One of them, anyone. MacK makes a lot of good ones in "Homage to Catalonia" (hmmm...catchy title!) But the one I'm referring to is this:

starting with Eisenhower there was a broad recognition in many aspects of European foreign policy that the moderate lefts antipathy to the Soviets was strong, while their ideas for a Social democracy helps Europe resist the pressure from the East, not weaken it. Remember, in the darkest parts of the Cold War many of the US' strongest European allies had Social-Democrats in power.

(Actually, it started before Eisenhower. But Eisenhower cemented it as a bipartisan recognition.) The isolationationist Old Right was bitterly opposed to this. They could hardly give a fig about Europe. They were all obsessed with fighting the Commies, all right--the Commies in the US State Dept (meaning Democrats), or in China, which also, via the "Who Lost China?" debate also mean State Department Dems. (Or GOP internationalists, who were even worse, mucking up the partisan demonization machine.)

And yet, this was the key to winning the Cold War. Well, the first key, anyway. There was also jazz, followed by rock'n'roll. But none of that would have mattered if people hadn't been able to eat first. One of the biggest lies of our times is that "Reagan won the Cold War." This is so ludicrous, one hardly knows where to begin. But all one really needs to do is look at the combined productive capacities of the US and it's Western European allies vs. the Soviets and its allies back in the 1950s, and it was already obvious which side would prevail, barring absolutely catastrophic stupidity. Well, believe me, we tried. Vietnam was catastrophic stupidity, but not absolutely catastrophic stupidity. So we won the Cold War anyway. And what cemented Western Europe was the recognition that MacK points to, and actions based upon it. Top of the list: The Marshall Plan (developed by the Commie-ridden State Dept). And Marshall, of course, was redbaited for his troubles as perhaps the #1 man who "lost China." (This is why I say above that it started pre-Eisenhower.)

Ironically, Eisenhower, who appreciated the logic--as MacK points out--and who served under Marshall in WWII, campaigned alongside Joe McCarthy while McCarthy was attacking Marshall. Much like Arlen Specter today, he tolerated vicious partisanship to rally the GOP base, at the same time he invokved bipartisan principles. Of course, there was an enormous difference between the two men. Eisenhower actually believed in the bipartisan principles, and acted on them. But he was still a man divided.

IntrovertGirl:

I would posit that the reason DS9 had a stronger story line was that it had to. The previous series' stories were the exploration--the boldly going and discovering and all that. DS9 was stationary, so they needed a different narrative thread, perhaps a more complex one.

Point taken. But they aced it in spades when it came to making a virtue of a necessity.

What was the original point? Honestly, it was an offhand remark.

And what better way to start a Star Trek sub-thread? Especially on a lazy Sunday.

Here's my final word (knock on wood). A link to a post I wrote awhile back:

"Star Trek Socialism"

http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=354

Though it could, perhaps, rekindle the Socialist/Libertarian thread.

I think I should point out that Blade Runner only uses perhaps a third of the thematic material from Philip K. Dick's original novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? My roomates (none of whom knew Dick's work) went to see the movie on opening night (I had to work). Afterwards, I asked them about a string of six or seven thematic elements, and they just shook their heads "no" at most of them. The biggest omission, of course, is the Mercer Boxes.

This is from a brief online review:

Amidst all of this, a new religion has arisen called Mercerism. It's founder, Wilber Mercer, is an empath who is taking all of mankind's suffering upon his own shoulders. Adherents transmit their pain to him through Mercer Boxes and receive inner peace in return. Now Deckard has been given the assignment of retiring a gang of 8 andys and, to his own horror, he finds that he is starting to develop feelings of empathy for these humanoids while Mercer is telling him that it's wrong to kill the androids, but that he has to go ahead and do it anyway.

While all of Philip K. Dick's books give you the sense that they're set in worlds with many other intersting stories that could be told, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is one that just begs to be more fully explored.

Glenn:

Warning that anonymity makes bloggers so "scary" and "irresponsible," while demanding anonymity to voice that criticism, is ingenious.

Both ingenious and disingenious at the same time, in fact.

But the primary--tired, but true--point I wanted to make was that most bloggers aren't anonymous. They either use their real names or else use pseudonyms. And pseudonymous authorship is as old as the hills. Mark Twain and George Orwell are two pseudonymous authors that people refer to and quote from all of the time--and two of the most truth-oriented voices of the last 150 years.

This seems like such an obvious point. As a journalist myself, I find it baffling that this basic fact can be misreported over and over and over and over and over again. Baffling? No, make that downright shameful.

The media had all sorts of excuses for why they got the runup to the Iraq War wrong. But this is exactly the same sort of repeated reporting of conventional wisdom in defiance of the facts. If they can't get such basic, fundamental facts right, what can they do???