, His brothers and sisters.”

Christ was sent at the right time. The writer of epistle to the Hebrews says Jesus Christ became “in every respect like us”. Fully human. He was not sent to come to save another “humanoid like” species. His coming was to save humans. His coming was not unplanned:

“But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman...”

God did not send forth another law of code written in a book or a tablet, but His Son. The writer of the letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament described the Son in this way:

“The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by His powerful word.”

In the book of Galatians, Paul talks about the promise of God being given to those who are of faith in Christ the Son, who are the recipients of God’s gift:

“And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.”

And:

“So then, those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.”

This blessing is based on faith, not works of the law, or genealogy.

“Abrahamic religion” that recognises Abraham as a real person, but not the blessing based on faith, does not recognise that:

“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law having become a curse for us- for it is written-
“Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree. ” ”

“In order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit by faith.”

As believers we have received the promise of Holy Spirit by faith, who confirms with our spirit that we are indeed sons and daughters of God, (family) in a right relationship with God:

“And because we are His children, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, prompting us to call out,
“Abba! Father!” ”

The Holy Spirit given to believers is a “down payment” of the promise to come of a new “heavenly” body for each of us that will not decay. This is central to God’s purpose.

As Paul wrote:

“For we will put on heavenly bodies; we will not be spirits without bodies. While we live in these earthly bodies we groan and sigh, but it’s not that we want to die and get rid of these bodies that clothe us. Rather, we want to put on our new bodies so that these dying bodies will be swallowed up by life. God Himself has prepared us for this; and as a guarantee He has given us His Holy Spirit.”

The blessing is not based on genealogy, however, the blood-line genealogy of the man Abraham must have been real before the spiritual blessing of those who have faith who followed Abraham. As Paul wrote- the “earthy” comes before the “heavenly.” The blessing is to the human family of those with faith. This is in a family tree context of “connectedness” to the first man Adam. Just as there were physical descendants of the man of faith, Abraham, there were ascendants of Abraham. The promise of God came to Abraham before the law was delivered to Moses, so that:

“righteousness might be reckoned to them ... who follow in the steps of faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.. For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir to the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.”

The apostle Paul wrote that this righteousness was:

“witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe; for there is no distinction.”

So the blessing is by faith, but this does not nullify the fact Abraham had a genetic line going back to Adam, the first man.

The Australian Aboriginal Christian pastor- George Rosendale, spoke of Australian Aborigines connection to Adam, and the promise of connection with God once more, for all descendants of Adam:

“I believe the Gospel has been with the Aborigines since creation. When I read Genesis 3:15 it reminds me that God did not send Adam out of the garden, or away from his presence, without hope. He gave Adam an insight into his great Plan of one day opening the gate or door into his Presence. We believe that we all come from the line of Adam. Then all should know about that hope. Aborigines never read that passage but in their ceremonies they dramatised that freedom was going to come.
In Genesis 12:1-3, God called Abram to be a blessing to all people and we Aborigines are included in it. In the Gospel or Good News there was hope for all people, not some. Paul writes in Romans 8:18-25, ‘All of creation waits with eager longing for God to reveal his sons.’ There was the hope that creation itself would one day be set free. The Aborigines knew that and in their ceremonies they dramatised it. It was Good News of freedom and hope, and encouragement.
Today we are trying to help the young to understand the Gospel through their culture and teaching, using Aboriginal stories to make the Gospel relevant for them. We’ve heard so much this saying, ‘It’s white man’s Gospel.’ If we say, ‘God created us and we are from the line of Adam and Noah and Abram,’ then God was with us always. He is the Creator of our country and we are part of it. Even though our forefathers did not know Him as we know Him today, they understood His teaching and laws their own way and they had faith in Him.”

The ”great plan” George mentioned, is the good news found in Christ Jesus, which was previously hidden to all peoples, but has now been revealed:

“the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.”

White man’s mistreatment of Aboriginals as though they were lower people, is the opposite of what Jesus commanded:

“Do to others whatever you would like them do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets.”

The Christian and Jewish concept of “others” is to treat “others” like we would want be treated, thus putting everyone on equal standing or footing, in the dignity of a human being.

Such words by the Jewish prophet Isaiah:

“Share your food with the hungry,
And give shelter to the homeless.
Give clothes to those who need them,
And do not hide from relatives who need your help.”

