> At 09:36 AM 9/8/97 GMT, you wrote:
And
> your universe IS a lot better than the "faschists with smiley faces"
of
> Star Trek.
And the Star Trek rank badges resemble those of the 1930's Red Army, and they
had an "internal enemy" paranoia (or several), and one of the Enterprise's
sisters is the Potemkin. And look at the bridge of the
Ent-D;
there they are, sat in a row, the Captain, the First Officer and the
"Counsellor" (or is it "Councillor"; Council = Soviet)- compare to the
Red
Army "Military Soviet" - Commander, Deputy Commander and Political
Member. They don't appear to have a Great Teacher and Leader, implying that it
really is the USSR as intended/pretended rather than the reality.
> In message <3411B464.230B@earthlink.net> "John D. Hamill" writes:
> The NAC explanation isn't silly, just needs to be better explained.
And
> your universe IS a lot better than the "faschists with smiley faces"
of
> Star Trek.
Fascists? Surely you mean communists. They seem to have abolished all money,
get from people according to their ability, give to them according to their
needs etc.. The Federation seems to be an idealised version of what the Soviet
Union used to pretend to be. (Have you ever read the old Soviet constitution?)
Remind me... didn't McCarthy run all the commies out of Hollywood?
American children are being corrupted. Cool.
[B5, OTOH, is just the same thing the other way round. Earth =
America with all the bad-juju conspiratorial trimmings that are
fashionable. Black helos become black starfuries, even...]
> Fascists? Surely you mean communists. They seem to have abolished
> David Brewer wrote:
And
> > your universe IS a lot better than the "faschists with smiley faces"
of
> > Star Trek.
The culture is heavily militarized (but Starfleet is always shown in the best
light), but the iron fist of the Federation is always covered by
the velvet glove of pseudo-psychological gobbledegook.
> On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, David Brewer wrote:
> In message <3411B464.230B@earthlink.net> "John D. Hamill" writes:
And
> > your universe IS a lot better than the "faschists with smiley faces"
of
> > Star Trek.
<RANT> That's the main thing that always rubbed me the wrong way about Trek.
Obviously the writers of the show have a progressive ax to grind by making
entrepenuers into backstabbing Ferengi. They turn the military into
warmongering Kligons and Cardassians. Does anyone remember that awlful DS9
episode were Worf and Dax went to Risa and were forced to save the Federation
from a bunch of Evil social conservatives. Meanwhile they make millions of
dollars in flithy capitalist lucur. Aren't the Hollywood Left
a consistant bunch? ;-)
</RANT>
> Remind me... didn't McCarthy run all the commies out of Hollywood?
<RANT> Nope. Thanks to his stupidity and complete disregard for the
constitution the people he tried to discredit were elevated to martyer
status and any reasonable form of anti-Marxism was given a bad name. If
the commies would have wanted a better weapon to vidicate their cause, they
shouldn't have looked further than old Tailgunner Joe.
</RANT>
Later,
> On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, John D. Hamill wrote:
> The culture is heavily militarized (but Starfleet is always shown in
I don't know. I've always called the Federation's Star Fleet "The National
Geographic Society with guns." Wow! That's a scary thought.
Later,
> That's the main thing that always rubbed me the wrong way about
I always wonder at the amazingly hostile reactions people had towards even the
ideals of Communism. I can only presume that the idea of
having to help, co-operate, and share what we can with our fellow
humanity is complete anathamae to our naturally greedy natures. Knowing this
doesn't make it likely I'm going to donate the money for my next fleet
(Sa'vasku hopefully) to charity. Maybe thats what up with Hollywood. Some of
them might even have some ideals but money soon takes care of that. I wish I
could sell
some of my principles for that price too. Communism sounds like
a nice system but as with any system as soon as people become involved it
keels over. Not unlike some games I can think of actually...
> > Remind me... didn't McCarthy run all the commies out of Hollywood?
If
> the commies would have wanted a better weapon to vidicate their cause,
Stupidity is its own reward it would seem. He gave everyone what they wanted.
The US got some heretics to burn and Russia got some martyrs.
Talking of politics what exactly is the political outlook in the FT universe?
Is the ESU dictatorial? Is the NAC such a wonderful place to live? And what
about the NSL and FSE? Whats it like to be a citizen of all these states?
Views?
> On Mon, 8 Sep 1997 ngilsena@indigo.ie wrote:
> ><snip>
> Talking of politics what exactly is the political outlook in the FT
I think of the politics of the states as follows: (when I think of their
politics at all, and not just of their militaries...)
