So a few months ago, Meatloaf came out with Bat out of Hell III. I don't think it has quite the grandeur or creativity as I and II, but like Meatloaf sang in the first Bat out of Hell album, "two out of three ain't bad."
In I, the world was introduced to Wagnerian Rock, composer / songwriter Jim Steinman's mix of rock and opera in epic excess.
But while known best for the excess of the title track, Bat out of Hell III wasn't just about excess. It was also about campy teenage love (Paradise by the Dashboard Lights) and lost romance (Two out of Three Ain't Bad). The lyrics sometimes bordered on the ridiculously overblown, and that was part of the charm. Basically, if you like simple melodies, you will never like a Jim Steinman song. But if you don't take things too seriously and just want to enjoy the camp, then it's great.
Bat out of Hell II - actually produced by Steinman this time- and coming more than 10 years after Bat out of Hell- was even more excessive than Bat out of Hell. Bat out of Hell featured 3 songs clocking over 7 minutes. Well, Bat out of Hell II featured 6 songs longer than 7 minutes. Those songs featured long and weird titles like, "I Would Do Anything for Love (but I Won't Do That)," "Life is a Lemon and I Want My Money Back," and "Objects in the Rearview Mirror May Appear Closer than They Are." Some of the lyrics were so ridiculous that you'd just have to laugh. For instance, there's:
"What about your childhood?
Its defective!
Its dead and buried in the past"
which doesn't seem too strange. A bit excessive, but fairly normal. But it's followed by:
"What about your future?
Its defective!
And you can shove it up your ass!!"
What the... I mean what .... there's *no* transition there.
Now after another hiatus of ten-odd years, we have Bat out of Hell III, where some of the songs were written by Jim Steinman, but where he's otherwise been almost uninvolved. And when you're missing Jim Steinman's touch, you just don't have a great Meatloaf. Meatloaf's voice has held up well over the years. The songs are still bombastic and excessive, but somehow, the thrill is gone, and I'm afraid we can't take it back.
The signature songs on this album are "The Monster is Loose," which is kind of metal-y. It isn't *bad* but it doesn't quite add anything to the Meatloaf canon. He already sung the ultimate epic with "Bat out of Hell," and he already sung the ultimate long and overdrawn but seemingly not dragging out love ballad with "I Would Do Anything for Love," and he's already sung a hard-rock Meatloaf in "Life is a Lemon and I Want My Money Back," so what was the point of "The Monster is Loose?"
So Meatloaf tries his hand at a love duet, which traditionally he's been quite good at, "It's All Coming Back to Me Now." Now I probably won't say this for any other song, but Celine Dion already did the definitive rendition for that like 10 years ago. Meatloaf's version is actually *not* excessive enough. It's actually kind of quiet. And his duet partner's role is basically to echo him, rather than contributing significant verses on her own. Meatloaf's best duet was in "Paradise by the Dashboard Lights." Even though the two singers certainly sound much older than teenagers, they push off 70's drive-in teen angst very well, and the transition from professions of love to can't stand the hell out of each other is quite convincing.
All in all, still a very listenable album- that is, if you're into Wagnerian rock. Meatloaf has the balls to sing and Jim Steinman has the balls to write lyrics that are so absurd that only someone with straight out moxy can, such as "Your love is blind- blind as a bat!" And I think that's gotta count for something. Better than the endless verses ending in "hold me tight" with most other pop songs. And there's something much more fun about the emotional overwroughtness of Wagnerian Rock, which is even more overblown than most 80s power ballads, as opposed to the empty mechanical songs that usually get cranked out now, where the singer has no conviction.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Friday, March 30, 2007
If you wanna hang out, you've got to take her out; cocaine!
Cocaine, the Energy Drink, that is. I would *never* advocate illegal drug use.
(OK, now that the disclaimer's gotten out of the way, so if I work for a politician or run for office, this post can't be used against me)
Cocaine Energy Drink is certainly very *distinct* from other energy drinks. It's probably mostly because of the 280 mg of caffeine; it may also be their use of Dextrose rather than high fructose corn syrup (although I think that's the least distinctive marker- how much difference can using a simple sugar versus a complex sugar make?); but the most noticeable difference off the bat is that it's *spicy.* Spicy like Jamaica Ginger Beer (aka Ginger ale but with noticeable amounts of ginger). That's probably what I like most about Cocaine energy drink, the spiciness. I don't think any other energy drink is spicy. The flavor base, I believe, is something like pomegranate, so it's also got a mild sweet and tart taste.
