Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
This could easily also be a dumbass quote of the day, but since I already have several of those saved up we'll give it its own title. From a post by Mike Potemra at National Review Online:
Coincidentally, I have over the past couple of months been watching DVDs of Star Trek: The Next Generation, a show I missed completely in its run of 1987 to 1994; and I confess myself amazed that so many conservatives are fond of it. Its messages are unabashedly liberal ones of the early post-Cold War era - peace, tolerance, due process, progress (as opposed to skepticism about human perfectibility).
Wow, how....liberal those messages are. But if this conservative admits that peace, tolerance, due process and progress are "liberal messages" then doesn't that also mean that war, intolerance, arbitrary authoritarianism and regression are conservative messages? Nice to see that admitted to so openly.
Politics
Comments
NRO is ten lbs of stupid in a 5-lb bag.
Posted by: steve | December 28, 2009 9:22 AM
Indeed, I join you inapplauding his honesty even though it was undoubtably a slip on his part.
Posted by: Rob Jase | December 28, 2009 9:35 AM
Well, yeah, Gene Roddenberry pretty much admitted the same thing BACK IN THE '60s. The whole purpose of the original series was to get liberal messages (like "war is bad" and "racism can destroy civilization") on national TV, disguised as science-fiction because the big networks were too wimpy to touch them otherwise. What took NRO so long to catch on to this big non-secret?
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 28, 2009 9:40 AM
Don't they have editors to weed out the insanely stupid stuff? Clearly the complete lack of awareness as to what, by contrast, this loon is saying truly boggles the mind.
Peace - bad for business
Intolerance - the bible tells me to be this way. Those other folks are SCARY!!111!!
Due Process - only for 'right' thinking conservatives (sorry for the redundancy)
Progress - this is what happens when you say 'no' to everything, correct?
Posted by: MikeMa | December 28, 2009 9:42 AM
Whoa, if peace, tolerance, due process, and progress are liberal values, count me in!
Posted by: Rodney | December 28, 2009 9:52 AM
"'InALIENABLE HUMAN' rights!" - Yep, liberal and loving it, since 1966! -Dingo
Posted by: DIngoJack | December 28, 2009 9:54 AM
how much would there be left of the NRO if they did that?
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | December 28, 2009 10:05 AM
It's kind of sad how Mr. Buckleys' publication has deteriorated since he left it.
Posted by: SLC | December 28, 2009 10:11 AM
From the NRO post quoted above:
"I asked an NR colleague about it, and he speculated that the show’s appeal for conservatives lay largely in the toughness of the main character: Jean-Luc Picard was a moral hardass where the Captain Kirk of the earlier show was more of an easygoing, cheerful swashbuckler. I think there’s something to that: Patrick Stewart did indeed create, in that character, a believable and compelling portrait of ethical uprightness."
Which is funny, because I'd expect conservatives to favor Kirk over Picard. The government of the Federation had always been portrayed as extremely liberal and full of bureaucratic hassles for starship captains; Kirk was the 'space cowboy' who went with his gut and trusted his own sense of morality over government regulations, whereas Picard was much more willing to support the Fed's socialist bureaucracy.
Funny thing two: y'all know that one of the favorite memes of the right is how morality cannot exist without religion. And yet you have the character of Picard, a secular humanist *and* a 'moral hardass', and apparently admired by conservatives for being so. Hmmmm.
Funny thing three: Picard being a hardass.
Posted by: mad the swine | December 28, 2009 10:18 AM
... I have over the past couple of months been watching DVDs of Star Trek: The Next Generation, a show I missed completely in its run of 1987 to 1994 ...
So much for topicality and relevance. I wonder how he feels about Gunsmoke.
Asshat.
Posted by: threetorches | December 28, 2009 10:22 AM
I think conservative fondness for TNG is about as well thought out as any of their other ideas. It is founded on basic contradictions. They love the show because it is full of high-tech gizmos and technobabble, which relates to the consumerist lifestyle they cherish. They simply filter out the obvious underpinnings of the society that produced that technology.
As with much of conservative thought, this is a way of coping with cognitive dissonance.
Also, were the Ferengi introduced on TNG, or did they make their debut on DS9? The Ferengi are an obvious and rather ham-fisted critique of a capitalist society.
Posted by: thinkoplex | December 28, 2009 10:33 AM
The amusing thing about this is that right-wing conservative economic policies require a complete lack of 'skepticism about human perfectibility.'
They want to abolish almost all government oversight and legal restrictions on the marketplace and have us believe that the free market will then operate to the benefit and betterment of us all.
Given the messes we have seen in the past few decades when the slightest easing of oversight has occurred, this seems to me to be terribly naive.
Posted by: tacitus | December 28, 2009 10:37 AM
thinkoplex: Also, were the Ferengi introduced on TNG, or did they make their debut on DS9? The Ferengi are an obvious and rather ham-fisted critique of a capitalist society.
The Ferengi were introduced during season 1 of TNG. They were an absolutely terrible, poorly thought-out addition that was, IIRC, supposed to be the Klingon-esque villain race for the run of the show. Their introduction was so laughable that the idea was dropped.
They later morphed in to a race of traders who were willing to do less than legal things and were entirely governed by what it would take to make the most profit. It wasn't until DS9 that they really got developed as more than a random background race, though. By then they most definitely served as a critique of free market capitalism, but I'm not entirely sure that's how they were supposed to be from the beginning.
Posted by: Geds | December 28, 2009 10:44 AM
Geds,
Thanks for the info. I watched TNG when it first aired, and most of DS9 and Voyager, but I have never been a real fan of Star Trek.
Posted by: thinkoplex | December 28, 2009 10:50 AM
Yeah, this is a dog bites man story. Yes, Star Trek is and always has been a show with "liberal" messages.
But since when has "due process" been a an icky liberal thing? Yikes.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 28, 2009 10:57 AM
Star Trek DS 9 is probably more to his liking particularly the Dominon War, Section 32, and the episode "In the Pale Moonlight," where Cisco arranges for a Romulan Senator to be killed in order to draw the Star Empire into the war along the Kilingons and Federation.
Posted by: History Punk | December 28, 2009 10:58 AM
"So much for topicality and relevance. I wonder how he feels about Gunsmoke."
You owe me a pepsi. *Wipes off monitor*
"I think conservative fondness for TNG is about as well thought out as any of their other ideas. It is founded on basic contradictions. They love the show because it is full of high-tech gizmos and technobabble, which relates to the consumerist lifestyle they cherish. They simply filter out the obvious underpinnings of the society that produced that technology."
So they behave with Star Trek just as they behave in real life?
Posted by: Rutee | December 28, 2009 11:00 AM
"But since when has "due process" been a an icky liberal thing? Yikes."
Since we've called for applying it to horrible brown people. Because unlike horrible white people, they don't deserve it.
Posted by: Rutee | December 28, 2009 11:04 AM
I'm still reeling from the idea that progress and skepticism about human perfectibility are apparently opposed. We can't be perfect, so we might as well....not bother improving? What?
Posted by: Gretchen | December 28, 2009 11:13 AM
Pssh; there's only one reason conservs liked Next Gen, and it can be summed up in two words; Deanna Troi. All those college nights they spent with frumpy fundie Waspettes, you know what they really wanted was a dominant, telepathic, space-Greek. And really, isn't that what everyone wants? *looks longingly to the stars*
Geds: Given the "Yankee traders" description Data gives them during that ep, I always figured that a critique of overzealous capitalism was included from the very beginning in their concept, though you are most certainly right that it didn't really become their defining feature until DS9. I even recall a Ferengi captain pursuing a vendetta against Picard later in the show's run, even to the point of sacrificing his fortune and placing his ship at risk to succeed; decidedly un-Ferengi things to do.
Posted by: Julian | December 28, 2009 11:19 AM
Gretchen: Yup, such is the upside-down world of post-modern, deconstructionist conservatism, where progress is barbarism, law is tyranny, philanthropy is enslavement and peace is defeat.
Posted by: Julian | December 28, 2009 11:23 AM
I too find it curious that conservatives would groove on ST:TNG. The Federation definitely has strong UN overtones. They have a weak military, instead relying on their science vessels in times of crisis. Further, the Federation has eliminated poverty by eliminating money. People work in order to contribute to society and attain their own personal fulfillment. The government provides for all their needs. It’s down right communist!
The show paints its omnipotent God figure, Q, as cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust. The very first episode is about Q sitting in judgment of humanity. Time and again Q is thwarted by human self-reliance and the application of reason.
I would have thought conservatives were more in to Star Wars than Star Trek. This quote from Bill Kristol springs to mind:
Then again their side did lose in those films. So I can see how that might sour them on it.
All I know is the best gorram SciFi show ever is the libertarian one, Firefly. There's a special place in Hell reserved for child molesters, people who talk in the theater and the execs who canceled that show. A. Special. Place.
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 28, 2009 11:25 AM
TNG was much more liberal in a certain sense. It did promote more cultural and moral relativism than the original series. However, I'm a bit perplexed at how promoting "due process" and "peace" are terrible evil liberal messages.
Incidentally, the original series was very complicated politically. Although the message was in general "liberal" other episodes were very much not so. See especially City on the Edge of Forever for example.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | December 28, 2009 11:25 AM
With its bad acting, lousy writing, and plot holes you can drive a mack truck through - its no surprise that 'conservatives' like the Star Trek TV series.
