Monday, February 9. 2009Podcast 6: The End of the Beginning
We have come to the end of the first season of Star Trek the Next Generation. Thankfully our painful and awkward episode watching is over and we can move on to better writing and acting in season 2. Because this is the end of season 1 we decided to do a few lists and recaps to point out some of the highlights. Although these highlights extended the length of the podcast beyond our standard target, we think there's some really fun stuff that justifies the extra length.
This podcast covers episodes 22-26 of Star Trek: The Next Generation, Season 1. Our "Special" guest for this podcast is Brandon. Various topics discussed in this podcast include: Star Fleet After School Specials Joey is a Bully Joey & Peter argue: Round 1 - moving the microphone The Death of Yar!!! Peter's brain leaks The future of television Joey & Peter argue: Round 2 - rating order The usage of taxes Direct MP3 Download RSS Feed Subscribe Using iTunes Here are the ratings that we gave for each show as well as Season 1 lists/recaps: Symbiosis:
Joey: SciFi - 4 Television - 3 Peter: SciFi - 2 Television - 4 Brandon: SciFi - 2 Television - 1 Skin of Evil Joey: SciFi - 1 Television - 1 Peter: SciFi - 3 Television - 1 Brandon: SciFi - 3 Television - 1, 2 We'll Always Have Paris Joey: SciFi - 4 Television - 6 Peter: SciFi - 4 Television - 3 Brandon: SciFi - 7 Television - 6 Conspiracy Joey: SciFi - 4 Television - 4 Peter: SciFi - 5 Television - 2 Brandon: SciFi - 5 Television - 3 The Neutral Zone Joey: SciFi - 5 Television - 5 Peter: SciFi - 4 Television - 3 Brandon: SciFi - 6 Television - 7 Season 1 recaps and lists Top 3 Favorite Episodes Peter's Top 3: 1. Where No One Has Gone Before 2. Coming of Age 3. Datalore Joey's Top 3: 1. Encounter at Farpoint 2. Datalore 3. Too Short a Season Top 3 Hated Episodes Peter 1. The Naked Now 2. Lonely Among Us 3. Angel One Joey 1. Skin of Evil 2. Justice 3. The Naked Now Favorite Bad Guy Joey: Q Peter: Crystalline Entity Favorite Extra/Bit Part Peter: Remmick, The Traveller, Q Joey: The Traveller Most Hated Character Joey: Remmick, Trent Peter: Yar Favorite Overall Moment Peter: Picard(Patrick Stewart) acting alone in "The Battle" Joey: Data with Fish tank, and Picard saying "Engage" If you have something to say then we welcome your comments below, or feel free to email us at [email protected]. Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Johnny Elbows on :
"What's right is right, whether I'm in the society or not." AoD, please refer to your comment here: http://www.thehomestarmy.com/s9y/index.php?/archives/1367-Patriotism-and-Wiretaps.html#c5893
Does the Bill of Rights list things that are right? If so, why don't these things apply to those who aren't "in the society? Ancient of Days on :
I would say that the "Bill of Rights" - regardless of the name - is a list of privileges[1] enjoyed by people who are citizens of the United States. That is, I don't consider the "Bill of Rights" to be absolute rights.
[1] Privilege \Priv"i*lege\, n. [F. privil[`e]ge, L. privilegium an ordinance or law against or in favor of an individual; privus private + lex, legis, law.] [1913 Webster] 1. A peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor; a right or immunity not enjoyed by others or by all; special enjoyment of a good, or exemption from an evil or burden; a prerogative; advantage; franchise. Johnny Elbows on :
While they may be privileges, are the privileges morally right?
For example, is it morally right to protect property rights? Is it morally right to protect people against cruel and unusual punishment? Ancient of Days on :
It's a mixed bag of moral absolutes and special-cases. I would have to answer those on a case-by-case basis, and even then it's not always clear cut whether the entire "Right" being discussed is a moral imperative.
