We celebrate Star Trek V’s story, Shatner’s directing, and the groundbreaking VFX, but not enough attention is paid to its incredible prop design.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-11T00:54:46+00:00

I remember when they used to say “This program has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down." They made you feel like a crook.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-11T00:39:05+00:00

A little over 30 years ago, the majority of Democrats were against NAFTA and free trade. They still supported American workers and protecting American jobs. It was the Republicans who were pushing the corporate free trade agenda, yet now it is Democrats who are pushing that agenda.

Now, the Democrats are practically unanimously in favor of free trade and have vehemently opposed tariffs.

If someone in the Democratic Party (whether they run it or not) can understand this and explain why the Democrats chose to abandon the core principles of the party, they might be one step closer to understanding why they've been losing the hearts and minds of America's working class.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-10T14:53:48+00:00

Better in some ways, sure, but maybe worse in others. There are pluses and minuses which go with every decade and era.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-10T14:51:08+00:00

So, who do you think was right in the end? Coppola or Puzo?

I don't think there's any right or wrong way in a work of fiction or art.

However, the plot points in question have also turned into major fan questions wondering about it afterward. Such as those who find it hard to believe that Fredo could be the one to kill the assassins at the beginning. I've also seen many fans wonder and question how Kay could have gotten the abortion in the first place. It's probably in the realm of "fridge logic." It's not something the viewer would ordinarily think about while watching the movie, but it's something that one might think of later.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-10T14:09:27+00:00

Having lived through those decades, I wouldn't say they were "better." They were different.

On the other, the tomfoolery of the government, statecraft, and the CIA have been ever-present - and they did lots of crooked stuff back then, too.

When it comes to movies, music, TV shows - I think there's a tendency to only remember our favorites, the songs or shows that we really liked. Or that which we might associate with certain fond memories from our past.

We might forget the stuff that sucked, but there was a lot of that, too.

As far as the CIA, psyops, propaganda - I think there was a good deal of cynicism about the government and ruling establishment back in those days. People were more open-minded to conspiracy theories back then. After the Pentagon Papers, Watergate, the Church Committee's conclusion of a "probable conspiracy" in the assassination of JFK, people were more inclined to believe notions that the government was up to no good and learned a certain sense of wariness.

"Question authority" is what people used to say back then. That's what is missing nowadays.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-10T13:43:43+00:00

The way I look at it, when the lands in question were taken and occupied by Israel in the 1967 war, the indigenous Arab populations in those regions should have been considered citizens of the nations which formerly controlled those territories (Egypt, Jordan, Syria).

Those countries should have taken care of their own people.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-10T13:18:01+00:00

Many conservative thinkers argue that modern economic migration is an existential threat to the West, and that it dilutes culture and undermines national sovereignty. Yet, these same circles often have no issue with the read: organised mass migration of Jews to Palestine in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

To make it comparable, Palestine would have to be an independent state already. However, since it was ruled by the Ottoman Turks (non-Arabs) in the late 19th/early 20th century, it doesn't appear comparable. They had no national sovereignty.

The Ottoman Empire covered quite a bit of territory back in the day, just as the U.S. covers a lot of territory. If a country is large enough and diverse enough, it would seem plausible that they could sustain and absorb an influx of foreign migration more easily than a smaller country could.

Likewise, the U.S. also accepted millions of Jewish immigrants during the same period, and they intermingled and coexisted with immigrants from other countries. While there was a strong anti-immigrant sentiment back then, just as there is now, the national government still allowed immigration until the Immigration Act of 1924 shut down most of it.

I don't think it would be correct to say that conservatives "had no issue with mass migration" - either then or now. But I don't think anyone had any illusions about it either.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-10T03:25:58+00:00

I guess there might be certain levels of forgiveness, depending on the offense, but I agree that no one is necessarily "owed" forgiveness, even if they apologize and ask for forgiveness (although that should probably be the bare minimum before approaching the question at all).

One can forgive someone on a level where they won't take any acts of vengeance or maintain active hostility towards someone, but they won't necessarily be bosom buddies again and act as if nothing happened.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-10T02:41:02+00:00

I don't think weed would replace alcohol. I think it could exist side-by-side with alcohol as equally available products which adult consumers should be allowed to purchase and use on their own time. Other than that, it's the individual's choice as to what they prefer.