Posted by: yoshi | December 28, 2009 11:25 AM
I assume he prefers Picard over Kirk because Kirk actually beamed down and put himself in harm's way. Picard generally stayed in the relative safety of the ship, kicking ass by proxy, no?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 28, 2009 11:36 AM
Give 'em a few more years and they'll bitch about "Babylon 5" too.
(Guess the family values crowd missed that the way to slip some spies to the Mars colony is to travel undercover as gay honeymooners.)
Posted by: ursa major | December 28, 2009 11:46 AM
that always was the most bone-jarringly unbelievable part of the backstory to me; i just can't suspend that much disbelief.
it's certainly possible to eliminate (the worst, most grinding effects of) poverty without eliminating money; and money would be useful as an abstraction of value even if there were no poverty or wealth. eliminating it would cripple most any economy (because of not getting to use that handy abstraction feature) while not being necessary to achieve the stated purpose. writing that bit in was just stupid of whoever came up with the idea.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | December 28, 2009 11:54 AM
I remember some years ago they had an issue of National Review with a list of the Top 100 Conservative Movies of all time or something like that, and one of the movies on the list was Aliens. I was like "What? Are these people clueless? The chief villain of the movie is not the aliens, but the greedy corporation that considers everyone expendable in its pursuit of profit."
Posted by: Tommykey | December 28, 2009 12:24 PM
The thing that I expected conservatives to really get in a twist about is the economics of the Federation. This wiki article has a pretty comprehensive analysis of what references to economics are present in the various series and movies. I especially liked this exchange between Jake Sisko and Nog in DS9:
Jake: "I'm Human, I don't have any money."
Nog: "It's not my fault that your species decided to abandon currency-based economics in favor of some philosophy of self-enhancement."
Jake: "Hey, watch it. There's nothing wrong with our philosophy. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity."
Nog: "What does that mean?"
Jake: "It means we don't need money!"
It embodies the liberal disdain of capitalism, but it also shows the lack of workable alternatives when Jake (via the writers of the show) can't be specific about how things work.
Posted by: JasonTD | December 28, 2009 12:27 PM
The Federation didn't eliminate money: the original series had "credits" and later ones "gold-pressed latinum" as well (latinum being a metallic substance which couldn't be replicated). Its citizens just spend money on wants, rather than needs; on trading with outsiders or for delicacies, rather than with the supermarket to buy soup. They live in a post-scarcity economy.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | December 28, 2009 12:27 PM
Of course, given the snarled-up continuity of the Star Trek franchise, it's probably silly to expect a consistent view of Federation economics . . .
Posted by: Blake Stacey | December 28, 2009 12:29 PM
Nomen Nescio:
The Next Gen Federation had replicator technology, which allowed them to assemble any material from subatomic particles - basically, turn anything into anything else. In other words: there is no scarcity in the Federation; the only things which cannot be provided free and on demand are original creative works(*). No scarcity means no economy, because no one needs to buy or sell anything.
(*) Not that the implications of this tech were exactly well thought out on the show; thus the introduction of latinum in DS9 to facilitate an interstellar economy for stuff that can't be replicated and/or in areas where access to replicators wasn't readily available (ie, DS9).
History Punk: Sisko.
Posted by: mad the swine | December 28, 2009 12:32 PM
Whoops. I spent way too much time thinking about my comment (and doing some housework) before posting it, so I missed some replies that hit on what I was saying.
Actually, eliminating money wasn't how poverty was eliminated in the Federation. They are definitely some kind of post-capitalist society that has managed to get rid of disparities in material wealth. But I think that it is likely that the real driving force behind all of that is an abundance of virtually all material needs (food & water, shelter and clothing, energy, etc.) and technology that allows for almost all unpleasant mundane tasks to be automated.
Posted by: JasonTD | December 28, 2009 12:36 PM
Dork.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 28, 2009 12:36 PM
In my understanding, after the invention of replicators, the Federation became so wealthy and prosperous that a traditional money-based consumer economy was no longer needed. In between the Original Series and TNG, the Federation stopped using money. At the same time, other civilisations in the galaxy continued to use currency; "gold-pressed latinum" is the stock medium of exchange, and is referenced frequently in DS9.
Yep. Personally, I've always seen Star Trek as being based on a fundamentally secular, humanistic philosophy. The heroes solve problems by using their minds and relying on science and technology, and there is a strong ethical message of "unity in diversity". Nationalism is portrayed as a harmful, divisive force.
By contrast, Star Wars is all about the supernatural, and about dualistic notions of good versus evil. Before he can succeed as a Jedi, Luke has to learn not to trust in his own skill and effort, but instead to surrender himself to the Force and let it act through him. Han Solo starts out as a sceptic who trusts only in himself, but he comes to believe in the power of the Force. Although set in space, the science is really tangential; in many ways, Star Wars has more in common with "high fantasy" like Lord of the Rings than it does with Star Trek. And its fundamental themes are strongly influenced by religion.
I say this as a massive fan of both Star Trek and Star Wars. But I think the underlying philosophical differences are interesting.
Posted by: Walton | December 28, 2009 12:43 PM
'bee,
I've had students argue against this when Star Trek came up in our discussion of Marx, etc. We were exploring "real" examples of communism, idea being that it has never actually been tried and that like pure libertarianism is doomed to failure. The two examples that inevitably come up are the Catholic church and Star Trek. The kids then discuss and informally debate whether these two "institutions" exhibit communist traits. The net result is usually that the Catholic church is about as communist as the world has ever seen (or likely will), Star Trek generally comes out as a rather far left leaning socialist system with a number of students pointing out that we don't generally see their civilian economy, others pointing out that merchants and traders (IE capitalists) are generally portrayed in negative terms, and still others pointing out that the people you do see tend to follow the philosophy presented by Sisko in that they emphasize personal growth, knowledge, etc., over material wealth.
It inevitably ends up a really good (albeit for some frustrating discussion) that brings up More's Utopia, discusses Marx, Machiavelli, the Soviet Union, China, today's political battles, Western Europe of the 21st century, etc.
----------
Blake,
I would agree that they are presenting a post-scarcity economy to some degree, but not entirely. Voyager shows that replicator technology isn't entirely "something from nothing" and that there is some sort of resource cache that is converted into the desired material. Of course it could be yet another poorly thought out plot device created for the series that contradicts prior emphasis that the replicator eliminates "need" and leaves you with only a few "wants."
----------
I too find it amusing that conservatives appear to have a problem with due process, but it is something that I see quite often. Personally I think it comes from their tendency to support authoritarian governments. While there might be some aspect of racism for some conservatives, I think a lot of it comes from the idea that the "system works" therefore you're guilty because you've been charged with the crime. I find a huge number of conservatives live by the adage "they arrested you, you must have done something wrong." I think it's a combination of that authoritarianism and a lack of empathy that they decry in liberals as "bleeding heart." They don't seem to recognize that so many liberals have a problem with the system because of a combination of civil rights and that empathy, basically, "wow, he's getting screwed, if that were me, would I be just as screwed?" Most of us recognize that if the state decided that we were a potential criminal, that yes, we'd be just as screwed because we lack the financial resources necessary to protect our own rights.
Conservatives tend to believe that the state is right and, as part of their aspirations for material wealth, don't seem to recognize that, were they in the same situation as the accused, they likely would be unable to defend themselves adequately without incurring financial ruin. It is a combination that isn't really as cognitively dissonant as it first seems.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 28, 2009 12:58 PM
My uber-fundie sister and her husband refused to see the film "Ghandi" because it wasn't about a Xian, yet they were both big fans of ST:TNG even after I pointed out that humans are pretty much the only beings in the ST universe that never display any form of spirituality.
Posted by: LightningRose | December 28, 2009 1:03 PM
But that doesn't address the needs of a service economy; how are landscapers and lawyers and laborers compensated for their services?
Moreover, how is the government funded? The state obviously still exists in the Trek future, so how does it function without tax revenue?
And while it's easy to say that replicators have resolved matters of scarcity and material needs, that's hardly consistent with the Ferengi's very presence. The Ferengi are traders; what exactly are they trading if replicators can make everything?
This, after all, is why "gold-pressed latinum" exists in the Trek universe: because they eventually realized they couldn't make their own universe function without the presence of some kind of money.
Posted by: Loren | December 28, 2009 2:34 PM
It's obvious why conservatives hate due process: those rubber stamps cost money.
I wonder if conservatives have any special affinity for this summers's Star Trek film? The one where young James Kirk gets kicked upstairs faster without learning a thing in Starfleet Academy, just because his uber-cool instincts show that he deserves it, and he didn't even have to serve half a term as governor of some obscure icy planet first? I find it depressing that this was such a popular film - Luke Skywalker developed more character in the first hour of Star Wars than Kirk did on his way from cadet to captain.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | December 28, 2009 2:40 PM
Does anyone here really think the Trek economy was any more seriously thought out than its matter-transporters? Puh-lease. I'm willing to bet the comments here represent more thought than all of the producers, creators and scriptwriters for all of the series and spinoffs put into it combined.
Arguing over the Star Trek economy is about as useful as arguing over Star Trek physics or Catholic theology.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 28, 2009 2:54 PM
Garak kills him without Sisko's knowledge. Sisko just forges evidence of Dominion plans to invade Romulan space, which was true anyway, I think.
