SHIP TO SHIP: A Star Trek Podcast “Heart of Darkness”
There’s a difference between “hate” and “manufactured hate.” Hate is personal, often subjective, based on actions that affect a person. Manufactured hate is when a third party, a fourth party, create an enemy and instruct a person to hate based on indirect (and often inaccurate) perceptions.
We look at four episodes from the Star Trek franchise. “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield,” “The Wounded,” “Duet,” and “Chosen Realm.”
“Hatred is a transformative power. It can make the innocuous into the menacing. So it has become a weapon of choice. The left has used hate to transform President Trump into a symbol of the new racism, not a flawed president but a systemic evil. And he must be opposed as one opposes racism, with a scorched-earth absolutism.
For Martin Luther King Jr., hatred was not necessary as a means to power. The actual details of oppression were enough. Power came to him because he rejected hate as a method of resisting menace. He called on blacks not to be defined by what menaced them. Today, because menace provides moral empowerment, blacks and their ostensible allies indulge in it. The menace of black victimization becomes the unarguable truth of the black identity. And here we are again, forever victims.”
Sometimes I simply have no idea why we do what we do. I’m sure you feel the same the way, because tonight, once again…as usual, we’re going to talk about a controversial topic. We keep doing it, and it is akin to masturbation – it serves no purpose ultimately because people make up their minds before any facts invade the portrait. The portrait this time is one of the “global warming” hysteria variety. I’m not a Conservative. I’m not a Liberal. I’m neither Democrat, nor Republican. I’m not quite sure what Andrew is, but he brought this rather lengthy essay to my attention two weeks ago after we did the “Superman” episode, and I made a valiant, respectable stab at reading it.
It’s titled, “What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled”, and it was written by David Siegel for Medium-dot-Com, and I will put the link in the show notes. How do we do a Cliff’s Notes version of this essay?
It’s interesting what he reveals in his opening paragraph.
“More than thirty years ago, I became vegan because I believed it was healthier (it’s not), and I’ve stayed vegan because I believe it’s better for the environment (it is). I haven’t owned a car in ten years. I love animals; I’ll gladly fly halfway around the world to take photos of them in their natural habitats. I’m a Democrat: I think governments play a key role in helping preserve our environment for the future in the most cost-effective way possible. Over the years, I built a set of assumptions: that Al Gore was right about global warming, that he was the David going up against the industrial Goliath. In 1993, I even wrote a book about it.”
The book is called “What is worth doing? A Conversation on Conservation”.
The writer makes ten statements, along the lines of there are no studies showing a conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, droughts, floods, cold or heat waves, most of what people call “global warming” is natural, not man-made, climate models are unpredictable, as is most weather anyway, so it’s not an exact science, there is no such thing as “carbon pollution”, Polar bear numbers are up, not down.
This is pretty much information I already knew. I have a habit of not believing anything anyone ever tells me anyway, so I try not to panic. I try not to become enraged, or indignant. I get indignant with behaviors more than anything else. Some things make me mad, I won’t deny it, but I don’t go nuts over the environment. I know that. So many people are misled, and they are misled in anger – that’s why this all seems so futile, because it’s not like we’re going to change minds tonight. I’m not particularly idealistic about changing minds and winning hearts. What I will say is that Science with a capital “S” is about examining and scrutinizing all arguments, not just bolstering the one idea you believe. It’s almost as if Science is a “religion” in that we tend to reject a group of ideas in favor of one idea we agree with. Science becomes a religion when you refuse to comprehend or acknowledge other points of view, and then it becomes stagnation, and we die a little as a culture.
Afterword: This episode couldn’t be more timely. In light of the terrorist attacks in Paris two weeks ago, our leaders are trying to convince us global warming and climate change are more pressing problems than terrorism. What is your opinion? Leave us a comment. We’d love to hear from you.
Tele Novella had been around for a couple of years haunting Texas; an eclectic combination of lizard lounge, psycho-pop, pop-punk, new wave, liberal xylophone, Krush Groove, New Jack, synthesizer surf music with the musical substance of the 1990s as interpreted in Independent circles. It’s the kind of music you listen to while contemplating a dim lamp and sipping a glass of wine. Somebody might be sitting on your sofa and then get up and start swaying and grooving on it and seeing colors and talking about the death of hip-hop or why 9/11 was an inside job, or something like that.
Tonight, we have friend of the show, Sarah La Puerta, and I must apologize for going full pronunciation, but I can’t say “Tele Novella” without it coming out like an actor on a spanish soap opera, and I can’t say the name “La Puerta” without that roll, but that’s just me.
“It is not necessary to believe in God to be a good person. In a way, the notion of God is outdated. One can be spiritual but not religious. It is not necessary to go to church and give money – for many, nature can be a church. Some of the best people in history did not believe in God, while some of the worst deeds were done in His name.” POPE FRANCIS
Advocates on both sides of this massive divide we’ve created repeat the same erroneous talking point – that marriage is a right, or perhaps a privilege accorded by the Constitution of the United States, which isn’t true. There is absolutely no mention of marriage, the definition or personal rights – in the Constitution, which is the way I think it should be, because – I’m married, but I believe my marriage should not be approved by a State or by Federal Law, it doesn’t matter to me, I don’t need that sort of acknowledgement. Further, it gives wide-reaching power to the State, the Federal government, the Supreme Court to control what is, essentially, personal choice. I believe in limited government. I don’t want the government telling me who I can marry, or who I can’t marry, or – and this is important – threatening to penalize me, either financially, or with jail time for refusing to acknowledge whom other people can marry or can’t marry. It’s simply none of my business, and it should not be any of the government’s business. They have guns, and flamethrowers. They can kill your family and burn your house down if you don’t agree with them when they’ve written up new laws. I don’t like that.
Tonight, we are introducing a new segment to BlissVille. As you may or may not know, if you’ve been paying attention, this particular run of BlissVille episodes has paid tribute to an actor among men, William Shatner. So this next piece is my wife, Bronwyn’s, intepretation of the classic “horrors of war” speech from the Star Trek episode, “A Taste of Armageddon”. I hope you enjoy it.
I would pray for peace, if I were religious. I would say listen we’ve just been thrown into the fray of sexual equality, give people time. Wisdom is it’s own reward. Peace and understanding are what matters. The homosexual couples who were denied marriage licenses were preaching a fantastic doctrine of new Christianity, not the old fire and brimstone kill-the-pagans Old Testament stuff, but they didn’t want Ms. Davis to be imprisoned or fined or censured, and for that I applaud them. That’s the way to go.