Kent's Corner Issn. 2
11 February 1997
Kent's Corner-------------------------------Stardate 97021.1
"Botched Political Statements in DS9"
A recent Deep Space Nine episode ("For The Uniform") dealt
with both personal vendettas and with the ends justifying
the means, and in the latter respect I think it was another
disappointment for Star Trek watchers.
In the episode, Mike Eddington (the former DS9 security
officer who has defected to the Maquis) makes himself known
as a general pain-in-the-@ss, as well as a tactical
mastermind who leads the Maquis to several victories. When
the Defiant is disabled by Eddington (in a Maquis raider,
using a virus he planted in the Defiant's computer),
Eddington accuses Sisko of having let the war go
"personal," and downloads a copy of Le Miserable to the
Defiant as a way of making his point (I have never read/
seen Le Miz, so I half-expected for him to d/l Moby Dick
-- but then, that's already been done in ST2, hasn't it?).
At the end of the episode, in order to make Eddington
sacrifice himself to help his people, Sisko arms a torpedo
with environmentally not-friendly stuff and fires it into a
Maquis colony. Eddington surrenders to avert a similar
fate in other nearby Maquis worlds and is arrested. At
this point in the program I sat there, staring at the
screen, waiting. And waiting. And waiting. I was waiting
for Sisko to say that the colony hadn't really been dest-
royed, but it was all a trick to fool Eddington. No such
statement was made, and Sisko even admits something like
"Oops, I forgot to tell Starfleet about this plan -- didn't
I?" as if he hadn't just destroyed the lives of thousands
of people in his quest to make it easier to catch *one*
traitor. This, to me, is an unacceptable viewpoint for
Star Trek to be pushing: that the Ends justify the Means.
"The Enterprise Incident" aside, this isn't what Star Trek
is about. Does this action -- basically, a declaration of
official, firing war on not only the Maquis but all civil-
ians living near the Maquis -- sound like normal Starfleet
policy? There are major problems with these actions. They
seem very un-Sisko-like and un-Starfleet-Officer-like.
This is only the latest example of Paramount putting junk
scripts on that only *look* like real examinations of
ethical dilemmas. Having Our Hero succumb to a vendetta
and destroy innocents to get his quarry is the farthest
thing from Roddenberry's views as I can think. When did
Kirk do this? Picard? In ST2, JTK was up against a
maniacal revenge-driven "superman" but he, himself, was not
overcome by the madness of his opponent. Do YOU think that
G.R. would be happy with "For The Uniform?"
The other recent DS9 episode that comes to mind as bad
policy is "The Basics" (or 'back to the basics,' something
of that vein, DS9). Up until the last few minutes they had
what I was willing to call one of the best "There's a moral
here that pertains to 20th-century politics" episodes yet.
I was genuinely concerned as to how they would have Worf
play this, and if they would have an unhappy ending where
Worf takes the "traditional" or "conservative" (a.k.a. "un-
popular in Hollywood") side. They managed to evade any
genuine creative thinking, however, by making the tradit-
ionalist leader a power-hungry psychotic moron. If they
could have kept him a normal guy, with simply a few policy
disagreements, it would have been a great episode.Or maybe
this says something about the political leanings of the
current leadership of the Star Trek franchise. In any
event, G.R. would not be proud, I think.
Kent's Corner-------------------------------Stardate 97021.1
ZMP Limited------Fleet Captain Adam Kent-----WTFF/CNN of STF
[Starfleet News Network Homepage|STF Homepage|STF WeBB]
[SNN UPDATE Index|WeBBsights Index|More from SNN]