Not that this is any way relevant. :P
Posted by: Twewi | December 28, 2009 2:55 PM
Raging Bee: We are on the internet, which allows people who really should be working (/me looks back over shoulder) to argue vociferously on matters of little to no consequence.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 28, 2009 2:59 PM
It's really funny Scott, my wife, who doesn't like the original Star Trek though all of its movies, ST:NG, DS9 (which was never one of my favorites), Voyager, Enterprise (meh for me with both) ... never liked any of it, liked the movie this summer enough to talk about buying the DVD. Me, nominally a Trek fan (I see lots of problems with gaping holes in plots, etc., but like the basic concept), didn't like the movie. I found the action interesting, special effects cool, etc., but the story line was moronic, the characters were paper (not even cardboard) cutouts. The idea that Kirk, barely a successful cadet, had earned the right to Captain??? C'mon. The guy skipped Ensign, Lieutenant (don't know if ST had JGs), Lt. Commander, and Commander...!?!? That's just f'n stupid.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 28, 2009 3:23 PM
@11: I think conservative fondness for TNG is about as well thought out as any of their other ideas. It is founded on basic contradictions. They love the show because it is full of high-tech gizmos and technobabble, which relates to the consumerist lifestyle they cherish.
There is definitely a "dog bites man" aspect to NRO suddenly discovering Roddenberry's use of sci-fi to make liberal social commentary.
There was also some objectivist (a la Ayn Rand) leanings to the show. Many plot problems were resolved via the invention of some new widget, parallelling Atlas Shrugged's use of John Galt's engine. But whereas the social commentary was intentional, IMO this wasn't. More likely its a result of a combination of bad writing and the episodic format of the show, causing writers to rely heavily on deus ex machina (in this case perhaps deus ex technobabble?) to resolve complex plot problems in the last 5 minutes of an episode. Unfortunately.
Posted by: eric | December 28, 2009 4:08 PM
Palin and Bachmann at Minneapolis.
The beast at Wasilla.
W, when the walls fell.
Liebermann, his eyes closed.
Osama, his army with fists open.
[Darmok. Best. TNG. Episode. Ever.]
Posted by: hje | December 28, 2009 4:35 PM
They liked it because they spent a lot of time running around telling people to change the way they did things, that they were right and the planet in question was wrong (it wasn't ALL they did, but yeah) combined with the aforementioned afinity for Picard's uncompromising worldview.
I remember a time when most Trek fans were liberals, now many seem to have abandoned it *sigh*
Posted by: Bickle | December 28, 2009 4:45 PM
Isn't Patrick Stewart gay? Maybe that's the real problem.
Posted by: passing for human | December 28, 2009 4:50 PM
"Many plot problems were resolved via the invention of some new widget, parallelling Atlas Shrugged's use of John Galt's engine. "
It's unfair - to Star Trek, and to Rand - to call the deus est machina of classic science fiction and Star Trek an objectivist trait. The plot of Atlas Shrugged was driven by personalities and philosophies; more or less any revolutionary advancement in technology could be substituted for Rearden Metal and Galt's motor without changing the story very much. On the other hand, tech-driven SF places the technology first and the characters second, ie, Asimov's robot stories, written almost as mystery stories: why is the robot of the day acting the way it does? How do the Three Laws of Robotics apply to its situation, and how can they be leveraged to fix the problem? Trek's pulling of a technological rabbit out of a hat in the last five minutes of an episode is hardly the same thing.
Star Trek, in all its various iterations, tends to be very much more character-driven: social commentary, conflicts between different cultures and value systems, etc, and in that way really is similar to Rand's stories, which tend to highlight this sort of clash of values between, eg, producers and looters. But that sort of story-telling is hardly limited to Rand.
Posted by: mad the swine | December 28, 2009 4:51 PM
Bickle: Don't forget the fact that after laying down the law, the Enterprise crew got to bugger off to save the next planet, leaving the hapless natives to deal with the consequences of their Grand Solution on their own. Which makes a pretty good metaphor for how the US does foreign policy, especially under Bush Jr.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 28, 2009 4:52 PM
"They liked it because they spent a lot of time running around telling people to change the way they did things, that they were right and the planet in question was wrong (it wasn't ALL they did, but yeah) combined with the aforementioned afinity for Picard's uncompromising worldview."
But that was the original series. Picard's crew was a lot more Prime Directive-y and nonjudgmental.
Posted by: mad the swine | December 28, 2009 4:54 PM
What a fountain of humor that one paragraph is. I even find the idea that one might dislike fiction simply because it contains ideas that are contrary to your own to be funny. It might be alarming to find out what fiction Mr. Potemra would not find surprising for his peers to enjoy. Maybe 300?
Posted by: m | December 28, 2009 4:57 PM
NRO is ten lbs of stupid in a 5-lb bag.
Well, that would explain why they never complained about the physics or technology of "Star Trek."
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 28, 2009 5:04 PM
I'm surprised no-one has pointed out the elephant in the Trek room, a plethora of intelligent humanoid life-forms.
Three worlds (two in triple star systems) that have intelligent aliens on them (looking more-or-less like us in bad makeup and wigs) within 6Pc? Gene what were you thinking?
I enjoyed the TV series (movies less and less, now I won't even bother), but it's an entertainment not a lesson in ethics, politics, history or economics - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | December 28, 2009 5:18 PM
Well, on a TV budget, it's impossible to make sufficiently, uh, alien, aliens, plus it makes them easier to relate to as characters. Obviously, though, that doesn't make it any more realistic. It's entertainment first and foremost (as I think most Trek fans get).
Posted by: Kyorosuke | December 28, 2009 5:34 PM
There's a deus for that.
But yeah, in TV sci-fi, even today, technical and practical limitations make you either have humanoid aliens or no aliens. Even when the tech's there (Avatar's Na'vi are basically blue Nekos), it's easier to get the audience to identify with humanoids.
Posted by: Twewi | December 28, 2009 8:05 PM
I thought that the replicator had pretty much eliminated hunger, and that had by proxy eliminated the worst of poverty. But that it did not replicate anything and everything. I thought it's primary function was as a food supply, and assumed it would be limited in other capacities due to safety concerns. You know- no replicating plutonium or those silly addictive brain-game/crack glasses from that one episode...
Didn't Picard's family own a grape plantation and winery? That would sort of imply that the finer things in life still had to be made the hard way.
dogmeat:
I always thought it would have been funny if they'd shown Janeway putting the empty coffee cup back onto the replicator for "recycling". Not to mention all their poop, scrap metal and potato peels...
They never showed that or anything like it so far as I know, but I assumed that's where the cache came from. And, as we all know, recycling is a total socialist plot.
...
On the upside, I can't wait to hear their take on the Legend of the Seeker series 30 years from now.
Posted by: Leni | December 28, 2009 8:42 PM
Also, aren't the Borg a kind of communist nightmare? Maybe that's why they like TNG so much....
Posted by: Leni | December 28, 2009 8:45 PM
I enjoyed Star Trek as well, but unlike rightys I know when to leave the fiction behind.These people are in la la land. It's no wonder we're in the dire straits we are.
Posted by: Byron | December 28, 2009 8:48 PM
The way I looked at it, if the Klingons were a cautionary tale about being too war-like and the Ferengi about too greedy, the Borg were all about the over-reliance on technology to 'perfect' nature. Kind of like the Cybermen I suppose (with a touch of Dalek for good measure). :) - Dingo
Posted by: DIngoJack | December 28, 2009 9:35 PM
How did they miss episodes like this (http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=5065)?
Posted by: Badger3k | December 28, 2009 9:38 PM
Raging Bee:
I agree, the Trek economy is too incoherent to make discussing it productive. Now Iain M Banks, he knows how to write a decent post-scarcity economy.
Kyorosuke, Twewi:
Farscape managed some pretty exotic looking aliens, but its budgetary requirements were its undoing in the end.
Posted by: James K | December 28, 2009 9:46 PM
The thing that always amused me about conservatives and Star Trek is how they like to complain about "politically correct" casts, when the truth of the matter is that given how many races are supposed to be part of the Federation, the typical Trek on-screen crew is seldom really diverse enough. At least in Spock's case as a token Vulcan, there was an in-story explanation for it (that Vulcans in Starfleet were an extreme rarity and in any case never served in mixed-species crews during the time of TOS); that said, why did the original Enterprise never have Andorian or Tellarite crew members, since they were among the founding species of the Federation? (Or for that matter, Orion, or Medusan, or any number of other rubber-forehead/special-effects-special aliens? Surely a Medusan navigator-in-a-box in Stellar Cartography would be a standard part of the crew rather than a sentient plot device?)
Posted by: brian X | December 29, 2009 2:26 AM
There's a good reason for not having a Medusan-in-box in Stellar Cartography - Spock would have to push the pram a lot! :) - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | December 29, 2009 2:58 AM
Once you have stipulated transporters, pretty much anything can be done. A replicator is, conceptually, much like a transporter that doesn't discard its "pattern buffer", and can keep a database of such "patterns". With a little thought, there are so few problems that can't be solved with application of one or the other technology that as a scriptwriter you pretty much have to write in limitations or breakdowns in the equipment to develop any sort of storyline. Got something that is rare and needs to stay that way? Well, a replicator can't work on it, 'cause the scriptwriter says so. Somebody needs to be stuck somewhere? Oops, an "ion storm" has settled in that makes the transporter ineffective. The comment about the Star Trek economic milieu growing as the happenstance of scriptwriter exigency seems about right.
