tryanmax's Comments

Big Hollywood : The Politics of 'Star Trek': 'Patterns of Force'

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:57:01 +0000

"All the facts" would seem to suggest that it is you who are erecting the strawmen. I see no contest to the assertion that you would rather have your debate in retrospect. (I don't see how you can.) That's the strawman. Have fun knocking him down. BTW, sesquipedalianism doesn't make your argument any better, nor does martyrdom suit you.

Big Hollywood : The Politics of 'Star Trek': 'Patterns of Force'

Sun, 12 Feb 2012 22:08:24 +0000

Ah-ha! I see what is going on. You insist on having this conversation from a retroactive perspective rather than in the contemporaneous fashion that the topic was presented. Well, we'll never see eye-to-eye like that. I can see also that you go in for minutia. But as the name of the episode relates, we are dealing with patterns, not specifics of force in the discussion. I think, by your verbosity, that you are trying to exhaust me into ceding your point. That is not necessary. I cede it readily, which is to say I cede nothing at all, as your point drifts ever further away from the original topic of discussion.

Big Hollywood : The Politics of 'Star Trek': 'Patterns of Force'

Sun, 12 Feb 2012 06:52:29 +0000

keysmash - thumbs up! Mugato - I cannot make you understand what you don't.

Big Hollywood : The Politics of 'Star Trek': 'Patterns of Force'

Sun, 12 Feb 2012 06:28:28 +0000

It really makes one think, doesn't it?

Big Hollywood : The Politics of 'Star Trek': 'Patterns of Force'

Sun, 12 Feb 2012 06:24:49 +0000

Ah-ha! Yes, I was taking you to juxtapose things you did not mean to. I agree whole-heartedly that on the right (which I will use in light of the hanging question regarding conservatism) there is definitely a ramp up of rhetoric, especially regarding the notion that "now is the desperate moment before all is won or lost" as it were. While certainly some folks buy into that, and doubtless the talkers know this, overall I don't put much stock in rhetoric or trappings as definitive markers of anything. Action is the identifier, and I do believe that conservatives must act. That does not mean they act suddenly and capriciously. Bear in mind that a metered revolution is still a revolution though its outcome is not likely to resemble that of the spontaneous one. (see American Revolution vs. French Revolution). Do I mean that we are on the verge of riots and gunplay? I don't think so and I certainly hope not. But that is an eventual point on almost any line, so for conservatives to speak of it does not necessarily make them less conservative. The matter is more of whether it is appropriate to speak of such things. Somewhere in all of this, too, is a discussion of the softening of rhetoric. That is, the charged words of yesterday have lost electricity. "Revolutions" and "Warriors" are not in the mind's eye the epic events and heroic figures they once were. The "revolution" takes place in a row of curtained booths. The "warrior" is someone not shy in his politicking. Guns and flags and armaments are simply not intended by nor understood of these words any longer, no matter how much the opposition wants to conjure up notions that they do. There will come a time when we relearn the meanings of these terms, it may be far off or very soon, but the point is that we do not mean what these words mean right now.

Big Hollywood : The Politics of 'Star Trek': 'Patterns of Force'

Sun, 12 Feb 2012 00:01:04 +0000

I could go on quite a tear about how Fox News and conservatism parted ways some time ago. As to "social changes that are going to happen in the near future anyway," don't you think that rather underlines my point? If they are coming anyway, what's the rush? I'll tell you: the rush is the fear that the inevitable may not be inevitable, after all. (see: Mitt Romney)

Big Hollywood : The Politics of 'Star Trek': 'Patterns of Force'

Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:56:32 +0000

You may not care, but I totally predicted a comment like yours before I even read the article.

Big Hollywood : The Politics of 'Star Trek': 'Patterns of Force'

Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:55:12 +0000

Yes, but you are missing the point. The point isn't about Star Trek overall. In this case, it is specifically about Star Trek TOS and how, for a brief time in the 60s, the shifting ideology of the left overlapped with Classical Liberalism. Hence, the child of that fleeting union bears little semblance to the children that came later, TNG, DSN, VGR, etc....