To address just the two you've mentioned here, I would say that it's morally right to protect property rights, and to protect against *SOME* forms of what are termed "cruel and unusual punishment" - however, that term means many different things to different people! I do believe there are some people who are so fundamentally anti-social that a jury of their peers could readily determine that the morally correct thing to do is to put them to death. Is that cruel or unusual? Johnny Elbows on :
I'm going to go back to my original question first, and then I want to address your question. If the Bill of Rights enumerates some moral rights, do those moral rights apply to non-citizens? If so, why don't these things apply to those who aren't "in the society?"
I agree that many of the provisions in the Bill of Rights are subject to the interpretation of society. Personally, I don't believe that the instance you put forth is cruel or unusual, but I can understand why/how others might disagree with me. Ancient of Days on :
> If the Bill of Rights enumerates some moral rights, do those moral rights apply to non-citizens?
There are some portions of the Bill of Rights which I think ARE moral imperatives that SHOULD be applicable to all mankind. They SHOULD, but under the current legal framework they DO NOT... > If so, why don't these things apply to those who aren't "in the society?" Because reality does not match the moral ideal. In the instance you cited, I was speaking of the Bill of Rights as a whole body. Given the discussion here regarding some of those being absolute moral rights and others being part of a particular social contract, I hope you can understand how I reconcile these two superficially opposing assertions...the discussion in the podcast is about how I internally hold to a moral ideal, regardless of how society at large views that ideal. Johnny Elbows on :
I can understand that. I just found your assertion in the podcast contradictory. Now that you have clarified, your position makes sense.
Ancient of Days on :
Thank you for challenging me on it, I was glad of the opportunity to clarify my position.
Johnny Elbows on :
Pete, I want to respectfully disagree with your evaluation of the Romulan Warbird design. You stated that the separation of the command/living area from the propulsion area, is "DUMB, DUMB, DUMB."
To me, the design makes very good sense. The propulsion area, if damaged, can be a source of dangerous contamination. Isolating this from the command/living area makes very good sense. While there is a possibility that the design could be exploited, I would not say that it is "DUMB, DUMB, DUMB." Radar on :
Wow, I am surprised that you would comment on something like this. You are correct in your assertion that it is good design to keep the living quarters and the propulsion systems separated in the event of an accident. Here is a link to see a couple of views of the warbird for reference: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/D%27deridex_class.
While the warbird would meet your requirement of isolation, one well placed shot would cripple the ship. A better design would make the ship less susceptible to that and could also accommodate the safety measures you suggest by isolating the humanoid vulnerable areas from radiation, poison gases, etc. So my assertion stands, poor functionality design, but very cool graphic design. Johnny Elbows on :
In my mind, separation _means_ that you only allow a single access point between areas that you are attempting to separate.
How would you separate two areas without creating a single access point that would create an area where "one well placed shot would cripple the ship?" Radar on :
I would answer that by referencing a submarine. Every door way is essentially a sealable bulkhead. If there is a breech in the hull you can seal off the effected sections.
Johnny Elbows on :
Yes, but in most modern subs, especially the Los Angeles class submarines that make up the majority of the US fleet, the living quarters are enclosed in their own internal compartment within the hull, and the propulsion and energy generation components are housed in a separate compartment within the hull. These two are connected by a single sealable bulkhead. :)
Radar on :
That continues to actually make my argument. Does the Los Angeles type sub split the living quarters and the propulsion in two separate sections like the Romulan Warbird? The answer is no. Everything is housed within one main hull.
Sideshow on :
After the podcast I went back and re-watched. Geordi does NOT bring a phaser as security. He doesn't have one around his waste, and he clearly doesn't have one in his hands, which you can tell when he's going to help Riker on the ground. And when the Guy picks him up to throw, you see him land on the ground and a phaser does not pop out, and previously there isn't one around his belt.
Swatson on :
Oh come on, Sideshow. Geordi has a "gun" in each arm. He's like a younger Chuck Norris. As for how the guy could pick him up with the guns, I guess Geordi chose to be humble then.
|
Items of InterestTrekWest5 Subscriber Count: Syndicate This Blog |