As for money and Star Trek, whatever the scriptwriters said, any society that might actually develop a replicator technology is going to have some major issues if they also try to retain money with physical legal tender or provenance of hand-made works.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry | December 29, 2009 7:18 AM
Mad the Swine:It's unfair - to Star Trek, and to Rand - to call the deus est machina of classic science fiction and Star Trek an objectivist trait. The plot of Atlas Shrugged was driven by personalities and philosophies; more or less any revolutionary advancement in technology could be substituted for Rearden Metal and Galt's motor without changing the story very much. On the other hand, tech-driven SF places the technology first and the characters second, ie, Asimov's robot stories...
I don't really disagree with most of what you say. But I think there is a contrast between how ST:NG uses technological innovation and how Asimov and other (good) writers use it. In the latter the the author is setting up a "what if we had technology x" scenario and playing it out as a story. In the former innovation is seen as a pan-solution. Give a bunch of smart people their head, and they'll solve any problem in exactly 45 minutes (90 for the big problems).
Now like I said, I think this has more do to with the episodic nature of the series than with any hidden philosophical message. And I'll admit there were some attempts on the show to explore the consequences of some of their technology (e.g. Riker's transporter duplication). But you have to admit Swine that these explorations were few, far between, and quickly forgotten. The vast majority of the time the crew is portrayed as hyper-competent individuals who use technologial innovation to fix problems, with (unlike good sci-fi) the future consequences of those innovations going largely ignored.
Posted by: eric | December 29, 2009 9:14 AM
wow, the GOP is going to ban its followers from watching Star Trek now huh? what a clown haha, give me a break,its all about freedom and rights given by the constitution, called due process. The due process version of the GOP is given by the gun rights to shoot whoever is going to tell me what to do, so if i dont want to pay taxes i can shoot them...
Posted by: Robert | December 29, 2009 12:26 PM
Wesley:
I don't necessarily agree about the replicator. There's two issues:
-Although canon did abuse the concept, in practice the pattern buffer shouldn't be able to store an entire scan image for any longer than strictly necessary -- the sheer amount of quantum-level information required to teleport a human being (or even a simple tool) should render extended storage impossible.
-I've actually given some thought to how specifically a food replicator might work -- what I came up with was essentially storing tiny samples of, say, cooked chicken muscle fiber and brewed coffee and using tesselations and fractals to build up a chicken sandwich and coffee. It would taste about right, probably, but might have a slightly odd texture to someone used to the real thing. (Not that it would bother a tribble either way.)
From those two points, it can probably be safely assumed that there are certain things that don't replicate well; that was (eventually) how they wound up using Latinum as a form of hard currency, since it was supposedly impossible to replicate in an undetectable manner.
Posted by: Brian X | December 29, 2009 1:11 PM
If peace, tolerance, due process, and progress denote liberalism, what denotes conservatism?
Posted by: Taz | December 29, 2009 1:28 PM
...On the other hand, tech-driven SF places the technology first and the characters second...
Not really. GOOD "tech-driven" SF starts with some set of technological innovations, and tries to explore the specific effects such innovations have on the characters' behavior, relationships, society, conflicts, expectations, etc. Such stories SHOULD be driven by characters and personalities as they respond to the circumstances created by the technology. Consistency is important here, since the minute you make up any sort of deus-ex-technobabble to get yourself out of a corner you've painted yourself into, you blow the whole point of the story, just as miserably as if you had ended it with "And then I woke up."
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 29, 2009 1:44 PM
Gene Roddenberry was an unapologetic, leftwing liberal.
Star Trek promotes humanism and progressive ideals.
Gene once said that Star Trek was his idea of a liberal utopia.
The vast majority of it's fans are left leaning.
Conservatives are free to jump aboard and enjoy.
There's plenty of smash 'em ups and 'spolsions to keep them entertained. But to assume that Star Trek has any basis in conservativism is incredibly myopic.
The idea that humanity can evolve beyond religion, corporatism, greed...
The embracement of science, tolerance, intellectualism...
Generally speaking, conservativism is the antithesis of Star Trek.
No need to even mention the similarities between the United Nations (the rightwing's favorite pinata) and the United Federation of Planets.
Posted by: Harsh | December 29, 2009 2:37 PM
@tacitus: "The amusing thing about this is that right-wing conservative economic policies require a complete lack of 'skepticism about human perfectibility.'
"They want to abolish almost all government oversight and legal restrictions on the marketplace and have us believe that the free market will then operate to the benefit and betterment of us all."
I would disagree. They want to abolish government oversight and legal restrictions on the marketplace so that the free market will operate for the benefit and betterment of those who take the most mercenary advantage of the markets, and of the rest of us. It has nothing to do with benefit and betterment of us all.
Posted by: Looseleaf | December 29, 2009 2:49 PM
http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/1999/06/15/brin_main/index.html
"Star Wars" despots vs. "Star Trek" populists
Why is George Lucas peddling an elitist, anti-democratic agenda under the guise of escapist fun?
By David Brin
Posted by: tng fan | December 29, 2009 4:42 PM
Well, in theory we "all" could. Those of us that don't take the most mercenary advantage of the marketplace have only themselves to blame.
Posted by: Leni | December 29, 2009 7:10 PM
A liberal friend of mine once remarked that he was surprised that my conservative husband liked that show because he considered it to be liberal, so it's not just the NRO set.
Posted by: Charity | December 29, 2009 10:04 PM
Heh, I noticed last nights "episode" to have alot of underlying meaning and inference to those of us that DO know and... Have been keeping up on the LHC, funded by CERN over 55 yrs to look for and maybe find 'GOD' in the mix of particles we enjoy as life. Check it out and stay tuned. GOD may be proved soon, now! He can run but, NOW, can't hide, they are saying. Who knows what is going to happen when that may be reality??? WOW! Google it "CERN and LHC" Large Hederon Collider, if you don't already know... It IS what we ALL have been 'working' and 'living' for!!!
THX, 4 all your efforts people,
JOHNNY
P.S. Hold on to your hats, soon... ;-O
Posted by: John Jurgens | December 30, 2009 5:15 AM
As a Trek fan (a couple notches below Trekker)and a Conservative, here is my reaction:
What a bunch of idiots! Star Trek is entertainment. It is a wonderful show/series/genre and I am sure Mr. Roddenbery (sp?)took great pleasure in the collective adoration of his work product. It's just a TV show, people. If you want to have a relevant discussion about the political message in a fictional medium, ask Robert Gibbs what fantasy book his clueless boss is reading.
Posted by: OtherBillC | December 30, 2009 6:42 AM
"Don't they have editors to weed out the insanely stupid stuff"
...is a typo and should read:
"Don't they have insanely stupid editors smoking weed and snorting stuff"
Posted by: MK | December 30, 2009 6:47 AM
I still can't believe they broadcast "Who Watches the Watchers" on air in the USA in 1989 with all the little kiddies watching it.
Posted by: aratina cage | December 30, 2009 7:26 AM
People are dumb, period. The guy who wrote the article at NRO is dumb. The guy who found it and posted it here is dumb. All of you people who sit here commenting about liberal this or conservative that, you're all dumb too! 85% of the population of this planet is too damned dumb to genuinely deserve the life they have. It brings me great joy knowing that I don't go through my day to day life with the idiotic concerns and manufactured stresses that you dumbasses think are so important. Enjoy your heart disease, aneurysms and road rage, you deserve it all.
Posted by: razorsharp | December 30, 2009 8:09 AM
Posted by: aratina cage | December 30, 2009 8:11 AM
I'm confused, isn't it trolling like this that's all about idiotic concerns and manufactured stresses?
*eyebrow quirk* Fascinating. So much effort put into writing a pointless comment insulting people for putting effort into pointless comments.
Posted by: Erin | December 30, 2009 9:54 AM
Most good Sci-Fi is social commentary -- this is, unfortunately, most often associated with liberalism. Think about science fiction films, tv, and books -- Stranger in a Strange Land, IRobot (Asimov not Smith), Equilibrium, Brave New World, Foundation, Fahrenheit 451, V, etc.
Most of the good stuff, the stuff we respect and remember, has a lot to do with social science fiction.
Posted by: Justin | December 30, 2009 10:01 AM
Everyone step off your high horse, including the NRO. It was a TV show, one I enjoy to this day, but a TV show all the same.
Posted by: Riker | December 30, 2009 10:51 AM
One thing to realise is that the majority of those in the Republican party, esp. tv commentators, party activists, and most elected officials, wouldn't know a real conservative if one stepped up and knocked their hat off. They are right-wing reactionaries, not conservatives. Barry Goldwater would leave the GOP of today.
Posted by: R Shannon | December 30, 2009 11:45 AM
Let's reserve the 2009 "Idiot of the Year" award for razorsharp! As a matter of fact, even with another year to go, I'm sure he wins it for the whole decade.
On a serious note, Riker - everything is always colored by the author's political views; and Star Trek was intentionally spreading those messages (and bless their hearts for that).
Posted by: RazorSharp's Momma's Pimp | December 30, 2009 1:23 PM
FTA:
"Wow, how....liberal those messages are. But if this conservative admits that peace, tolerance, due process and progress are "liberal messages" then doesn't that also mean that war, intolerance, arbitrary authoritarianism and regression are conservative messages? Nice to see that admitted to so openly."
That pretty much sums it up.
Posted by: Medisoft | December 30, 2009 2:46 PM
"... some objectivist (a la Ayn Rand) leanings to the show. Many plot problems were resolved via the invention of some new widget, parallelling Atlas Shrugged's use of John Galt's engine..."
Ayn Rand invented the McGuffin?
Uhm, no. I think the inventor was some nameless Sumerian storyteller.