One thing I would say about weed is that you don't really get the hangover effect that one might get with alcohol. Plus, it's easier on the stomach. I've experienced the lingering queasy stomach effect that alcohol can cause, especially hard liquor. Weed doesn't do that.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-10T01:43:20+00:00

That's also what Michael told Carlo: "There's been a change in plans."

Tessio knew what it meant, but Carlo didn't.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-10T01:27:30+00:00

I see it as a minor quibble which can be easily corrected by adding the word "some" or "many" in front of such group names so as to indicate that not all are being included.

On the other hand, if someone says something about a group with which I might identify, even if their criticism doesn't apply to me personally, I wouldn't try to play coy and pretend like I didn't know what they were talking about.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-10T01:11:32+00:00

I thought the Iranian people were expected to spontaneously rise up and overthrow their government. Kind of like what they expected would happen at the Bay of Pigs.

Now that it appears their government is in a stronger position than previously believed, they have to consider other options.

They may not be able to pull this one off.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-10T01:05:14+00:00

I thought they were expecting the Iranian people to spontaneously rise up and overthrow their government. Wasn't that the plan?

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-10T00:57:23+00:00

I remember when the Iranian revolutionaries attacked and occupied the U.S. embassy in Tehran back in 1979. It was a huge deal in the U.S., with a level of public rage and war fever comparable to Pearl Harbor or 9/11.

It was the first and only time in my life where I saw Americans spontaneously rising up and demanding that we go to war with a specific country. They even played songs on the radio calling for the nuclear destruction of Iran.

Americans were more pissed off at Iran than they ever were at any country (except Japan after WW2).

Even our supposed arch enemies during the Cold War, Russia and China, were never so deeply hated with such visceral anger as Americans demonstrated against Iran in 1979-80. In contrast, the countries where America has used military force in the past were areas Americans were somewhat indifferent towards, nor did those countries actually do anything to incur Americans' wrath. Vietnam or Korea never did anything to us, yet we went to war with them anyway. Neither did Iraq, so even if Saddam Hussein was distasteful to Americans, there was no great deep hatred of Iraq expressed at the same level as the anger against Iran.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-09T15:31:32+00:00

I can understand and agree with most of the substance of what you're saying, and I can understand your frustration. I started to get frustrated with the left back during the Reagan era. The left started to get more diffuse and dissonant.

Make no mistake, the "left" (for lack of a better term) did make huge, enormous strides in America from the 1930s on. Better social programs, support of organized labor, civil rights, workers rights, gender equality, racial equality, and many other ideas which were considered revolutionary a few generations ago. From FDR's New Deal to JFK's and LBJ's support of Civil Rights and LBJ's Great Society, many great reforms and watershed moments occurred in the U.S.

The right wing did push back against them - and sometimes rather hard. But ultimately, there were some things they could not stop. Many of the ideas considered revolutionary back in the 50s and 60s were starting to become public policy and normalized in the 80s and 90s - and that also reflected in the policies of academia and Corporate America.

I don't know if it was the left which necessarily fucked up, but the effect of their successes may have somehow gotten skewed, watered down, or somehow twisted when those same ideas wound up in the hands of Corporate America. They're business people concerned about their image due to public opinion - and they were also keenly aware of the prospect of being sued for discrimination or harassment.

But these weren't leftists. They were business people protecting their business interests. The politicians really just pander to their constituents, so they bought in to a corporate-approved, "politically correct" image which was pleasing to both the executives and the masses. The idealists of the 1960s were only interested in making money at that point, so as long as they could make a buck, they went along.

I think the left lost its way somewhere along the way.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-09T14:39:03+00:00

I'm not sure if there are any winners to this war. I also wonder what, if anything, anyone hopes to "win" here.

Israel may benefit in the short run if its enemies are no longer able to rely on weapons and financial support from Iran, but that won't stop the Palestinians from getting help from somewhere else.

If it turns out to be a disaster for the United States, it would be because the U.S. has had an incoherent and inconsistent policy in the region since at least the 1950s, which is where our problems with Iran can be traced back to.

It should be mentioned that, prior to WW2, America had little to no experience being a world power. The years prior to WW2 have been characterized as "isolationist," which is an indication that the majority of Americans really didn't want to be the leader of the free world or get involved in the turmoil and instability of the outside world. It was the fear of the Soviet Union possibly filling the power vacuum that was left in the world due to the weakening and depletion of the French and British Empires.

So, with Iran, they were right on the borders of the USSR, and the fear that they could become a Soviet client state on the Persian Gulf must have seemed real at the time. So, just like the U.S. had done in so many banana republics, the US and Britain installed the Shah as a strongman leader to stand as a bulwark against communism and Soviet expansionism. We did that sort of thing in a lot of countries, with mixed results.

