Monday, June 30, 2008

DS9, Ideology, and Journalism

I was reminded last night of how complex DS9 really is. There are so many different parties with competing ideologies. We have the Federation (military arm = Starfleet), Cardassians (intelligence arm = Obsidian Order), Bajorans, Dominion (consisting of Founders, Vorta, Jem'Hadar), Ferengi, the Prophets, Klingons, Romulans (intelligence arm = Tal Shiare)... there are lots more but I suppose these are the main ones. Continuing from my last post, I've been thinking about dictators, and at one point Gul Dukat (one of the best villains ever, a Cardassian) is talking to the Vorta Weyoun about how they can secure a takeover of the Alpha Quadrant. Weyoun says that resistance will start at Earth, so the only solution is to eradicate its population. Dukat, on the other hand, says that Weyoun doesn't understand that what they have to do is get the Alpha Quadrant to love them, to welcome them as liberators, so-to-speak, because that's the only way to hold on to power. Before the series started, he was the head of the Cardassian occupation of Bajor, and all he wanted was to be loved, to have statues and monuments to his benevolence. Of course, he also ran labour camps that were little more than concentration camps. The Bajorans are like Palestinians, but, you know, not so "othered." Hmmm...all this is a gross simplification, but you get the idea.

I read the Globe and Mail every morning, but sometimes I wonder why. I do like the feel of a real newspaper. I like sitting at my kitchen table with my coffee (in the summer, iced coffee) and breakfast and taking some to turn pages physically...I spend so much time on the internet. My most hated columnist is Margaret Wente (more on that whenever her next column comes out), but today there was an editorial by Lorna Dueck that was, frankly, shocking. I've read her Christian essays before--they have her write something every once in a while--but this was the worst. Most of the time her articles are about how people need to bring a spiritual dimension into their lives, and how Christian ethics should inform policy, etc. This one was about parenting. Here are some choice quotes: "I could write a book about my childhood--a lot of us could--but here's the baffling truth: We're born with sin our genes and it takes a lifetime to evolve to good." She is talking about the need to discipline your sinful kids, and how parents are sinful as well: "Sin has no limit of age and if there is any reason to involve the state over family discipline issues, it happens because we are spiritually sick." She ends with, "It's not the state that's needed, it's not even religion, it's just me knowing what to do with the sin." I cannot believe that a publication that touts itself as Canada's national paper would print such garbage. I can imagine the letters to the editor will be flooding in--I'm interested to see which make it onto the editorial page. The Globe and Mail is really not a good newspaper...but I don't see how the Montreal Gazette or The National Post would be any better. One good thing about moving to the States (if I must, eventually) will be American media (seems like a funny thing to say!). Print media, more specifically, is infinitely better south of the border. The Globe Style section is pretty awful...I don't see how Leah McLaren is paid to write such drivel. This is not my "militant" atheism talking: I do think it's abusive to tell a child he or she is inherently sinful. And how is sin defined anyway? Is extra-/pre-marital sex, homosexuality, or masturbation sinful? What about abortion? What a great way to maintain a religion--tell everyone that they're sinful and that adhering to the religion is the only way to some sort of paradise (so don't be afraid of death as long as you're religious).

Inaugural Post!

I am starting this blog because I spend way too much time on the internet and my mind wanders, and I figured a blog would be a good way to get all my thoughts down and hopefully focus them in the process. I found myself posting things on Facebook, which would go into my friends' news feeds, and I would much rather not bother everyone with things I find interesting. This way, only people who are actually interested in what I think about things (which may be no one!) will be burdened. This will really be less of a "what's happening in my real life" blog than "what's happening in my dilettante life." For the most part, I imagine I'll talk about TV shows and movies, books and music, but also politics and perhaps even some more philosophical musings. Haha! Reader beware!

Right now I'm trying to write the second chapter of my thesis, and because I'm such a scatter-brain, it's taking quite a bit longer than I anticipated. I've been re-watching Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, and it's still really good and relevant. I started again because I was thinking about how John McCain said that the US could be in Iraq for another hundred years, and on the surface that doesn't seem like such an unreasonable thing to say. There are still American troops in Korea, Japan, Germany, and other places, but not in combat roles. However, it does seem that the conflicts that led to those long-term deployments were quaititatively different than what's going on in the Middle East right now. What's good about DS9 (and other STs too, but this one does it best) is isolate certain elements of different cultures and then explore them in depth, over many episodes. Indeed, most of the series is the same war, and the bad guys aren't totally bad, the good guys often do unethical things.

The other thing I've been thinking about, not extensively though, is what's going on in Zimbabwe. I saw an episode of DS9 in which a former Federation officer turned terrorist/freedom fighter tells Captain Sisko that the Federation is worse than the Borg, because at least the Borg tell you up front that you're going to be assimilated and that resistance is futile. The Federation makes you think that you're advancing the cause of liberal democracy and egalitarianism, but they're really incorporating you into their ideology. Whatever you think of that (the Federation utopia seems pretty good), it's an interesting thing to consider. Isn't that what Zizek is always going on about? His new book (In Defense of Lost Causes) seems to be about that, at least in part, in terms of the perils of liberal democracies. Mugabe holding elections, and forcing people to vote, seems to be an extreme version of this: I'm not going to be your run-of-the-mill dictator, I'm going to make you endorse me. Of course, if you don't have a purple finger to show you've voted (really only one name is available), you'll be punished. Does it somehow make you nostalgic for the good old days when dictators didn't need such validation?

Why am I writing this blog instead of my thesis? Well, sometimes everyone needs a break. Though mine seems to have lasted 3 days. I ought to do some research tonight at least...anticipate the next chapter!