Treating others how you would like to be treated, and as better than yourself, is at the core of the essence of true Christian behaviour. Foul deeds of exploitation, by their nature and essence, are thus exposed as contrary to what the Jewish prophets, Christ and the apostles taught.

Speaking of the deeds done by colonisers towards native people, which were not in fact from the true heart or spirit of Christianity, William Howitt wrote in AD 1839, of the wolves in sheep's clothing:

“If foul deeds are to be done, let them be done in their own foul name; and let robbery of lands, seizure of cattle, violence committed on the liberties or lives of men, be branded as the deeds of devils and not of Christians. The spirit of Christianity, in the shape of missions, and in the teaching and the beneficent acts of the missionaries, is now sensibly, and in many countries undoing the evil in which wolves in sheep’s clothing of the Christian name had before done... To fan the genuine flame of love, is the object of this work...we shall be less than Englishman and Christians if we do not stamp the whole system of colonial usage towards the natives, with that general and indignant odium which must demolish it once and for ever.”

Stephen Atkinson, an Australian Aborigine who lives in Port Augusta and who is a Barngaria man, wrote in AD 2016 of white European men and women who took this “thinking others better than yourselves ” to heart and in practice, in contrast to those who don’t believe in Christ’s maxims:

“I get upset at the increasing belief that the missionaries are to blame for our lot in this world as Aboriginal people.
This is exactly what the government would have you believe. This is what I know and what I have discovered through historical studies.
The untold stories of the missions are that people like Rev. Green at Corranderk, Daniel Matthews at Maloga and Rev. John Gribble of Warangesda actually helped us survive to today rather than what is popular belief about Christian missionaries. If it weren’t for people like the three I’ve just named- and there are others who were humanitarian as much as they were Christians- who put themselves in the line of fire and went against the popular view of the day and out of their way and comfort zone to protect and to help educate our people back then we may not have survived.
It was a time when our people were being hunted and shot in the bush, our women used as broodmares to create a half caste work force for the stations and also used as sex slaves on the stations and unpaid prostitutes in the towns, not to mention the ever increasing drunkenness encouraged on our mobs by the white man to belittle and to get what they wanted out of our women, girls and boys.
Daniel Matthews is a great example and I attribute to him the survival, education and longevity of the Bangerang and Yorta Yorta peoples.
He and his wife Janet set aside 20 acres of land of their own selection that they paid for to create a safe haven for our mob.
The first residents of what became Maloga mission were two 14 year old girls who he saved from Moira station, both girls had young babies of 12 and 15 months old when they were taken to Maloga.
Daniel Matthews recorded going to stations and breaking the chains that had our young women tied to beds as sex slaves and he was beaten and had shots fired over his head while doing so. He did this to save the girls, nothing else.”

Compare this to the twisted teaching of Ernest Haeckel. In his Natural History of Creation he argued that:

“the church with its morality of love and charity is an effete fraud, a perversion of the natural order”.

The examples given above of Green, Mathews and Gribble were not effete frauds. They risked their lives to serve others, following the example of Christ. Their love and charity were real and powerful. Christ was not a fraud. His true followers now imitate His love and behaviour, and do not commit foul deeds.

A major reason why Haeckel concluded Christianity is a fraud, was because Christianity to him:

“makes no distinction of race or of colour; it seeks to break down all racial barriers. In this respect the hand of Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce? May we not say, then, that Christianity is anti-evolutionary in its aim?”

In the episode Dear Doctor of Star Trek: Enterprise, the idea of not interfering (a concept later known as the Prime Directive) with an “evolutionary harvest” between two peoples is looked at. It is contrasted to showing compassion to a humanoid race to allow them to continue to live, rather than “die off”:

PHLOX: If the Menk are to flourish, they need an opportunity to survive on their own.
ARCHER: Well, what are you suggesting? We choose one species over the other?
PHLOX: All I'm saying is that we let nature make the choice.
ARCHER: The hell with nature. You're a doctor. You have a moral obligation to help people who are suffering.
PHLOX: I'm also a scientist, and I'm obligated to consider the larger issues. Thirty five thousand years ago, your species co-existed with other humanoids. Isn't that correct?
ARCHER: Go ahead.
PHLOX: What if an alien race had interfered and given the Neanderthals an evolutionary advantage? Fortunately for you, they didn't.
ARCHER: I appreciate your perspective on all of this, but we're talking about something that might happen. Might happen thousands of years from now. They've asked for our help. I am not prepared to walk away based on a theory.
PHLOX: Evolution is more than a theory. It is a fundamental scientific principle. Forgive me for saying so, but I believe your compassion for these people is affecting your judgment.
ARCHER: My compassion guides my judgment.

