Great Links: Body Painted Trekkies + LOL Spot + Trek or ED Pill Quiz + TNG for Liberals Only? December 29, 2009
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Great Links, Humor , trackback
The week between Christmas and New Years tends to be a slow news week and so a few Star Trek related links have gone viral and are sweeping around the internets to fill the void. We have naked Trek bikers, LOLCats Trek, A quiz on Trek and Pills, and some politics (gasp!).
Star Trek Body Painted Bikers
The dinnerinthedarkroom.tumblr.com site has posted a NSFW Image of a bunch of Trekkies who decided to paint their uniforms on, see below (click image to see the uncensored one).
The final frontier of clothing optional
(click to remove pixelation)
Although the image was just put on dinnerinthedarkroom site this week and only yesterday ‘went viral‘ being picked up by dozens of other websites, it turns out it isn’t new. The first instance (and higher res version) seems to be from the chan4chan site in July.
UPDATE: Photos identified + more found
Thanks to TrekMovie reader Michael Hanscom, the photos have been identified as coming from a group of Trek fans at the 2009 Fremont Solstice Parade on June 20th, 2009 in Seattle, WA. More photos of the bikers can be found in this Flickr Gallery.
Click for more images (uncensored)
Quiz: Star Trek Character or Erectile Dysfunction Pill
MentalFloss, the site ‘where knowledge junkies get their fix’, is counting down their top daily quizes of the year and coming in at #6 is a tough one: Star Trek Character or Erectile Dysfunction Pill?. It isn’t as easy as you might think.
Are you an expert?
LOLSpot
Was all that too risqué for you? Well then how about a kitty cat? Yesterday, the king of LOLCats sites icanhascheezburger.com found out what you get when you combine LOLCats with Data’s Cat Spot.
IcanhasSpot
Conservatives not supposed to like TNG?
Remember 10 days ago when we reported Patrick Stewart was being knighted? Well that news swept around the web as well. But one site had an interesting take. The conservative National Review Online posted a ‘congratulations‘ to Patrick Stewart, but then threw in this:
I confess myself amazed that so many conservatives are fond of [The Next Generation]. 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).
Note to NRO, there is nothing ‘amazing’ about people from all points of view loving Star Trek: The Next Generation, it is a great TV show. And since when are all conservatives against peace, tolerance, due process and progress? This strange comment was picked up by Fark, who called out NRO for a ‘FAIL’ and "insulting" Jean Luc Picard. The comment has also been picked apart by Washington Monthly, and a number of other blogs.
My view is why do you have to turn Star Trek into politics? Patrick Stewart was knighted, and that is cool. TNG was a great show, which is enjoyed by people from the left, right, center and everywhere in between. Do we now have to have some kind of litmus test where only one political leaning can like a show? If Ronald Reagan can hang out with Captain Picard, I think all conservatives can handle the 24th century.
Reagan visiting TNG set
Loading ...
Comments»
The body paint is great and all, but why outside?! It must be cold.
Why do we have to have political discussions about Star Trek? Because Gene Roddenberry used Trek as a platform for his views, and in the generations since many different authors have used Trek as a platform for thier political views. Just recently I came across a Trek novel that had a “dedication” that so angered me that I almost threw the book out.
Also let’s not forget the Fan made Trek episodes that push a view point on various social and ethical viewpoints.
If you have any doubt the Gene was not against using Trek as a vehicle for his views, read his novelization of The Motion Picture. His views on traditional marriage are very much on display there, and from all those who knew him, he practiced theses beliefs in real life.
In regards to the political-ness of Star Trek and its fans: I must confess that I had previously assumed that there would be few “conservative” Trek fans. That is until I began interacting with and reading the thoughts of other fans right here on this site. I’ve been surprised to find so many “conservative” fans. I would think the money-less and god-less nature of the show would be quite unappealing to fiscal and/or religious conservatives.
ok politics…touchy subject….and of course, that only my opinion.
I don’t think I would want to see Picard in that outfit. 7 of 9 is another story however…
Comments like that one are so… well, wrong. I’m from the left and I’M insulted by the comment! Don’t diss the right with dumbass comments like that. TNG is for everyone!
The body paint is great and all, but why blurred bodyparts? It must be paphetic.
Of course Roddenberry had some liberal views. But does that mean that it should be ‘amazing’ that conservatives can watch TNG?
From feedback on this site and from fan sociology research done by my friend John Tenuto, the evidence shows there are certainly lots of conservative Trek fans. And I find it bothersome that a leading conservative site is trying to say that Star Trek isnt for them. Do people have to watch everything through the prism of their own leanings. Can’t people even handle being exposed to other points of view, even via the allegories of the 24th century?
Personally i keep my politics and entertainment separate. I don’t have to agree with everything i watch and in fact enjoy being challenged in my beliefs. But usually I just try and enjoy it without reading into the agenda of everything
It’s not that Trek can’t make commentary on present day problems, it’s the boneheaded assumption by some pundit that only people of a certain political stripe would ever be fans.
Ronald Reagan actually visited the TNG set. Perhaps even the Gipper was a fan?
Im a moderate and independent and I love all things Trek. I can vote either Dem or Republican and to be honest. The Far Left and far right scare me a lot. Love the Naked trek stars. Seen the girls on other sites and they are simply Hot. Also. Is there any Video of Presedent Reagon Visiting the Tng Set. Would love to see that.
I have to admit that the political leanings of some Trek authors have made me enjoy their writings a lot less. I can think of several Trek authors that whenever I read what they write I approach it with great reserve, and I generally enjoy their writing much less hat I use to before I read some of their personal blogs.
I think Star Trek all in all is pretty much in the middle as far as polatics. I.D.I.C to me pretty much sums it up. But there will always be people that try to push Trek to the Left or to the Right. Those people you havt to watch out for.
Why is it any time I offered to body paint a highly detailed Star Trek uniform on a lovely fan…I got a drink in my face or needed bail money?
(Must be doing something wrong. Rassem Frassem….)
Who cares about the political message? What does he mean Picard is more hard@ss than Kirk? It must be the stick…
Naked Star Trek Bicycle People and Ronald Reagan in the same post?
My head hurts, a lot.
I think I can need a cheezeburger now.
Given the 206 area code on the banner visible at the top right of the bodypaint image, there’s also a good chance that the photo was taken at the Fremont Summer Solstice Parade in Seattle, which has become locally famous over the past few years for always beginning with a large number of nude, nearly-nude, and bodypainted riders.
Actually, a quick Flickr search led me to a few more shots of the same group (all NSFW), all taken at the 2009 Fremont Solstice parade. Go Seattle trekkies! Trekkers. Whatever. :)
Too right Anthony. Congrats Jean-Luc – from a center-right Conservative.
Star Trek is for everyone.
No one can claim it as their own.
thanks Michael, updated article with more images from Flckr
Star Trek is very liberal with liberal messages…….its the liberal future…..The only reason to deny that is to make it more commercial. By the way thats all just fine by me
Lol, I live in Fremont in Seattle – on the Solstice Parade route, even. But I had to work that day and missed it. To those younger and hornier readers: Seattle chicks never ever wear makeup and Fremont chicks in particular ain’t nothin’ to look at twice!
I’m from the Seattle area, as well, and Izbot is right!
Now those are TNG scenes I like.
and 12
I thought my brothers and I were the only ones who used Flintstone cursing…Rassem Frassem….ha funny.
In many ways, Star Trek is a very liberal show – perhaps to its very core. This is particularly true of the original series and TNG which were both heavily influenced by Mr. Roddenberry who held many liberal views. This is not to say, however, that these shows are simply about being liberal because there is so much more complexity to the stories and characters than mere reduction to political ideology would have us think.
I agree with “Capt Mike” insofar as the extreme Left and Right seem to get many issues very wrong and it takes a broader perspective and a willingness to work with others to meet the needs of society. If anything, this is what we see in the Federation. In the end, it’s about the people who struggle forward together, not ideology, that saves the day. Sure, nifty technology and science are nice, but the best episodes flourish based on the strength of its characters and the bond of their friendship.
