#511 (Spoilers)

Spoiler Space For #511
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
     Just knew they couldn't get through the season without the obligatory
"racism" episode.  Jodie had been conspicuously absent during the first 10
installments, and this was one of the main reasons Season 5 had been so
enjoyable as I was not compelled to listen to her "discrimination" lectures.
#511 was going along fairly smoothly until Tom became the Reverend Al Sharpton.
 I am now thoroughly disgusted with the title character as her worldview is
currently indistinguishable from that of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
     Only one question remains:  When Daria has her abortion during "Is It
College Yet", will they use the dilation and extraction or conventional method?

Al52228 wrote:

I also thought that she was out of character. "Abolish money"? What kind of pinko crap is that? But on the plus side, she would be the second "smartest woman in the world".

"New sh*t has come to light."-The Dude

In article , Thor Murphy wrote:

You're right. It IS ludicrous, but I thought Daria was writing that just to be provocative.

Steve Cross

Steve Cross wrote in message news:9g8v9m$5ca$[email]...

to be

THANK you. I'm glad SOMEONE here figured it out.....

in article 9g8v9m$5ca$[email], Steve Cross at [email] wrote on 6/13/01 7:08 PM:

The abolishment of money seemed to work for Gene Roddenberry and "Star Trek".

Perfection is subjective.

Shawn St. Clair said:

It made no sense there, either. At no point did ST:TNG explain what criteria they used _instead_ of purchase to allocate scarce goods.

(and yes, replicators or not, some goods were scarce. Could you have your own starship for the asking? Didn't look like it ...)

"Jordan S. Bassior" wrote:

    Actually, the whole concept of not having money in the Federation only showed
up quite a while after Roddenberry died and Berman took over the Trek franchise.
Plus, the reasoning behind it was pretty silly: Picard said in First Contact that
"Money doesn't exist in the 24th century .. we work to better ourselves and the
rest of humanity."  Laudable goal, but I think it would be too abstract a concept
for the guy who has to scrub out the antimatter injector.
    Funny thing is that in a DS9 ep, Jake Sisko quoted the party line to Nog, the
Ferengi, who when told that "We work to better ourselves" replied "Yes .. what
does that mean, exactly?"  Jake really had no response to that, having been
mindlessly reciting dogma :)

Infidel

In article , Rollins, Robert wrote:

No, it showed up in the late 1st season episode where they picked up the 20th century humans who had been frozen iirc, and those episodes had Roddenberry's hands all over them.

Chris Mack said:

And the assumption that the 20th century stock trader wouldn't be able to adapt to the economy of the 24th century, which I found amusing.

Steve Cross wrote in message news:9g8v9m$5ca$[email]...

wrote:

to be

Right -- and the way she discussed her draft with Jane and what she said to Helen ("Did I hear you working on your essay?" "From your reaction, I'd say you didn't") indicates she's quite aware of that. At that point in the episode she is still in the resist-competing-on-their-terms mode.

jrd

Steve Cross wrote in message news:9g8v9m$5ca$[email]...

wrote:

to be

In that case, is calling it a "Light-hearted spoof" not too far from the mark?

Fong Chih wrote in message news:9garsj$g5t$[email]...

Except she was trying for her spoof to be biting, not "light-hearted."

The thing is, the "abolish money" bit was NOT her intended message, her intended message was probably something along the lines of "Hey, should our education involve -competing- for sponsorship?" . But it's not clear how much of that would be ideology (a belief that high academic achievers should be just granted their choice of an education as a no-questions-asked entitlement) and how much is just an 18-year-old being an 18-year-old, dismayed at not being able to get away from playing the game by "their" rules.

In message , Jose Diaz writes

Which is pretty much the case in the UK, it isn't any more expensive to study at Oxford or Cambridge than it is to study at any of the other Universities. The academic requirements for entry are higher, but the cost isn't. There is some variation in the cost of living (rent on accommodation &c.) according to location, but tuition fees at all universities are identical.

Brett Paul Dunbar wrote in message news:HGsN1u$GctK7EwV$@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk...

just

the

our

how

should

Cmabridge is pretty cheap to study at. The London Unis are expensive.

In article , [email] says...

