“Fortunate Son”

Commander Keen got a promotion? (Sorry, showing my age and computer game geekiness)

Way better than Voyager's episode with a similar title (Favorite Son), although that one was about their least interesting character (also an ensign) temporarily getting a story.. I hope Mayweather wasn't intended to go the same way. They'd shown here what CAN be done with the character.

A really good and interesting show, as far as the "historical" perspective.

What really bunched my shorts though is the ludicrous political correctness being peddled left and right. The freighter crew was under unremitting assaults and kept taking heavy damage and casualties for months. They captured one of their foes and beat vital intelligence out of him. That though, in the brave new 22nd-century world, is an abomination, apparently. Reminds me of the story from a few months ago of the English navy handing out blankets and cups of hot tea to Somali pirates they captured off the Horn of Africa, before letting them go.

Archer is a sanctimonious prick. Sometimes you DO have to "blow your opponent out of the sky," as Travis said, even if it "doesn't sit well" with you. Travis's little speech toward the end was, frankly, embarrassing. And what of the supposed resolution: Are we to believe that the Nausicaans will henceforth foreswear piracy and go on the lecture circuit declaiming how they turned their lives around by embracing peace, tolerance and diversity?

I guess according to P.C. canon, use of force of any kind--even in self-defense--is all but verboten. The entire notion is premised on the latter-day college psychology view of a bully (and other types of criminal) as, really, a victim to be helped, rather than an adversary to be defeated. Pathetic.

Archer: "Perhaps we have an opportunity here to improve relations between your people and mine." *puke* Perhaps Start Trek should spend more time doing sci-fi and less time trying to inculcate pacifistic (not to be confused with pacifist) propaganda in their viewers. In any case, I hope the West doesn't have to fight a defensive war anytime soon because with attitudes like that, we're screwed.

But this isn't about using force in self defense; that was never questioned. This is about torturing people and using force for nothing more than revenge, consequences be damned. I'll take Archer's approach, thank you.

What struck me most was the attitude of the boomers to change that could benefit them. They are offered upgrades to their engines, to their weapons and they all refuse it. It's like truckers turning down 18-wheelers because they like to stick to their horses and carriages. They rather make a buck every two years than make a buack every two months. That was way beyond believable.

I also wonder what the viability is of piracy in a galactic society that has the weapons to blast parts of planets in one single shot. One day you pick the wrong guy and you're toast. Look at the pirates someone mentioned here off the Somalian coast. They managed to draw the attention of an international fleet to their doorstep, which is quite detrimental to their business. Let's take one Klingon vessel at the wrong end of the equasion and the Nausicans are in for rock and roll.

I liked the conversation at the end between the two captains, though. I'd wishthere would be more interactions of this kind and quality in the show.

I also wondered where the Vulcans were. Weren't they constantly looking over the shoulders of Enterprise? Great moment not to be around.

And a last nitpick: I thought Enterprise was going out to discover new worlds and new civilizations, boldly going where no one had gone before. But one day they're discovering an installment of the game 1492 on a planet no one has seemingly discovered before, next week they're meeting with a boomer ship regularly flying through this vicinity. What flight pattern is Enterprise following? Why were they so negative about the Vulcans holding them back if humans already regularly fly out this far? Take a boomer ship with a pimped up warp three engine and head out for five years. No need to even ask the Vulcans for help or guidance.

Here I was thinking Mayweather has a backbone after all, and then the conversation in Archer's quarters takes us back to square one. Mayweather had a point about noninterference, but of course it only takes a 15-second, condescending speech from Archer to make him see how wrong he was. "Thank you, sir. Thank you." I was embarrassed for him.

"But this isn't about using force in self defense; that was never questioned. This is about torturing people and using force for nothing more than revenge, consequences be damned. I'll take Archer's approach, thank you."


Bullcrap. Arhcer was against even taking a a prisoner. And what the hell is the alternative? Should they just sit on their asses and let these pirates kill them? Especially, since we know Starfleet doesn't give a crap about them and neither does Archer? What Ryan was doing IS self defence. Yes, he might do it badly, but atleast he's doing SOMETHING.

"It only takes a 15-second, condescending speech from Archer to make him see how wrong he was."

Except he was wasn't wrong. Archer was just being self-righteous asshole.

What would Kirk have done?

He would have immediately attacked the Nausicaan vessels that had surrounded the Fortunate, and after disabling them he would have taken the Nausicaan hostage from Ryan (and made a speech to Ryan about how Starfleet doesn't condone torture.) Then he would have given the hostage back to the Nausicaans with a warning that next time their ships won't be making it home from a fight with an NX vessel, and that piracy won't be tolerated.

What did Archer do? He essentially insured that the Nausciaans will continue to attack Earth freighters. Oh, and Kirk would have had a drink with the freighter captain. It's puzzling that Archer wasn't willing to.

Archer's a strange bird: on the one hand his optimism and willingness to bend over backward to avoid military solutions seems completely in character for one of the first Starfleet captains, who would be more akin to astronauts than military commanders. On the other hand the guy is just a little too optimistic and eager, and I would have liked to see some backbone in the first captain of an NX ship.

The lesson here: Kirk is always right.

"If Starfleet is going to venture out, it must be prepared to grow up and react with logic rather than raw emotion."
So, daring to defend yourself against pirates that attack you constantly = reacting with raw emotion.
And sitting back and letting them kill you while you twiddle your thumbs, shrug your shoulders and say, "ah, c'est la vie, I suppose!" = LOGIC

@mark: I completely agree with you as to what Archer should have done. The episode itself as a whole was all right to me, but the ending left a bad taste in my mouth. After the end credits, I said, "That's gonna come back to bite them later."

One could look at this in terms of 'Archer and humanity are inexperienced, they're slowly learning their way around the cosmos' but really though, it should just be common sense to anyone with an IQ above 50. After all, it's Starfleet's job to protect ships like the Fortunate. Shooting back at the Nausicaans would get that message across real fast. To quote a commander figure from another sci-fi franchise, "If you keep running from a schoolyard bully, he keeps on chasing you. But the moment you turn around and stop and you punch him really hard in a sensitive spot, he'll think twice about coming back again."

I think Archer learned this lesson by season 3, though (see "Anomaly") - too bad it took that long.

I liked this episode.

...and I don't think Archer or T'Pol were wrong.

There is nothing logical by dealing with this problem by taking a hostage. Especially when 99.9% of the time you are alone and most likely out gunned. Is it a perfect world? No, but throwing gas on the fire when you don't have a bucket of water is dangerous and borderline stupid. Letting the Nausicaans know that Star Fleet was “out here” was the right approach.

No problem with the Archer/Travis conversation in his cabin. Archer's point was valid, but I think he should have brought up future consequences to being the aggressor. Next time it might not be just the cargo they are looking for.

I didn't like this line though:

"ARCHER: Any other orders of mine you'd like to question?"

Pretty snotty there.

I think this episode brings out that not everyone is fit for command as well.

Good "Travis episode". I wish the series had more of these.

No question they should have taken some upgrades, I think the Fortunate Captain should have taken some when he was back on his feet.

I thought it was more of a jealousy/envy thing rather than "we are short people" whine. Ryan always talked about "who will be left" etc, but I thought there was something else in his conversations. "boomer life wasn't good enough"... etc.

I too enjoyed the conversations between Captains at the end.

Archer should have taken a shot of Drilaxian Whisky. Captains are on call 24/7. The "I'm on duty" cop out would get old. He's not asking him to get plastered.

3 stars for me.

I think that one thing that everyone is missing is that in the episode torturing the captive DIDN'T WORK. He gave them false shield frequencies hoping his captors would do exactly what they did, attack a superior force with bad intel, leading to his rescue. That's the problem with torture, it's really easy to lie to your torturers if the info isn't independently confirmable. The episode gets major brownie points from me for that alone.

Also, the Enterprise did fire back launching four torpedoes by my count, presumably doing enough damage to deter the Nausicaans until a diplomatic solution could be reached. Archer was aggressive with the Nausicaans hardly being a straight pacifist in the moment, then telling them that Starfleet was building a fleet of fast, well armed ships that would begin to protect all human trade vessels very soon, and maybe piracy isn't going to be the best line of work in the near future. However, Archer's job isn't to be a one ship anti-piracy task force, his job is to find the fastest, most expedient solution to the immediate problem at hand, *maybe* setting up some groundwork for further enforcement action in the future and then get on with his mission.

Maybe it's true that Kirk would have kept the firefight going even after the Nausicaans broke off their attack, having achieved their aims (rescuing their man), but I've always thought Kirk was too heavy handed in using force.

Here's the speech I would have liked to have heard from Archer to Travis:
I get the whole cargo ship is a family thing. I get the whole Starfleet doesn't have jurisdiction thing. I even get the revenge against the Nausicans thing. If Ryan wants to go after the pirates, fine. But he tried to kill four innocent people, me included. I have a big problem with people who try to kill me and my crew, I'm funny that way. Don't tell me he knew the Enterprise would rescue us in plenty of time; he fired on us! He fired on my ship! That is unacceptable. I'm going after him, I'm going to throw him in the brig, then I'm going to make sure he's tried for attempted murder.

Can we not use "Somali Pirates" as an example. We dump our waste on their shores, destroy their government, put in place dictators, ruin their economy, ecosystems and fishing industries....of course they're going to hijack boats that pass by.

More apologist nonsense from Corey :)

More bigoted backlash from DLPB :|

The only bigotry I see is that on the part of "Corey," who implausibly asserts that "we" (whoever that is, but I'm guessing the big bad West) are responsible for people who feel aggrieved by something or other acting like raw beasts. Because, of course, were it not for "us," the Somali pirates would be learned scholars and gentlemen.

It's an indictment of our times that there are people who so eagerly bend over backward to rationalize and justify some of the most barbaric behavior among the anti-Western elements. They cozy up to the most risible and anti-human ideologies, regimes, "activists," and movements, so long as they palm themselves off as a Victim of Western Imperialism(TM).

(And what makes them so laughable is that they are among the most vociferous adversaries of, say, the Religious Right, even those the victimhood status could be just as easily ascribed to them as to the dime-a-dozen of these Social Justice Warriors'(TM) pets.)

Michael is that you? I missed your crazy ass!

Anyway there is no justification for barbarism, but there are reasons for it. Likewise there is no justification for the kind of economic imperialism which brings those very causes and reasons into existence. It is bigoted to hold one side to an impossible standard but not the other especially when the former are disenfranchised formerly colonised and enslaved people. No one is "justified" here but the situation is more complicated than "they're the bad guys." We bare *some* of the responsibility.

Sure is, dawg! :D

Oh gee, Economic Imperialism(TM). Can't bash us anymore for conquistadors and colonists, so now it's "economic imperialism." A factitious concept designed to belittle and demonize (Western, of course) commercial success and prowess.

Let me ask you a question, scro: Is Samsung an example of "economic imperialism"? Is Tata Motors? Is Huawei?

A simple yes or no will do :)

You're wasting your time with Elliott... He is one of those crazy leftists who apologize for everything, hate their own culture, and appease everyone and everything in every way. Totally politically correct and impossible to reason with. Criminals, you name it: Elliott will be on their side, because they are "misunderstood" and "need help". I could mention 100 other examples, but why bother? If you read his attacks on DS9, you'll learn his criticisms generally have nothing to do with the writing, and everything to do with the fact it strayed from Gene's utopian (and totally ridiculous) view of the future.

He also needs to learn what the word "Bigot" means. I suggest he also look into Neville Chamberlain, he may find a hero.