(The shared DNA of so called Neandethals and “modern humans” is evidence of one species. Fossils found in Jebel Irhoud, Morocco show features of both so called “modern humans” and Neanderthals. A biological theory for the term “species” which is Latin for “kind”, is that “species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups” )

Ernest Haeckel’s evil beliefs were reflected in America in the struggle to break down racial barriers. Such struggles were against the belief of some being lesser humans or mongrels. The Doctor Who historic episode, Rose, looked at the views based on race hate and profiling Africa Americans and people of colour:

MASON: Y'all happen to know a couple of... mongrels, hmm? Negro boy, Mexican girl?
DOCTOR: I don't recognise anyone by that description.

Moses wrote “You shall not hate your fellow countryman in your heart.”

There is evidence Christians did show counter cultural ideas on the Aboriginal identity, not based on evolutionary ideas, but with a belief Aboriginals were equal as humans, not just Australians. John Harris wrote also in his book, One Blood:

“There were times when the whole Christian community… rose to their powerful best when confronted with community agitation for the massacre of Aborigines”.

The Reverend John Saunders (born AD 1806- died AD 1859) was a Baptist minister who spoke against those who reduced Australian Aboriginals to creatures less than fully humans in the early years after European colonisation. In response to a trial in AD 1838 of white settlers who had shot and killed Aboriginals at Myall Creek, John made a discourse, attacking the heart of belief about Aborigines by many in the colony. On the 10th June, AD 1838, fifty years after the first landing of convicts, a massacre occurred at Myall Creek. Aborigines had been shot and hacked to death, with their bodies being dismembered and burnt. John said:

“Does it seem strange to speak of the majesty of the New Hollanders? Will you despise the Saviour of the world? Then despise not him who sprang out of the same stock. Then despise not him for whom Christ died. The Saviour died as much for him as for you. Now by every sentiment of humanity and love you are bound to love him, to admit him to your fraternity and to treat him as a fellow man.”

He saw Aboriginals as fellow men and women, entitled to justice, and not an inferior “animal” whom were the “harvest of Nature” toiling through long ages. Saunders spoke against the dispossession of the land and livelihood suffered by Aborigines, and the bloodshed (murder) brought upon them by Europeans. Saunders described the loss to Aborigines through an invasion of their homeland. The belief, or not, in a common ancestor of all, being the person Adam, did effect the way people viewed and treated others.
Saunders went on to say concerning the Australian Aborigine:

“The whole charge however, rests upon their being men, which some are disposed to question and which some even dare to deny. It becomes my duty, therefore, to assert the title of the Aboriginal native to a place in the family of man. First, he is neither monkey, ape, nor baboon, the generic distinction between man and these brutes is most marked….
“Then he is our fellow creature – the descendant of a common ancestor – our brother upon Earth, and possessed of a joint title to the mercy of God in Christ Jesus and to an inheritance in Heaven. He then becomes invested with all the natural rights which belong to humanity, and is entitled to all the charities which man is bound to show to man…... Is the New Hollander a child of Adam? Then all the promises made to the children of men belong to him, and the covenant mercies of God are his.”

John Saunders saw the understanding of a common, final, ancestor of Europeans and Australian Aborigines being the person Adam, as vital. This undermined the view of a so called “fundamental scientific principle” that became widespread after Darwin’s corpus of writing that held otherwise.

William Howitt’s son, Alfred William Howitt, was an anthropologist who lived from AD 1830 to AD 1908. He wrote a book entitled, "The Native Tribes of South East Australia. " In it, he wrote of the rights of Aboriginals to use their own land in which they are born.
“The son of one of the headman of the Thedorra was born in the Ngarigo country, to which his mother belonged. It was therefore his country, and, as he put it, it would be just the same “for anyone who was born there.”