NAC: democratic, capitalist constitutional monarchy, probalby with a
parliament and a House of Lords - all those Admirals are Sir Admiral xxx
or Lord Admiral yyy, right?
FSE: democratic, etc but with strong authoritarian overtones - sort of
Gaullist (as in Charles de Gaul)
NSL: as FSE, but due to German influence...
ESU: some sort of Communist/corprate mix, partly free market and partly
not - sort of what China seems to be evolving into...
OU: republic, etc, with Prez and other trappings, senate and the like.
IC: some sort of dictatorship, probably, or 'managed' democracy? eg Mexico
presently...
Netherlands: constitutional monarchy as today -- but is Amsterdam still
the place the world goes to get stoned???
Free Cal-Tex: republic, w/ bombastic Prez, etc. last bastion of politics
in the grand old bs-filled 20th cent. US style... :)
IF: Islamic theocracy of some sort, probably, but details???
PAU: What is a 'federal super-state', people? Whatever that is, by the
background, that's what the PAU is...
Anyone I've left out: haven't considered them, or don't consider them
important...just my personal view...
In message <Pine.OSF.3.96.970908142048.30371A-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>
> " writes:
Or is that vice versa? Are you turning back-stabbing Ferengi into
entreprenuers? (etc.)
I think the big problem with Star Trek has always been a tendency towards lazy
writing and an unfocused storyline. Good Old Star Trek was always very
military in it's veiwpoint and commerce never really got a look in. When the
Next Gen came along it was easy just to project the society on board
Enterprise outwards to cover the whole Fed... perfectly functioning,
uncorrupt, meritocratic,
everybody-does-their-bit, everything-provided-for-you, yatta,
yatta.
The Ferengi popped up in one episode as a cardboard adversary for the Trekkers
(with one joke: "I'm all ears, Picard"). Now Trek is saddled with these
comical space hobbits as capitalism's only representative. That's just lazy.
> Does anyone remember that awlful
I missed that ep. Are social conservatives always capitalists then? Is there a
Hollywood Left? Hollywood strikes me as a *somewhat* capitalistic
environment...
> ngilsena@indigo.ie wrote:
> Communism sounds like
Politics and Goverment, like battle plans rarely survive contact with those
destined to carry them out.....
Randy "Creative Financing is the key to any venture. Right John?" R. Hood
(Ret.)
> At 09:36 AM 9/8/97 GMT, David Brewer wrote:
Hmm. Didn't think of it that way before. Of course, it's simply a utopian
world view. That's what communism was striving for, except that it didn't take
human nature into account. Neither does Star Trek.
Funny enough, the Federation is essentially the same as Iain Banks' Culture.
Nobody works, there is no money, no one wants for anything, people live a long
time, etc. The difference is that Banks has made the logical leap that
the Culture itself--in order to maintain the utopia--must work on a
principal of enlightened self-interest. Check out _Player of Games_;
there's
no "non-interference prime directive" in the Culture...
You could also argue that Star Trek is the extreme extension of the American
ideal of freedom, while the Culture is the extreme extension of the British
ideal of freedom with an all encompassing social safety net, but that would be
WAY off topic...
> At 02:32 PM 9/8/97 -0500, Mark S. wrote:
More likely that they have a "money is the root of all evil" basis for their
utopia. If no one wants for anything, why do you need money. Actually, the one
thing that's consistant in Star Trek is that the writers are incapable of
creating truly ALIEN creatures. They end up taking a part of humanity and
making a charicature out of it. The Ferengi are just "money grubbing, penny
pinchers." I've always assumed they were an in joke, representing talent
agents and the worst of the Hollywood producers...
> They turn the military into warmongering Kligons and Cardassians.
Not really. The most obvious military is the Federation. The Feds are
essentially an extension of the American ideal of the US military system.
Nothing ever breaks, innovation is rampant, and they are always in the moral
right. In fact, Starfleet is essentially identical in these respects to the US
military as shown in Tom Clancy's novels, and I doubt if you could
successfully claim Clancy is a leftist. As for Klingons and Cardassians,
that's the same Alien problem as before. Klingons are just Japanese samurai
with the Norse afterlife (well, at least Valhalla) grafted on. Cardassians are
Nazis. There's no secret agenda here, just a lack of imagination.
> Remind me... didn't McCarthy run all the commies out of Hollywood?
If
> the commies would have wanted a better weapon to vidicate their cause,
Explain, then, how it's just been in the last 10 years that those on the
blacklist have found work? The writer of _Bridge on the River Kwai_ has
just
been properly credited in the last 5 years on the re-release of the
movie on video. McCarthy's problem was that he disregarded the ideals of
freedom of expression so well enshrined in your Constitution.