DLPB,

Michael may be flagrantly wrong in nearly all his opinions, but I've never seen him stoop to the Neanderthaloid depths of rude, unwarranted, sophomoric, bating, hard-headed, agendist, stereotyping drivel that flows unimpeded by even the faintest glimmer of empathy or common sense from your keyboard. I have grown entirely unwilling to endure another promise of "100 other examples" when you fail to produce even ONE to support your wild theories. What i can tell you is that it was recently that, on this very forum of jammersreviews, I expressed my opinion that western democratic civilisation is, and I quote, "BETTER" than others for very specific reasons. I stand by that opinion but that does not mean that we in the West should apologise for NOTHING, as though, throughout history and the modern age we have been utterly without faults and have made no mistakes in our dealings with other cultures. Such an assertion is beyond absurd, it's ludicrous. You can bugger off and never be heard from again.

Michael,

For the record, my ancestors are British and Spanish, so the "us" you refer to can hardly apply to anyone more than myself. To answer your question, yes, all are examples of economic imperialism. That does not make them worthless or dispensable, but there it is.

@Elliott:
If they are all examples of "economic imperialism," then why don't you just state clearly that you have a problem with commercial success (after a certain point, presumably arbitrarily decided by yourself), rather than hide behind highbrow-sounding college dilettante constructs such as "economic imperialism"?

Looks like I hit a nerve ;)

Random musing #1: Why is it that I wonder if Michael and DLPB are the same person?

Random musing #2: Your last statement, DLPB, is a total non sequiter.

Random musing #3: All this talk of ideology this-and-that is pointless. Every society has effed up people in it, and some governments are terrible at keeping that element of society from organizing. Sometimes people make a conscious choice to masquerade as religious as an excuse to do bad things. There are a LOT of things at play here other than simply Religion Vs. Religion.

Besides, if Islam didn't exist but all the economic and political realities of those countries were otherwise identical, how many terrorists would still be terrorists? Probably most of them.

Random musing #4: I wish I could care about Enterprise enough to comment on it, but I really disliked it from the get-go. All the revisionist/ret-con "history"and "tech" really got on my nerves.

It's kinda amazing that this schlocky episode has provoked such a debate.

@Dave in NC:
"[I]f Islam didn't exist but all the economic and political realities of those countries were otherwise identical, how many terrorists would still be terrorists? Probably most of them."

Demonstrably false.

Exhibit A: There are hundreds of millions of people in non-Moslem states who have it FAR rougher than Moslems but who never, ever resorted to terrorism. How many Zimbabweans, Ethiopians, Congolese, or East Timorese perpetrated terrorist atrocities? Zero.

Exhibit B: Surprisingly (shockingly!) many terrorists are not some indigent, despondent, marginalized, oppressed victims but educated, middle-class professionals.

P.S. Random musing: Why is it that I wonder if "Dave in NC" and "Corey" are the same person?

Random musing:

why does someone ignore the realities of Irish terrorism, Columbian terrorism, Sri Lankan terrorism, Puerto Rican terrorism, Mexican terrorism etc etc because it doesn't fit their narrow-minded world-view?

Focused musing:

Because they were disparate, temporary occurrences, strongly delimited by the geographical area and cause.

But, then, someone doesn't have his head stuck up his ass seriously thinking that the Moslem terrorists' motivation is something other than sick religious ideology. They're not interested in getting rich or being free. They're interested in turning the world Islamic, period. If you, "Dave in NC," are unable to distinguish that from the Mexican, Lankan, Colombian, Angolan, Sahrawi, etc. terrorism, then you are really too dumb to be doing anything other than sitting in your armchair drooling into a cup.

Michael said: "Because they were disparate, temporary occurrences, strongly delimited by the geographical area and cause."

reply:

VERY interesting. So you agree terrorism CAN and DOES frequently happen without Islam being the root cause? That's comforting, because otherwise you would look like you were in complete denial of the realities of this world.

However, it is troubling that you are incapable of making the deductive leap that many Islamic terrorists are the way they are because of "disparate, temporary occurrences, strongly delimited by the geographical area and cause."


Michael said:

"But, then, someone doesn't have his head stuck up his ass seriously thinking that the Moslem terrorists' motivation is something other than sick religious ideology. They're not interested in getting rich or being free. They're interested in turning the world Islamic, period."

reply:

If my head's up my ass, it's because it's preferable to being in your presence.

Anyways, no where did I not say that I think terrorism "isn't a problem". The events of the last ten years make it plainly evident it IS an issue. For the record, I think the decentralized nature of Islam may be a barrier to a "Islamic Reformation". It IS a problem that needs to be addressed, and not just by turning America into a police state.

However, I don't believe in a world of cartoon-villainy motivations. NOTHING is as simple as "the Holy Book made me do it". Every human being has a complex story about why they are the way they are, and terrorists are NO different.


Michael said:
If you, "Dave in NC," are unable to distinguish that from the Mexican, Lankan, Colombian, Angolan, Sahrawi, etc. terrorism, then you are really too dumb to be doing anything other than sitting in your armchair drooling into a cup.

reply:
So murder because of religion is worse than murder because of ethnic hatreds or drug cartels? I don't know how one can make that judgment because I'm reasonably certain they are ALL EQUALLY HORRIBLE.

I will say this . . . I do appreciate the fact that your hypothetical version of me is at least thoughtful enough to have a receptacle for his drool. My hypothetical doppelganger's roommate thanks you.

That should read:

"no where did I say that I think terrorism "isn't a problem""

Type in haste, repent at leisure.

I don't have time for a pissing contest about global terrorism on a sci-fi show's review website... - and a lousy sci-fi show at that.

Just this:
"However, it is troubling that you are incapable of making the deductive leap that many Islamic terrorists are the way they are because of "disparate, temporary occurrences, strongly delimited by the geographical area and cause.""

Moslem terrorists from Morocco to Mindanao, from Argentina to Albania, from Chechnya to Chad, from Nigeria to Norway, from New York to New Delhi (that, for those with rudimentary knowledge of geography, encompasses pretty much the entire world) have one and only one thing in common: their adherence to Islam. Whatever "story" they have, their goal is simple and straightforward: a world of Moslems for Moslems in absolute totality.

Insofar as any parallels can be drawn between it and another movement, only Nazism is comparable.

That said, I will enter no further correspondence on this matter.

Don't you just love trolls? They decide the conversation is done (when it isn't going the way they wanted), but only after they get to make their parting shot.

Enjoy putting your fingers in your ears, Mike. I'm sure it's something you've got a LOT of practice with.

Dave, you are the one putting your fingers in your ears. What Michael has just said it fact. Islam is what they share, and it is incredibly obvious to anyone who has studied it (like me) to see that you have absolutely no clue about its teachings, or why it differs to other religions. So stop moving that mouth and get watching some videos. Start with Robert Spencer.

To sum it up for others: Dave + Elliott = Liberal appeasers (Neo Chamberlain).

Oh, and Corey too. It's the same thing. These people are always looking to blame their own culture for the world's ills - blame America - blame the west. Pro Palestine because their liberal media and schools told them Israel is a big bad guy. Islam defenders because their liberal media and schools told them it was a "religion of peace"

The product of self hate, ignorance, lack of education and lack of common sense. Take a good look, folks... these people are the reason 50 million people died in World War II, because when people like Churchill were warning Hitler and his ideology were lethal, people like Corey, Elliott and Dave were calling him a war mongering bigot.

Today, it's Islam and other backward cultures. And they are nit going to go away just because liberal appeasers put their head in the sand. That's my final word on it, also :)

I am the furthest thing from a liberal, you dope. I've never voted for a Democrat in my life.

You (and Michael) live in an ignorant fantasyland, cherrypicking your facts to support your obtuse conclusions. You refuse to acknowledge that not everything is black and white.

Honestly, you both sound like a couple of hate-mongers (and nothing like Star Trek fans).

I was going to stay out of it BUT... I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're all wrong and right :)

5 things...

1) The point has been brought up that middle class professionals have been terrorists. Sure, but most of them have ties to those Muslim countries the way that Jews feel close enough to Israel to go fight over there for them. The existence of the terrorism is that people in the lousy situations are also too religious.

2) Being too much of ANY kind of religion is historically dangerous. Crusades? Inquisition? The Salem Witch Trials? Puritans? Mormon Child Abuse? Persecuting Gay People? Westboro Baptist Church? Pedophile Priests? Religion just takes any old problem and turns it into a giant FUBARed mess. Especially when you're REALLY religious.

3) So why don't poor Christian countries have terrorists in the extreme that Muslim countries do? There are really, really damned horrible things in my holy book too (it says I should stone women, keep slaves... as long as they are from other countries, it debatably says I should hate gay people... although I'm not sure I buy that one line as being accurately translated). People like to say Muslims are bad for women, but has anyone ever read the Bible? If we actually followed it... sheesh. I will say that one thing that Muslims don't seem to have gotten down pat yet is versions. Jews do this really well. When something in the holy book is stupid, you just make a more reform version of your religion and ignore it. Keep all the spiritual stuff, dump the dumbass rules. Reform Jews don't need to be Kosher because being Kosher isn't safer anymore. How's that. Christians really need to get on that in regards to gay people and birth control. Wanting to sign up for Reform Christianity.....

4) Christianity has a bloody awful history too, but they didn't have quite as ridiculous tools back then. But the truth is that Jihad is about as much a part of the Koran as hating gay people is a part of Christianity. That is to say that you could get there through a really literal lens, but it takes a real nutjob to go all the way. And make no mistake, there are a LOT of Christian nutjobs. They just spend their money trying to legislate being backwards instead of blowing people up. I agree with you that liberals are too "appeasing" sometimes, but the answer to these problems IS liberalism. Making these people into liberals solves the problem :)

5) "Islam defenders because their liberal media and schools told them it was a "religion of peace". Or it's because we know Muslim people in our lives that aren't any crazier than the Jews/Christians we know? Islam is much younger than the other two religions. Perhaps it just hasn't worked out it's nuttiness yet (God knows Christianity hasn't). But I assure you that I could come up with something just as bad as Sharia Law with only the aid of the Christian Bible if I wanted to follow it literally.

Conclusions... following religious text literally is asinine (go see the "Book of Mormon" Broadway show for further elaboration on that). Religious extremism is very bad for terrorism, but it's not the only kind of Islam out there. And finally, let's all worship the Prophets instead. Peldor joi!

I live in a 30% immigrant town, and it gets worse and worse the more Islam is about. This is not about one or two Muslims. This is about an entire ideology. Again, you fail to understand that. Look around the world at Muslim countries and notice the difference. When Muslims make up a majority of your town / city / country, their evil ideology gains to much of a foothold and enough of them then want to implant Sharia law or other Islamic doctrine onto you.

It's that simple. It's happened in VIRTUALLY EVERY country that was once secular / Christian and then became Muslim. So the question to people like you is: What makes you think Europe / US will be any different? Well, France isn't listening to you folks anymore, and pretty soon no-one will be. Eventually a majority of people will be voting Right to sort out the mess, which will also create problems (albeit nowhere near as many as Islam is doing).

Ignoring the situation and bringing up straw men (using Christianity) is not solving anything, or even looking at the root cause. And I bet you still haven't bothered to watch videos by Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders. You just come here with a load of opinions and no understanding of Islam or its texts.

I have no doubt that immigrants from problematic countries can be problematic. I don't think it's a strawman to point out Christianity has issues though. I'm more just getting at this. What makes you think that all the muslims by me that don't wear veils, subjugate women and blow crap up would suddenly start doing so just because a lot more moved in.

I think that, given a few generations of mixing with the west that western ideals will win out. Neither one of us can be proven correct though, since we'd need to simmer this for a few generations and see.