Big Hollywood : The Politics of 'Star Trek': 'Patterns of Force'

Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:47:17 +0000

Capt, you have a point, but I think you provided your own counter in your last comment when you said "I thought this episode exposed what people thought Nazism was in the 60's."

Big Hollywood : The Politics of 'Star Trek': 'Patterns of Force'

Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:39:34 +0000

nolotrippen, LOL! "You sound like someone who would say 'black girl.'" Hilarious! And spot on, too!

Big Hollywood : The Politics of 'Star Trek': 'Patterns of Force'

Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:38:09 +0000

Mugato, you've basically just said "I'm right and you're wrong." You rely on your own understanding of terms and will not even be instructed as to what they might mean to other people who use them. You and I are clearly not of the same ideological bent, but you refuse to see me on my terms, preferring your own terms to make a caricature of me. Incidentally, you are wrong about "elitist" as well. By that definition, I would have to call myself an elitist, which I'm sure you can guess I do not. In any case, I'm not going to go back and forth with you like this, so unless you respond with something substantive, do not expect any more from me.

Big Hollywood : The Politics of 'Star Trek': 'Patterns of Force'

Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:56:14 +0000

If one sets out by confusing rhetoric with action, then the conversation is certain to collapse in short order. The naming of the Reagan and '94 "Revolutions" certainly does not equate the landmark events with the guns and violence of a coup. Indeed, they were revolutions of a magnitude that conservatism can bear, that is, very small as revolutions go. You yourself have to adopt a second term "neoconservative" to differentiate between what you clearly understand as the older, more staid form of conservatism and the brand borne by the johnny-come-latelies. I can't be certain what you refer to when you say that the NeoCons are cannier radicals than the New Left as I haven't seen much in the way of veritable radical activity from either side (OWS notwithstanding) in decades. As to rhetoric, puff and bluster does not necessarily make a radical--and oftentimes belies the opposite. Finally, in a way you raise the million dollar question hanging over this entire discussion. Are all who call themselves conservative--Tea Partiers included--really conservatives? If everyone is allowed to name themselves, the names become almost entirely meaningless. Then it's just a matter of choosing sides before the bout. (Thumbs up, BTW, for the insightful response.)

Big Hollywood : The Politics of 'Star Trek': 'Patterns of Force'

Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:03:46 +0000

Wrong. Conservatism is not the antithesis of progressive, at least in the sense of mere progress, nor is the word "progressive" a slur among conservatives. The fact that you call it "some sort of slur" admits that you don't understand the phenomenon. What is held in disdain by conservatives is the Progressive Movement, a political movement marked by a desire for change of its own sake. Simply put, whether good or ill, the political progressive will work to upset the status quo no matter what. There is no denying that political progressivism made social gains in the 1960s, but at the cost of certain liberties. Conversely, political conservatism does not oppose change, it only asks that it be paced and reasoned and, ultimately, developmental rather than merely different. Some may argue that certain issues are too pressing for that. Yet here we sit, atop 5000 years of recorded human history, unjust all of it, and still we remain to sort it all out. Patience is not only a virtue for a man, but for mankind as well.

Big Hollywood : The Politics of 'Star Trek': 'Patterns of Force'

Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:19:36 +0000

You are assuming that efficiency is the only marker of success, but I doubt you would find many historians and probably fewer military men who would tell you that the most efficient fighting force always wins. Admitting the efficiency of the Nazi's is no affront to conservatism. It is merely a fact of their otherwise onerous regime. As to the "Prime Directive," you are mixing up TOS with TNG and judging Kirk against the more restrictive later version. While one might choose to see the directive as an expression of moral relativism, it hardly is. Noninterference is simply that, and the converse would be for the Federation to select winners and losers among lesser-developed cultures, hardly a conservative principle. Finally, I might suggest that you are asking a bit much in the way of resolution for what is ostensibly a morality tale. Strictly speaking, yes, the episode does leave some loose ends, but tying them up would lead only to drudgery of DS9 proportions. You must realize this on some level, as you ultimately decide to judge this episode, not on its own merits, but on those of Roddenberry's entire body of work. That's rather like judging a diamond by the stones it was found among.