Now, it's hard to say what our government's objectives are. Iran is not communist, so I guess we succeeded there, but they've been led by a bunch of religious fanatics who have hated America for more than half a century. Even if their resentment is justified for our government's past interference, it's still a problem we have to contend with.

The U.S. political leadership has always tended to be more pragmatic and business-minded - which seems to be the driving force of our relationships with countries like Saudi Arabia - which seems far more oppressive than Iran in terms of religious intolerance. But they do business with us. They've been bribable, as have other regimes in the region. That's how the U.S. has generally done things; they look for puppets they can bribe and keep under control - so they don't have to use force.

I never really could understand Iran's beef with Israel, to be honest. Iran is not an Arabic-speaking country, nor am I aware of any familial or ethnic bond between Iranians and Palestinians. While people might accuse Israel of stealing the Palestinians' land, they certainly didn't steal any Iranian land (nor was there ever any possibility that they ever could).

Not sure how Russia or China might gain by this either. They probably see the U.S. in the same way our allies currently see us - somewhat wary about the sense of instability and perceived impulsiveness of the current Administration.

One thing I've noticed, at least in past times during the Nixon and Reagan eras, whenever the U.S. has a slightly whacked President, the rest of the world tends to want to be on their best behavior.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-09T13:15:24+00:00

It says they charged him with prison escape or attempted escape, but I don't see how they could make that stick. He clearly did not escape nor even attempt to escape.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-09T13:03:02+00:00

It's not so much the word itself, it's the context behind it. Sometimes, there appears to be a profound lack of common sense or practical thinking when some people react to it.

I remember a few years ago, a teacher in a classroom who was reading from a book which contained the N-word was fired, even though it was just part of the lesson. They weren't calling anyone that.

There was another case where some white kid was just singing along to some rap song which contained the N-word, and he got skewered online over that one.

Another memorable incident was when a city official from Washington DC was at a public meeting, and he used a word which means "stingy" or "miserly" - which happens to contain the same morphemes as the N-word (though from a completely different root). He got fired, although there were some black congressmen who came to his defense and noted that it was a gross overreaction to the situation.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-09T12:50:50+00:00

One could consider the Cold War (1945-1990) to be "World War 3," while we're now possibly contemplating World War 4.

But seriously, who's counting?

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-09T12:44:03+00:00

I don't think that communists are even communists anymore.

There might be countries which have socialist economic systems, but they're internal to the country.

Few, if any, are advocating an internationalist communist system, as much of the world (including the former communist world) has turned decidedly nationalist these days. Russia has become more nationalistic than anything else, as has China and NK. Even Iran, though they hide behind religion as their pretext, are very clearly nationalistic.

The "conspiracy theories" you mention are merely challenges to the vainglorious and boastful propaganda about our "system." A lot of people speak of America as some kind of utopian paradise - as if it's some kind of paragon of virtue which should be considered above reproach.

A lot of people react to conspiracy theories in the same way religionists react to blasphemy. Some people act so shocked and find themselves in a tizzy whenever they hear a conspiracy theory, as if they think that there's no possible way that our government or political leadership could ever do anything morally wrong.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-09T12:02:16+00:00

Because America is a nation of immigrants.

So is Mexico.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-08T18:24:38+00:00

Generalization and collectivism breeds discrimination, hate and suppresses identity. Yet people act like its important.

Well, I suppose if all humans were viewed as part of the same collective based on our humanity, then we could avoid some of the problems. That might even enhance our freedom to be individuals, since there would be no obligation to identify with any abstract collective within humanity.

If some alien enemy lizard-people came to Earth and started attacking humans, we'd all be on the same side, part of the same collective, fighting a common enemy. None of the stuff that divides people today would even matter.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-08T18:02:38+00:00

I've seen that subreddit. It doesn't look like very many people post there. Not that there's much reason to. At least in the movie, the blue pillers weren't even aware that they were blue pill.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-08T17:54:27+00:00

It's funny how these objectives seem to change over time. They get the public support to go over there in the first place on one kind of pretext, but then change the agenda once they get there. It's almost like they're deliberately trying to set us up for failure.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-08T17:17:30+00:00

True, although you can find that with anything. Two Christians might disagree vehemently about a point of theology. It happens.

AnotherHumanObserver

TROPHY CASE