DLPB said:
I live in a 30% immigrant town, and it gets worse and worse the more Islam is about.

reply:

How do you define "worse and worse?"

Are there terrorist bombings where you live?

What do you think they have "done" to your community to make you feel this way about them?

I worked door-to-door in the Detroit area for months and I lived in Minneapolis (two areas with very large populations of Muslim immigrants.) While I'm not going to deny there is a very very tiny subset of people who are into the "evil" intepretation if Islam, 99.9% don't believe in mass murder of civilians.

The more you type, the more ignorant you sound.

PS- Maybe it's a personal weakness, but it is a big pet peeve of mine when someone says "Watch this YouTube video (from some partisan think tank) because I can't explain my point in my own words". My feeling on the matter is that if you feel this passionate about it, you should be able to explain your point in YOUR OWN WORDS.

Ah yes, I wondered how long it would be before someone dusted off the "but Islam is much 'younger' than Christianity" routine.

Christianity's heyday (including its excesses and atrocities) happened at a time when the human race's corpus and penetration of knowledge were very similar to those of centuries, even millennia, previously. It was almost inevitable, being that enlightenment as such was unheard of. Christian excesses were just one possible manifestation of the primitive mind of the time, and that was the ONLY kind of a mind around back then.

What's Islam's excuse? What is the excuse for not utilizing the knowledge and technology the human race possesses today to reform or at least questions itself?m If anything, technology is used to make Islam even more (if that's even possible!) belligerent, violent, intolerant.

So yes, keep on bleating that the "Moslems I know are all wonderful people." I, on the other hand, will take (1) my ten years' living in four Moslem states, (2) Pew's research uncovering some extremely worrying findings about Islamdom's attitudes toward matters such as women's rights, death for "apostasy," stoning for adultery, etc., and (3) the quite-a-few seemingly impeccably-integrated Moslems in the West none of whom were "any crazier than the Jews/Christians we know" who snapped overnight and committed unspeakable atrocities. I will take those three and, I are say, arrive at rather different conclusions.

P.S. Jews, regardless of how strong an affinity for Israel they have, do not go around America and Europe attacking Arabs. Hell, they don't even go to Israel or the occupied territories to hunt them some Palestinians. You, Robert, correctly note that it was their (latent, unconscious) adherence to Islam that caused apparently fully Westernized second- and third-generation immigrants to turn wacko overnight. And accounts overflow of a Bob here and a Julia there converting into Ahmeds and Fatimas, and deciding that Jews have to die and the Western liberal democracy overthrown. Common denominator: again, Islam.



@DLPB:
It is an exercise in futility. The reason these people (Ben Affleck is the archetype) are so far gone is not that they are enamored of Islam. No. Rather, the reason is that they despise the (Christian) Religious Right to such an inexorable extent that they *have to* oppose *everything* the said Right stands for. And since the Right (for its own, mainly religious, reasons) vilifies Islam, these morons undertake all manner of mental contortionism to vindicate and exonerate Islam of all wrongdoing, just in order to not be seen as aligning themselves with the Right. In the process, they throw under the bus just about every liberal principle they espouse (women and gay rights are excellent examples).

They scream blue murder about "Chick Fil A" owners' opposition to gay marriage, but are totally schtum about the physical and psychological torture visited upon anyone even suspected of being gay throughout the Moslem world. And the fact that 90% of Moslems consider homosexuals to be deserving of anything from stigma to death is palmed off on nefarious Western Imperialism(TM). You ^really* can't make this shit up.

As you say though, these imbeciles would have lambasted Churchill as a bigot, militarist, and jingoist 75 years ago. Human capacity for self-delusion is boundless.

"Liberal" people are NOT silent on the treatment of gays in the Mideast. GLAAD talks sbout this constantly to bring attention to the issue.

What Christian blog forcefeeds you this crap?

"What's Islam's excuse? "

Lack of a Western Education. Group think (see North Korea). These countries are bad, and bad things come out of them. I just think that it's likely that in 200 years these things will be Islams PAST, not future. Westernization is the key.

For the record, I do oppose the religious right... BUT my point is not that Islam is good, bad or in between. My point is that group think and fanaticism are bad. Which, for the record, is why I oppose the religious right.

If you honestly can't fathom why Islam ("What is the excuse for not utilizing the knowledge and technology the human race possesses today to reform or at least questions") is backwards when Christianity has managed to "utilize the knowledge and tech we possess today" then perhaps you'd like to explain why the religious right can't use that knowledge to tell how old the world is, stop trying to cure gay people, stop fighting birth control (I won't include abortion because, while I think they are wrong I don't think they are delusional) and stop trying to teach creationism in schools. I won't even include climate change denial because that's not religious, but when you teach your base that science is not to be trusted over scripture that kind of backwards thinking gets easier too.

So ya, Christianity is a lot older than Islam and they haven't figured out how to stop taking their doctrine literally. And yet Islam should just get with the 21st century by what magic? The church is only barely less anti-science then they were in the age of Galileo.

I'm not sticking up for Islam, I'm just saying that most of the religious right is throwing stones in a glass house.

So this is why my email is going nuts...

Welp, quick way to learn who the bigots and supremacists are I suppose. I mean hey, it's not like "the West" ever kills anyone or does anything shitty or has any sort of toxic culture to it at all..
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
oops who put that link there..

And of course the tens of thousands of deaths (many of them civilians) that occured in retaliation to the 3000 or so killed in 9/11 don't count, because they're just dirty brown foreigners with their backwards ways and non-Christian religion. Yep, all 2 billion Muslims - evil terrorists... everyone in good old 'murrica and co - squeaky clean (God bless 'em eh)

People need to stop blanket hating other people, killing other people, and generally being dicks to other people. On BOTH sides. As long are there are people going around thinking that they're saints and those who are different to them are all evil, we're a long long way from any kind of Trek-like dream where we've evolved past this kind of bullshit.

It's very easy for us to fall into this sarcastic back and forth as a way of buffering ourselves against the opinions of others, but it really isn't helping things here.

First of all, DLPB is completely insane and I would suggest editing his comments out of your perception of the thread, here.

Michael does have a point that many Liberals are too hasty to mirror their TeaBagger counterparts and diametrically oppose themselves to the agenda of the far right, which means "siding with" Islam. In deference to his perspective, the problem with Islam apropos terrorism is that too many Muslims take their religion as seriously today as many Christians did in the Middle Ages (and let's not leave the Jews out, who were just as barbaric in the pre-Christian era if the Old Testament is any account). What's disheartening is that, in its height, Islamic society was a model of tolerance, ecumenicism, culture and learning. That culture has regressed, in large part due to the economic and political upheavals of the 19th century which eventually led to the World Wars and the arbitrary nationalising of the Middle East.

However, what I think Michael is loathe to concede is that there is still a large percentage of Islamic society which is as secularly developed as its Christian and Jewish cohabitants. That percentage is dangerously low by comparison, but it exists, and to ignore it is the very definition of bigotry. Islam is just as capable of being secularised and evolved as Christianity and Judaism (all three of which, in my view, should be secularised to the point of historical interest and ritual only, thus expunging Western religiosity altogether, but that's another conversation). The problem is that it is largely under the control of extremists and fundamentalists in countries whose political infrastructure is incapable of adequately controlling and moderating its followers.

Finally, I think Cloudane has the right idea. We should be happy that the West is more secular than the Middle East, but we are not absolved of immoral acts anymore than "other side."

Michael, I also owe you a reply from an earlier post :

"If they are all examples of 'economic imperialism,' then why don't you just state clearly that you have a problem with commercial success (after a certain point, presumably arbitrarily decided by yourself), rather than hide behind highbrow-sounding college dilettante constructs such as 'economic imperialism'?"

I have a problem with commercial success at the expense of human dignity and justice. I have a problem of extending economic power and influence through force or negotiation between ruling parties which ignore the majority of the "lower class" which is affected by those extensions. "Imperialism" sans modifier refers to the extension of political power of national empires (official or otherwise). While those political bodies play a huge rôle in what I'm talking about, the more specific issue is better defined in economic terms, hence my label.

Yeah I wouldn't "side" with them per se, it's just that when surrounded with people going to the extremes of Islamophobia (it's certainly not just this site), you find yourself perhaps overcompensating a little in trying to find balance. The be all and end all is that we're not exactly saints ourselves and need to try and see beyond "goodies" and "baddies" a bit.

And again, we're talking about extremist minorities.

I pointed out shootings as an example, as a lot of that goes on over in the US and it's absolutely awful. Senseless killing of innocent children. (Remind you of anything? etc). Yet we (speaking from the UK but basically speaking for most of the world) don't go around saying that Americans are all a bunch of child-murdering psychopaths and a terrible culture of mass shootings. Or that Christianity (also huge) is a toxic gay-hating religion because of the few nutjobs at Westboro. Etc.

More in the Muslim community should be speaking out and condemning the terrorist branches though, for sure. We don't need to go so ridiculously liberal/PC that they can do no wrong whatsoever. Just maybe in some cases ease off on the Islamophobia, racism, bigotry and hate just a tad. It disturbs me the way some people are thinking (not necessarily here but in general) with how they want all Muslims kicked out "to where they came from" etc, some of it can sound worryingly similar to the way Jews were treated not so long ago. Hating on a HUGE religious group for the acts of a few and retaliating in the style of "for every 1 they kill of us, kill 10 of them!" has never led anywhere good in the past.

And yea, with the appearance of a Social Justice Warrior(TM) who, rather than attempting to engage in any kind of a meaningful discourse, just bandies out slurs such as "bigot," we have made the full circle with this "discussion." Cloudane was BARELY able to refrain from labeling me an outright, paid-up, card-carrying racist (hence the thinly disguised "brown" innuendo), never mind the fact that my fiancee is a very much "brown" Arab woman. The vapid and cowardly "Islamophobia" smear was the inevitable, highly predictable, jaded, groan-inducing, and very cheap tactic. The straw men saturating his posts are the epitome of Cultural Marxism stratagems aimed at railroading a revised narrative toward a new consensus, not based on historical facts and empirical data, but on logical fallacies.

The only thing more intellectually dishonest than the foregoing is endeavoring to construe an extremely dilettante and feeble argument that any event fitting the literal definition of "terrorism" is comparable and coeval.

Cloudane, buddy: pathetic. Truly pathetic. Not worth my time to respond except to laugh--nay, guffaw--at the desperation of such a transparent and infantile contribution.

Oh, and I am not a Christian. I am ethnically Jewish (child of Holocaust survivors) and religion-wise atheist, more so than Prof. Dawkins. I have no interest in defending the Bible and its fanboys; quite the contrary.


@Robert:
Listen, pal: Please either read what I write in its entirety or don't bother. Your responses address a half of what I write; if you read carefully the whole thing, you will notice that I already covered the points you again raise. As that sweet lady said: "Ain't nobody got time fo' dat!"


@Eliott:
First of all, I fail to understand how the obligatory references to Christianity made by yourself and others are material to this exchange. Whatever excesses--and gods know there were quite a few, to put it mildly--Christians got up to on a mass and systematic scale are centuries old. Whatever the Torah or the Bible say about homosexuality or adultery or working on Shabat or whatever, neither Jews nor Christians take that shit seriously. Do, by all means, give me the date of the last time someone was stoned, beheaded, hanged, burned at stake, or otherwise murdered for any of the antecedent by a baying mob of Jews or Christians--never mind it happening on a regular basis--, and I will GLADLY stand corrected.

Yes? No? No. Didn't think so.