One of the old men of the Wolgal said that:

“the place where a man is born is his country, and he always has the right to hunt over it, and all others born there had also the right to do so.”

Such rights to the use of the land were wrongly usurped by colonizers.
Roger Williams, who was born in London , England AD 1603 and died in Providence, Rhode Island, USA, AD 1683, was Reformed Baptist Christian minister who spoke up for the American Indians against mistreatment from colonists from England. He questioned and condemned the validity and legality of the colonist’s practice (on a charter from the king of England) of taking land without paying for it from the Narragansett Indians. In a book Williams wrote, in AD 1643, called "A Key to the Language of America," he also made it clear American Indians should be considered equal, as they too were fellow descendants from “one blood.”

“Boast not proud English, of thy birth & blood;
Thy brother Indian is by birth as Good.
Of one blood God made Him, and Thee and All,
As wise, as fair, as strong, as personal.”

This common shared heritage through the ancestor, Adam (one blood), was given as a reason for proper consideration and treatment of the Indians. Implicit in the argument is they are not less as human beings, but “brothers and sisters”, with equal standing before all humans and God. Williams attempted to stop slavery taking root in the British American colony by passing a law in AD 1652 in Rhode Island. However after his death, from AD 1700, Newport became the leading port to receive indigenous Africans in the slave trade. This trade was built on the belief that some people are lesser, and can be bought and sold like a commodity, against their will.

The blessings mentioned that come, even today, through faith, are not based on a belief some are lesser, or more primitive, than others. Even those who do not share such a faith in Christ are entitled to be seen as equal, to be treated with dignity , justice and fairness, as being fellow men and women, born in the image of God, with a connection that goes back to the beginning.

Re: DS9 S4: The Visitor

I saw this episode when it was first broadcast. I'm was 42, I'm now 71. As I write this in 2023, I note:

* Avery Brooks is 74. He seems to be retired but I gather he lives with his wife of 47 years in Princeton, NJ.

* Nana Visitor is 66. She's still working and remains married to her third husband. Her son with Siddig (born during production of "The Assignment" in Season 5) is now 26.

* Rene Auberjonois is no longer with us. He died of lung cancer at the end of 2019 via voluntary selftermination of his life.

* Cirroc Lofton is now 44. He has a DS9 podcast ("The 7th Rule") that he started years ago with Aron Eisenberg. The latest episode was 7/24/23.

* Aron Eisenberg is no longer with us. Born with but one kidney, he died of renal complications in 2019.

* Terry Farrell is now 59. She retired from acting to concentrate on family, but her marriage to Brian Baker ended in 2015. She was married to Adam Nimoy (Leonard's son) from 2018 to 2022 when it ended in divorce.

* Alexander Siddig is 57. In recent years, he had a prominent role as Doran Martell in Game of Thrones. He has a son with Nana Visitor. He's been married to Shana Collier for the past seven years.

* Colm Meaney is 70. His huge film & TV resume has new entries for 2022 and 2023. He's been married twice.

* Michael Dorn is 70. In recent years, he has done a great deal of voice work. An accomplished pilot, he flies jets. He's flown with both the Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds.

* Tony Todd is 68. He continues to add to his huge acting resume that spans Broadway, Hollywood, and Television.

The point of all this is that "Life goes on." Time only moves one direction. The overarching question for anyone and everyone is "You are here. You are manifest in the universe. What are you going to do about that? What will you do with your time?"

We can follow our dreams and passions. Jake might have continued as a writer. Or we can divert ourselves into addictions and nostalgia. Jake can abandon his dreams, his family, and his destiny and become obsessed with finding some way to bring his father back. (A bit more honest episode would have left Jake dying having failed to complete his quest, but then that would have killed the series.)

How we deal with loss, how we overcome tragedies and setbacks is as much a part of life as that which we achieve. Jake is as trapped in the past as Benjamin Sisko was when the Prophets challenged him with "Why do you exist here?" (at the moment of Jennifer's death).

The episode is about life and meaning. It's as powerful as they come. Yes, there needs to be a reset button, but in the meantime, we can mourn along with Benjamin Sisko as he sees his son's life trickling away like sands through the hourglass (so are the days of our lives).