Big Hollywood : The Politics of 'Star Trek': 'Patterns of Force'

Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:40:58 +0000

One thing is for certain, whatever the turnaround time is, it will be almost certainly greater so long as conservatives in general hold ill attitudes toward academia. While I was growing up, I heard nothing but disdain for the "ivory tower" and came to regard it as something that conservatives should have nothing to do with. It wasn't until I was older that I came to realize that if conservatives really do have nothing to do with it, then we will have ceded the next generation, and the next, and the next. I wonder how many self-described conservatives still hold academia in contempt with no intention of doing anything about it?

Big Hollywood : The Politics of 'Star Trek': 'Patterns of Force'

Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:21:23 +0000

If one may point to a turning point where Classical Liberalism gave way to modern liberalism, I think a good marker would be FDR's 1941 SotU, where he outlined his "Four Freedoms." 1. Freedom of speech, 2. Freedom of worship, 3. Freedom from want, 4. Freedom from fear. It's those last two that really muddied the waters, because "of" and "from" are very, very different in this sense, though they can be synonymous in others. (I've often wondered what the implications are for languages that have the same word for "of" and "from".) That is not to say that progressivism wasn't on the march long before 1941, only to offer a tangible marker of where one philosophy overtook the other. To tie this back into the conversation, I don't see it as any coincidence that the FDR and WWII years were a time of great American nationalism. Sure, there may have been some very good reasons for why it took hold, but those are merely reasons of understanding, not justification.

Big Government : Red State Voters: The Chink in Romney's Armor?

Thu, 9 Feb 2012 03:46:59 +0000

Whatever, you're sliding the conversation around a bit. In any case, Santorum is far more wanting than Cain ever was where it counts. By that I do not mean issues like abortion or gay marriage which the president has little to no control over. I mean areas like fiscal policy, where we are in dire straits as a nation.

Big Government : Red State Voters: The Chink in Romney's Armor?

Thu, 9 Feb 2012 02:16:55 +0000

So he was vetted and found to be not conservative? I'm just trying to sort out your reasoning.

Big Government : Santorum Delivers but Non-Binding Results Offer Little

Thu, 9 Feb 2012 02:14:03 +0000

Unfortunately, the reason why Romney can't run against Obamacare is because too many people have bought into the story that it was based on Romneycare. Obama himself gave that one away when he crowed that the Dems have been trying to get healthcare passed for over 100 years. It's like saying the smartphone is based on the cellphone while denying that landline phones ever existed. But the real bottom line is that, while Romney was governor, Massachusetts was going to get healthcare. Period. The legislature wanted it, the state healthcare industry wanted it, and most importantly, the citizens wanted it. Romney’s veto was worthless against a 90% Democrat legislature, so his options were: 1) Wash his hands and stand in symbolic opposition to what would have been HillaryCare or 2) Get his hands dirty and try to make it as conservative as possible. The Heritage Foundation offered the individual mandate idea as a free-market alternative to HillaryCare back in the late 90s, and by all accounts, that is where Mitt took his cues from. Normally conservatives would be clamoring to vote for a politician who takes cues from Heritage. *sigh*

Big Government : Santorum Delivers but Non-Binding Results Offer Little

Thu, 9 Feb 2012 01:55:17 +0000

I don't know what you mean by "in word" but if you want him to say it out loud or put it in writing, he has done both. You state the problem well. People are convinced that he is big government and Santorum is not. The facts are no longer considered because everyone has already been convinced.