And no, Teabag Party douchbaggery does not count. Even the most vicious, obstinate, and tempestuous among them do not advocate actual violence against their opponents or those they see as "deviant." Sure, they might want to legislate against some of them, but that's about it. They'd not hang gays, they'd not flog women having abortions. And yes, that DOES make them VERY different to Moslems (see below).

Do secular, reformed, and genuinely moderate Moslems exist? Of course they do. Where you, Robert, and Dave make the big mistake is considering all those who do not go around beheading, stoning, etc. to be moderate. That is nonsense, and you are doing it out of ignorance (which is easily rectified) or out of feeling obligated to further an ideological agendum (less easily rectified). I doubt you will do it, but look at the extensive research of attitudes among Moslems conducted by the Pew Institute.

For instance, inasmuch as very few Moslems actually take out a machete and chop off a thief's hand, between 28% (Kosovo) and 88% (Pakistan)--the average in 20 Moslem states being ~52%--FAVOR chopping off thieves' hands. That is just an example: Some figures are (somewhat but not much) lower (stoning for adultery) whereas some are stunningly high (85% believing the wife should "obey" her husband). SUCH PEOPLE ARE NOT MODERATES! They are barbarians, and their mindset is incompatible with the values of liberal democracy.

But yeah, *I* am the bigot here.

As far as genuinely moderate Moslems, look up the video entitled "CNS news best four minute speech ever by Brigitte Gabriel" (yes, yes, I know: a rabid "Islamophobe" *snicker*). Basically, those "moderate Moslems"--that is to say those who do wholly subscribe to the modern liberal democratic values without any contradiction or reservation--are of no more practical consequence or relevance than were "moderate" Nazis or "moderate" Germans. Were all or even most Nazis gassing Jews and tearassing through Europe murdering left and right? No. Were all or even most Germans fully supporting the Nazi ideology? Unclear, though at least a significant minority did not. Did it make a blind bit of difference in practical terms? No. Did we still have to fight Nazism, to an unprecedentedly high human and material cost? Yes. Did we learn anything from trying to appease a destructive, violent, expansionist, and uncompromising ideology? Evidently not.

@Elliott:
First of all, thank you for engaging in an actual debate and at least considering alternative viewpoints.

As far as "economic imperialism," you talk about "human dignity" and "justice." Both are normative and subjective terms in the extreme. Define them.

"[E]xtending economic power and influence through force or negotiation between ruling parties" refers to what, exactly? Surely not to McDonald's opening a branch n Eritrea or Coca Cola setting up a vending machine at the Dili airport! How do Nike, Nestle, Samsung or Huawei "extend[] economic power and influence through force or negotiation between ruling parties"?!?

Marxism... that hits the nail on the head for a fair few here. They'll be singing another tune when Islamic law is imposed on them and they find all their "rights" have been removed. Luckily, I don't think it will come to that, because people are waking up. But instead of us all being united against this fascist death cult, we are here arguing. And it isn't Michael and I who are to blame for that. It's the rest of you, who seemingly cannot use the internet to get clued up about this doctrine. And even worse, see all these failed Muslim states and actually believe it will be different in the west. Oh, but of course, when the shit hits the fan, you then turn 180 and blame it on everybody else. It's not Islam, it's those nasty right-wingers who "alienated" the Muslim community. Get real.

https://pickeringpost.com/story/outlaw-islam-we-may-have-no-choice/2079

Everything we right has been covered 100 times (and ignored 100 times).

@DLPB:
You're spitting into the wind. They think it'll never happen. Just like Hitler's initial acts were waved away as innocuous remonstrations of frustration and humiliation brought about by the Allies' injustice visited upon Germany in Versailles. Equally, Moslems are almost entirely peaceful and wonderful, and those who are not are merely frustrated and humiliated by the "Western" (don't forget the quotation marks!) imperialism.

It's "'Murica," whatever that is, that's the REAL problem and the Real Terrorist(TM)... - and, of course, bigots and "Islamophobes" (most probably racists, sexists, and homophobes, too) like you and I :)

@DLPB -

"Everything we write has been covered 100 times (and ignored 100 times)."

I'm not ignoring it. You're talking about outlawing a religion to save the free world. Except that it's not free anymore after that. You are wrong.

@Michael -

"@Robert:
Listen, pal: Please either read what I write in its entirety or don't bother. Your responses address a half of what I write; if you read carefully the whole thing, you will notice that I already covered the points you again raise. As that sweet lady said: "Ain't nobody got time fo' dat!""

I apologize if I missed it, but while you espouse that Christianity uses the tools of a modern mind now and didn't back then you still don't address how backwards it is TODAY. The more religious Christians in a town the more likely it is to be backwards (increase the number of religious Christians by 5% in any town in America and the graduating class will be more ignorant). Now granted, most Islamic nations are far worse, but religion quite seriously is the enemy of reason.

I think you can see that on the whole I'm not even disagreeing with you, I just think the problem is both larger than Islam and not directly connected to Islam.

"Do, by all means, give me the date of the last time someone was stoned, beheaded, hanged, burned at stake, or otherwise murdered for any of the antecedent by a baying mob of Jews or Christians--never mind it happening on a regular basis--, and I will GLADLY stand corrected."

Matthew Shepard? Christianity breeds evil too, just not to the same level because of Westernization. Westernizing the Middle East will win us the war in the long run.

"Do secular, reformed, and genuinely moderate Moslems exist? Of course they do. Where you, Robert, and Dave make the big mistake is considering all those who do not go around beheading, stoning, etc. to be moderate. That is nonsense, and you are doing it out of ignorance (which is easily rectified) or out of feeling obligated to further an ideological agendum (less easily rectified). I doubt you will do it, but look at the extensive research of attitudes among Moslems conducted by the Pew Institute."

I appreciate the enlightenment. It is disturbing, though again Kosovo and Pakistan are far removed from my life (at least until some a$$hole leaves another crater 8 blocks down from me again). The Muslims here (in NYC), the ones in my office, the ones who come to my home... well I seriously hope they don't think like that. Obviously only they know what's in their hearts. But I have to assume that Westernization has simply taken it's toll on generations of people and turned them sane....

As I've pointed out in the past there are really, really freaking crazy countries with really crazy viewpoints (see Russia, North Korea and China for instance). I bet those people would score interestingly on a Pew poll for opinions on women, gay people, how funny it would be for America to blow up, etc. The only real difference is that they don't think they are entitled to 72 virgins when they blow themselves up in the greater glory of Allah, but then most Muslims don't ever actually do such a thing (even the ones that think it's awesome).

"SUCH PEOPLE ARE NOT MODERATES! They are barbarians, and their mindset is incompatible with the values of liberal democracy."

Agree. No qualifications, just agree. Although the stoning for adultery and the wife obey the husband bother me more than the hand chopping since we live in a country with capital punishment....

"But yeah, *I* am the bigot here."

I think, or at least I hope, you can see I am not trying to call you a bigot. I'm merely saying that I see the "war" differently. I see us as fighting a war to turn fanatics into moderates, trying to grow the power of the moderates and trying to educate the ignorant. It's just not as simple as a war against Nazi Germany. How long did Germany hold out after we killed Hitler. Go ahead, tell me who to point the gun at to end radical Islam....

Or we could do as DLPB suggests and outlaw Islam. Because telling people they can't practice their religion doesn't ever make moderate people into extremists and this could never backfire and inspire Jihad.

I hope you can see I'm not taking the caricature of the opposing viewpoint. And as to America.... since we're on a Trek board. I sort of feel about America the way Bashir feels about the Federation. When I was little I thought it was a beacon of light and good in the world. Not that stupid anymore. But even after Bashir finds out that the Federation has section 31 and tries to commit genocide he'd probably still rather live there than Cardassia, Romulus, the Dominion, the Klingon Empire, etc. I feel the same.

That's ok, whether any of my loose implications (which were not actually aimed at a specific individual but I guess if any of the mud sticks people assume it was all for them) are valid or not I have no time for people who throw terms like "SJW" around anyway. It's usually bleated by all the 4chan/8chan #gamergate wankers whose idea of raising a concern about something is to wait until a feminist does something wrong then doxx and harrass them, then cry victim at all the "evil feminist SJWs" when they point out that doxxing and harrassing people isn't very nice, and is a bit hypocritical when they were claiming to be whinging about "ethics".

The first rule for ending #ThatWhichShallNotBeNamed is to not TALK about #ThatWhichShallNotBeNamed.

I will say that while I don't know Michael at all, I would assume based on what little I've seen of him that grouping him with the #gamergaters (crap, I went and said it :-( ) that are getting their jollies from doxxing and harassing women in the name of "integrity in gaming journalism" (literally the weakest SJW cause EVER) is pretty uncalled for.

Especially since he's calling Muslims barbarians for their backwards views on women. Just saying... stick to the topic!

Perhaps. But again with missing the fact that that part wasn't aimed at him - I said "usually", explaining why I have quite a strong distaste for seeing the derogatory term "SJW" being thrown at anyone who shows the slightest signs of liberalism at the moment. Not necessarily that he is one of those.

I agree that moderate/secular Muslims at least need to be more active in showing that they are NOT the kind of people who chop hands off, behead, rape etc and condemning those who do. And those who do want to chop people's hands off, promote terrorism etc - absolutely, THEY should be banned, kicked out, locked up, whatever and are deserving of hate, I feel the same way, they're scum. But hating all Muslims, saying that the entire faith should be banned and anyone following it ejected from the country - sorry but that's bigotry in the extreme. That's where I'm coming from. A lot of humans do bad things. Should all humans be banned? I'm just saying don't turn it into an excuse to blanket hate. Right now we have peaceful non-extremists who just want to follow their own interpretation of the God(s) stuff without any of the ancient "doing harm to others", and are afraid to even go outside for fear of being threatened in the street (see the "I'll ride with you" groups et al). The religion does need to catch up with the other religions in completely eradicating the extremist murdering nutjobs (let's call it Westernisation for the sake of brevity), I just don't think bombarding all 2 billion of them with endless hatred is really going to endear them to the idea of being Westernised. As always, target the actual bad guys, not all the civilians.

In summary, I'm in favour of people not killing other people (except for defence - and yes, wiping out terrorists counts as defence) and not spewing vicious hate at other people, especially in blanket form at entire groups (religious, racial, social, whatever) who in the majority are peaceful and harmless. There are better ways that don't just rile them all up and make them more sympathetic to the terrorists.

archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30675

I'll leave you with this. It's pretty much what you have to look forward to based on everywhere this peaceful "religion" has ventured.

Also, it was a pleasure reading from you, Michael. I haven't read the latest replies by the above, as they lost the debate the minute they started shouting "Islamophobia" and other such nonsense. People in France are waking up - so is the rest of Europe - and it is only a matter of time before everyone else follows suit. Deluded appeasers are on their way out the door :)

@Robert:
"I think you can see that on the whole I'm not even disagreeing with you, I just think the problem is both larger than Islam and not directly connected to Islam."

Hey, I've no love for religion. Come to think of it, I look down on (yes, being the BIGOT, etc., I do LOOK DOWN ON) any incidence of uncritical, uninformed adherence to a belief, which includes religion, but extends into politics, economics, sociology, etc. And gods know that there is plenty of that going around: from the assorted religionists, to atheists, to commies, to fascists, to anti-vaccine fanatics, to anti-G.M.O. fanatics, to pro- and anti-gun control "campaigners," to pro- and anti-abortion "campaigners," to so, SO many others.

However, on the global scale, Islam empirically is destroying the greatest quantity of lives of any ideology--religious or otherwise--, both in terms of outright murder and in terms of a calculated imposition of groupthink on the individual with a view to severely restricting that individual's basic liberties.