But maybe that’s why I like Deep Space Nine so much…
How sad that anyone can let a political party dictate their entertainment.
i will find the girl in blue and make her mine. bwhahahaha lololol
Very strange post.
As a card-carrying member of the vast right-wing conspiracy, I am a big fan of NRO.
I am a MUCH bigger fan of Star Trek: The Next Generation, which was probably the most intelligent, most involving, best-written series of standalone episodes ever to grace American TV screens.
Now, I don’t care very much for the patented Picard Speech in “Who Watches The Watchers?” but, other than that… what’s wrong with hope? Granted, irrational optimism is not a conservative principle… but neither is dogmatic despair!
Clearly, Mr. Potemra needs to see “The Best of Both Worlds,” “The Inner Light,” “Yesterday’s Enterprise,” and “Darmok.” That’ll cure him of this silly idea.
Am I the only one who finds the naked Trekkie bikers extremely creepy? And a bit embarrassing? Or is that just my conservatism flaring up again?
I am a diehard conservative. The real kind, not the Bush/Cheney/Neocon kind. I supported the defensive war with the Dominion. I would not have supported going through the Wormhole, freeing a planet from the Dominion, and spending countless lives and resources teaching them the Federation form of governance, just to ensure having an ally in the Gamma quadrant. O:-) Sorry, tangent. I can accept Star Trek for what it is, good fiction, good characters, great franchise.
There are many liberal AND conservative points of view expressed throughout the various incarnations of Star Trek. BOTH points of view are often made by the main characters in heroic or inspiring moments. Some times they are a little more subtle and can be easy to miss. It is understandable to me that one can be confused as to the “liberal” nature of the show. But that is not the true message of Star Trek. The show is about people working together despite their differences toward a better future. As Captain Mike said “I.D.I.C”. Anything less then that suggests to me that someone just wasn’t paying enough attention.
“And since when are all conservatives against peace, tolerance, due process and progress?”
Thank you for that.
I consider myself being left, but in fandom I’ve met a lot of people with different views, even conservatives and became good friends with some of them . What’s wrong with it? We could discuss politics and just before killing each other we would switch discussion to STAR TREK or else. Those discussions widened my horizon and my understanding for other peoples opinions. There were and always will be people with different opinions. No one in the world holds the absolute truth. We must get along somehow, because the other one may be right, too.
P:S. i dont’t like racism. There should be no discussion.
#3 :: “.. I would think the money-less and god-less nature of the show would be quite unappealing to fiscal and/or religious conservatives. …”
On the contrary. Whenever I get the opportunity to do sermons at church, I love throwing in a clip or line from Star Trek. Then again, this is coming from the girl whose pastor can do a sermon on “The Lion King”…
I consider myself left-leaning (although I am not able to vote yet) but.. really, who’s to say what’s what? Why do we have to be right and left; liberal and conservative? Why can’t we all just be Americans (or whatever) looking to better the world through a common cause? That’s what Star Trek is about, if you ask me. Yes, we can all argue that Gene Roddenberry used ‘Trek as his way to put his political views out there, but personally, the Federation seems like a pretty nice place to live in. It’s the story of how we must work together despite our differences. Isn’t it?
And now I need to step off of my soap box. Ahem. Sorry.
30, 31 – Here here !!!!
Oh, just one more thing:
I thought the LOLcats thing with Data was amazingly cute. Spot was my favourite little kitty in ‘Trek, anyways. So cute~! I now need to make that my desktop background. xD
Maybe this could be the trend for the next movie or TV series’ uniforms??? Bodypaint replaces clothing in the 23-24 centuries! Forget zippers , snaps & buttons… even velcro, …. now all we need to do is take a sonic shower after work to cleanse away any dirt & grime and then proceed to the Spa? to have our suits repainted on! Not to mention we need not take our clothes off to have sex, wash, or toilet… how efficient we will be! LOL!!! All I can say is these are courageous young people to wear these non-outfits! to think i worry about shedding a few pounds to fit into the figure-forming Trek uniforms of the day, and these people are wearing even more unforgiving skin-tight non-uniforms that reveal not only wrinkles and pounds, but also one’s twig & berries & other assorted goodies!!! Live Long & Diet! Live Long & Exercise!
I am conservative, yet I LOVE Star Trek. And I don’t care what Star Trek is TRYING to talk about, the thing is, they aren’t showing the politics full force.
Off topic. Star Trek had the 7th most viewed trailer of 2009.This was on Yahoo.com.
Bring me those chicks!!!!
@22
I’m glad there’s someone out there who recognized the Fred Flintstone grumble.
Got 80% on quiz :-)
As a conservative I’ve always found TNG somewhat distasteful. While TOS harbored a hopeful view of the future, it understood that maintaining order and justice required a constant effort, brains, entrepeneurial freedom and a little military might.
TNG seemed to assume that somehow humans had simply morphed into altrusitic angels who simply had to educate the bad guys with goodwill and platitudes. The show seemed to lack a basic understanding that all creatures are primarily driven by their own self-interest.
#28 I’m a bit of a conservative myself. In the wormhole situation I’d have blown up the dang thing and nipped it in the bud from the get go. Crap on the Gamma quadrant. Of course a major plot device would have been eliminated from the series making for dull television but the war would have ended.
I don’t believe Star Trek is more fitted to any “one” political party. This is one of the few arenas where we can come together in agreement about something we all love for good reasons. Sometimes, though it’s often hard to do, we have to put “ourselves” aside in order to have an open mind while maintaining conviction. Star Trek is full of convictions. That’s one of the things that makes Star Trek so cool. It brings people who care about the world we live in to the table to discuss how we believe it could be better. That concept is both liberal and conservative.
I am right of center in my political views (which describes about 40% of the nation with 20% identifying themselves as liberals in a recent poll & the rest independents and don’t knows) and Star Trek has rarely “offended” me. I thought there were times they actually presented both sides of issues in a fair manner. Picard’s statement about not destroying the Borg through Hugh is one that pops to mind: “The moral thing to do may not have been the right thing to do.” (or something to that effect)
Does Star Trek, especially TNG, represent a liberal utopia? Yes. Although it never says how they got there. I always wondered if there was some dark secret behind the scenes to create that paradise since basic human nature does not seem to have changed throughout recorded history.
Star Trek is meant for everyone. I am not very interested in the political views of Roddenberry or other people in the various series. Anyone on the extreme right or left on ALL issues is wrong in my book.
Kirk to Spock in TUC: “We’re both extremists. Reality is probably somewhere in between.”
I don’t even want to think about what you have to do to remove weiner paint.
I’m a conservative and have been all my life and I’ve loved Star Trek all my life. Trek is about something bigger than politics–it’s about humanity.
Yeah honestly Star Trek always has been political in one sense or another, and usually (especially in the case of TNG) much more liberal, so after reading posts on here I my self was surprised at how many conservatives are fans. I guess maybe the bigger message is to keep an open mind and not let a political party define you.
Theirs never a person who’s TRULY liberal or conservative. I think everyone has a certain balance of both in todays age. Although, i must admit i lean heavily towards the liberal side, the fact of hte matter remains, a person should respect both ideals. TNG is not truly a liberal show anyways, it actually balanced both sides of the spectrum pretty well ! Klingons are actually heavily conservative people and i must admit, we had a strong mix of conservatism in the show.
What i’m trying to say is that , TNG sends a balanced message of liberalism and conservatism. The message is not solely for Liberals. The message belongs to everyone.But non the less, that comment is b.s. Everyone can love TNG.
LOL @ Censored picture.
@ 47.
I completely agree with you.
I think we can come to a general consensus that star trek’s main message is to keep an open-mind to the unknown !
#46 and #47 :: Amen. That’s all I can say. xD
Wow. Trek body paint. Now that is a new one!
I presume this is latex paint, in which case, I can’t imagine it was very comfortable … the skin can’t breath or sweat. Of course everybody had to be shaved clean everywhere, or get a nice hair-waxing afterwards.
As liberating as it was, I wouldn’t want to ride a bike without something between me and the seat – there are certain parts of the body that just can’t be painted. And without a pad, it would be uncomfortable for me, I can’t imagine how it would be for a guy, especially with all the bouncing around.