Lincoln Rockwell wrote:

Your response and characterization of me was rubbish. Not that I have to explain myself to the likes of you, but in my 34 years I have never engaged in a verbal or physical confrontation with a black person. The thrust of my post centered around criticism of those who cry "racism" or "sexism" everytime they don't get their way. And it also expressed dismay at how the show's principal character, after 4 years of sitting on the fence, appears to have embraced many elements of liberal dogma.

a) Many political viewpoints have been skewered on "Daria"

b) Don't feed the trolls. I know it's hard when they get personal.

M Man

In article , [email] says...

In article , [email] says...

Love and Rockets wrote:

I'll try to answer question one within a day or two as I am pressed for time right now.

Liberals are seldom correct if the source of their solution is Leftist reasoning, but I would not hesitate to work jointly with such a person if the program they proposed was sound. I can think of a few issues I agree with the "progressives" (hate that term) on:

1/ Child labor laws and maximum hour legislation: Althouh of dubious costitutionality because they violate the freedom of contract implicit in the Due Process Clause, such prohibitions are humane and good for the country from an ethical standpoint, although they would probably never pass a cost vs. benefits test (an economic one).

2/ General regulation for food and water safety: Another well founded concept developed by liberals that only a fool would disagree with.

3/ The incorporation of certain elements ofThe Bill of Rights against the states: At one time they only applied to the federal government. Over the years, certain liberal Supreme Court opinions began to require that the states respect them as well. Example: In the early part of the 19th Century, North Carolina had a law that if an individual was caught lying the state would cut off their ears. Such a statute would be obviously unconstitutional under the 8th Ammendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment and thus unenforceable. Such liberal thinking to curb extreme state action is once again quite sensible.

4/ Abolition of segregation through judicial fiat: The Brown v. Board of Ed. decision was not technically masterful, but as former federal judge Robert Bork, an arch conservative and a boyhood idol of mine said, "It was a monument to human freedom". The ruling was humane and, although it caused a firestorm when it was handed down, the nation is better off because of it. I am not quite as generous in praise of some of its progeny however, such as compulsory busing decrees for school desegregation and racial quotas for hiring and promotions, along with their euphemistic companions, goals and timetables.

5/ Certain elements of the New Deal, which I don't have time to get in to now as I have to go to work in the afternoon.

So as you can plainly see, I am not oblivious to the Left's contributions to American social and legal policy. As I said, if the idea makes sense, count me in.

Don't get too worked up about my original message, L&R. All I did was post a criticism of three cartoon characters on a public newsgroup, not author a treatise on political theory and try to have it enacted into law! Take it easy and have a good day - really.

Sincerely, Al52228

Al52228 wrote:

Love and Rockets posed a two part question for me a short while ago, and my answer to one of the questions can be found in the preceding paragraphs.The one I responded to, although clearly having a political tone, was not particularly controversial in nature. In my reply, I asserted that I would have an answer to his other question "within a day or two". However, after giving L&R's other query due consideration over the past couple of days, I have chosen to decline to offer an opinion on it. The reason is simple. I believe that such a volatile topic as the one in question has the potential to be a catalyst for a flame war on this newsgroup. This is something I most assuredly do not wish to see.

Flame wars are generally nasty affairs with no winners. There is no need for one of them to engulf alt.tv.daria. This is generally a pleasant group with many fine regs - people like Belle Book, Firah, Mark Steese, and M Man - whose posts are invariably on-topic. Even the erudite Jordan, who I believe has been here longer than anyone, rarely strays, and when he does, it is usually for good reason. Thus I will confine any future political opinions of mine to a newsgroup specifically devoted to such matters.

Sincerely, Al52228

In article , [email] says...

You posted this several days ago. I actually waited a few days, before I asked for an explanation. You delt with part of it. Now you post that you don't really want to explain the "racism" issue you raised here, because of newsgroup sensibilities.

Fine. Just so you re-read this paragraph, and see for yourself why I found it objectionable. Remember: I didn't start this thread -- you did; when you posted this paragraph, quoted above.

I'm not telling you to *not* post gratuitous vilification like this -- just that, if you do, I will probably ask you to explain it again, and I probably will ask you in some way or other that you won't especially like. I certainly hope all this doesn't upset your delicate sensibilities. And of course, I hope that in the future you will try not to upset mine.

L&R

Love and Rockets wrote:

Look, I'm not on trial here. You are not going to give me 30 - Life for criticizing cartoon characters. I was pleasant and conciliatory in the two replies I issued but apparently that wasn't good enough for you. Too bad. At least from where I stand, this matter is closed.

Piss off Bilary.

Bernie