(Just to respond to the Matthew Shepard bit: That was neither community-sponsored violence nor replicated in similar attacks.)



"I appreciate the enlightenment. It is disturbing, though again Kosovo and Pakistan are far removed from my life (at least until some a$$hole leaves another crater 8 blocks down from me again). The Muslims here (in NYC), the ones in my office, the ones who come to my home... well I seriously hope they don't think like that. Obviously only they know what's in their hearts. But I have to assume that Westernization has simply taken it's toll on generations of people and turned them sane...."

Being a New Yorker (like myself), you had better hope your work colleagues don't turn into a Faisal Shahzad (and he is FAR from being a one-off). That's all I'll say, as it addresses all the above, including the Westernization argument.



"As I've pointed out in the past there are really, really freaking crazy countries with really crazy viewpoints (see Russia, North Korea and China for instance). I bet those people would score interestingly on a Pew poll for opinions on women, gay people, how funny it would be for America to blow up, etc. The only real difference is that they don't think they are entitled to 72 virgins when they blow themselves up in the greater glory of Allah, but then most Muslims don't ever actually do such a thing (even the ones that think it's awesome)."

Russia, China, and even North Korea can be reasoned with. They do not want to take over the world, certainly not by force, nor do they want to impose their laws on everyone else. Lastly and most importantly, there have been no instances of a bunch of Russians, Chinese or North Koreans in different parts of the world shooting up an elementary school, stoning adulterers, beheading "apostates," blowing up malls, etc.



"I see us as fighting a war to turn fanatics into moderates, trying to grow the power of the moderates and trying to educate the ignorant."

I will not say it is impossible, but I will say it is an extremely long-term endeavor where the results are not at all guaranteed and the odds are heavily stacked against success. Individuals who are convinced they are on a divine mission and whose real life starts after their own death cannot be bribed, coopted or rationalized with. They will not abandon their mission because you give them a great job and a house with a pool. Nor will they abandon it if you e.g. let their wives wear a black garbage bag at work. There are de-radicalization programs being effected in some countries, with mixed success. To them (and we are talking HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people, as Pew shows), the change of mindset required is comparable to you suddenly stopping thinking of red as "red" as thinking of it as a spoon instead. Not having had much exposure to blinded religionists (and the wacko Jesus freaks in the U.S. don't come even close) to realize that their points of reference are so far removed from ours that we cannot even comprehend or internalize it. I speak from experience, not for effect.

The biggest problem is that, even if such a mindset can be changed, it will take DECADES. Are we prepared to live with greatly abridged freedoms and with terrorist attacks for decades? Or is it simpler to just, hate to have to put it this way but, "nuke 'em"?



"Or we could do as DLPB suggests and outlaw Islam. Because telling people they can't practice their religion doesn't ever make moderate people into extremists and this could never backfire and inspire Jihad."

Outlawing anything never worked. I have a plane to catch so can't dwell on this, but we could have a fascinating (in my view, anyway) discussion about why people in most of the world actually don't go around murdering and thieving. It has very little to do with such acts being illegal.

As far as Bashir, I never watched DS9 so don't ave a clue what you're talking about :) Having said that, I do firmly think America is the greatest country in the world, being the ONLY one that guarantees virtually limitless individual freedom. More on that later...

@DLPB:
I hear ya! They come from their shitholes to civilized countries under the pretext of fleeing persecution and wanting a better life, want to turn those countries into the same kind of shitholes they left, and then bomb us when we refuse. That ain't gonna fly, and people ARE at long last beginning to have enough.

We are labeled "racist," as that is the most potent weapon our oh-so "enlightened" adversaries have in their arsenal (even though the label is totally slanderous and unsuitable), but that's been so overused as to be greatly losing its desired effect.

Take care, buddy...

You've never watched DS9! I can't take anything you say seriously now... :P

I just want to say I appreciate you taking the time to think about my arguments and to at least say they have some merit and possibility, even if you disagree with them and prefer the shorter more obliteration happy approach.

I don't know that I have a different opinion on the subject, but I have some information I didn't have before and some things to chew on... so what more can you want from a lively discussion!

Have a good flight :)

Well, Robert, you did pleasantly surprise me, because I thought you were just another Internet dumbass regurgitating platitudes learned from the (select) media. I really do appreciate your thoughtful post.

You're right: Our main point of divergence is whether to do it the long way or in short order. Both have advantages and disadvantages vis-a-vis the various stakeholders involved, which is basically the entire world.

Overall, a thoroughly enjoyable exchange.

Keep the New York flag flying! :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1EV-oIPgoc

Something needs to be done about it, that's for sure. And Germany outlawed Nazi ideology for a reason. Soon enough, we WILL have to confront this reality.

@DLPB, @Robert:
We cannot outlaw Islam, fight Islamic extremism (which basically means at least a half the world's Moslems) by force, or embark on de-radicalization programs unless and until we are prepared to aver without any equivocation, compunction or caveat that ISLAM IS THE PROBLEM.

I mean, the leaders of the Free World bend over backward to avoid acknowledging that it is actual Moslems behind the daily atrocities. If we are unable to even verbalize the "name" of the problem, then what chance is there of beginning to address it?!?

"Overall, a thoroughly enjoyable exchange.

Keep the New York flag flying! :D "

It was, and I will do :)

As to the final solution there...

I agree with Michael and disagree with dlpb. We cannot outlaw Islam, period.... but neither can we handle the problem if we can't discuss it without being racist.

A genuinely interesting and well executed episode that really feels like a proper exploration of the issues related to exploration and technological change "shrinking" the universe.

Michael, you're such a caricature of right wing idiocy, ahistoricms and racism it's not even funny.

The West has armed, funded and fanned terrorists and dictators in virtually every country in the middle east, is supporting about 6 theocratic regimes in the region (we're still helping the Saudi kings kill protesters and civil rights activists) and has subverted every democratic movement in the region via coups, the installation of dictators, assassinations and the funding of terrorist groups. Any progressive leader in the middle east is systematically killed by the West and replaced with barbarism so as to maintain a hold on resources and prevent the nationalisation of minerals/oil.

No America/UK/France = no Boko Harram, no ISIS, no alqueda, no Saddam (a CIA asset for most of his life), no Muslim Brotherhood etc etc. Go learn the history of Egypt in the 1900s and how the US has repeatedly couped it. Go learn what it did in Libya in the 50s and 60s. Go learn about America's deals with alqueda and Pakistan, setting up villages in northern Pakistan specifically so we can drone them easier, or how we destroyed elections in Iraq and put Saddam in power, or how we continue to arm repressive monarchs, knowing full well they're funnelling arms and money to terrorist groups we pretend to hate but often depend upon to fight our proxy battles.

The West destabalized everywhere, created Islamic extremists and regressed a region which would have been working toward secularism and probably even atheism by this point if left alone. And you have the gall to make a blanket condemnation of "Muslims". People like you are dangerous morons, who have spewed the same ignorance against similar groups throughout history. People like you said the same about the Irish, about the French Revolutionaries, about the Boxer Rebels, about the Chinese, about the Africans, about the slaves, about every group that has stood in the way of easy profit.

Look at Iraq for example; the moment Iraq had free elections the US and UK swept in, couped up the place, backed monarchs, installed Saddam, armed him, used him for a proxy war against Iran, removed him, replaced him with puppets knowing full well this would lead to factionalism and...and now look at Iraq; a hellhole in which we're fighting bad guys (ISIS) we funded and armed in a country nextdoor (Syria) to oust a leader (Assad) who himself would not have been in power had we not spend 50 years couping Syria. All this because Bush Jr and Bush Sr (a CIA chiftain) and Bush Granddaddy (a banker of course) can't live without oil. But no, blame the Muslims. Blame them for not being smart enough to kick out a zillion dollar CIA operation in the 1950s designed solely to destroy their first chance of independence/democratic-elections.

@Sparrow:
Well...

Given the amount of hot air in your post, I'd say the climate has already irrevocably changed.

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. Because, won't you know it, the West (America, naturally, in particular) is the root of all evil. If I am a caricature of the Right's idiocy and ahistoricisms, you are a caricature of the Left's belligerence toward all dissent from the imposed consensus of the Cultural Marxist narrative. (Extra moron points for the "racism" aspersion. All it confirms is YOUR racism because it shows that YOU treat Moslems a certain way by reason of its being largely a religion adhered to by little "brown" people who need your protection from "enlightened" "openminded" pricks like you. Somehow, I doubt you are as enlightened when it comes to, say, Christianity, but that, in your warped world, is okay.)

I will not delve into the dozen of what-ifs because it is an exercise in futility. Yes, tings might have turned out completely different, they may have been delayed, or they may have turned out the same under someone else's fiat. The Western hegemony is by no means perfect. We made our fair share of mistakes. That is the nature of things though. Whenever there are even just two of any organic entities (be they even mere plants), there is a power relationship. It is, accordingly, inevitable that there should have been a succession of potentates and empires from the days humans began organizing themselves into tribes, then communities, societies, states, civilizations, etc. With that in mind, if it hadn't been evil old West calling the shots over the past X decades/centuries/millennia, it would've been someone else. And tell you what, pal: I'd infinitely rather have the West running the world than someone like Russia, China, Iran, Brazil, etc. America, for all its faults, has been by far the most benevolent and altruistic superpower ever seen in recorded history. We never went on an expansionist spree all over the world, we never sought to forcibly convert anyone to our values or beliefs, we never brazenly pillaged and plundered dozens of states dry with fleets of vessels transporting purloined goods to the motherland.

Slavery is our biggest stain from the past. Our support for Saudi Barbaria is our biggest stain in the present. We did a lot of crap the world over. But, and I'll be flippant here: SO WHAT! If we wouldn't have done it, someone else would have. People, individually, are scumbags. Overall though, I sure am glad it's been America in charge.

As far as the Islamic State, it originated in Syria (where, (in)famously, there was ZERO U.S. involvement). Plus, with or without the Second Gulf War, the eponymous Arab Spring would have happened, including in Saddam's Iraq, and Saddam would guaranteed have been extremely brutal in suppressing it, which, again, would likely have generated the Islamic State. It might be speculative, but no more nor less than your conjectures.

And now for the coup de grace. Islamic savagery did not begin with the "brutalization" of lovely, peaceful Moslems by the aggressive, avaricious West. 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. are not doing that because they are mad at the West or because they're "poor" or "disenfranchised" or f**k knows what other excuse you have for them. If you truly believe that, then not only are you incredibly dumb, but also ineffably racist. 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.

No. The answer is found in their ideology. You obviously don't know s**t about the history of Islam. If you did, you would recognize that their actions are both catalyzed and endorsed by the Islamic creed. You would know they are following both the commandments AND EXAMPLE of the progenitors of Islam from its earliest days.

Or maybe you could talk to my wife. She is a "brown" Arab - yes, can you believe it! Me, a "racist," giving my heart and soul to a "brown" woman! - who suffered years of relentless daily physical and psychological abuse at the hands of her family. As did (and do) her sisters. And her friends. And pretty much all the women in her (former) community. I bet it's because their families have been victimized by the West though, right!

What a putz.

P.S. I'm not on the Right. If anything, I espouse probably as many liberal positions as conservative ones. If I *have* to label myself, which only bigots such as you demand, then I am Libertarian.

"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.

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.

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.

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!

Sparrow is the latest in a long line of leftist apologists who have absolutely no idea what Islam is about. The very idea that Iraq would have "progressed like Turkey " is utterly laughable. And, Sparrow, if you think Turkey is a free society that we should praise, you really are clueless. All of the issues in the Middle East are caused by religion - by Islam.