How far did they ride anyway? I wouldn’t want to be bouncing around up top like that for long either I can tell you.
Being a bit on the conservative side myself and a die hard trekker it has long been my belief that neither the liberals NOR the conservatives can survive without each other to keep them in check. If this country was all liberal there would be anarchy likewise all conservative there would be tyranny. The liberals need to remind the conservatives when not to fight and the conservatives need to remind the liberals when to fight. The truth is we need each other and THAT was a message in TOS. The big 3, brawn, brain and heart were constantly there for each other to make sure that they didnt follow their inclinations too far. Its a good lesson, especially today.
by the way, there is a new poll on the right column asking for where you lie on the political spectrum. So far the results show a good balance, including many right leaning or conservatives…take that NRO!
Mr. Pascale, I think TNG is a great show as well. Do you have a favorite episode?
Well, I’ve been a ST fan all my life and I’m also a conservative. To be honest, I’ve never looked at Star Trek through either the lens of conservatism or liberalism. I’ve always enjoyed Star Trek for the stories, the relationships between the characters and the hope that it portrays. In the grand scheme of things, who among us, liberal or conservative, wouldn’t want to see peace in our world? The trouble is, liberals and conservatives disagree on how to get there. I think Star Trek has always shown both sides on this issue, the “conservative” idea of “peace through strength”, since no Star Trek Captain has not been unwilling to use the phasers when necessary. On the other hand, ST has also shown the “liberal” side of being willing to sit down and talk. Sadly, in our world today, the idea of “sitting and talking” doesn’t always work for the simple fact that there are those who do not wish to have a dialogue. They only wish to destroy us. Sure wish it weren’t that way.
Anyhow, at it’s heart, Star Trek has always been great entertainment with thoughtful stories. I think the message of hope has always been a nice bonus. Perhaps someday, it will be a reality!
Interestingly enough, the statement made by Star Trek 2009 was extremely “conservative,” given the traditional left-leaning ethics of the preceding series and films.
Given that the underlying allegory to contemporary social issues is that of a zealot in possession of a weapon of mass destruction, the message is quite clear: if the guy is dangerous, can’t be reasoned with, and shows genocidal tendencies with the ability to carry them out, you hammer him with everything you have (including the aforementioned weapon of mass destruction) until you’re sure he’s dead. No capture, no trial. Deadly justice.
That sounds like a moral more apt to be espoused by the right leaners than the left leaners, and I found it an odd moral in a Star Trek movie. Even Wrath of Khan took the conservative moral of Frankenstein and turned it liberal by suggesting at the end that the Genesis planet was essentially a triumph of human ingenuity.
In my opinion, the idea of Star Trek was to blur the line between liberalsim and conservatism by embracing all sides of the “political spectrum”. As a whole “Star Trek” can’t be placed in any category because of the grrey areas explored by all the shows. TOS leaned slightly to the right with regards to intervening on other worlds. TNG often did the opposite, but with a few exceptions such as the blockading of the Romulan supply line in “Redemption Part II”. Deep Space Nine embodied both. The Dominion War required Captain Sisko to be willing to sacrifice many thousands of lives in the name of freedom and liberty while refusing to allow Admiral Leighton to roll back basic freedoms enacted by the Charter. Deep Space Nine also allowed liberal characters such as Quark to express their disdain for war. Voyager was probably similar to TNG, while Enterprise was similar to TNG and Voyager early on while embracing the DS9 and TOS philosophies during and after the Xindi conflict.
I find it bizarre that in this day & age, even in prudish America, female nipples have to be hidden, but male nipples don’t have to be.
In all the Star Trek series, there are left-leaning episodes & right-leaning ones, though on balance they tend toward the center-left. Keep in mind that the scope of politics in the U.S., including in the poll on this site, are essentially flavors of the center — liberals aren’t particularly to the left, and neither are conservatives particularly to the right in the overall political spectrum. In this context, it is not especially surprising that Star Trek, being an American show, represents the culture it is based in. The only representation of truly right-wing politics is rendered in starkly negative light: namely the Terran Empire of the Mirror Universe. I understand certain interpretations of the Borg regard it as an equally starkly rendered parable of Communism taken to its “logical” conclusion.
Here’s a few examples to illustrate my point:
TOS – rightish – “The Omega Glory”
TOS – leftish – “The Cloud Minders”
TNG – rightish – “Conspiracy” (unlike in most TNG, there’s some serious Xenophobia on display here)
TNG – leftish – “The Neutral Zone” (exchanges between Picard & Offenhouse)
DS9 – rightish – can’t think of one offhand
DS9 – leftish – “Past Tense”
and so on…
On another note, its good to see people not resorting to political trolling or claiming to be offended by “mature”subject matter, i.e the pictures of naked people wearing beautiful body paint in the patterns of Starfleet uniforms.
#59 DS9-rightish-how about “In The Pale Moonlight”? Justification of a murder of an individual in exchange for the survival of millions. A lot of liberals would never consider doing that. Picard definitely wouldn’t. Even Kirk probably wouldn’t. Janeway wouldn’t but Archer might.
59. DS9 – Right: That’s too easy. “In the Pale Moonlight”
As an extreme social liberal, who conversely is pretty draconian when it comes to crime and is a strong supporter of the military, I’m glad that so many are able to find a common ground in Star Trek. There is no “one-size-fits-all” political ideology and hopefully, there never will be.
I cant beleive all you guys are just talking Politics when there are NAKED trek girls in front of you! All of which are really cute and have really nice bodies! If your trying to prove your really a nerd, you doing a good job.
Man I want to meet these girls, especially the red shirt girl. She is toooo cute! The back two have incredible boobs. These girls I want in my life!
#62 A couple of those girls do look underage. I feel kinda dirty for looking at them.
#62 :: Ah… Excuse me, but I, Miss Christine, am a girl, and aside from my artistic side that needs to learn how to do human musculature… I have little interest in naked women. Or men, for that matter, since most look a little old for me. (Or a LOT old.) However, their body paint (on the guys and the girls) is really amazing. Honestly, I’m impressed.
Besides, they might be really ill-mannered or just plain mean. But how can I talk? I’m not a man. xD I couldn’t know!
The Trek character or Dysfunction Pill was amusing…
I got 9.
I screwed up on one VOY character, but I got the TNG ones right. So wrong.
PS: Love the LOL Spot. Is there a LOL Neelix?
#64 Christine: Isn’t it past your bed time? :-) Heh heh!
“My view is why do you have to turn Star Trek into politics?”
It’s a bit late now to _turn it into_ politics, isn’t it? It’s also too late to ask Roddenberry why he did so (I prefer to suppose the obvious answer, which is that science fiction is traditionally _about_ stuff, and that the most universally explored sciences in science fiction aren’t physics or chemistry or astronomy or biology, but rather sociology, anthropology and psychology … all of which will lead to political topics, sooner or later, and more often sooner).
Anyway, Star Trek has included strong political themes from the original series onward, so it’s not like this is something happening just now.
I do agree that political “camps” should not determine what someone enjoys for entertainment, and furthermore I feel that political camps amount to a destructive abdication of reason in most cases (and science fiction should not, as a general rule, celebrate the abdication of reason!), but Star Trek is, and has always been, political.
@ 7. Anthony:
In my view, you cannot turn Star Trek into politics because it already is political.
As an entertainment vehicle, Star Trek has been used to deliver political and social commentary for over forty years. The medium and the message are intertwined, linked, bound and not easily separated, as is true with the art of Woody Guthrie, Frank Lloyd Wright, Bob Dylan or U2.
This in no way diminishes the ignorance of the NRO excerpt. They may be a current leading voice in the movement, but this is not your grandfather’s conservatism.
Mike Potemra, the author of the NRO piece, is 46 years old. His article offers insight into the modern conservative mind set as well as the tribalization and hijacking of the movement by ideologues who now circle the wagons under the NeoCon banner. Clearly, this is not Theodore Roosevelt’s or Eisenhower’s conservatism.
His inability to grasp why conservatives would like ST:TNG illustrates the ‘Us vs. Them’ mentality so prevalent in opposing political bubbles inhabited by some on the left and the right.