But if Objectivism depends on the creation of magic problem-solving technology, that might explain its consistent failure in the real-world (see: A. Greenspan).
Posted by: rewinn | December 30, 2009 3:07 PM
"They are right-wing reactionaries, not conservatives."
And you think those two things are mutually exclusive?!
Posted by: daniel rotter | December 31, 2009 7:45 AM
The main reason I would have expected conservatives to favor Kirk over Picard is that ClassicTrek promotes the "manifest destiny" meme. Any time Kirk encounters a society that's not organized like us, it has to be overthrown and American ideals installed -- even if that society is healthy, happy, and stable to begin with. This is excused because of course it's not REALLY healthy or happy, the natives are just deluding themselves. Ptui.
By contrast, TNG visits a number of societies which are very different from ours and walks away leaving them unchanged, even when the society's values are more than a little squicky. And when Picard has to make irrevocable changes in the structure of an experimental society in order to rescue it from destruction ("The Masterpiece Society"), he recognizes this as being a less-than-ideal solution. In the ClassicTrek episode "The Apple", when Spock has the temerity to suggest that maybe the natives were happier as they were, he's laughed into next week by Kirk and McCoy.
Ferengi society as portrayed in DS9 wasn't "capitalism run amok", it was Libertopia. Everything is privatized, and society is pay-as-you-go -- none of that nasty ol' government interference.
And Richard Nixon would be considered a flaming liberal by today's Republicans.
Posted by: Lee | December 31, 2009 1:25 PM
This had to actually be 'observed' and stated by someone? It's incredibly obvious!
Need I be the one to point out that TNG is also chock-full of 'progressive' sexual undertones such as homosexuality, Riker's 'polyamorous ways', etc...
Of course, this observation will probably send some 'family' organization after the SyFy (Seriously, we can't spell out the abbreviation for 'science' now? [Sy]) network...
Posted by: VIIIWonder | January 1, 2010 6:07 PM
HA HA HA ha ha ha Oh yeah!!!! I just I skimmed the stupid article and scrolled to the comments with out reading anyone else's stupid commentary.
And who was that bearded Fat man?
Posted by: jerry | January 1, 2010 8:57 PM
I am a conservative and I am a pretty enthusiastic fan of TOS, TNG, and DS9; although, I could just never get into VOY or ENT. I guess I always saw Kirk, Picard, and Sisko as manly in their roles as captains; I also enjoyed how they interacted with their crews. I viewed Captain Janeway as a bitchy, overbearing, and domineering feminist. I saw Captain Archer as sort of a sissy - a Bob Saget in space. Sure, as a Christian, I realized that the Star Trek Universe is one where religion is a relic of mankind's past and where secular humanism, evolution, and socialism are proven and reign supreme. That's fine, though, because Star Trek - like the three aforementioned - is only science fiction. Having seen all the movies and most episodes of TOS, TNG, and DS9, I can say that very rarely, if at all, were secular humanism, evolution, and socialism ever crammed down the audience's throats. One show that is unabashedly liberal and that makes every effort to gag the audience with liberal propaganda is Bones - a show that I do not like. For the most part Hollywood is liberal, and if you're a conservative who likes to watch TV, unless you want to limit yourself to TVLand, you will just have to ignore the who's who list of big mouth liberal actors and watch television. As long as the show is not drenched in foolish, liberal bias, it can and should be enjoyed.
Posted by: Senatortombstone | January 1, 2010 11:28 PM
Well, well, well...so there is a little bit of liberal in everybody (except me), and it just goes to show how stupidity and publicity take precedence over common sense and due thought processes. As a Star Trek fan, I must say that I have not observed some liberal crap in TNG episodes. In one episode Picard reveals that people no longer use money or pursue material wealth to someone who is taken out of deep freeze from the past. In another episode Deanna becomes romantic with the leader of a society founded on eugenic alteration of their DNA. There are mixed messages about marriage, one minute it is conveyed that marriage is a primitive tradition, another minute you got people marrying. Picard believes that our real-world view of God is one who promises eternal sensual pleasure, and states that he believes in a greater higher power rather than the biblical God. So, yes, if you take it too seriously it is full of political mental masturbation, but hey what else is a Trekker to do on a lonely night?
Posted by: Douglas Gross | January 27, 2010 1:41 AM
In the background of most of the story lines of TOS and all the rest of the series, the need for money vanished when unlimited, extremely-cheap energy was finally accomplished with the usage of dilithium crystals to create and maintain a successful ongoing nuclear-fusion reaction, which is useful for warping space and making fasther-than-light speeds possible, and for making the energy necessary to create anything might people need from subatomic particles. Gold-pressed latinum appeared on the scene for the usage and exchange with cultures that didn't have access to replicative technology. It works for me...
Posted by: Bonnie Schofield | July 5, 2010 6:29 PM
I have seen a few episodes of "Star Trek", yet I never been a "fan". And while I am not a "conservative republican" in the strictest sense [I voted for Mr Obama], I don't trust "humanism" and "reason" will ever "save us". Mankind is basically evil and greedy. And Mr Roddenberry, being an "atheist humanist", never had the guts to admit it. "Humanists" are deluded if they think "science, reason and humanism" will save us. And that we have a "bright future" with humanism. And they criticize religious believers as "deluded"? Either they are joking, or are plain drunk. Humans are evil, by nature, with few exceptions. Nothing will save us. And "Star Trek" is totally fictional. I doubt we shall ever reach that "stage" promoted by this fictional tv, and movie, show. I tell it like it is. Sorry.
Posted by: Bruno53 | July 4, 2011 7:20 PM
Bruno53, Mankind is not "basically evil and greedy". We're a mess of conflicting impulses; some of which may hold sway over the others at any one time*. That's not evil and greedy. That's people.
In any event, I'll stick with science, reason and humanism over unscience, unreason and unhumanism.
* Spoiler Alert: Horny wins.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 4, 2011 7:57 PM
Well, keep "deluded", if you wish. Humans using "reason"? Ever heard of Dr Joseph Goebbels? Had a humanistic doctoral degree in letters and philosophy from Heidelberg University. Was also propaganda minister in Hitler's Third Reich. And was one of the minds of the mass extermination of Jews by the Nazis. Ever heard of Robert Oppenheimer and Edward Teller? Oppenheimer, a scientist, helped develop the atomic bomb, and approved the use of it on Japan [not that the Japanese military government was that "saint"]. And Teller helped develop the hydrogen bomb that can destroy New York City or Los Angeles with a five megaton bomb. It looks like scientific "reason" didn't help much. Sure, go ahead, make the excuses. But don't expect much from us humans and science. They have also failed like religions. You are young, I am much older. When you reach my age you will be disappointed like I am. I read history and see the truth of mankind. And indirectly you do "admit" we are in an evil mess when you say, "mess of conflicting impulses", and many of them have been EVIL. Forgot what happened in Rwanda in 1994, Klebold and Harris, 9-11 and the crazy Korean kid of Virginia Tech? I would never trust most of us humans, and I can see why. Humanism will surely FAIL!
P.S.: Read world history, and don't pay much attention to fictional tv shows like "Star Trek". As fictional as the "Looney Tunes" cartoons. At least the cartoons make me laugh!
Posted by: Bruno53 | July 5, 2011 11:21 AM
Burno53, #97:
Why not use your own comments as an example? If anything would demonstrate your point, you do!
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 5, 2011 11:24 AM
@Bruno53 -
Oh come on, that scene where Q appears on the bridge with a mariachi band? Hilarious!
Posted by: Imrryr | July 5, 2011 11:41 AM
Bruno @ 95:
First, I have to ask, why are you commenting on a thread that's been dormant for a year and a half?
Posted by: dogmeat | July 5, 2011 12:17 PM
Bruno53 "Humans using 'reason'? Ever heard of Dr Joseph Goebbels? Had a humanistic doctoral degree in letters and philosophy from Heidelberg University. Was also propaganda minister in Hitler's Third Reich. And was one of the minds of the mass extermination of Jews by the Nazis."
Odd. Except for you using the word "reason", I see no reason there.
"Ever heard of Robert Oppenheimer and Edward Teller? Oppenheimer, a scientist, helped develop the atomic bomb, and approved the use of it on Japan [not that the Japanese military government was that 'saint']. And Teller helped develop the hydrogen bomb that can destroy New York City or Los Angeles with a five megaton bomb."
Arguments as to whether the Bomb ended up saving Allied lives aside, are you confusing "is" and "ought"?
"It looks like scientific 'reason' didn't help much."
With great power something something something.
"But don't expect much from us humans and science. They have also failed like religions."
Lies! Nothing fails like religion.
"You are young, I am much older. When you reach my age you will be disappointed like I am."
Pah! I was disappointed long before I learned to crawl (my hopes were crushed when that bastard, Dad, stole my nose. Give me back my nose, you monster!)
"And indirectly you do 'admit' we are in an evil mess when you say, 'mess of conflicting impulses', and many of them have been EVIL."
No. We're a mess of good and bad.
"Humanism will surely FAIL!"
What's your solution? If it continues to be "nothing", then what will minimize harm? If that is also "nothing", then step aside, Uli Kunkel. The adults are talking.
"P.S.: Read world history, and don't pay much attention to fictional tv shows like 'Star Trek'."
I never liked Star Trek. There, I said it.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 5, 2011 7:14 PM
I really hit the raw nerves. HA HA! But as some say, "Truth really hurts". Time will give me the reason. And reading today's news I think I have a point. If you are "blind" of what I am saying, that's your problem. Tell me, do you see any ending of USA's conflicts in the Middle East? Do you see a possible soultion to our deficit? If you say "yes", you are deluded indeed. And you still "optimistic"? "Adults talk"? The adults are the ones who got us into this mess!