Along with huge amounts of caffeine, you may expect a crash. They advertise that you won't feel such a crash, and that effect certainly is very reduced. I didn't feel much of a crash today, anyway. I drank one at around noon, and I'm still feeling pretty alert now, so the added caffeine does help (sleeping 10-12 hours the night before because I'd been chair-sleeping for a few days in a row probably helped more, though ;)). This was *not* a well-controlled experiment.
There's no "mediciny aftertaste" or not a really noticeable one, something bevnet always complains about for energy drinks. In other words, unlike most energy drinks, Cocaine is not just a knockoff of Red Bull.
The case of cocaine cost me about $44 bucks on ebay, including shipping. The cost, retail, however, is nearly $4 / 8 oz can. The cost on their website is pretty reasonable, coming to under $2 / can when you don't account for S&H. So I think if you buy it at the right places, you are getting a fairly reasonably priced energy drink, since it also has about 2-3 times as much caffeine as most other energy drinks (this depends on how we're supposed to interpret how energy drinks list "caffeine" and "guarana" as ingredients; if they're double counting, then most energy drinks have between 80-100 mgs of caffeine; if they're not double counting, then some energy drinks may have about 200 mg of caffeine).
Cliffs:If you like sweet and spicy drinks without a Red Bull aftertaste, and you like getting a caffeine kick, then Cocaine Energy Drink is worth a try.
(OK, now that the disclaimer's gotten out of the way, so if I work for a politician or run for office, this post can't be used against me)
Cocaine Energy Drink is certainly very *distinct* from other energy drinks. It's probably mostly because of the 280 mg of caffeine; it may also be their use of Dextrose rather than high fructose corn syrup (although I think that's the least distinctive marker- how much difference can using a simple sugar versus a complex sugar make?); but the most noticeable difference off the bat is that it's *spicy.* Spicy like Jamaica Ginger Beer (aka Ginger ale but with noticeable amounts of ginger). That's probably what I like most about Cocaine energy drink, the spiciness. I don't think any other energy drink is spicy. The flavor base, I believe, is something like pomegranate, so it's also got a mild sweet and tart taste.
Along with huge amounts of caffeine, you may expect a crash. They advertise that you won't feel such a crash, and that effect certainly is very reduced. I didn't feel much of a crash today, anyway. I drank one at around noon, and I'm still feeling pretty alert now, so the added caffeine does help (sleeping 10-12 hours the night before because I'd been chair-sleeping for a few days in a row probably helped more, though ;)). This was *not* a well-controlled experiment.
There's no "mediciny aftertaste" or not a really noticeable one, something bevnet always complains about for energy drinks. In other words, unlike most energy drinks, Cocaine is not just a knockoff of Red Bull.
The case of cocaine cost me about $44 bucks on ebay, including shipping. The cost, retail, however, is nearly $4 / 8 oz can. The cost on their website is pretty reasonable, coming to under $2 / can when you don't account for S&H. So I think if you buy it at the right places, you are getting a fairly reasonably priced energy drink, since it also has about 2-3 times as much caffeine as most other energy drinks (this depends on how we're supposed to interpret how energy drinks list "caffeine" and "guarana" as ingredients; if they're double counting, then most energy drinks have between 80-100 mgs of caffeine; if they're not double counting, then some energy drinks may have about 200 mg of caffeine).
Cliffs:If you like sweet and spicy drinks without a Red Bull aftertaste, and you like getting a caffeine kick, then Cocaine Energy Drink is worth a try.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
300
(Note: I saw this on a regular screen, so keep that in mind if you feel my take was not large enough to truly encompass this movie.)
Having recently viewed the laconically titled 300, I would say that this is a movie for everyone. It has something for each of us - burly men with popping pecs for the ladies. Lots of nipples for us men... For the children it has monsters such as a gollum-like cripple, a giant cave troll manbeast, an executioner who's a weird abomination with a cleaver for an arm, that's right. Don't forget persian shock troops that remarkably resemble Japanese samurai, and have scarred up drooly-faces underneath their masks. What's the point of making a movie for IMAX if you're not going to fill people's vision with either a popping pec, or a hideous human grotesque? I'm sure there isn't one.