Perhaps there is something to the old saying “If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain.”
Could it be that Conservatives enjoy ST:TNG because it makes them feel young again?
of course there were political messages on trek (as noted by others they varied). My point was, does watching star trek have to become a political act? Where NRO is wrong is that fans can see past politics and just enjoy the show. If you look at our current poll, it shows that Trek fans span the political spectrum, and that is a good thing. There is nothing ‘amazing’ about it.
I’m a bit baffled. I’m not into the intricacies of political entrenchments inside the United States, so my question may be a bit naive:
NRO considers “peace, tolerance, due process, progress” liberal values… meaning conservatives do not value these things??
Am I so liberal that I can’t imagine any sane person not valuing peace and tolerance or is NRO giving us extreme right-wing bullshit here?
For instance, I always thought that individual liberty is a core value of US conservatism. Wouldn’t that imply tolerance anyway?
I recently went back and watch all the TNG’s, and I was actually surprised at how left-leaning the show was, so I don’t have a problem with the “blurb” from the National Review article. I think it’s pretty spot on, as a matter of fact.
That said, I still love the show. And I love the borg with the body paint, too. ;)
TNG has a more ‘European’ sensibility to it than TOS. It was always more about consensus-building and equal time for all than about 1 guy and his 2 friends making decisions for everyone. Less “cowboy diplomacy” and more informed (and time-consuming) collective decision-making, along with presentations and debate.
It implies greater ‘checks and balances,’ but, in the end, when we ignore those, we tend to fall off the deep-end more often than not.
There was one guy I worked with a few years back that would always question me about weather Earth in Star Trek was socialist because of the one world government & non use of money. I always side stepped the question to avoid a Kobiashi Maru type argument by telling him whatever the Earth government has done has worked better than any system we have today with no wars or poverty in generations.
@70 — Actually, it is Patrick Stewart who is identifying “peace, tolerance, due process, progress” as the liberal message of TNG. Like all quotes, Patrick Stewart’s is taken out of context, but if anyone is presenting these values as contrary to those that conservatives profess, it is Patrick Stewart, not National Review Online.
I’m sure NRO would dispute that peace, due process, and progress are values unique to liberals and contrary to the belief system of conservatives; they would probably contend that conservatism is the only sure way to attain those goals, and that liberals are deluded as to how to reach them. As to tolerance, that is another story — conservatives themselves admit to disdain for the “melting pot” and would like to see America’s borders tightly secured.
You say, “I always thought that individual liberty is a core value of US conservatism. Wouldn’t that imply tolerance anyway?” The question is, who is entitled to that individual liberty? Many Americans, and certainly all the conservative ones, are loath to grant individual liberty to those who aren’t already considered American, and would like to revoke the individual liberties of those who could be considered “Unamerican” in their values. Contradictory? Yes. Welcome to the “land of the free”.
In conclusion, Holger, as to “the intricacies of political entrenchments inside the United States”, it is best to avoid them if you don’t have to deal with them. That is my advice as a natural born citizen of the USA.
#9, I’m with you. I’m conservative and I find the comment strangely ignorant and equally insulting.
#74, it’s easy to judge what you don’t truly understand. Observing elephants from afar, you might be prone to believe they’re just big dumb animals. You’ve got to get in there and study them up close. Get to know them a little. But be forewarned…you don’t want to get stepped on.
“And since when are all conservatives against peace, tolerance, due process and progress?”
I agree wholeheartedly. I am more of a libertarian than a conservative but I loved TNG. Yes there were liberal themes but as long as Star Trek is never used to preach and is used to make you think about issues it will always have me as a fan. Besides, the NRO is a neocon rag and neocons like Bush/Cheney are far from true conservatism.
Long Live Star Trek for all of us who enjoy good stories, action, and the human adventure.
@75 – Present an actual argument, and I just might take all your bluster seriously… but probably not. You see, I truly believe that I must know my enemy, so I have read plenty of National Review articles, if you must know — if only just to ascertain how to refute them.
Isn’t painting everything with a broad brush go against what Trek is all about? Labels just tend to silo everyone into particular groups which often leads to blind hate and misunderstanding rather than dialogue and debate.
With that being said, the closed mindedness of Klingons was truly refreshing at times. :)
I’ve never been extreme either way, conservative or liberal but I have leaned more to the gop than the dems. I think for anyone not understanding how there are so many conservatives that find TNG appealing may not fully understand what most of them truly stand for and that many Reps. and Dems. really want many of the same things. For some it’s just one side or the other and one side is bad and other good. The 2 people I dispise the most are Alec Baldwin and Rush Limbaugh, neither would even consider another point of view and that is what TNG was all about, seeing both sides of the coin, exposing the darkness as well as the potential for good. I probably relented on much of my heavier conservative ideals because of Star Trek but not so much as to switch sides. With that said I just have to say anyone that can’t enjoy TNG for political reasons is simply a loser.
@62
I’m with you Craig! I didn’t even realize there was another part of the article cause I stopped at body painted bikers….and all the extra pictures of the entire event at Flickr.
I guess I should really try to grow up one of these days.
Naw.
me, i’m hopelessly liberal, more so in this political climate. but gene was a pretty hard right winger in my view. the enterprise was forever phasering the bejesus out of whatever got in it’s crosshairs, hated space hippies, and would’ve gone full-cheney on the klingons if it weren’t for those cowardly organians, etc, etc.
harlan ellison’s primary disagreement with gene was indeed a political one as well.
nevertheless, i do love trek, am open to most right wing concepts, willing to listen to conservative ideas (those poor little buggers), and have some faith in the future of mankind. i think gene was what would be called a “fake republican” by the tea party folks now, though.
I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a more conservative soul here in this forum than yours truly – I’m a hard-core conservative Republican and a deacon at a Southern Baptist church. Yet I have been a life-long fan of Trek from TOS to the new movie, and most efforts in between.
Were there political overtones in Trek? Of course. But at its best, it never preached nearly as hard as, for example, the terrible latter-day episodes of the venerable classic MASH. It set a table of circumstances and let you sort out the differences, at least most of the time.
There’s little doubt that Roddenberry endorsed a socialist philosophy – common hunanism, limited or no private ownership, communal “good” (but how this notion paid for something as inevitably expensive as a fleet of starships is another matter). But, too, Roddenberry was a manifest capitalist in his own right, clamping tightly to royalties and any other leverage to do with financial elements of Trek.
The fatal flaw in Trek, at least TNG trek, was Roddenberry’s iron-will of absolute non-conflict among the broader element of humanity. Without conflict, all of humanity is this bland confluence of homogeneity, which couldn’t be less desirable nor more distant from reality.
Next to my children playing in the snow on Christmas day (which is rare treat in Texas) this is my favorite Christmas image of the year. Hands down.
“Do we now have to have some kind of litmus test where only one political leaning can like a show?”
Well, one need only browse the posts at sites such as this to know the status quo amongst contemporary Trekkies. Roddenberry’s own words speak for him, God rest his soul.
They are a product of their age; “political correctness” — a term invented by Lenin, apparently — does not adequately describe the mentality and the steps taken to enforce it. I wonder, since PC-like behaviour is much more pronounced in technical people, if it stems from dealing with machines, formulae and theory all day long, rather than flesh-and-blood men and women and the practical realities of life itself.
Machines, after all, do as they are told. Men have free will.
Sincerely,
C.S. Lewis
Once an old-fashioned Liberal democrat, now an opposition elitist, to coin a phrase.
@ 74 “Actually, it is Patrick Stewart who is identifying “peace, tolerance, due process, progress” as the liberal message of TNG. Like all quotes, Patrick Stewart’s is taken out of context, but if anyone is presenting these values as contrary to those that conservatives profess, it is Patrick Stewart, not National Review Online.”
I believe you are incorrect. This statement was made by Mike Potemra, author of the short article on NRO. Patrick Stuart is not quoted in the article at all. Here’s a link to the article if you don’t feel like scrolling…
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGI2MTQ0Y2YyYTI4MDI5NWRjYTQ0MzIzYzkxZTk3M2E=
If he was quoting Stewart, he made no mention of that fact.