How we live is not a new theme:

"Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death." --- "Macbeth" (Shakespeare)

There's only one other episode in another series that brings home for me the poignancy of the bittersweet nature of mortal existence. That's "The Body" in "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer." Be present to the moment, live each day as if it were your last. Avoid the trap that looms for so many that life "Is a tale // Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury // Signifying nothing." ("Macbeth" again).

Re: DS9 S7: Take Me Out to the Holosuite

There are worse episodes, but it felt like a waste of time. And all the sport movie clichés, argh. Also, if they went there, shouldn't Bashir, Worf and Kira (who had been a champion raquetballer or something in an earlier season) been better at it? And shouldn't Yates have played a more prominent role as a fellow baseball aficionado? Why was O'Brian the replacement coach and not her? Eh.
Oh, and Quark sure would have drummed up a real audience and got some bets and catering going. This should have been a bit of an event and a good business opportunity. While combatants blowing off steam with sports is perfectly reasonable, could have provided a decent material for an episode, but the very isolation and sterility of the match works against this idea.

Also, Star Trek sure likes to crap on Vulcans. It is like the writers feel threatened by a viable alternative to how humans do things (TM). I have to disagree that TOS or TNG were better about it. In TOS full-blooded Vulcans didn't cover themselves with glory and amply exhibited their ability to hold illogical grudges. McCoy was constantly racist towards Spock (though his affection was also obvious) and pushed him to act more like a human. And a lot of high points for Spock's character involved exactly that.

In TNG there was that extremely unpleasant Vulcan ambassador, who turned out to be an undercover Romulan, but her jerkish behavior didn't ring any bells among the crew, so it was something that they clearly expected from Vulcans. Then there was Sarek's useless aide and the notion that 3 shipfuls of Romulans woud be able to take over the entire planet!

Enterprise just destroyed them. Etc.

Klingons are a "noble savage" stereotype, so while they are occasionally seen as admirable, there never is any doubt that evolved human ways of doing things would be superior.

Anyway, wasn't Sisco's captain on the "Saratoga" a Vulcan? You'd think that he would be particularly well-equipped for dealing with them. Oh, well.

Speaking of a Vulcan Starfleet crew - it makes perfect sense that there would be ships where other major Federation species would be a majority and which would cater to them in the same way as Enterprises, Voyager and even DS9 cater to humans. While the environmental comfort zones of most Federation species overlap somewhat, they are not the same. It would be incredibly discriminatory to force everybody in Starfleet to put up with conditions which are only optimal for humans all of the time. Not to mention home ports convenience and the specific needs of various other species, like Pon Farr, telepathy, etc. In fact, there could have been an interesting episode material in one of the series regulars doing a stint on a non-human Starfleet vessel and both commonalities and differences in how things would be done there as compared to the human ships and that we are familiar with.

Also, let's face it - the way that the Star Treks presented the Federation, it always looked like a human hegemony, rather than an equal alliance of many species. All the Starfleet ships depicted on screen are majority human with sometimes a sprinkling of aliens in their crews. Nearly all captains are human. Nearly all admirals are human. Nearly all ship names are human. Nearly all awards are named after humans, etc., etc. The only aspect of government that even remotely aspired to the touted diversity of the Federation was the diplomatic corps.
And yes, of course it is understandable that much of it was caused by practical considerations of money, logistics, etc. I still think that they could have done more and didn't default to "Starfleet=human" as much. But mentions of majority-non-human Starfleet ships could have been a cheap method to alleviate this that should have been employed much more frequently than it was.

Re: SNW S2: Lost in Translation

Oh, and in case anyone wasn't aware...

Mellisa Navia lost her partner three days after he was diagnosed with leukemia.

I read this awhile back. I really felt for her.

https://www.talkhouse.com/an-actor-a-helmsman-and-my-brian-boldly-going-where-no-widow-has-gone-before/

His name was Brian Bannon.

They named the nebula after him in this episode.

Pretty cool gesture I thought.

Re: PIC S3: The Last Generation

The effectiveness of Terry Matalas' grass roots propaganda has been impressive to behold, and a template for any show-runner in similar struggles with a parent network. He has literally taken a show held together by bubble gum and nostalgia, and had it referred to as "the best Trek in 25 years".

And to think, he started it all by getting two of his friends in podcasting (Shane and Brian @ The Popcast) to basically convert their channel over to praising PIC S3. They started multiple petitions (even trying to force competing ones to close), policed chatrooms of other channels, and made videos targeting the few critics of PIC S3. To put things in perspective, these are the guys who live on camera compared Terry Matalas leadership and team skills to "presidents and great leaders throughout history."