Storywise, this movie achieves mixed success. It does not balk at sacrificing realism, which prevents it from becoming a dry historical snoozefest. Can we all learn something from history? Sure. But who actually wants to? There are some drama segments, with slapping and venomous looks, but nothing especially fun or surprising. Aside from those parts it was pretty solid as regards to continuity and wrapping up. Character development was kept to the barest minimum, as befits an action flick. On the other hand stuffing dead corpses into unexpected places was maximized - indeed, almost to the point of saturation. Some people may not know that the screenplay was co-created by Frank Miller, a comic book artist. Well, you can imagine how hedonistically exaggerated and how simultaneously entertaining the tone of the writing was.
A most striking feature of 300 was how it kept referencing "freedom" and the necessary defense thereof. That, coupled with the outright demonization of the Persians made it resemble old war propaganda from the 1940's. Its blatancy in that regard was dulled however by the slickness of the presentation, which made me suspect that perhaps it was merely incidental. But the irony didn't escape acute observers everywhere, of how the same arguments against imperial conquest could be applied to the US's most recent strongarming in the Middle East. Meanwhile the Helots whom the Spartans perpetually oppressed, yet relied upon all the while for economic subsistence, were not mentioned at all in the movie. It's likely they remain completely unknown to many of its viewers. This movie seems to have proved that the underdog who is resisting a menacing and greedy adversary will always have sympathizers among the human population, but only if their story is told. Because people are cursed with both ignorance and a weakness for rhetoric.
Whether a movie like this should have some respites from the frenzy of battle is an interesting topic for debate.
The main argument for would be that outside the domain of a larger story, bloodshed and violent imagery seem to benefit from some rationalization. Human nature can be seen as a balancing act, between a general distaste for violence and a seemingly paradoxical willingness to commit vilest savagery (if I may call the destruction of life that) in the name of something good. Also, if done with care, these are the scenes which will elevate your movie beyond its boundaries as one of thousands of "war movies" already made, and the predecessor of thousands more in the future. Although it's not to be assumed that such a distiction is always desired, as some movies are simply content to blaze in glory rather than bask in the refined glow of Shakespearian-caliber interludes. Further, if we recall the most gung ho fighting movies, the non-battle scenes will usually prove to be the least favorite for most viewers, often maligned for being boring or otherwise disappointing. I attribute this not to the impatience of the viewer, or his expectation of non-stop action - and embittered rebellion when the action is brought temporarily to a stop; but to the manner in which films in Hollywood are developed, with the director being pressured to prioritize the action sequences as well as scenes which directly affect the course of the battle that is ongoing throughout the movie. That is what will make or break the movie from a financial standpoint, not whether supporting actress #2 will bring eyes to tear with her lament for her absent husband.
There was however one bereavement story interwoven into the progression of 300, which was made touchingly, but forgettably. Perhaps my view is shaped by lack of personal experience in the matter. But the scene in The Two Towers is deeply rooted in my mind, where Theoden of Rohan grieves for his son, died in the defense of the kingdom but not mourned until that day. I would say Theoden is worth several hundred Leonidas's at least, and I'm sure that a few of the other non-action parts of this movie could have been stronger. For instance, I found the character of Ephialtes was treated with a high degree of indifference, given his pivotal part in the story. In the movie, when his hope of serving with the Greek forces "for honor" was dashed, he simply takes the best offer he can get, which was the promise of reward by Xerxes for betraying the Greeks. But his adventure would never attain any level of interest higher than mundane for the few scenes and fewer lines he was given. Here was a creature with little in life... On some level or other is relateable for many people, and with a sudden opportunity to wipe out all that and make something out of a sad life. He could have been given a sixty second monologue during which his heratfelt speech would have stirred the audience first to pathos, then hopefulness, and ultimately revulsion as his lack of humility is revealed as but a twin to his physical shortcomings. Instead we were treated to his timid traversal of Xerxes's court while all sorts of nakedness was going on around him. The unfortunate reason being, I imagine, that one would have looked awesome on IMAX, and the other wouldn't have.