I have to chime in and agree with those who found Mr. Potemra’s characterization of conservatives to be thin and unflattering. I lean mostly to the left myself but, my God, who in their right mind would NOT want to be associated with the ideals of “peace, tolerance, due process, progress”? If I were a republican with a NRO subscription, I might be cancelling right about now.
“Personally i keep my politics and entertainment separate. I don’t have to agree with everything i watch and in fact enjoy being challenged in my beliefs. But usually I just try and enjoy it without reading into the agenda of everything”
Dear Mr Pascale,
While an admirable Liberal position, it is naive in a fundamental way. Since the 1930s, especially since the 1960s, the political Left, driven by COMINTERN and “fellow travellers”, have striven to manipulate public thought and therefore the course of politics precisely by using the various media to propgate a certain perspective while denigrating the status quo.
It generally takes the form of unrelenting, grinding criticism of a sort no earthly being or ideal can withstand — and despite any good it might have served. Other times, it uphold unwise but tempting end-states as a goal but not in good faith. It does so simply to discredit the existing goals of a society under attack.
Star Trek was certainly a vehicle for this. Roddenberry’s life is well known and he worked actively to destroy the very elements that gave him success and an audience. This ability was geatly muted in the original Star Trek, as American society owuld not tolerate an open Communist call. By the 1980s, the “New Left”’s take over of American institutions such as academe, the church, and many political bodies had changed the range of permissible dissent from radical propaganda such as presented in The Next Generation.
Absent dissent, weak minds are apt to go with the flow which was from the Left. Poor conservatives were self-censored into a losing battle to preserve only the lowest-common denominator of their once dominant culture.
Uncritical thinking is unthinkable when the subject is an enemy to “Progress” — but mandated as to “Progress” itself.
In the case of Star Trek, this espeically ironic as so much of the 1960s series dealt with the danger of authoritarian regimes, even and especially at the level of conscience and belief, and the “Non Interference Directive” is the polar opposite of the entire American Cultural Revolution of the 1960s/1970s.
One might wonder as to the genesis of terms such as “anti-racism”, “tolerance”, and the associated nomenclature of our present ruling caste.
Read the works of Marx and Lenin to see their true purpose and origin.
The violent responses against even the most mild “conservative” protests, even at this site which is subject to censorship, ought to prove that self-censorship is a reality imposed by Pavlovian conditioning, itself made possible only by the abuse meted out by the entertainment/news industry that serves as the primary enforcement arm of our communistic ruling class.
By the way, I one knew Dave Horowitz personally and heard much of this natural history from his own lips. He freely confesses to his family’s heritage as Soviet spies sent to America in the early 20th C to work to undermine the American civilization and political system. You might profitably read his autobiography, “Radical Son” to learn just how much politics masquerade as “art” and how all aspects of our life have been relentlessly politicized in the successful effort to reengineer, through Revolution, the American way of life and the Western Civilization of which it is a vital part.
Sincerely,
C.S. Lewis
^85 nscates
“but, my God, who in their right mind would NOT want to be associated with the ideals of “peace, tolerance, due process, progress”?”
As alluded above, those are the battle cries of the Red Left and those in their “right mind” understand perfectly well that they mean something quite specific, quite different from their vernacular equivalents.
Indeed, one need only read Lenin’s admirably blunt, “What Is to Be Done?” to see what exactly was meant, what exactly was intended, and what exactly the originators of those political terms did in the slaughter of as many as 80,000,000,000 human lives.
I realize this is a risky attempt, but I will try to bumpersticker those words for you, in the hope you would take this attempt seriously and use it as a springboard for your own investigation — requiring a mind as open as possible, given it is my (our?) contention that several generations of political indoctrination and discipline make this a suicide mission for those such as me who dare it:
PEACE: This means, absence of opposition to the various battles for the liberation of the proletariat. Since the Marxist economic model was so thoroughly discredited, the battle has shifted to marginalized groups as they can be identified as ripe for agitation. Presently, this includes a familiar list of women, homosexuals, ethinc minorities, immigrants, and others that stand to gain from the overturn of the status quo. This also explains the hysterical propaganda surrounding anything tangental to these groups: it is political theatre, and political discipline that informs any that oppose the Cultural Revolution they will be crushed and killed — if not in body, certainly in reputation.
Even kings of old dared not dictate the content of a man’s mind! yet this is exactly what the current (Marxist) ruling class would do to us today. And they are rather successful at it.
TOLERANCE:
This is a canard. It is not possible as there are certain items that are simply dangerous to human well being, either immediately or over time. What is meant by the Left when they pray “tolerance” is simply this,
“Let us in. Do not oppose us.”
However, invariably, this courtesy is not extended in reverse. It is a tactic, a trick. You yourself use it in the above quotation.
DUE PROCESS
I presume this applies to Gitmo’s Camp Delta, but it is an article of faith beyond reason so I will not address it.
PROGRESS
Progress is also a uniquely Communistic ideal at odds with traditional conceptions of civilization. Its roots are the scientific determinism of Marxism, which posits a fixed course of tyranny, oppression, revolution and subsequent paradise. It too is a canard, a trick, and it is inextricably tied to the “New Soviet Man” project and its laughable pseudo-science Lysenkoism, which preached that Man was perfectible and political beliefs could be passed to the next generation through genetic endowment.
While Lysenkoism itself has gone to the dust bin of history, its cousins mainly the Frankfurt School and various other school of false psychology endure today, mainly in the form of generic “political correctness”.
These are all tricks. They are perhaps akin to judo as they exploit cherished beliefs of a target population to use as weapons against them. “You speak of tolerance, yet you will not tolerate this!”. Sadly, they are effective but the abysmal educational system prevents any means of comparison or reference. Thus the unfortunate subject must rely on the word, claim and “evidence” of the very people who lead the attack against the target culture. This is also why the past is spoken of only in the most derogatory, dismissive terms possible – to discredit it in the mind of today. Why? What is wrong with “turning back the clock” etc? This is not the stance of confidence – it is the stance of a con man.
Ask yourself this: Why would any one, sane or not, deliberately stand against the unrelenting, permanent abuse of persons such as yourself, simply to defend a way -of-life that is pointless?
He wouldn’t.
A man stands against the Red Left and its proxies because he believes in defending a way of life and a people that are good and worthy of defence.
That experience alone, the incredible personal cost borne by “conservatives” in today’s America (let alone Europe), ought to convince you of the gross merits of their cause. We it worthless, I guarantee you, I would be the first to join in for the sex, drugs and rock-n-roll and get mine while I could.
Sincerely,
C.S. Lewis
I learned back in 7th grade never to discuss politics and religion. The first I never do on these boards….not even in a poll. The second, after a recent health scare, I’ve become a little more upfront about…but usually only if that door is opened.
It might just be me, but does anyone understand what the heck C.S Lewis is ranting and raving about? He seems to have gone off on another tangent.
i am not sure, was i just called a naive communist?
if so, lighten up cupcake
#90 HA! “Lighten up, cupcake” should be put on the front of a T-shirt.
You could sell alot of them with the TrekMovie.com logo on the back!
How about it Anthony?
I like the pic with Regan and Picard!
I don’t know if Mr. Lewis is the ancester of John F Paxton or what? Terra Prime to you mr Lewis. And strange did jesus teach,tolerancelove? Very strange. Trek Godless? Not likely they practice what is preached. But the I guess loving your nieghbor like jesus said makes Him Liberal?
@85 — You are right. In rereading the quote above, I see I misread it.
Oh, look it’s a leftist admitting he was wrong… CS Lewis will be perplexed for sure.
@70 — Holger, now that I stand corrected, I have to revise what I say above. It is true, the NRO quote does sound like it’s putting “peace, tolerance, due process, progress” forward as contrary to conservative values. That does surprise me, it sounds like they’re shooting themselves in the foot, but I haven’t read the full article.
Nevertheless, everything else I say in #74 stands.