Matalas other step was securing enough "early viewing" passes to blanket the major influencers. Critical Drinker, Dave Cullen, Nerdrotic, Robert Meyer Burnett (a more subservient slime is difficult to fathom), all were drawn in by memberberries and registered thumbs up. Then, their audiences got on board. Much of this happened before episode 1 EVEN AIRED! So the creator class had now been drawn in to commit to an opinion that their audience quickly mirrored, thus capturing them.

If Star Trek Legacy does happen, there is little doubt Jeri Ryan will figure prominently if Matalas runs it. She mumbled something about knowing him "since the makeup chairs on Voyager", and it is very clear she orbits him closely. If there is a Matalas panel appearance, 90% chance Jeri Ryan is there as well. Can we listen to Jeri Ryan's Seven give tryhard orders for an entire season of Legacy? Ehhhhhh... I think it gets boring by ep 3.

Interesting times at Paramount Plus and Kurtzman land. A few decisions here and there may have major effects long into the future. The return of Michelle Yeoh in some form is fantastic, and may just be the alternative needed to send Matalas back to the mailroom where he belongs.

Re: PIC S3: The Last Generation

@ Quincy, Brian
Sure, it started as a satirical term used by two writers for female fan fiction. Mary Sue characters were a way for adolescent women to have a heroic role which most stories didn't provide. In other words this fan fiction characterization was a form of self empowerment. So that you are not just the care lady or love interest but the term has since then morphed into a way for men to denigrate female characters.

TNG is a good example. Both Beverly and Troi were in care work and both were objects of desire for the captain and the first officer aka the men in charge. It was also likely no coincidence that TNG had a blonde, brown and red haired women.
Who would you identify with on TNG as a woman? DS9 was the first Trek show that had actual heroines. Maybe that is the reason that I do not care so much about Star Trek Picard going full nostalgia because TNG doesn't make me nostalgic.

Re: PIC S3: Surrender

@Black Oatmeal

Fair enough but I think the swearing in NuTrek makes many of the rest of us think of Kirk's explicit statements about the primitiveness of 'cursing' as viewed from his era in Star Trek IV.

If fuck this and fuck that and fuck you you fucking fuck had always been part of Trek we wouldn't have a problem with it in NuTrek. It's not so much a taboo as something that's been expressly portrayed as not having a place in Trek before.

A bit like Crusher and the Picardbot 2000 deciding to off their prisoner. It's not merely a prissy taboo, it's a complete re-write of their characters and what has hitherto been acceptable in Trek.

Life of Brian is hilarious though.

Re: PIC S3: Surrender

People being upset by cursing make me think of the bearded ladies stoning John Cleese in Life of Brian. The idea that words are taboo seems incredibly primitive to me.

Re: PIC S3: Dominion

Jammer's review was one of his best, and hit all the right notes.

Odd things in the influencer space...

Most of the Youtubers shilling for Picard S3 at the start have gone silent., except for two channels: Robert Meyer Burnett and The Popcast. Both are shills to the point of policing their own chatrooms for ANY negative opinions. Which makes it even stranger that the Popcast decided to take avideo shot at the long-disgraced Youtuber "Doomcock". He hasn't been relevant in over a year, when the influencer cabal basically forgot about him, and he was scarcely relevant before that. He's a silly guy playing in a robot mask.

So the Popcast, in their infinite wisdom, decides to make an April fool video mocking Doomcock as hating Picard because..... drumroll...

because he had been repeatedly sexually assaulted by Alex Kurtzman when he was younger. (!?)

Seriously, what mind comes up with this? Why attack a barely relevant hack Youtuber in the first place, and then use a tone-deaf sexual assault skit to do it?

Stay classy, Brian and Shane. Pick your friends better, Terry.

Re: PIC S3: The Bounty

@Bryan

You may be right, I was just emphasizing the fact that the "Terry Matalas is the bee's knees" is being pushed by a very tiny group of 3-4 dudes who are likely friends of Terry, and not as I previously thought, a larger effort on Paramount's part. I'm guessing Shane and Brian of the Popcast are in that group, as is Robert Burnett. Interesting re: Matalas and Kurtzman, I believe anything branded Terry Matalas is still under Kurtzman's studio aegis, so Picard S3's has probably been a factor in gaining Kurtzman another contract. His mood has certainly brightened in the last few days.