Sparrow is so blinded by the dogma he has bought into, that he doesn't realize how incredibly offensive he himself is being. There are dozens of nations and peoples on almost every continent of the world who experienced the yoke of colonialism for far longer and to a far more brutal effect than the majority of Moslem states. (Indeed, North Africa and the Near East had remarkably little Western interference, compared to the centuries of control exerted over Latin America, Africa, and parts of Asia. Insofar as they were colonized, it was by the (Moslem) Ottoman Empire.)

Yet, even in the most bitter internecine conflicts and acrimonious civil wars, the people of Colombia, Argentina, Cameroon, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, India, Korea, etc. did not evidence a fraction of the savagery witnessed at the hands of Moslem terrorist groups AND THOSE WITHIN THEIR SPHERE OF INFLUENCE! I mean, it's one thing for a couple of Islamic State douchebags to throw a gay man off a tower block; but it was then dozens of residents, ordinary Moslems, standing below who gleefully threw rocks at that man when he survived the fall.

The people of Ghana, for instance, hardly strangers to Western exploitation and brutality, are devoutly religious Christians. Yet, they don't go around throwing acid in the faces of women dressed "immodestly." Nor do they don't demand women get a male relative's permission to exercise even the simplest freedoms in life such as going on a trip, starting a college course, or opening a bank account.

Or look at India, another country with a long, ignominious history of colonial oppression. Women and minorities are INFINITELY freer than in the neighboring Pakistan or Bangladesh, both overwhelmingly Moslem, even though all three have very similar histories.

So hundreds of millions of people are living evidence that centuries of slavery, pillaging, and humiliation do NOT turn people into misogynist, homophobic, racist, anti-Semitic, xenophobic, bigoted beasts. Sparrow's arrogant, ignorant remarks spit in the faces of such decent, upstanding people, many of whom are still experiencing the type of instability and privations never even seen in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The evidence is simply overwhelming and it boggles the mind the extent of the sophistry, mental gymnastics, and the sheer intellectual suicide to which the extreme Left goes in an attempt to fabricate facts and impose a fraudulent narrative on us all.

@DLPB - I've said before that I disagree with you and Michael that Islam is somehow the root of all evil over there in the middle east. We can all agree to disagree (and certainly can disagree with Sparrow that the US is the root of all evil ::eye roll::) but don't you think "All of the issues in the Middle East are caused by religion - by Islam." is MAYBE just an oversimplification on the other side?

Michael and I do NOT agree on this issue (as you can see in our exchange up above) but his latest post at least contains a level of thought on the subject beyond "Islam vs the US is root of all evil".

I mean, I do reject the concept that it is this religion that is causing all this. I do however find there are truths in Michael's post that there is something going on over there culturally that is more screwed up then being screwed over by the west could cause. As I said earlier, I will not condemn Islam but we do need to be able to talk about fundamentally troubling things about Middle Eastern culture without being called racist.

For the record I personally think that America has been pretty horrible at times but that Michael's statement - "America, for all its faults, has been by far the most benevolent and altruistic superpower ever seen in recorded history." is pretty spot on.

F.W.I.W., I don't think the woes of the Near East can be ascribed solely to Islam. That would be as fallacious as averring that those woes have NOTHING to do with Islam. Islam is certainly a factor in a way religion in other, comparable, parts of the world and flashpoints is not and was not.

Islam certainly contributed to an immense degree to the suffocation of free thought, academic inquiry, and just sheer curiosity. For that, one need look no further than the way the Ash3ari school of theology vanquished, indeed obliterated, the m3atazilism, which had for a few centuries of early Islam played a pivotal role in societal and academic advancement. (When they talk about the "Golden Age of Islam" they are talking about the era during which Islamdom was very secular.)

Other than Islam it could be the terrain, climate, economy, interactions with the (type of) neighbors, and just bad luck. But it is without a doubt that Islam has been bad news wherever it set foot. In fairness, so has pretty much every religion, particularly the proselytizing, monotheistic ones. But all the others have been voluntarily vel non neutered over the years. Islam is the only one that has stubbornly regressed and is the single most potent, most perilous destabilizing and negative force in the world today.

"F.W.I.W., I don't think the woes of the Near East can be ascribed solely to Islam."

I realize my first sentence could be misread to imply you think that. For what it's worth my post was trying to separate the fact that your argument doesn't seem to think that and that makes it a more complex case than DLPB's.

Even with it's faults, I think Enterprise is the best of the Star Trek spin-offs -which I find amazing, considering Rick Berman was involved

Robert, arguing with semantics isn't really doing anything for you. If I change the word "all" to "vast majority" (which is true) it won't make your argument any better or mine any worse or Islam any nicer.

Hey, a currently-ongoing Enterprise episode discussion! I don't have anything to add, but dammit, it's nice to see.

Rewatching this one momentarily.

Wait, this isn't Enterprise, this is Islam.

I guess I think it's a complex recipe. The Muslims in the city I live in are poverty free and living in liberal land and not crazy. But the same is true of the majority of Catholics where I live.

Now you have a pretty good case these days for Muslim extremists being way crazier than Christian extremists... but the guys that scream in the faces of people trying to pass abortion picket lines, the guys who are trying to teach Christian creationism in PUBLIC schools and the guys with the "God hates fags" signs are all pretty god damn backwards and repulsive.

Religious extremism is bad. Muslim extremism seems to be worse. Michael points out that during the "Golden Age of Islam" a secular version of Islam was coming into being. So why did it not continue that way. Why has it regressed?

Michael claims it has "stubbornly regressed and is the single most potent, most perilous destabilizing and negative force in the world today". I don't know that I agree with all of that thought, but I can see why he'd think that. Is it (as he said) "terrain, climate, economy, interactions with the (type of) neighbors, and just bad luck"??

It's hard to say Islam + Human Beings = Fanaticism when so many other fanatics from other religions are out there being evil (although arguably less so than ISIS for instance). I just see the recipe as more complex than

Evil Souffle

Ingredients
Add Islam

Directions
Simmer

@Robert:
Regarding your earlier post, I wasn't under the apprehension you HAD implied anything, so no worries :)

I have to take issue with this part though:
"The Muslims in the city I live in are poverty free and living in liberal land and not crazy."

There have been literally thousands of Moslems comfortably ensconced in stable, prosperous Western countries who abandoned everything to join terrorists in the Near East or perpetrate terrorist attacks at home. And no, they were not mad about the "racism" or "marginalization" or any hokum like that. Many had good jobs or good prospects (such as the medical doctors and I.T. graduates in England). The Boston bombers are the most infamous example.

Now, you will rightly retort that even thousands out of the tens of millions living in the West is an exiguous proportion. Unfortunately, those thousands are not the only extremists, fanatics, etc. Repeated studies of Moslems in Great Britain show that around 40% want shari3a instead of civil law, roughly a half insist a woman must wear a headscarf, a third favor the establishment of a global Islamic caliphate, a third also maintain that a killing is justified if perpetrated in the name of Islam, well over 30% hold that an "apostate" deserves to be killed for leaving Islam, almost 70% demand "insulting Islam" be prosecuted while more than 60% want freedom of speech curtailed if it "offends" religious sensibilities.

Those are not moderates, Robert, nor are they people we can in any way "do business with."

Whatever you say about abortion clinic pickets or the Westboro Baptist Church kooks' placards, they never stoned, beheaded, kidnapped and raped, or immolated anybody. They are, as such beyond any meaningful comparison.

Islam is bad news, everywhere and at all times. That is not to say other religions--particularly the proselytizing monotheistic ones--are all bunnies and rainbows, but it is incontrovertible that at this point in time Islam is, to reiterate, the single most potent, most perilous destabilizing and negative force in the world today.

If you're interested in what went wrong and why, try this book:
Lewis, B. (2003). What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East. Harper Perennial: New York, U.S.A.
or, in a briefer form, the article:
Ofek, H. (2011). Why the Arabic world turned away from science. The New Atlantis, 36(Winter), 3-23.

While I will say those numbers are startling a ridiculous % of this country seems to think we should have Christianity be the laws on the books too. Religious nutters are nuts!

Some of those (sharia law and justified killing) is certainly worse than what we have on the Christian side... but we have leaders that actually get elected in this country that thing women shouldn't be allowed to vote for instance.

I'm not telling you Islam is not "bad news" or that seemingly normal people in secular society can't randomly be swayed by crazies, but there has to be a reason why it is that secular Islam is having a harder time spreading than secular versions of other religions and I find it difficult to believe that it's just because Islam is more persuasive.

Robert, look around the world at Christian and Muslim countries and tell me which you'd rather live in. Once Muslims make up enough of the vote, it will be your last meaningful vote.

That's a lot like asking if I'd rather have my legs amputated or my stomach gutted and be left to bleed to death.

Can't we just have atheists run the show?

Disclaimer : I am not an atheist, but politically I want religion out of the picture.

@Robert:
"[T]here has to be a reason why it is that secular Islam is having a harder time spreading than secular versions of other religions and I find it difficult to believe that it's just because Islam is more persuasive."

Now THERE is a good question!

It's not a single factor, obviously. One is that the Moslem communities are far more homogeneous than our Western happy-go-lucky individualistic ones, and are based on an imposed collective identity. Further, Moslems are taught from the earliest of ages to not question. Whereas our kids are encouraged to pester us ("Daddy, why is the sky blue?" type of thing), theirs are not. Memorization is prized; curiosity is not. (Again, actual research has been done on this. It also explains why Moslem, especially Arab, academia is among the least productive and lowest performing in the world.) All that, coupled with the fact that the penalties for even perceived dissent or divergence are steep, means that freethinking members of Moslem communities find it extremely difficult to step out of line.

Then there is the matter of propaganda. Islamdom has bought into the nonsensical propaganda that the West is persecuting them. (Such "thinking" is showcased to a depressingly accurate degree by Sparrow, above. However, Sparrow at least has SOME, even if heavily prooftexted and otherwise tendentious, facts to go by; your average Moslem is woefully unaware of his/her own, let alone the global, history.)

Lastly, there is the pushback against what I will loosely term modernity. (This, incidentally, I reckon also explains the resurgent Christian fundamentalism in the U.S.) Many new things happened too fast for some. The sexual revolution, no-stigma divorce, contraception and family planning, Roe vs. Wade, civil liberties and human rights (not talking about African Americans but groups such as criminals), loose clothing and loose "morals," Spring Break-type behavior all year around, gay marriage, rampant gangland crime, and just a general culture of "I know my rights" and "anything goes." All that happened in the space of a few short decades and it scared the bejesus out of people who were steeped in centuries of "traditional" values. For many it was too much and they found refuge in an extreme version of the nomos they found familiar and comfortable. In my view, this rationalizes the horrific percentages among Moslems in the West I talked about in my previous message.

I'm sure other analyses are possible, but the foregoing is probably a good start.

As far as your statement "[t]hat's a lot like asking if I'd rather have my legs amputated or my stomach gutted and be left to bleed to death," that's a really crass thing to say. I can only assume you are not familiar enough with the environment of pretty much every Moslem-majority state (or even mere Moslem communities) in the world to think they are comparable to Christian-majority countries. And note that the seemingly well-adjusted Moslems you casually encounter in your daily life are not indicative of the actual conditions "behind the drapes."

"As far as your statement "[t]hat's a lot like asking if I'd rather have my legs amputated or my stomach gutted and be left to bleed to death," that's a really crass thing to say. I can only assume you are not familiar enough with the environment of pretty much every Moslem-majority state (or even mere Moslem communities) in the world to think they are comparable to Christian-majority countries. And note that the seemingly well-adjusted Moslems you casually encounter in your daily life are not indicative of the actual conditions "behind the drapes.""