I grew up in a very conservative, rightwing Republican, religious family. There was church every weekend and a crucifix in every bedroom. Family members worked for Exxon and had memberships to the Knights of
Columbus. Loyalties were to God, Country and the NRA. I still remember waking up at 3am as a child to go to the church parking lot to meet the charter buses that would drive six hours to the annual Right To Life marches in Washington DC every winter. I consider myself to be well versed in the conservative ideology. My thoughts here focus more on ideologies than political parties, since parties are less static.
The core tenants of conservativism are traditional values, religion, nationalism, and maintaining the status quo. These have been hallmarks not just for decades but for centuries.
Since there is such resistance to progress and societal evolution, the conservative ideology would be hard pressed to ever get the human race to a future anything like the space-faring, secular humanist, science based culture in Star Trek. Or at the very least, through the belief that societal change should occur in small, gradual increments, as opposed to sweeping change on a grand scale, it would take centuries longer than it would take the progressive ideology to achieve.
With respect to the conservative/liberal paradigms, debate usually degrades into stereotypes:
“Conservatives are warmongers, liberals are pacifists.” While both groups have their fair share of each, neither of these simplistic generalizations encompass the full spectrum of ideologies. There are variations of each throughout their respective ideologies and “reason” does indeed lie somewhere in the middle.
Furthermore, the labels of conservativism and progressivism are constantly evolving. For example, a modern day conservative from 2010 might feel very comfortable and confident in supporting interracial marriage or interracial relationships. But if you were to put that same conservative into a time machine and send them back to the year 1940, they would find out quickly that the conservative movement of that time would have no place for such a belief system. Supporting interracial marriage in the 1940’s was considered to be part of a radical far left agenda. Over time, it was the progressive movement that was
responsible for making interracial marriage acceptable to modern society. But without that push, a push that came even from Roddenberry in the 1960’s with the first “passionate” interracial kiss on television
(at a time when a majority in the conservative movement was still against such a thing), society would still be where it was in the mid-twentieth century.
Humanity once believed that the earth was flat. It then maintained that the earth was at the center of the universe and that the sun revolved around it. That was the status quo for a very long time. Through science, and rejection of religious dogma we evolved. Today, almost 400 years since the persecution of Galileo by the geocentric conservative authority of the time, modern society and modern conservatives alike accept the reality of a much larger, and much more diverse universe.
Whatever one’s belief about Star Trek, whether it is just entertainment or something of more substance, at it’s heart it is political. Because it is ultimately an examination of the human condition. I am thankful for liberals like Gene Roddenberry (and Rod Serling before him) for breaking through and reaching out.
As a long time conservative, die-hard Dittohead, and a life-long Trekkie, it is my concerted belief that Rush Limbaugh is a Star Trek fan.
Not saying he’s a card carrying Trekkie, but whenever he makes a Star Trek reference, let’s just say he speaks the language too well to not be an enthusiast.
I tend to agree that Trek has many appeals for liberals or even socialists.
Just count the facts about Earth in TNG Trek:
- free medicine
- free food
- free housing
- free education
- “we work only to better ourselves”
- “we eliminated the need to be rich”
In Classic Trek there still were the Federation Credits – but in TNG Trek and after the Federation only seems to use any kind of currency only for deals with powers outside the federation. In DS9 Starfleet personnel uses Ferengi Gold Pressed Latinum – Jake confessing to Nog that he has no money – and generally no need for it inside the Federation.
Concluding that the Federation uses no money inside its territory concludes there must be some kind of rationing production for the citizens – no one could have 500 private shuttles. One way would be personal quotas for each good like in socialistic countries – however I think the qoutas on everyday goods are nearly unlimited due to food and industrial replicators – and thanks to fusion and antimatter reactors the power aplenty to power those.
I enjoy breasts.
#82
“Without conflict, all of humanity is this bland confluence of homogeneity, which couldn’t be less desirable nor more distant from reality.”
Clearly spoken by someone who is a member of every majority group in your country.
What’s more dreadful than reading C.S. Lewis? Reading a fake C.S. Lewis.
Get over yourself bro.
98: If memory serves me correctly, it was only stated (several times) that there was no money on Earth. It was not said that there was no money in the entire Federation.
BTW, I find body painting somewhat creepy. As Master Yoda said: “Be nude or be clothed! There is no paint.”
Or as I say: I like breasts as they are.
@101: +∞
I’m a progressive who’s traveled a political road from pretty far to the right (thanks to my conservative upbringing) to far left (thanks to escaping my small hometown to see the real world) to center-left (thanks to growing up and realizing that neither side has a monopoly on good ideas), but through it all there has been one constant companion in my life: Star Trek.
Star Trek is neither Democratic nor Republican, leftist nor rightist, liberal nor conservative. It’s **progressive** in the purest sense of the word. It’s what we hope the world to be someday, and yet it often manages to cast a reflection on the society we live in today. At its best, it’s thoughtful, rollicking good entertainment. And even at its worst, it’s still better than most of the crap on TV or in theaters these days.
Live long and prosper… and Happy New Year!
I’ve read about half of the comments, so this might have been stated already. After that post on NRO several other pundits jumped in with comments to the effect that TNG (and this was pretty much all about TNG) was a pretty left leaning show, but Picard was a reasonably conservative character (I’m not sure I agree with that either, but it was a fun thread of debate). For those that haven’t already read it, NRO did a Star Trek week a couple of years ago: http://www.nationalreview.com/category/?q=YjY0NjgxZTcyMmJkODRmYWRiYjc3MmE4YWRmOGZlZjk=
It’s also a very legitimate (or at least often asked) question. My office is festooned with Trek stuff and my lean to the right is just as well known. Right after “why is WALL-E your favorite Pixar film?” I get asked “How do you still like Star Trek?” Because it’s a great great show. Heck, I loved BSG until the Pegasus showed up.
Why does Star Trek have to get political? Um, go watch Farpoint again and let me know when Ollie North shows up.
And for the poster that called the right “the enemy”: Nice IDIC there. [Quinto]Live long and prosper.[/Quinto]
Nicely said Scott. Now back in your hole to finish Doomsday! (I kid! I kid!!!)
I’m more conservative, although I would be more likely to describe myself as libertarian if asked.
TOS always seemed libertarian to me, rather than liberal. It’s characters learned, compromised and made mistakes. Also, while Kirk could speak up for the Federation viewpoint, the likes of the Organians were perfectly happy to choose to disagree with him.
TNG was blatantly liberal and included all the worst aspects of the modern liberal stereotype: unfailing optimism coming from the viewpoint that they’re correct and everyone else is wrong and boy! do they preach endlessly about that! Also, they usually love to interfere with people’s lives . . . except when they willingly commit genocide in Homeward! I guess the inhabitants of that planet were too primitive for them to take any interest in! Starfleet in the 24th century is very very arrogant!
TNG’s politics, indeed, are the key reason I don’t consider it ‘proper’ Star Trek. I like the show, as a sci-fi series about a future utopia, but I wish it hadn’t stolen the name and iconography of Star Trek as it’s too different.
It’s ‘world view’ and its philosophies are, at times, polar opposites to TOS. Also, TNG only pays lip service to being military: it is more like corporation with Picard as the chairman and Riker the CEO, with Troi as head of Human Resources. Kirk was a soldier, not a diplomat, as he stated to the Organians. The Enterprise of TOS feels like a military vessel crewed by soldiers, the Enterprise-D is more like a 1970s lounge-bar-c um-hotel.
TOS had entrepreneurial freedom, freedom of religion (including among humans), finance and a strong military. The way women behaved when Kirk was around reflected that: he was a handsome, single, soldier who had brought his ship into port.
I come from a port city: younger local women still get goosebumps when the ships come in and go looking for boyfriends and husbands among the sailors! And there was certainly an economic structure in TOS. To this day the nonsense in TNG of there being no money (a joke in STIV, being misunderstood by certain types who need to get a sense of humour) is knocked down by the simple question: how does a Federation citizen buy a beer in a non-Federation bar?
Unless of course what many of us suspect is the truth has happened between the Kirk era and the TNG era: a dictatorship or oligarchy has risen in the Federation that outlawed all religion, presumably killing or imprisoning everyone who disagreed, banned finance, creating a Soviet-style regime where everyone, including corporations are owned by the state and travel outside of Federation borders is limited to Starfleet’s ‘diplomatic military’ and criminals.