My final word on this movie is, yeah go ahead and see it. And if you do have access to an IMAX theater, wait until there is availability there, as the added immersiveness of a truly really big screen may be likened to the chunks in chunky peanut butter - missed every time they're absent, for knowing they could be there.
Having recently viewed the laconically titled 300, I would say that this is a movie for everyone. It has something for each of us - burly men with popping pecs for the ladies. Lots of nipples for us men... For the children it has monsters such as a gollum-like cripple, a giant cave troll manbeast, an executioner who's a weird abomination with a cleaver for an arm, that's right. Don't forget persian shock troops that remarkably resemble Japanese samurai, and have scarred up drooly-faces underneath their masks. What's the point of making a movie for IMAX if you're not going to fill people's vision with either a popping pec, or a hideous human grotesque? I'm sure there isn't one.
Storywise, this movie achieves mixed success. It does not balk at sacrificing realism, which prevents it from becoming a dry historical snoozefest. Can we all learn something from history? Sure. But who actually wants to? There are some drama segments, with slapping and venomous looks, but nothing especially fun or surprising. Aside from those parts it was pretty solid as regards to continuity and wrapping up. Character development was kept to the barest minimum, as befits an action flick. On the other hand stuffing dead corpses into unexpected places was maximized - indeed, almost to the point of saturation. Some people may not know that the screenplay was co-created by Frank Miller, a comic book artist. Well, you can imagine how hedonistically exaggerated and how simultaneously entertaining the tone of the writing was.
A most striking feature of 300 was how it kept referencing "freedom" and the necessary defense thereof. That, coupled with the outright demonization of the Persians made it resemble old war propaganda from the 1940's. Its blatancy in that regard was dulled however by the slickness of the presentation, which made me suspect that perhaps it was merely incidental. But the irony didn't escape acute observers everywhere, of how the same arguments against imperial conquest could be applied to the US's most recent strongarming in the Middle East. Meanwhile the Helots whom the Spartans perpetually oppressed, yet relied upon all the while for economic subsistence, were not mentioned at all in the movie. It's likely they remain completely unknown to many of its viewers. This movie seems to have proved that the underdog who is resisting a menacing and greedy adversary will always have sympathizers among the human population, but only if their story is told. Because people are cursed with both ignorance and a weakness for rhetoric.
Whether a movie like this should have some respites from the frenzy of battle is an interesting topic for debate.
The main argument for would be that outside the domain of a larger story, bloodshed and violent imagery seem to benefit from some rationalization. Human nature can be seen as a balancing act, between a general distaste for violence and a seemingly paradoxical willingness to commit vilest savagery (if I may call the destruction of life that) in the name of something good. Also, if done with care, these are the scenes which will elevate your movie beyond its boundaries as one of thousands of "war movies" already made, and the predecessor of thousands more in the future. Although it's not to be assumed that such a distiction is always desired, as some movies are simply content to blaze in glory rather than bask in the refined glow of Shakespearian-caliber interludes. Further, if we recall the most gung ho fighting movies, the non-battle scenes will usually prove to be the least favorite for most viewers, often maligned for being boring or otherwise disappointing. I attribute this not to the impatience of the viewer, or his expectation of non-stop action - and embittered rebellion when the action is brought temporarily to a stop; but to the manner in which films in Hollywood are developed, with the director being pressured to prioritize the action sequences as well as scenes which directly affect the course of the battle that is ongoing throughout the movie. That is what will make or break the movie from a financial standpoint, not whether supporting actress #2 will bring eyes to tear with her lament for her absent husband.
There was however one bereavement story interwoven into the progression of 300, which was made touchingly, but forgettably. Perhaps my view is shaped by lack of personal experience in the matter. But the scene in The Two Towers is deeply rooted in my mind, where Theoden of Rohan grieves for his son, died in the defense of the kingdom but not mourned until that day. I would say Theoden is worth several hundred Leonidas's at least, and I'm sure that a few of the other non-action parts of this movie could have been stronger. For instance, I found the character of Ephialtes was treated with a high degree of indifference, given his pivotal part in the story. In the movie, when his hope of serving with the Greek forces "for honor" was dashed, he simply takes the best offer he can get, which was the promise of reward by Xerxes for betraying the Greeks. But his adventure would never attain any level of interest higher than mundane for the few scenes and fewer lines he was given. Here was a creature with little in life... On some level or other is relateable for many people, and with a sudden opportunity to wipe out all that and make something out of a sad life. He could have been given a sixty second monologue during which his heratfelt speech would have stirred the audience first to pathos, then hopefulness, and ultimately revulsion as his lack of humility is revealed as but a twin to his physical shortcomings. Instead we were treated to his timid traversal of Xerxes's court while all sorts of nakedness was going on around him. The unfortunate reason being, I imagine, that one would have looked awesome on IMAX, and the other wouldn't have.