I don't think it was THAT crass. Losing both legs is a fairly liveable (albeit miserable) condition. Much more fun than slowly bleeding out from a stab wound.

Your point about things being homogenous in those countries is on point though. My comment was more imagining a situation in which the religious (Christian) right were running the show. There'd be a serious stifling of free thought. It'd be infinitely more liveable (like the leg thing) but I don't think I'd describe it as any place I'd rather live.

We haven't reached that because we have the left to balance it. I wish for a party in this country that can be conservative but not bow down to the moral right, but well "If Wishes Were Horses" and all that. It'd be nice if the people that thought they needed to spend billions to stop gay marriage could say... try to fix the budget or something actually important. Even for people who don't agree with gay marriage, I can't imagine anybody thinking that way money well spent.

But that's a tangent. I wonder if we'll ever see any of these countries pop up a strong secular left.

And actually, to swing this back to Star Trek... the "pushback against modernity" is a pretty recurring theme in Trek... from the Maquis, to Picard's brother to Alixis from the S2 DS9 episode, and countless other examples.

I find it fascinating how people always yearn for the simple life. We even have a TV show about hippies giving birth in the wild now... I kid you not. As though infant mortality 100 years ago was something to be desired.

I mean, I don't adopt every new technology just because it's new. It took me forever to get a smartphone and I'm still not on Facebook (I'm a dinosaur!!)

But I've used my wife's Facebook and I have a smartphone now, and I didn't rebel against these things, I just didn't adopt them. The pendulum swing in response to modern culture is fascinating because it always includes sheltering.

Kids can't be taught to interact with the modern world or they'll turn out as gang members who sext each other, or something like that. So we'll shelter and lie and hide them away and teach them to not question these things... instead of just trying to raise moral kids in a modern world.

I'm trying that now, I'll let you all know how it worked out in like 16 years...

@Robert:
Oh boy, aren't we just putting the whole world to rights here! LOL!

Don't conflate the Right with the Religious Right. The latter is a subset of the former, and I'd say it's a pretty small subset, albeit disproportionately vocal and certainly well organized. I'm pretty right-leaning, although--if I HAD to put a label on myself--more Libertarian than anything else, but I'm also a staunch atheist and anti-theist. Plus, hostility toward atheists is not the preserve of the Right, but cuts across the entire political horseshoe.

Nor should you seek to rationalize the behavior, choices, and priorities of many on the Religious Right. They're incomprehensible to most rational people, even though I understand their motivation, which--in my view, as I explained previously--is kneejerk reactionary paroxism.

As far as the "pushback against modernity," you're confining it merely to technological advances. It's so much more though. Ironically, the terrorist scumbags who look, dress, and smell like creatures that crawled out of a cave this morning for the first time--as they're essaying to emulate their silly "prophet"--have no qualms about using modern weaponry. They clean their teeth with miswak and wipe their ass with sand, in keeping with Muhammad's example, but they have cell phones and R.P.G.s. What a joke...

On a more serious note, I'm one of those people who wish it was the 1930s (minus the Great Depression) or the 1950s. I also sometimes contemplate leaving everything to volunteer at an elephant sanctuary in Africa or something... But I keep schtum about it. The most annoying are those who forever decry modernity and progress but would NEVER give up their electronic devices, the refrigerator, the phone, the automobile, etc. Eff off.

16 years, huh? Yeah, DO let us know how it turns out... - maybe with smoke signals ;)

Take care, buddy...

The Fortune used lower warp speed to purposefully make itself an easy target. Their cargo ship served as a decoy in order to safe guard other ships. It did nothing for revenge as they took no casualties when they took a prisoner. They were winning against the pirates and about to reclaim many stolen goods. This should have been Starfleet's military priority to eliminate such aggressors yet they failed in this moral regard. The crew of the Fortune made a fool of the Captain's immorality when he over stepped his authority applying his ethics liberally to pirate scum. The starfleet away team would all have died there if for not abusing their technological advantage to mitigate consequence for their immoral actions. The Captain had no justification for any of his logic as he went in blindly refusing to admit his course of action to avoid judgement knowing full well it was a misdeed. In his final speech he defered to a literal living breathing straw man blind with emotion rather than be put in his place for using irrational and blind logic.

All inhereted logic is emotion and it is fallible. Either it be passed down by authority, religion, schooling, parenting, inbred instinct it is all fallible unless tested to be tried and true with wisdom granted by experience. Autonomy is always the correct path. The starfleet crew had no purpose being there other than to bully.

What prompted defeat for the Fortune crew was not blowing their ship up and using the escape pods all because they relied on instinct that it was their home. Starfleet would have no choice but to come to their aid and without the aliens around the Fortune crew would own that outpost. They fell prey to the very same illogical immorality that plagued the Starfleet brought about from stockholme syndrome.

Opterant conditioning and the 8 deadly sins are one in the same.

Definitely one of the better stories so far. Yes, again there's nothing really new here. But as Jammer says it does effectively convey the impression of a changing time and give us some interesting backstory on the space trade. It also gives Mayweather something to do, and while it's not earth-shattering, his role is good enough. What is interesting is that Archer seems to make some fairly well grounded decisions without cursing the Vulcans or doing something impetuous. Signs of hope maybe?

Oh, and yay! Nausicaans! 3 stars.

I'm enjoying ENT on my second pass. I like the slower pacing and the figure it out as we go along approach. On the Archer/Merryweather conversation, I probably wouldn't have made the snarky "Any other..." comment but it clearly played well with Merryweather; he obviously felt heard.

On the other hand, Archer should have had that whiskey with the freighter captain; that was a missed opportunity.

And on a side note, the whole dozens of posts about Islam, political correctness, terrorism, liberal to fascist continuum offers two thoughts. First, it explains why I avoid reading comment streams on Facebook. Second, it shows the relevance of this program and Star Trek to"real life." We don't operate under a "prime directive" and, if we did, we would have let genocide and oppression exist in other countries. The UN Charter and international law have some jurisdiction but very few teeth. Watching ENT offers many opportunities to consider how we, as a species, might actually collaborate enough to survive to become space faring...

Good job (***)

Great episode but just letting Ryan go by giving him a slap on the wrist with a demotion? He tried to shoot, then purposely suffocate 4 innocent Starfleet members who were trying to help him. He should have been arrested and charged with attempted murder and given at least a minimum sentence.

Whether or not his intentions were to "protect his ship" he still committed a hostile act toward a planetary government vessel and crew and nearly destroyed his own ship because he was too big headed, cocky and vengeful to listen to logic.

@CeeBee bit late to respond, but I was surprised nobody else had... the thing from the freighter's perspective is, faster ships threaten their way of life. Just because they can make trips in a fraction of the time - lets arbitrarily say 1/4 - doesn't mean there'll suddenly be 4x as much freight to be hauled. There might, there might not, but a single warp 3 freighter could put several freighters like the one in this episode out of business, and my impression is that the 1.8's profit margins, on the whole, aren't so great that they can necessarily *afford* that kind of thing. So it'll likely be at least in part NEW crews on these new ships; crews who sign on knowing that a round trip will take a few months instead of years, for whom this is just a job rather than a way of life.

To use your own truckers vs ox cart analogy, if a dozen guys who run a supply convoys are being replaced by a *single* guy with an 18 wheeler, well, it's not so clear-cut a win for them, is it?

Best line of the show, "Ugh... You again..." (Ryan to Mayweather)

Quite an interesting episode. Archer gets to play the big spuds with his flashy new NX boat, up against the Norsicans. He should at least have had that beer with Captain Keene after all the kerfuffle.

Especially loving the ever more sardonic T'Pol, whose dryly mocking condescension is often as delicious as her catsuit.

Look, I'm no fan of Ryan-either as a person, or a character. I think Eddington was a pretentious, self-righteous dickweeb, but Jesus, at least he had emotions beyond "GRRRR". But it would be nice if there was some indication Starfleet is actually doing something about the pirates because as the way it's handled here, it makes it look like Archer's position is basically that freighter workers should just suck it up and do jack shit, while they do jack shit to help them.

Yes, this is what ENT should be all about. Great episode focusing on the lives of the folks running freight, their "ideology" of taking care of their own, and that they are not part of Star Fleet. Ryan's actions were extreme as he decides vengeance is the right course of action and that will deter the Nausicaans. And Travis makes the point (albeit not very well acted) that it won't. The ending scene with the 2 captains nicely summarizes the issues.

Clearly Montgomery is a bit limited as an actor but it's good to see that the writers throw him a bone with this episode -- thru him we understand the space boomer families on freighters. Ryan clearly feels strongly about his allegiance to the freighter life and so there's a philosophical disagreement between him and Travis -- thought that scene worked out well in making its point.

As for Archer and his views, I guess he's thinking from the standpoint of these are humans running freight and thus it'll be easy for an alien race to associate them with StarFleet -- obviously I would agree about not torturing the Nausicaan prisoner etc. and it was clear Ryan's "1st mate" wasn't too keen. Ryan is going a bit bananas and that's what makes the episode. The captain of the freighter demoting him seems a bit soft but it's their business. And that's where some of the conflict/interest in this episode comes from -- what Archer thinks is right vs. how the freighter folks handle their issues. Bottom line from Archer's perspective is that they're all humans in space and should abide by a similar code.

3 stars for "Fortunate Son" -- a solid episode touching on early life in space for humans. Even the firefights that will come to seem ho-hum in future episodes felt more visceral here and I liked Archer's role/approach. Travis got his chance to shine but didn't exactly impress.

It was at about this point in the series that I started to like what I was seeing.

3 stars. Another solid outing that explores yet another 22nd century appropriate facet with cargo ships and no Federarion to back them up in the wild frontier

I enjoyed the atmosphere and mood. The insight into boomer way of life. The action. The way the boomer crew felt like they had to do what was necessary to defend themselves against the Nausicaans. It was all quite involving and interestint

Coming in a bit late to this franchise, I know. But main problems with this episode is the concept of 'boomers' this far out and away from earth. Come on, this is even before Kirk & co. It's supposed to be the first humans exploring the new frontiers of space. They even got excited finding some off-earth algea when they started the mission.

And here they run in to a human freighter ship that seems to have been in traffic beyond even where the Enterprise has been, and for a long time. Battling away with aliens.

This is one of the better episodes of early Enterprise. Unfortunately it is somewhat ruined by the high-horse moralising rampant in today's society, and also prevalent in Voyager's "Equinox".

"YOU have no business defending yourself in this way because WE are not as desperate as you."

That is extremely empty-headed logic. Archer believes the Fortunate's escalation in its battle against pirates (a battle it did not initiate remember - boomers run cargo, pirates attack to steal that cargo) is likely to cause some kind of war. What about the Enterprise, the Starfleet flagship, flying around getting in battles? Getting involved in the temporal cold war, interfering with Klingon and Suliban politics? Do they simply just carry on their course allowing aliens to damage and ransack them? What was Archer's response during Silent Enemy? Did he just hand everything over to the Ferengi? Will he later allow the Borg to assimilate his ship and crew?

Not to mention how annoying Archer must seem to tge Fortunate crew, constantly flying after them demanding to help (by not actually helping).

In a sense it reminds me of something I read recently, where a scientist discussed her view of how the West is treating the third world in their crusade to "deal with climate change" and "reduce emissions:" you can't have a car because we have two. Different example, same mentality. Do as we say, not as we do.

NoPoet's starlog, additional. (Hate how we can't edit comments.)