Look carefully at TNG and you’ll see that, among humans, music seems to stop at the mid-20th century (Jazz is OK but no one listens to heavy metal, glam rock, the Beatles or Elvis!) literature stops in the 1940s with Dixon Hill, there is little evidence of human art, no counter-culture, no drop-outs, no anarchists, no secessionist parties who want Earth to leave the Federation, little evidence that the Federation president is voted for by civilians or indeed whether there are many civilians for that matter!
There is a series that tells the story of what life in TNG’s Federation is like, of course! It’s called Blake’s 7!! ;)
107 Dom: Yeah, yeah, what a convincing portrayal of the future TNG imagined. Why do you have to go to such extremes? What you are doing is the same as a liberal-minded TNG fan misrepresenting the conservative attitude as inhuman, barbaric, merciless, cynical social-darwinism. Sort of the Klingon Empire, TOS style, coming to think of it.
Please note, I’m definitely not doing that. I’m just trying to show you how the conservative view you commit yourself to might be misrepresented in turn.
As the poll goes, “Liberal/Progressive” here.
After a strict conservative upbringing it backfired on me and I pulled a total 180.
I’m sure TOS & TNG had something to do with it.
I was a TOS fan first, but Star Trek: The Next Generation is by far my favorite.
Not only the best Trek series, it’s one of the best series in the history of television.
Conservatives have been telling me for 20 years they don’t like TNG.
I’ve never had a problem understanding why.
By the way, I discovered last night that TNG is back on TV in NYC (Channel 11).
It’s on at 3:00am, but at least it’s back.
#10 – I agree with you 100%
I don’t see the lack of money in TNG (except amongst Ferengi with Gold-Pressed Latinum) as political or socialist…
In that imagined future, energy is cheap enough to be free. Replicators can provide every daily need. For everything else there is probably a barter economy for things like physical services and artisan crafts or organically grown food.
Without a need for human labor and opportunity cost to provide basic needs, a money-less society makes sense. But, Star Trek has always been inconsistent since they mention a monetary unit called credits, Ferengi have a currency, and people like Cyrano Jones, Harry Mudd and Arne Darvin make their “meager” livings trading or scamming folks.
I’m politically conservative and know lots of politically conservative fans.
I also found I enjoy/respect a few Trek authors less because I found out about their radical left political leanings. I’ more concerned about their intolerance of *my* views, as opposed to any intolerance I might have towards theirs.
I too disliked a recent novel with a politically biased dedication, and naming of a starbase. It just seemed out of place to me.
Star Trek is my escape from our real world into a hopefully, better more hopeful workd. I’d prefer to leave all real-world politics behind.
I imagine we need men like Dick Cheney in the future or else us Earthers would end up all speaking Klingon while they had their way with our women….doh.
Dick Cheney IS a Klingon!
But I think you’re missing the point: nude people in trek paint!
Although considering how much he built up his financial empire via the wars, Cheney is more of a Ferengi.
I had to laugh when I read that NRO blurb about how TNG is so horrible for embracing “due process,” among other things. Due process is one of the things that is enshrined in our Constitution and embraced by both liberals and conservatives.
Ditto with peace, etc., and other things…. although, I must say, the martial values ARE often associated with conservatives. (But even so, no conservative, I daresay, anywhere to the left of Attila the Hun would disagree with the idea of PEACE through strength.)
There is, as well, a certain martial pacing to early TNG, especially in the music, which was sometimes downright bombastic.
TNG, like all Trek, is, besides being far beyond the stars (DS9 reference), far beyond politics, as well.
Also, Jonah Goldberg, the well-known conservative who writes for (or at least used to write for, or even edit the online edition of) the NRO, is a Trekkie/Trekker/Trek fan.
108. Why so hostile? I said TNG often reflected a liberal stereotype. Surely that’s the point. A stereotype. In it’s own way it was a mischaracterisation of liberal beliefs by showing most of the worst aspects.
The TNG Federation is so staggeringly different from TOS that something huge must have happened in the gap to turn the futuristic version of the USA, whose constitution was based on that of the US, into a Sovet-style oligarchy or dictatorship!
Not saying TNG is a terrible show – at times it could be really good – but as a continuation of Star Trek, I find it vaguely sinister!
By the way, wouldn’t it be interesting if body paint could be classified as clothing? It sure would get around those pesky public indecency laws.
:-D
116 Dom: I didn’t intend to be hostile. If it sounded that way I apologize.
118. That’s OK mate! Happy New Year to you and your’s! :)
119: I wish the same to you :)
Its realy sad when civilied behavior by mankind is labeked. Socialist. As for accumulating wealth and resulting ills that follow suc as GRE and selfishness trek sees the the mess and lack of balance. Jesus did “it is far easier for a camel to go through the eyee of a needle then for a rich man to go to heaven”. Jesus never preached about militeristic dence or jingoistic nonsence. Hear that christian right! Trek does better job of sending Gods message
Also if all the wing nuts should take notic. If you paid attention TG has a strong emphasis on family, hard wok and personal resposability. And money is alve and well just not the greed and selfishness. Also so is a GOD represented in all faith systems. Which too are all held in high respect “Datas day mentioned 2 religeous holidays being observered. Faith has a strong place see it is personal prefirence. More wars of hate had are fought in the name of religion. That’s not what its all about
To the people pointing to anti-communist messages in TOS as proof that the classic Trek also voiced conservative viewpoints, I feel compelled to point out what should be obvious to anybody, liberal or conservative:
COMMUNISM IS NOT LIBERAL. IT IS A ONE-PARTY SYSTEM THAT SUPPRESSES HUMAN RIGHTS AND INDIVIDUAL THOUGHT BY MEANS FORCE.
Just because a few dumb-ss kids in Berkeley who have no idea who they really were think it’s cool to wear Che Geuvara or Mao on their t-shirts does NOT mean that communism is in any way liberal. (Or, for that matter, conservative or anything BUT communist.)
Losira, please do not type so fast or try to hit your keys harder, because a lot of your words have missing letters or interchanged letters. In my experience, this happens when one is typing too fast.
I am not a Liberal and a huge fan of TNG. One of the best films was first contact, an actioner and very not liberal. Although you could claim insurrection was liberal but had a thought provoking premise long before Avatar came along. The New Trek film which spun off TNG was not liberal either. The ending where they blow the hell out of nero’s ship without trying to save his crew.
They did offer to save Nero and his crew. Nero told Kirk to basically go to hell because he’d rather die than swallow his pride.
@123 — Don’t try to pass off your subjective opinions as fact. There is a political spectrum acknowledged by all sides, in which Communism represents far left, Fascism represents the far right, and everything else is somewhere in between (with Anarchism and Libertarianism deviating a little from the spectrum). “Liberals” are just slightly left of center, and conservatives are varying degrees to the right of center, so in that sense you are definitely right: communism is not liberal. However, communism does represent a system of government further to the left of liberalism. I don’t think anyone has been saying otherwise.
Communism (As Russia, China, and 95% of all contemporary such regimes) and Fascism both result in a totalitarian form of government. However, The regimes mentioned who label themselves as Communist, do not represent what Karl Marx envisioned when he wrote the “Communist Manifesto.” If one reads that, then compares it to regimes like the Soviet Union, one sees that they not alike at all. Communism as envisioned by Marx never existed on a governmental level. There are some native tribes out in the wild in places around the globe however, that have managed to successfully practice many of the fundamentals of Marxism, even though they have no “constitutional” government system.
Losira, you’re taking that quote of Jesus completely out of context. In that passage, a young rich man asked what he could do to get into Heaven, and Jesus told him to get rid of all his possessions and follow Him. The rich man went away disappointed, and Jesus made the point about the camel to illustrate that it was the rich man’s attachment to his wealth that made it hard for him to enter Heaven. In other passages, the point is made that money cannot take the place of priority over God. Nowhere in the Bible does it say it’s wrong to be rich. It DOES say it’s wrong to love and want money over anything else. Money is simply a tool, to be used however you see fit, and wealthy people can do more to help others, employ others, develop new technology, etc.