My final word on this movie is, yeah go ahead and see it. And if you do have access to an IMAX theater, wait until there is availability there, as the added immersiveness of a truly really big screen may be likened to the chunks in chunky peanut butter - missed every time they're absent, for knowing they could be there.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
The Drumhead
A big poker win has caused me to question whether there's justice in the world. From the crouching guerilla in the jungle, to the poor Guatemalan wishing to exchange the hurricanes of his homeland for someplace nicer to raise his family, to the hunched online poker player clicking "call" - risking everything in desperate defiance of a harsh situation - all are hoping that they struggle not in vain. Could it be that for some, doom is already upon them, and their situation has no winning outcome? It seems that justice does not equally protect everyone in the world today. So what is our role in expanding justice? As I was watching "The Drumhead" (Star Trek episode 21 of season four of The Next Generation) I thought, is it not our own sense of justice that we all fight for day by day?
The story begins like this: after it was confirmed that at least one person aboard the starship Enterprise has been involved in delivering sensitive technical data to Romulan Intelligence, a subtly paranoid mood is set up when retired Starfleet Admiral Norah Satie is taken aboard the Enterprise to help investigate a possible conspiracy...
A congenial meeting between Satie and Picard takes place where she voices a profound admiration for her father (a renowned former judicator in the Federation) and expresses a desire to work together with Captain Picard on the investigation. She also predicts that Lt. Worf "will be extremely valuable in this investigation". While working on discovering their saboteur, Sabin (an aide to Satie and a telepath) tells Worf that the security chief had been a suspect due to his own family history, however his enthusiastic cooperation has earned him their trust.
Then Simon Tarses, a civilian crewman, is questioned at an "informal inquiry" and asked about J'Dan and whether he'd seen the Klingon outside of his duty as medical tech, or heard him make any suspicious comments. The Admiral dismisses him after a few questions, but Sabin sensed that Crewman Tarses was hiding a big secret. Picard points out to Satie that shadowing and restricting a person solely based on that would be treating him as if he were already a known criminal. At that point LaForge calls Picard to engineering, where he and Lt. Commander Data report that an "undetectable defect" in a new hatch casing, not sabotage, resulted in the explosion.
In the second half of the show, Adm. Satie's intentions are revealed with the statement that "just because there was no sabotage doesn't mean there isn't a conspiracy on this ship." Picard is extremely skeptical but Worf echoes Sabin's interest in further investigating Tarses. To the captain's dismay, the investigation takes the form of an open hearing, where Simon Tarses is further interrogated, this time by an aggressive Sabin. But before that, Satie asks Dr. Crusher, Simon's boss, to "name names" of whom she saw around Tarses socially, who might be connected with J'Dan.
It's uncovered that Tarses' grandfather was not a Vulcan but a (genetically-similar) Romulan, and he lied about that on his personnel file application. Confronted with this, Tarses chooses not to answer on the advice of his advocate, Commander Riker. Picard, feeling that they've all moved beyond legitimate suspicion, interviews Tarses in private, and finds him a bright-eyed eager type who admires Starfleet. Insisting that Satie put an end to the proceedings against him though results in a confrontation between Picard and the admiral, where after repeating that he was her partner in the investigation, Satie states, "I have a purpose", and reveals that she had not accepted retirement, but for 4 years has been working on her own, presumably at rooting out "enemies of the Federation". On her recommendation Starfleet Command has authorized to expand the current investigation (to all the crew of the Enterprise) and that she does "not need your permission or your approval," speaking to Picard. The Captain declares that he will fight Satie, and is soon summoned to be questioned, with Adm. Henry of Starfleet Security overseeing the hearing.