The next few weeks will be important in the assessment of ratings. Many of the Terry shills pointed to episodes 5 and 6 as the season peak, and the daily ratings at fantrax and google support this. People saying ep 5/6 was the peak after they've seen all 10 also suggests that there aren't any late-season shock twists or surprises that send it out with a bang.

It shall be interesting.

Re: TNG S5: New Ground

What I loved most about Worf was his getting Klingons only partly right, fusing his instincts and memories of life before Khitomer with his likely strict upbringing on Earth, and ending up with Superman Traffic Cop. Then over the course of the series we learned what real Klingon culture is like.

As usual, it's the performances that make the experience worthwhile. Brian Bonsall plays a kid in need of his dad well.

I suspect, if direction didn't feel the episode had to have some kind of antagonist, the teacher might have been an in-joke of "system" personalities.

Re: DS9 S7: Covenant

@EventualZen
Ok So you don't have to convince me of anything. If have given it a superficial look and it seemed that the journal does good work in general but when it screws up, it digs in. I don't know why that is. Maybe in medical research there are always millions of people and money interests screaming at you, calling you a fraud and therefor the journal has a very defensive stance. I know more about the Wakefield thing. It is certainly concerning that a medical journal has to be forced to retract something.
This is the web page of Brian Deer, a famous investigative journalist, you probably know.
https://briandeer.com/solved/bmj-wakefield-3-1.htm
---
This exchange between Horton and a regulator seems insightful:"
Before I go on to the statements by the doctors, which were published in the Lancet, and by the Royal Free,” Sally Smith said to Horton at the hearing, “can I ask you, have there been other occasions when you have had to investigate allegations made about a research paper and its propriety, in general terms?”

“Frequently.”

“Is it customary to discuss and take the word of those against whom the allegations are made?"

“It is.”"
---
It seems to me that the Lancet, which has published a huge amount of award winning studies and has a very high impact rating, by default defends studies it publishes quite strongly which in most cases makes probably sense but in cases where respected researchers, and Wakefield for example was one, do fairly bad science or even commit downright fraud, this policy backfires. I would assume their argument is, and that is what happened in both the Wakefield case and this one, that other studies will disprove them. That happened in both cases. The problem is of course that the CFS study was not a pilot study but a full study and informed public policy and I assume hurt a significant amount of patients, you included. Have patient organizations sued?

There is also quite a bit of debate about impact factors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Declaration_on_Research_Assessment

To conclude. I really don't know what the right approach is. While I can understand the Lancet defending publications against allegations, it can produce negative results occasionally if frauds are protected by a siege mentality. But what would be the other option? Retracting things far earlier and thereby making useful treatments unavailable. There are always up- and downsides to policy changes.

One point though, it's early and maybe I'm missing something, but a blind or double blind study seems pretty much impossible in the CFS case. A blind study would mean that some people get the treatment and others don't get it but think they get the treatment (double blind would mean that even the researchers who apply the treatment don't know who gets what).

I don't know if this virology blog can be trusted but if it one can trust it then this point:

"In seeking informed consent, the PACE authors violated their own protocol, which included an explicit commitment to tell prospective participants about any possible conflicts of interest. The main investigators have had longstanding financial and consulting ties with disability insurance companies, having advised them for years that cognitive behavior therapy and graded exercise therapy could get claimants off benefits and back to work."

This would be bad. Informed consent, including mentioning conflicts, is good practice, as far as I know. The conflict of interests are mentioned at the end of the study and they seem quite numerous. I don't know how it is in the British medical sector but I have never seen a paper with that many direct conflicts of interests.

Re: DS9 S1: If Wishes Were Horses

While I agree that this episode isn't the best, I think it is more interesting than some give it credit for.
It almost seemed like an exploration of religion vs reason.
Take the climax where O'Brian must sacrifice his daughter to save the station. That, combined with Sisko saying "this time, no speculation, let's deal in the facts" makes the episode seem to me to be a study of how the Star Trek Man has evolved out the man-made subconciously- originated delusions of religion, that made men do insane shit like sacrifice their kids.