As a conservative, I always find it interesting that among the various documents that inspired the founding of the Federation, only one actual historic document is cited – the Constitution. Not “Mein Kampf” or “The Communist Manifesto”. And the Constitution reflects very conservative values – limited government, a dependence and respect for an Almighty, and a spirit of entrepreneurship.
As a TREK fan, I always found TNG to be a bit vanilla. Everyone got along, and the only threats or conflict came from outside the ship. I found this to be unrealistic. I always thought DS9 was better because there were actually human beings not getting along, which reflects the truth of humanity. We’re not perfect, and we never will be. To have some Utopian ideal is nice, but it would stifle the very innovation that would get us into space at all.
The Constitution Of The United States states in it’s Preamble that:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
”
To carry out a mission so noble as described there ends up requiring some “Socialist” methods to be practiced, because human greed and stupidity will undo any attempt to fulfill these stated goals otherwise. Cold facts of life that everyone, both Conservative and Liberal must accept.
Totalitarian, single party government is an inevitability of an ideal like communism, which at its heart requires that everyone get along and agree to a plan.
There’s always someone who will disagree: someone who will will want to be outside of things. What do you do with those people who don’t, can’t and won’t fit in? Well, the various ‘communist utopias’ of the 20th century showed what logic would dictate you’d have to do! Indeed they were even worse than the Nazis.
TNG never showed us anyone within the Federation who disagreed with the Federation’s ‘utopia’. Why? Where were the Jews, Catholics, Anglicans, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus? Presumably forced underground since the TOS era.
There’s potentially a hell of an interesting film that could be made called ‘Star Trek: The Truth’ that is an undercover look at the universe of TNG, the presumable mass murders, book burnings, destruction of churches, temples, parliament buildings and so on that obviously happened post-James Kirk’s disappearance.
Perhaps TNG was so ’saccharine’ or ‘vanilla’ precisely because it was an ‘official’ propaganda version of events.
Perhaps James Kirk’s disappearance into the Nexus was planned as a way to get rid of him, as he would have been a prominent opposition figure!
Perhaps the Borg attack in The Best of Both Worlds never really happened and was really a battle between the totalitarian Federation and resistance members whom Jean-Luc Picard had joined. Rather than being freed from the Borg, maybe Jean-Luc was recaptured and brainwashed back into being a loyal Federation flunkie!
Maybe the genocide of the inhabitants of Boraal 2, attributable the USS Enterprise-D and its officers, was part of something bigger. Maybe they put a bunch of prominent opposition leaders on the planet just before the atmosphere dissipated after they were rounded up following the failed attempt to take back Sector 001 . . .
;)
#127 – It’s a fallacy that Fascism is far right on the political spectrum. It is to the right of socialism, but still to the left.
Fascism is basically defined as Government control of the means of production.
Basically, the spectrum is: More Government = Left, Less Government = Right.
Fascism could not possibly be a Rightisn ideology as is pre-supposes a strong government that controls private enterprise. Anyone who is rightist would reject that out of hand.
133. After all, Nazism was “National Socialism”.
What I ment was that money itself is not evil. Greed, envy, pride and the other deadly sins is. How many people have died in sensless fighting have resulted. It is all the matter of priorities. That is what trek shows.as you saw private business is alive and well. Ben cisco’s dad his resturaunt. In fact it was nice to see the return of mom & pop businesses make a comeback. And thriving small business thrive allowing the owners to share in a common sense economy. Instead of “Robber Barons” of monster corp. Stamp out and decide private enterprise is their right alone. As I said money here serves as medium of exchange. As a tool not as a godmwould it be nice to run your own business.fulfill a dream without the fear of Walmart starving you out. It is balance,fairness*nd innergood to make any system work you can be successful without living a life of duplicity & deciet. This the message of trek, as well as many other messages representing common human decensy
I’m proud to say that I’m. A small business owner caring for children. I charge a fair rate , so everyone can afford my services. I give high quality and a fair reasonable rate my customers and refirrals have. Been with me for 20 or more. Years.yes another or should I say. The next generation of children. I will retire soon. However I always conducted my business in a honest ethical manner. Never got greedy like a Feringi! As I can look at myself in the mirror and. Sleep. Soundly at night. Yes its true we all make mistakes but as trek shows not make excuses or create a mental disorder but to take responsibility and fix the wrong not justicfy it. Several years ago I read a book on conducting business on trek ideas . I also. Have of course on bible principals. And you know I was rewarded in ways you could not imagine a great family, sound friendships. Not a bad life. Many of my kids look me up . This would be a great side I would present to. Offenhouse about. The ends never justifying the means. Money is. Ameans of exchange it is not an obsession
I’m proud to say that I’m. A small business owner caring for children. I charge a fair rate , so everyone can afford my services. I give high quality and a fair reasonable rate my customers and refirrals have. Been with me for 20 or more. Years.yes another or should I say. The next generation of children. I will retire soon. However I always conducted my business in a honest ethical manner. Never got greedy like a Feringi! As I can look at myself in the mirror and. Sleep. Soundly at night. Yes its true we all make mistakes but as trek shows not make excuses or create a mental disorder but to take responsibility and fix the wrong not justicfy it. Several years ago I read a book on conducting business on trek ideas . I also. Have of course on bible principals. And you know I was rewarded in ways you could not imagine a great family, sound friendships. Not a bad life. Many of my kids look me up . This would be a great side I would present to. Offenhouse about. The ends never justifying the means. Money is. Ameans of exchange it is not an obsession
That’s good on you Losira. Honest business people are rare these days.
As to that fellow a few posts above you who thinks TNG era Trek is some kind of totalitarian state, citing lack of religious references, amongst other nonsense, Religious references were made many times in TNG if one paid attention to the details, and didn’t super-impose what they want to see because they can’t stand the morality leaning of the series.
As for Fascism being to the left, it can some times appear that way, but it is also the result of the Right Wing Agenda as well, because under their view, big business, free enterprise, and human greed, must be allowed to run amok, resulting in the wealthy having way to much power and control, there by creating a totalitarian regime. I have ment many so called Conservatives (that love Bush, Cheney, Palin, Regan, etc) who freely admit that they want all power given to the wealthy, believe in the two cast system consisting of the wealthy few on top, with a massive labor cast on the bottom, with the labor cast having little to no rights because they disposable tools, with only the wealthy having the right to vote and hold office, amongst other backwards views and ideas, then have the nerve to tell me that it is all God’s will. I never trust Conservatives. I’d rather live under Romulan rule than be governed by the Conservative Right!!!
137. I have a name! Show me any human religious references in TNG. There’s basically nothing at all. Rather than rubbish me and not even have the respect to use my name, cite some examples. The debate is supposed to be fun!
”After all, Nazism was “National Socialism”.”
Read THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH. There were socialist elements in the party, but they were thrown under the bus early on.
139. Forrest
Certainly got ‘em off to a flying start, though! ;)
@132 — I’m not going to sit around explaining to you why Fascism is to the right, any more than I am going to explain to a flat-earther why the earth is round — just get learn a little about political theory.
I’ll just point this one thing out: if “More Government = Left, Less Government = Right” then Anarchists are right-wingers! That is patently false; just ask an Anarchist.
Also, if Republicans really wanted less government, why are they so strongly in support of the military? I mean, the military is the largest social program in the government. If you take exception to the ’social’ term in “social program”, then ask yourself, what is the military supposed to protect, if not, ultimately, the society that funds it? And if you take exception to the ‘program’ term in “social program”, then ask yourself, how does the military get funded? The military does not sustain itself with private money, or through the investment of capital, or by selling commodities, it is fully sustained by the taxpayers’ money, just like schools and roads.
___
P.S.
Hitler’s mission was to infiltrate a small socialist party, which is why the NSDAP (Nazis) contained the word “socialism” in it. It’s a ploy — there is nothing socialist about Fascism.
137@ 140. I could not agree with you more. I merely pointed out how it should be done. Instead we are seeing as you said. What’s going on now. And in@alin’s caseusing God to excuse her hypacritical life of duplicity and lies. Not in God’s name you don’t Palin
Oh well! It’s all a laugh innit? Happy New Year boys’n'gals!! ;)