Posted by: Bruno53 | July 5, 2011 9:04 PM
Bruno53 "I really hit the raw nerves."
Sure. You sniping from the sidelines, saying "Pbbt! That won't work", followed by no ideas from you on how to make it better is kind of irritating.
"Tell me, do you see any ending of USA's conflicts in the Middle East?"
1. Get off oil.
2. Stop listening to the worst of Israel's hawks.
"Do you see a possible soultion to our deficit?"
1. Stop invading countries (or, at least, stop trying to pay for war with tax cuts).
2. Remarkably, do nothing.
"If you say 'yes', you are deluded indeed."
Unless you've got better ideas, you've got nothing. Bask in the light of your uselessness.
"'Adults talk'? The adults are the ones who got us into this mess!"
We tried talking to the children, but all they wanted was Batman costumes and ponies. Plus, they ate all our marshmallows and Cindy wouldn't stop crying.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 5, 2011 10:30 PM
1. Getting off oil? If the way oil industry and auto industry, plus defense industry run this country? You have NO idea what you are facing? Guess Capt Kirk and his pal Mr Spock never had it so tough. HA HA
2. USA has a long history of invading and participating in wars since 1812, or earlier? Do you think we can stop it now? Simple to say it, but DIFFICULT to accomplish.
3. Call me "useless" doesn't bother me. In my youth I used to have "sympathy" with Marxism-Leninism. But the contradictions, and confusions of many followers disappointed me. And it FAILED [Where were you when the Berlin wall fell? I bet you were a kid then] Humanism will ALSO FAIL!
4. Don't be so arrogant and humorless, I see. At least kids I never blame for the mistakes humorless adults like "you" make. Are you still watching too much "Star Trek" adventures and can't see the real world surrounding you? HA!
Posted by: Bruno53 | July 6, 2011 9:58 AM
Bruno53, #104:
All this just to tell people he doesn't like Star Trek?
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 6, 2011 10:45 AM
You know, it's amusing to see Modusoperandi, one of the more consistently funny commentators here at Dispatches, being accused of being "humorless". Modus, if you're reading this, you'd better step it up!
Bruno said-
Nihilists?! Fuck me, man. Say what you like about the tenets of Marxism-Leninism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.
I'm not sure what kind of TV show would appeal to our Star Trek hating friend here. Any show based off the Terminator series, for example, would be way too optimistic in it's outlook. Perhaps someone should get to work on an episodic version of I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream. There's clearly an untapped market out there, although, now that I think about it, I'm afraid the ending might be too uplifting.
Posted by: Imrryr | July 6, 2011 11:44 AM
Not really, as MO pointed out you haven't added anything to the (already dead) conversation beyond, "it wont work!" I asked you a few simple, straight forward questions and this is your reply? Rather pathetic really. Your solution appears to be to do nothing and bitch incessantly. As MO points out, that's vaguely annoying, but beyond that? Nothing new.
You'd have to actually say something of consequence to have said anything that could be remotely construed as "the truth."
Ahh, the great copout. Something bad will ultimately happen, at some point, somewhere, and that will prove my point whether it has anything to do with anything I've said or not. At this point you're up there with the idiots who keep predicting the end of the world. Empty hot air and bloviating. *yawn*
Wouldn't this also be proof of the uselessness of religion and the delusional nature of the religious? Your "why bother, nothing will work" response to problems remains rather pathetic and sad. Remaining in the science fiction genre, you're like the Marine Hudson from Aliens, "Game over man, game over!" Much like the characters in the movie, someone needs to slap some sense into you so you actually propose something useful rather than heckling from the wings.
Do you mean ever, or do you mean an immediate solution? Over the centuries the claim was that the Scots and the English would never get along, that the English and the French would never get along. That the French and the Germans would never get along, that the Germans and the Russians would never get along, that the Russians and the Americans would never get along (and would nuke each other to hell and back), that the Americans and the British would never get along. All of those claims have fizzled out and been discarded as the reality of those people setting aside their differences makes them almost quaint and amusing. Things change, things get better, people are recognized today to have rights that even a century ago "civilized" nations would argue they didn't have. Five hundred years ago they were burning people at the stake, hunting witches, and believed that the kings were divinely empowered to do whatever they want. The change in between is based upon the combined processes of humanism and reason.
First, there are a number of solutions to the deficit and the debt (remember they are two different but related things). Ending the Bush era tax cuts, withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, cutting defense spending to reasonable levels. All would have a significant impact upon the deficit. Fostering economic growth, restoring revenue, and reducing expenditures all are feasible and would both reduce the deficit and ultimately the debt. You seem to forget, probably your age, that we were running a surplus and paying back some of our debt just 11 years ago.
Again, what is your solution? So far all you've done is whine and claim nothing will work. For someone who claims to be "old" you certainly aren't wise. Also, as an historian and an educator, your understanding of World History appears to be quite flawed and incomplete (to be honest, I'm being charitable).
Posted by: dogmeat | July 6, 2011 12:12 PM
Dogmeat - to be fair Hudson was panicking, until Ripley reminded them all that Newt had survived for several months without weapons. - Dingo
----
My solution for all the world's woes:
Burke: Maybe we could build a fire, sing a couple of songs, huh? Why don't we try that?
:D
Posted by: DingoJack | July 6, 2011 12:26 PM
I stand corrected dingo, that being the case, it does seem that the the fictional character of Hudson is more useful and valuable than Bruno. Damn Bruno, it sucks to be you. But, nothing we can do about it, eh?
Posted by: dogmeat | July 6, 2011 12:53 PM
'Bruno, Bruno53. I'm from the Company, but don't let that fool you I'm really an OK guy'. :) - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | July 6, 2011 1:08 PM
Personally I don't mind being contradicted. Love the challenge. Let the other think of me whatevcr he wants. He knows not everybody can like him or me. That's life. What I find "amusing" is how much "humanists" accuse me of defending religions when I have not belonged to a religious organization since 1971! When I was a teenager. But I can see the possible "reason": deep inside of them KNOW "humanism" has no future. Is not realistic to the real human nature which is evil, greedy, stupid and arrogant. And living in denial to admit it. And us humans are a disaster using this "reason". For that Marxism failed. And for that anarchism and humanism will also fail. And to think I voted for Mr Obama, and will do it again. Much I hate a "Limbaugh" or a "Beck". They don't care for poor people and minorities. Yet why is it I seem to understand them BETTER than a "Hitchens" and a "Dawkins"?
Posted by: Bruno53 | July 6, 2011 8:34 PM
That's good, people who are wrong are generally contradicted. Better for you to be used to it and comfortable with it. Your next step will be to actually consider what they're saying and why they prove you to be wrong. Of course you'd have to actually say something of substance to be contradicted, but baby steps... baby steps...
First, I've been asking you questions, not accusing you of anything. You don't answer the questions, you fail to even make a meaningful attempt to do so, but you keep babbling. Do you have a point? Second, how would we know your stance regarding religion but for your comments here? So nothing will work? Then Imrryr's comment that you sound like a nihilist appears to be accurate. Since we're open to you being a multifaceted idiot, it really isn't necessary to pigeonhole you into a single type of idiocy, is it? On the other hand you could attempt to answer some of the questions posed to you and come up with your own solutions to humanity's problems. So far you remain Chicken Little, minus the cute fluffy chick aspect of the character.
Actually, no, it has more to do with your limited commentary and failure to provide any response of substance. I know history, I've actually studied it, and I know that humanism and reason are responsible for much of the improvements in human society. Your empty statement that it has no future is unfounded and without substance, it doesn't even merit the dignity of an opinion because you offer no real evidence to support the claim nor do you provide any alternative approach to the problems. At this point you barely manage being a "zero."
Human beings are many things. Some are arrogant, you're a case in point, some are stupid, at this point I'd have to say ditto. Some are evil, some are greedy. Others are modest, brilliant, good, and giving. Most are some combination of these factors and many more. You really need to work hard, get those gears spinning in that head of yours, and come up with some actual evidence and alternatives. The alternatives to humanism would be especially useful, it would suggest that you actually do have some value, perhaps even a positive one.
Posted by: dogmeat | July 6, 2011 9:53 PM
At least these guys, whether right or wrong in their issues, one can understand their "doctrines". But many "humanists" have their minds in some "Lalaland" of fantasy. Example: some Sanger, or Singer, talks "that we should never use animals to experiment medicine, or getting furs and eating them"?? In what PLANET this IDIOT lives? Or a "Dawkins" or "Hitchens" saying "religions must go"?? Do you think is so easy to get rid of 2 billions Christians and 1.8 billions of Muslims so "EASILY"??? And so many "humanists" falling into this immature opinions not based on reality?? So what they got "Phds"? At least Limbaugh and Beck defends big corporations and their greed. Or hate minorities. I can understand that.
Posted by: Bruno53 | July 7, 2011 11:35 AM
Bruno53, #113:
Jesus! All this just because you don't like a TV show? Get a grip, man!
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 7, 2011 11:41 AM
"Or a "Dawkins" or "Hitchens" saying "religions must go"??"
Well, yes. Illogical and harmful superstitions MUST go, else you'll continue to have wars over petty differences like "Is Allah the same God as the RCC God?".
Hell, we still have violence and deaths because one group think that the RCC Pope is the earthly representative of God and others deny it (though everything else other than that they agree on).