At the inquest, Adm. Satie ignores Picard's opening statement and immediately begins accusing him of wilfully disregarding the Prime Directive of the Federation and facilitating the escape of a Romulan spy. When Worf speaks up in his captain's defense, Sabin repeats the claim that Worf's father had been a traitor aiding the Romulans (at Khitomer) again assaulting Capt. Picard's judgement for putting the Klingon in charge of ship's security. When finally Satie condemns Picard for exacerbating Starfleet casualties during the war against the Borg (of the last season) - a circumstance he could not have escaped - Picard rebukes her quoting her own father, and Satie explodes in an emotional tirade, at which Admiral Henry leaves the room. The trials are called off, and the episode closes with a discussion between Picard and Worf. When the latter apologizes for supporting Satie's crusade, Picard says, "She or someone like her will always be with us, waiting for the right climate in which to flourish, spreading fear in the name of righteousness."
Analysis
Adm. Satie's view of justice had been too extreme and incompatible with the organization she hoped to preserve. I think that over time people can veer off the course they think they're following without realizing it. That is what the Captain alluded to when Satie made him admit that he would infringe on the rights of one of his crew (the right to privacy) on the advice of the partly telepathic Counselor Troi. That's why one must be willing to re-evaluate such a choice, when it becomes apparent that it contradicts a more important decision.
There is no doubt that at all times Adm. Satie thought what she was doing was the right thing. But what exactly forced her to ignore the counsel of others, namely her "partner" Picard? The admiral was trying to follow in the footsteps of her father, but primarily in being a hero of the Federation, as opposed to upholding justice per se. So pride was undoubtedly a factor. But one cannot believe in the rightness of something, yet consider it acceptable to trample all over that thing in order to save it. Or can he? In any even Satie's unwillingness to honor a Federation principle because it would interfere with her hunt for those who effectively reject ALL its principles seems a commonly-made choice. And I would guess it simply never occured to her to consider her methods in any light other than apparent effectiveness, and it's of the utmost importance for society that people realize and address this vulnerability in themselves - particularly those who undertake to be leaders or administrators.
The ominous truth spoken at the end of the show is worth considering. According to Picard, fear and those who would wield it are the enemy of democracy. I would further argue that it's an enemy to human happiness itself. Fear of death or fear of injustice is futile and pointless, because for the time being both are inevitable consequences of existence. On the other hand to take action against the fear is productive, because even if you do not usher in final justice yourself, lives will certainly be improved whenever someone's fear is reduced.
For the Federation, as with any body, not only victories can be expected, but defeats must sometimes be endured. This cannot be avoided. However if they do not foster more fear, those experiences can grant strength even while setting them back. And supporting the strength of each individual, in a democratic society, adds to the strength of the many. Thus the chaos of life is brought to a prosperous order, without resorting to fundamentalist, militant or oppressive methods. This kind of philosophy is what inspires Star Trek and is frequently encountered in the show's storylines.
The story begins like this: after it was confirmed that at least one person aboard the starship Enterprise has been involved in delivering sensitive technical data to Romulan Intelligence, a subtly paranoid mood is set up when retired Starfleet Admiral Norah Satie is taken aboard the Enterprise to help investigate a possible conspiracy...
A congenial meeting between Satie and Picard takes place where she voices a profound admiration for her father (a renowned former judicator in the Federation) and expresses a desire to work together with Captain Picard on the investigation. She also predicts that Lt. Worf "will be extremely valuable in this investigation". While working on discovering their saboteur, Sabin (an aide to Satie and a telepath) tells Worf that the security chief had been a suspect due to his own family history, however his enthusiastic cooperation has earned him their trust.
Then Simon Tarses, a civilian crewman, is questioned at an "informal inquiry" and asked about J'Dan and whether he'd seen the Klingon outside of his duty as medical tech, or heard him make any suspicious comments. The Admiral dismisses him after a few questions, but Sabin sensed that Crewman Tarses was hiding a big secret. Picard points out to Satie that shadowing and restricting a person solely based on that would be treating him as if he were already a known criminal. At that point LaForge calls Picard to engineering, where he and Lt. Commander Data report that an "undetectable defect" in a new hatch casing, not sabotage, resulted in the explosion.