I knew there was a point where it became obvious that Mayweather lacked the acting chops of his colleagues. His monologue at the end wasn't a shining moment in the writer's career, but it was delivered so... what's the word... it was like watching a CBBC presenter telling a story to children. It was embarrassing.

The same thing can be said of Vox Sola. The one scene I didn't appreciate in that episode was Mayweather's naff turn. I would describe that as embarrassing too, worse than this. In a previous review I mentioned Aiden Ford from Stargate Atlantis. His character was dropped because the writers couldn't do anything with him. That was a shame because I liked him, saw potential in his character and he was a good actor. With Mayweather the reverse is true: he couldn't act (or at least, couldn't do it consistently, he certainly couldn't carry a scene) and there was not really much they could have done with him. He could have been the human with the most deep-space and first-contact experience but the writers blocked him into being a "boomer", and eventually even that well dried up.

It's clear that the actors had little to no input into the show and that's a shame. They clearly knew their characters better than the writers did. I read that Kate Mulgrew "gave up" trying to understand Janeway since she was being so inconsistently written. She just turned up to work and delivered her lines. That's sad. It says so much about what was going wrong with Trek.

Thank God for Southby.

Bored and needed something to watch and found this series. The first episodes were awesome, until this one.

The writers must had a vacation and let the interns losse writing this one. If this was the Klingons the captain would not be giving them his dumb pacifist speech.

Any way were the other guys so afraid of them having a prisoner? They have every right to take them prisoner and judge him. If these people attacked me and hurt my family I would have done far worse to them. This episode is just embarrassing. I have not finished it but I may tried to get through it.

That was an epic circle-jerk by dlpb and micheal...
Poor guys, they seem so scared of change.

I was rather enjoying watching a Star Trek series and reading Jammer's reviews alongside it without the eye-watering far right sourness as a side helping, and then I got to this episode!

I notice that the whole sprawling debate above seems to spiral out of a comparison between the Nausicaans and Somali pirates, which highlights a real failure in the writing - namely, that we don't really get any background on the Nausicaans. Archer talks about forming better relations between "our two peoples", but we have no idea if the Nausicaans want that, if they represent an entire people or are - like Somali pirates - one particular group within a larger culture.

It doesn't help that they're depicted with tusks and hideous faces, and thereby coded as evil. The writers make no effort to help us understand why they're attacking cargo ships. Are they desperately in need of supplies? Or is their culture somehow formed around the principle of reaving, like the Iron Islanders in Game of Thrones? It's important to know this, as these two possibilities suggest completely different solutions to the problem. Many of the commenters above seem to assume they're just straight-up arseholes.

Given the argument between DLPB, Mike and others, I think what might have been really interesting is to base the Nausicaans on early European settlers. Since Enterprise is set at a time when mankind's foothold in space is tentative, where we're a 'young' species, what would it be like if there were massive, established spacefaring cultures who simply saw us as prey for plundering? Archer's negotiations would have to be careful not because of his innate sense of fair play, but because he knows that the Nausicaans have superior numbers of ships and better technology. He would have to reason with them in the hope that they proved to be more compassionate than Europeans did when dealing with native Americans and other less aggressive cultures.

Maybe I just like this idea because I know how much it would irritate those cry 'political correctness' at the drop of the hat, but I think it would also make for compelling drama - and it would invert the normal way Star Trek pursues these parallels.

Finally, sorry if this reignites a five-year-old debate, but on the subject of Islam - it's here to stay, and the various hawks and doom-mongers across the world will simply never drum up sufficient support for the rest of us to go along with mass suppression. So whether you think it's, on balance, worse or as bad as Christianity or Judaism doesn't really matter - the question is only what can be done to limit the growth of extremism and nurture the growth of moderate forms. The more we accommodate the latter alongside other cultures, the more we do to strangle the former. That's the history of mankind's various tribes learning to live with each other, after all.

@Focksbot I believe Picard described the Nausicans as anarchists in the TNG episode "Allegiance" while Major Kira was a little less diplomatic and referred to them as "thugs" in DS9 "Favor the Bold".

As for their appearance, I see it as a good thing that they look grotesque. Firstly, as a nod to some semblance of real scifi, any alien should be unattractive to us. It's only in Star Trek that a being from another world could look human with just a couple ridges on the nose or green skin tone. Second, if tolerance and a new humanity is the message, then the ability to make peace with beings that look like evil demons is, frankly, crucial or the whole "evolved" human is just a sham.

@Jason R. Your point about their appearance would make sense if Star Trek make a consistent effort to give us 'ugly' aliens that were peaceful and human-looking aliens that were warlike, but it's almost always the other way round. The Federation-worthy Bajorans get tiny nose ridges, while the oppressive Cardassians look like pale lizards; lovely Dr Phlox has a mildly differently shaped head, while the greedy Ferengi get pointed teeth and a snarling, troll-like face.

Not disagreeing Focksbot. But they ought to be trying for something better. Voyager's otherwise mediocre "Nemesis" at least got this right, as the Nausicaan looking aliens turned out to be fairly nice and reasonable.

@Jason, Focksbot:

FWIW, the species Picard describes as anarchists in Allegiance are not Nausicaans but the Chalnoth, who do look like Nausicaans but are distinct. I think it's in Tapestry that Nausicaans proper are introduced.

Anyway I think you both make good points. Here's my take. Generally speaking, when a species is *introduced* to be a long-running, sympathetic species (or specifically for a long-running, sympathetic *character*), they are usually made up to be mostly friendly, like the Bajorans, Betazoids (their irises are black), Ocampa or Trill when their appearance was rebooted for DS9. Notably in all four cases I just referenced, the reason is partly not to hide the recurring female actor's attractiveness (more specifically Michelle Forbes than Nana Visitor when Bajorans were introduced). With Denobulans and Talaxians, there is a kind of friendly clownishness to the makeup, befitting weirdo quasi-comic relief types (Phlox are more varied character than Neelix though). Data and Odo are characters with Outsider-y limited makeup that marks their difference but I'm not sure if it makes them *ugly* exactly, though maybe with Odo somewhat.

Spock/Vulcans are a special case because TOS makeup was so limited that although the Vulcan ears and eyebrows seem pretty tame now, I think Spock was being made to look almost devilish within the confines of what was plausible to do for a regular. Really I don't think Vulcan make-up is any less off-putting in TOS than Klingon makeup, and most of the species just looked either like regular humans or like disembodied props. And when they looked ugly it was often a case like the Gorn or the Horta where the eventual point is that the humans misjudged them. TOS is probably the least guilty of this type of thing, in conclusion.

What is interesting to me is that Trek does eventually uphold the values where "ugly" alien makeup eventually does not interfere with supporting characters, but it's usually in "second generation" versions. The Klingons (makeup introduced in TMP), Cardassians, Ferengi, and Borg were introduced as adversaries and have frightening appearances. But then eventually Worf, Garak, Quark, and Hugh (Seven's full Borg makeup is ditched almost immediately so I'm not counting her) come along with the same makeup and become essentially lovable figures who are largely aligned with (or *are*) our heroes, if not on every point. I do think that some effort was made to keep adjusting Worf's makeup to make him look a bit better, but I don't think his fundamental non-human-ness was taken away from his appearance. So Trek kind of falls down when these races are introduced, but the effort to eventually rehabilitate at least individuals (and sometimes whole societies) means that eventually we look past their off-putting appearance.

More dumb-asshattery in space - those Vulcans really did have it right. Let's hope they can turn this around in time to save the universe.....

I had to look it up on merriam-webster:

Definition of Moslem:
formerly common but now old-fashioned, increasingly rare, and sometimes offensive variant of MUSLIM

Jammer I get it that you want to limit censorship to its minimum but the amount of biased bs in this thread is too much for my taste. Some of these posts are actually plainly racist.

In any case, regarding this episode, somehow I was very bored by it. Nothing of interest for me, except seeing nausicaans again which is always cool. Play dom-jot human!

I actually enjoy quite a bit that ENT is different in style and tempo to other treks. But the plots need to be a bit more complex or at least raise questions. I just felt like in this episode there was no substance.

I really didn't enjoy this episode much, but this comment section got way off the rails

One thing I liked about Enterprise was the pre -shields era. Tbh the star trek shield concept is quite flawed scientifically. Why can a ship fire thru its own shields? Torpedos are an even bigger question since they are not technically pure energy weapons. I've seen half baked explanations that a ship matches it's phaser frequency to it's shields to allow themselves to fire thru, in an oversimplified highly flawed analogy of spitfires able to fire thru its propeller blades. So if that were true....then the enemy would only need to analyze the phaser that just hit them, match frequency and fire right thru their attackers shields. So that explanation just doesn't work. I've often wondered why high velocity magnetic railguns aren't standard as they would shred a ship to pieces faster than trying to "melt" holes in each other thru shields with energy weapons.
Anyways. Main point was the "polarize hull plating" thing. What does that mean exactly? Also what about structural integrity fields? Is that a similar concept? The way I always thought of structural integrity fields is that it's a massively strong "electro magnetic effect" that sort of "slams" the hull plates and everything else together so if it were cracked or breached the magnetic force would hold the fragments in place as a whole.

To throw fuel on the "just revenge" argument. Revenge can be a rational response in a lawless environment. Nothing quite says "Don't F---- with me!" like a messy and 'irrational' desire for revenge. It's a common feature of "honor" cultures, which are very common in frontier environments.

Until Starfleet (or the Federation) can end piracy (or the freighters can out gun the pirates), revenge might be their best collective defense. Make the potential cost of piracy outweigh the benefits.

As for torture.... yeah, the obvious problem is that it doesn't always give you the information you want.... and apparently the Nausicaan lied....

Yeah, Archer's argument doesn't make any sense in the context of this episode. There's no real reason to think that the raiders won't continue to attack the traders.

I mentioned recently that the writers had a habit of putting pointless lines of dialog in Archer's mouth for the purpose of exposition and we get another one in this episode. He acts surprised when someone mentions the Nausicans and Travis has to explain to him (and the audience) who they are. Would the first captain of a Warp 5 ship, a man obsessed with space travel since he was a child, really not keep abreast of new alien species that humans have had first contact with? It's just bad, lazy writing that hurts the show in both big and small ways.


This episode would probably have never been better than average, but I think if it had been taken in a slightly different direction it might have been really good. I think Fortunate Son would have been better if it was about an aging freighter captain who sees the old world, his world, passing away and knows that he has no place in the new one and can't deal with it. Dean Stockwell was wasted in Detained, but I think he could have excelled if given a meaty role as an old captain in this episode.


There is an old episode of Gunsmoke called "Abe Blocker" that is the perfect example of the story I wish this would have been. It's about an old mountain man, Abe, who hated seeing cowboys and ranchers take the land from the Indians and mountain men who respected nature, and who finally snaps when he sees that even the cowboys are now being replaced by farmers and city folk. There is a long stretch of the episode with just the two main characters, the mountain man and the marshal, just sitting in front of a campfire while Abe talks about his life and the way things used to be. It plays out like a sadder, more desperate version of Sam the Lion's monolog in The Last Picture Show. It would have been great to see Stockwell and Bakula get a scene like that.

Good ep!
One of the best so far.
I enjoyed learning more about the cargo runners.
Why are they called Boomers?
Archer should have accepted the captain’s offer of a drink. Why the hell not?

I do not think this was a 3 star worthy episode. Learning some of the background history of the old cargo ships was cool, and I enjoyed getting to see the Nausicaans show up here. Other than that though the episode didn't do much for me. I'd give it 2 stars, mediocre fare.

Very rude of Archer not to take the freighter captain up on his offer of a drink. What a prat.