"Do you think is so easy to get rid of 2 billions Christians and 1.8 billions of Muslims so "EASILY"???"
Yes, what you do is every Christian increases the number of Gods they believe in by one, and every Muslim does likewise. They already don't believe in thousands of Gods.
Or are you asserting that the only way to change an Xian or Muslim mind is to kill them?
Posted by: Wow | July 7, 2011 11:44 AM
What's "with" the "weird" misuse of "quotes"? Is "this" the "new" crank alternative "to" random "CAPITALISATION"?
Posted by: Dunc | July 7, 2011 11:51 AM
@116 Dunc -
My guess is that his strange punctuation is an attempt to imitate William Shatner's manner of speaking.
Posted by: Imrryr | July 7, 2011 12:02 PM
You see, I am so "right". HA HA! Humanists do live in some "Lalaland" of fantasy. Already "Wow" gave what I was suspecting: get rid, IMPOSSIBLE I SEE, of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. And Christianity and Islam has billions of followers. And Judaism has a large number of members in many educational and media institutions. Gee, "thanks" for being so "candid" with your "honesty" "Wow" kiddo. Now, how do you propose do it? Do you have a way to "get rid of all religious believers"? The only way, "Wow" is to destroy the entire planet Earth, with them, me and you. Plus your "humanist" pals, boy. Maybe you pride yourself to be a "humanist" who reads "science and reason" with your high I.Q, "Wow" boy. Too bad that high I.Q. missed a point: what you propose will never happen easily. Besides being so bright, "Wow" boy, you are also UNREALISTIC and a DOPE! And mankind will continue fighting with or without religions. GET REAL, "Wow" boy!
Posted by: Bruno53 | July 7, 2011 8:37 PM
You see, I am so "right". HA HA! Humanists do live in some "Lalaland" of fantasy. Already "Wow" gave what I was suspecting: get rid, IMPOSSIBLE I SEE, of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. And Christianity and Islam has billions of followers. And Judaism has a large number of members in many educational and media institutions. Gee, "thanks" for being so "candid" with your "honesty" "Wow" kiddo. Now, how do you propose do it? Do you have a way to "get rid of all religious believers"? The only way, "Wow" is to destroy the entire planet Earth, with them, me and you. Plus your "humanist" pals, boy. Maybe you pride yourself to be a "humanist" who reads "science and reason" with your high I.Q, "Wow" boy. Too bad that high I.Q. missed a point: what you propose will never happen easily. Besides being so bright, "Wow" boy, you are also UNREALISTIC and a DOPE! And mankind will continue fighting with or without religions. GET REAL, "Wow" boy!
Posted by: Bruno53 | July 7, 2011 8:37 PM
Imrryr "You know, it's amusing to see Modusoperandi, one of the more consistently funny commentators here at Dispatches, being accused of being 'humorless'. Modus, if you're reading this, you'd better step it up!"
Sorry. Bruno53 has converted me to nihilism. I believe in nothing! (Including reading comments)
Bruno53 "Much I hate a 'Limbaugh' or a 'Beck'. They don't care for poor people and minorities. Yet why is it I seem to understand them BETTER than a 'Hitchens' and a 'Dawkins'?"
Because the limbic mind is far simpler than the chunk above it? Fear isn't all that complicated.
"Example: some Sanger, or Singer, talks 'that we should never use animals to experiment medicine, or getting furs and eating them'?? In what PLANET this IDIOT lives?"
Oh my! Sanger/Singer's a Morlok!
"Too bad that high I.Q. missed a point: what you propose will never happen easily."
Who said it would be easy? Did the abolutionists say it be easy? Did the suffragettes say it would be easy?
The longest journey begins with a single step. You gave up before that. What happened to you, man? It used to be about the music!
dogmeat "Others are modest, brilliant, good, and giving."
*blush*
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 8, 2011 2:29 AM
Just a friendly tip*, Bruno. You overuse quote marks. And caps. And it mostly just makes you look like a raving, hyper-emotional idiot.
*You see how that sarcasm came through just fine even though I didn't use quotes or caps lock?
Posted by: Leni | July 8, 2011 3:56 AM
Comparing to the suffagettes and abolitionists? What a "messianic" feeling! Let me congratulate these "daydreaming humanists". This time will be FAR MORE DIFFICULT than what they had. You are dealing not with one section of the country, like those abolitionists and suffraggettes of long time past [and forget how much Christianity INFLUENCE abolitionists and suffraggettes??], but entire civilizations like Islam covering a third of planet Earth, and the billions of Christians in Africa, Asia and Latin America, where is still going strong. But if you want to "break" heads on a wall, be my guests! And keep DAYDREAMING idiots!
Posted by: Bruno53 | July 8, 2011 12:31 PM
You're not very bright, are you? While one could argue whether getting rid of religion is a good, bad, or neutral idea, one really can't argue the fact that the number of non-religious people throughout the world has been increasing for decades. In many countries non-believers have become a majority, in others adding in "non-practicing" believers shifts the majority to those who are either non-believers or non-practicing. The vast majority of these countries are economically advanced, politically stable entities with high standards of living. What they've done is to generally reduce the impact and influence of religion upon political and social activities, which is part of what those who argue for "getting rid of religion" are talking about.
The more you comment, the more I understand why you don't care for humanism and reason, you're ill equipped for either and have apparently adopted a "sour-grapes" attitude towards both.
Final point regarding change, since you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept. Humanism has played a major role in the positive change of human society. Those countries that lead the way in equity and equality, quality of life, science and technology, and other areas of human endeavor are also the countries that have embraced humanism and reason. The countries that lag behind are generally those that embrace superstition and religion. Given the choice, it is logical to adopt more humanistic approaches to issues. Women and minorities weren't restored their fundamental rights until humanism shattered the existing ignorance of the day. It didn't happen over night, and in many aspects it isn't done, but the process has been successful. As mentioned above, slavery was once argued to be an integral part of any economy that could never be done away with. Today, slavery is illegal in every civilized country. Some humanists argue that religion should be eliminated (not all agree). The fact is that the influence of religion upon politics and society is consistently being reduced. The more humanistic the nation-state, generally the less influence religion has upon their society. So, your laughable argument that believers must be destroyed to follow this doctrine is, as most of your "arguments" have been, simplistic and silly.
Posted by: dogmeat | July 8, 2011 12:32 PM
You "humanists" take too much credit for things done in the past by people who would today totally disagree with you. But knowing how arrogant you idiots are, why be surprised? And as I said, "Truth really hurts". By the way, the countries you "claim" embraced "humanism" also have high suicide rates, low birthrates, high abortions, want some religions banned and also have a growing number of disastified young people. What "progress". HA HA HA
TRUTH REALLY HURTS! And go continue watching "Star Trek" fantasy and keep DAYDREAMING!
Posted by: Bruno53 | July 8, 2011 2:43 PM
Excuse me, but since WHEN humans are good in using reason? See my points, or not?
Posted by: BRUNO53 | July 8, 2011 2:45 PM
So your point is that because they aren't perfect we should disregard the fact that their quality of life is still better on average by almost any measure?
Well, aren't you just a shining beacon of inspiration!
In addition, some of the things you've mentioned aren't even bad. Declining birthrates are typically an indication of improved economic status. As women get better economic opportunities, they tend to choose to have fewer children and are better able to take care of the children they do have.
Abortion is, whether you like it or not, better for society than high teen pregnancy rates.
Did you know that US infant mortality rates are ranked 46th? For a country that claims to care so much about life we don't do a very good job of keeping people healthy once they are out of the womb.
And that's just the beginning of life. We also fall far behind other industrial nations on crime, life expectancy, income, education, health (i.e. obesity), teen pregnancy, drug and alcohol abuse, prison inmates. Then couple this with the fact that there are racial disparities in all of these categories- to the primary detriment of African Americans.
Yet you would have us believe that improvements in all these areas as achieved by other nations are worthy only of your scorn.
You know what you are Bruno? You're an asshole.
Posted by: Leni | July 8, 2011 3:29 PM
Bruno53:
Given the scare quotes around the word humanists, which group are you addressing instead? In addition, citations requested which empirically and independently validates that this unnamed group of people take, in your words, too much credit for things done in the past by people who would today totally disagree with you.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 8, 2011 5:03 PM
I admit USA has lots of social problems like obesity, alcoholism [and one "humanist" love the bottle: Christopher Hitchens! Nice "role model" you got!]drugs, crime, bad businesses that lack ethical attitudes and other ills. But humanism should also take the blame for these ills. We don't teach people responsibility, and "humanists", alongside "liberals" helped perpetuate that in this USA. They called it "oppression" to the masses. Now we are paying the consequences. But what about the countries "embracing" humanism? Just read how in Netherlands suicide rates go up, drug use is epidemic and a growing hatred toward minorities with religious believes they refuse to give up [whether from Indian, Philippines, Arabs and Asians], the same in Sweden. And they need these people because of their very low birthrates! At least an American Southern redneck is more honest with his bigotry. So "humanism" really is working? You answer it. And last comments: I learned : Humanists are arrogant but can't take criticism. Can't "dish it out"! Want to "eradicate" religions [IMPOSSIBLE I REPEAT!] and don't have a sense of humor.
P..S.: Back in the 1970s I remember marxist leninists extolling the then USSR, Eastern Europe and Cuba as "great societies" in the "development of man". We all KNOW what happened a decade later. Are you "humanists" repeating the same story in relation to Netherlands, Sweden and parts of Western Europe? Ahem, I think I heard it before! HA HA!