In the second half of the show, Adm. Satie's intentions are revealed with the statement that "just because there was no sabotage doesn't mean there isn't a conspiracy on this ship." Picard is extremely skeptical but Worf echoes Sabin's interest in further investigating Tarses. To the captain's dismay, the investigation takes the form of an open hearing, where Simon Tarses is further interrogated, this time by an aggressive Sabin. But before that, Satie asks Dr. Crusher, Simon's boss, to "name names" of whom she saw around Tarses socially, who might be connected with J'Dan.
It's uncovered that Tarses' grandfather was not a Vulcan but a (genetically-similar) Romulan, and he lied about that on his personnel file application. Confronted with this, Tarses chooses not to answer on the advice of his advocate, Commander Riker. Picard, feeling that they've all moved beyond legitimate suspicion, interviews Tarses in private, and finds him a bright-eyed eager type who admires Starfleet. Insisting that Satie put an end to the proceedings against him though results in a confrontation between Picard and the admiral, where after repeating that he was her partner in the investigation, Satie states, "I have a purpose", and reveals that she had not accepted retirement, but for 4 years has been working on her own, presumably at rooting out "enemies of the Federation". On her recommendation Starfleet Command has authorized to expand the current investigation (to all the crew of the Enterprise) and that she does "not need your permission or your approval," speaking to Picard. The Captain declares that he will fight Satie, and is soon summoned to be questioned, with Adm. Henry of Starfleet Security overseeing the hearing.
At the inquest, Adm. Satie ignores Picard's opening statement and immediately begins accusing him of wilfully disregarding the Prime Directive of the Federation and facilitating the escape of a Romulan spy. When Worf speaks up in his captain's defense, Sabin repeats the claim that Worf's father had been a traitor aiding the Romulans (at Khitomer) again assaulting Capt. Picard's judgement for putting the Klingon in charge of ship's security. When finally Satie condemns Picard for exacerbating Starfleet casualties during the war against the Borg (of the last season) - a circumstance he could not have escaped - Picard rebukes her quoting her own father, and Satie explodes in an emotional tirade, at which Admiral Henry leaves the room. The trials are called off, and the episode closes with a discussion between Picard and Worf. When the latter apologizes for supporting Satie's crusade, Picard says, "She or someone like her will always be with us, waiting for the right climate in which to flourish, spreading fear in the name of righteousness."
Analysis
Adm. Satie's view of justice had been too extreme and incompatible with the organization she hoped to preserve. I think that over time people can veer off the course they think they're following without realizing it. That is what the Captain alluded to when Satie made him admit that he would infringe on the rights of one of his crew (the right to privacy) on the advice of the partly telepathic Counselor Troi. That's why one must be willing to re-evaluate such a choice, when it becomes apparent that it contradicts a more important decision.
There is no doubt that at all times Adm. Satie thought what she was doing was the right thing. But what exactly forced her to ignore the counsel of others, namely her "partner" Picard? The admiral was trying to follow in the footsteps of her father, but primarily in being a hero of the Federation, as opposed to upholding justice per se. So pride was undoubtedly a factor. But one cannot believe in the rightness of something, yet consider it acceptable to trample all over that thing in order to save it. Or can he? In any even Satie's unwillingness to honor a Federation principle because it would interfere with her hunt for those who effectively reject ALL its principles seems a commonly-made choice. And I would guess it simply never occured to her to consider her methods in any light other than apparent effectiveness, and it's of the utmost importance for society that people realize and address this vulnerability in themselves - particularly those who undertake to be leaders or administrators.
The ominous truth spoken at the end of the show is worth considering. According to Picard, fear and those who would wield it are the enemy of democracy. I would further argue that it's an enemy to human happiness itself. Fear of death or fear of injustice is futile and pointless, because for the time being both are inevitable consequences of existence. On the other hand to take action against the fear is productive, because even if you do not usher in final justice yourself, lives will certainly be improved whenever someone's fear is reduced.
For the Federation, as with any body, not only victories can be expected, but defeats must sometimes be endured. This cannot be avoided. However if they do not foster more fear, those experiences can grant strength even while setting them back. And supporting the strength of each individual, in a democratic society, adds to the strength of the many. Thus the chaos of life is brought to a prosperous order, without resorting to fundamentalist, militant or oppressive methods. This kind of philosophy is what inspires Star Trek and is frequently encountered in the show's storylines.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