P.S.: My favorite tv show? "I Love Lucy". At least it shows me how ridiculous we humans are. And love the "babaloo" music! And Fred Mertz [William Frawley] is so cynical and misanthropic, lovable guy. Like me.
Posted by: Bruno53 | July 8, 2011 6:23 PM
Another example of what it looks when pigeons play chess. . .
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 8, 2011 6:27 PM
When it's relevant, yes. But then why can't it take credit for any of the good things that have come from progressive attitudes and humanist principles?
By the way, jackass, communism is not humanism.
Posted by: Leni | July 8, 2011 7:11 PM
And for the record, if you want to blame humanism for the suicide rates in various countries you should provide some evidence to back that claim up.
On the other hand, there is quite a bit of evidence that those same Scandinavian countries you decry as cesspools of suicide also report having much higher levels of personal happiness.
The highest suicide rates are generally found in the "eastern" European countries and Russia. Hungary had the highest this year, I believe. The rank social and economic problems there probably go along way in explaining that and, again, authoritarian communism is not humanism.
You'll note that some of the factors that Forbes article mentions are access to education, wealth, social safety nets, good infrastructure, and a large degree of social and personal freedom. These are all things that the socialist states have done fairly well at without major restrictions on personal freedoms. High taxes yes, but somehow they seem to do pretty well despite that.
Posted by: Leni | July 8, 2011 7:40 PM
It is useless to answer the misinformations of this "humanist" [and I bet he/she doesn't have to guts to admit misanthropy!]. And I don't trust the media in many things it says. Anyway, I have one small "example" of their rotten and cheap hypocrisy: they are against death penalties to rotten criminals, but LOVE to euthanasize old and sick people, promote suicide and help Chinese and Indians [from India, I mean]abort baby girls instead of baby boys. How's that? Humanists HATE MY GUTS! And I love the compliment! Bye, bye!
Posted by: Bruno53 | July 8, 2011 9:16 PM
Bruno53, #132: Bye, bye!
Bye. And don't watch so much tv. It doesn't seem to be very good for you.
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 8, 2011 9:19 PM
Bruno, you really, really, REALLY need to actually listen to what people are saying. It would do you a world of good.
You seem to think that your trolling has devastated everyone here with your incredible insights, while also causing incredible, bitter anguish to twist our bellies into knots.
The truth of the matter is that you have not made a single point of any kind, and nobody here really gives a shit about you.
You're not equipped to argue properly. You simply don't have the chops. From what I've seen there's very little chance of you developing them. Frankly, the most annoying thing about you is that your utter lack of basic logic and argumentation skills means there's no way for you to recognize how badly you've been whipped.
Posted by: Captain Mike | July 8, 2011 9:32 PM
Wow. That might just have been the lamest comeback I've ever seen.
FWIW, Bruno, I'm not opposed to the death penalty because I love criminals. I'm opposed to it because I understand that innocent people can be (and very likely have been) put to death. I prefer to err on the side of caution! You know- take the conservative approach instead of giving in to your emotional need for vengeance against a potentially innocent person.
Life in prison is a compromise a reasonable person should be willing to make. At least if evidence is found later to exonerate the person they'll still be alive to, you know, be exonerated. If they are guilty, oh well I guess they'll be in prison for the rest of their lives.
And you know what else, jackass? Plenty of religious people oppose it too. Some of them are even *gasp* conservatives. Just not thoughtless, self-righteous, hyper-emotional, reactionary, uninformed morons like you.
Posted by: Leni | July 8, 2011 9:41 PM
I think that Bruno53 needs a hug.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 9, 2011 3:02 AM
Not my wish to "come back". But I tell you this: is good to be pessimistic and negative to manking, or "humankind' if you wish [I hate political correctness language]. At least you never get much disappointed when things go wrong. Frustrated yes, but you get over it in a short time. And life goes on. And I don't take "hugs" from strangers.
Posted by: Bruno53 | July 11, 2011 11:14 AM
"... I don't take 'hugs' from strangers."
Well there's ya problem right there! :)
Bet you spend a lot of time locked in your basement listening to early Simon & Garfunkel, The Cure, Nick Cave etc.
What, didn't get a date for the prom and now everything's simply hateful? Poor little bruno-baby. :(
:D Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | July 11, 2011 11:25 AM
Really Bruno, you came back for that? Trust me, we are definitely underwhelmed.
Posted by: dogmeat | July 11, 2011 3:56 PM
Yea, the only thing I've noticed from these comments is that liberals love to demonstrate how smug and arrogant they are. We get it. You really do think you are superior to everyone that thinks differently, which hardly makes you people seem like well-balanced, rational adults.
Star Trek is a show...nothing more, and nothing less. At times it can be super preachy but anyone taking their life's lessons from Star Trek really has bigger issues to worry about. Yes there are many liberal messages from Star Trek but there are many right-wing ones as well. The show was so into 'space diplomacy' and seemed to have a penchant for stiff acting it was infuriating. I'm glad this last movie finally saw fit to blow some crap up and just take its audience for a ride; finally a Trek movie made purely for enjoyment. Does that make that last movie more 'conservative' because it was more violent? No.
Stop seeing everything as a right vs. left wing battle. Get over yourselves. Go live life. It's Star Trek. Just enjoy it.
Posted by: Amy | July 19, 2011 1:13 PM
So why didn't they put Newt in charge? :)
One of my favorite movies by the way...
Posted by: John Hinkle | July 19, 2011 1:31 PM
This from someone who begins her post with:
A little lacking in self-awareness, don't you think?
This from someone who breaks in on a thread from 2009, which has been dead for over a week, apparently just to trash-talk liberals.
Funny, the last guy who resurrected this (long-dead) thread (about Star Trek, of all things) also bashed liberals.
Posted by: DaveL | July 19, 2011 1:42 PM
HA HA! Norway is ONE of those countries where "humanism" has a complete control! One someone tried to tell me "how humanism" is working! HA HA Tell that to the people there killed by that maniac with his shootings and bombings! "Humanism" will NEVER work.
And while disliking "DaveL" political ideology [thanks for the "debt ceiling" no compromise!], I agree "Star Trek" is just fictional. And as fictional shall be taken!
Posted by: Bruno53 | July 26, 2011 2:11 PM
You are a clueless idiot, Bruno53. As DaveL explained to you, this thread is nearly two-years old.
Not to raise the debt ceiling isn't adult politics. It doesn't resolve the issues in any way.
PS: Norway and humanism seems to work a lot better than the US and your ideology.
Posted by: Chris from Europe | July 26, 2011 2:19 PM
And "Norway and humanism" is a hendiadys, of course, not a grammatical error.
Posted by: Chris from Europe | July 26, 2011 2:42 PM
Bruno -
Clearly, the only way we can have a perfectly flawless system with no chance of failure (nothing less will satisfy you, apparently) is to kill everybody in the whole world! That was the Wise Woman's advice to Edmund Blackadder, at least. I'd say she gives better advice than you, but only because you don't actually give advice or provide better alternatives, you just complain about how everything is going to fail. You're like Chicken Little, but with less charisma.
Posted by: Imrryr | July 26, 2011 3:07 PM
I am a pessimist. And I am no "superpatriot" neither. Anyway, it took Norwegian cops 90 MINUTES to reach the island! Read they didn't even have helicopters to send SWAT teams to be dispatched in an emergency like that. And forced to ask help from German, French and British police to investigate the bombings. Remember, while living in the island of Puerto Rico back in the early 1990s hearing a certain Italian "humanist" professor of social studies decrying, in a radio program, that the local police was turning too "military" in their training and fighting some heavy type of crimes [like drug dealings shootings]. Guess the "humanists" still live in some "Lalaland" of fantasy these idiots.
P.S.: "Truth really hurts".
Posted by: Bruno53 | July 27, 2011 2:21 PM
Is there some rational, logical reason why Bruno53 is trolling a 2-year old thread on a subject for which there are some actual recent posts on this blog?
I'm patient, I'll wait.
(Incidentally, since Bruno53's pagelink in his name goes to Yahoo!, I'm going to call Poe.)
Posted by: Composer99 | July 27, 2011 2:43 PM
Oh, well, if some random Italian humanist said it, I guess all the rest of us humanists must believe it (the same rule applies to tea baggers, libertarians, and religious folk).
As for the incident on Otoya, the police didn't have a helicopter available. So, you could argue that this shows what happens when budgets are inadequate for the task (hello republicans who want to slash the budget!). But then, helicopters are expensive and cost money to maintain, and Norway has what, 5 million people and a lot of coastline and islands to protect. But none of that really matters though, because even if the response had been timely, it wouldn't necessarily have stopped you from coming here and saying, "You see?! You see?! Humanism FAILED!" and sounding a lot like that alien from "Plan 9 From Outer Space"
In the end I still fail to see your point. This sort of thing could happen in a very religious nation, or in a police state. I don't see it as an example of humanism "not working", any more than it is an example of democracy "not working", or public education "not working". Yeah, democracies have problems, but I'd certainly rather live in one than live in a religious police state, even if it would somehow make me feel safer physically.
That's not the lesson I've learned from you so far. It's more like: "Listening to someone make blanket statements about humanists is annoying."
Posted by: Imrryr | July 27, 2011 3:09 PM
Wait, you mean as a pessimist you can't imagine how the militarization of police could turn out badly?
Posted by: DaveL | July 27, 2011 3:10 PM