• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

"Past Tense" in real life

ramonasno

Lieutenant Junior Grade
Red Shirt
I've just rewatched one of my favourite episodes, " Past Tense" .

I can remember that I heard on a documentary, maybe the DVD extras that when they actually shot that episode, somewhere in the USA they were planning to do something like that for real. (I mean building ' sanctuary's ' for the poor and mental ill)

Does anybody know if this actually happened?

For me, it is also a parallel to Dutch society, where health care used to be affordable for all, but is getting more and more expensive. You know have to pay if you want to go do a psychiater, and if you don't have the money, you are not allowed. This is a new rule, and while watching this show it came to mind. Why not take care of people who need the care but don't have enough money? It's sad, and I actually hope we won't ever need something like "Past Tense" to happen before we realize this...
 
We dodged the Eugenics Wars but I'm beginning to think we won't dodge this. Even if the precise measures they took in "Past Tense" aren't used, I can see us being within the ballpark. It's only 14 years away.
 
^Absolutely.

On that note...if you listen sharp during the pre-credits sequence of Part I, one of the cops asks Sisko for "your UHC card".

Somehow...that sounds like an acronym for Universal Health Care...and it could well be an extention of the controversial "mandate" of present-day....

Frankly, the whole "Sactuary District" idea strikes me as someone's idea of "cradle-to-grave" welfare and public housing, with "care" for the mentally disabled thrown in for bad measure.

My $0.02 on all this:

To be blunt...the S-Ds strike me as a great example of the intense inefficiencies of federal bureaucracy. It's what folks like me have been screaming our heads off about for years. Leave care for the poor to state and local governments! The federal government just botches it all up in red tape.

For domestic programs, the closer to the people, the better--because closeness makes it easier to care, and treat dependents as people, rather than numbers!
 
Last edited:
Is this the two-part episode where they travel back in time and Sisko becomes involved with the Bell Riots? IIRC, Sisko's picture is used for the fellow who was originally involved.

Sean
 
Thought so, thanks. Need to watch this one again, as I've only seen it once. But I recall I enjoyed it, and thought it offered much food for thought. This was something that DS9 seemed to do very well.

I also recall that it aired right around the same time the Voyager pilot aired. Voyager was docked at DS9--yet, other than Quark, we didn't see the regular DS9 cast, and I wondered if that was because the DS9 crew were all trapped in the 21st century at the time during "Past Tense" . :)

Sean
 
^Absolutely.

On that note...if you listen sharp during the pre-credits sequence of Part I, one of the cops asks Sisko for "your UHC card".

Somehow...that sounds like an acronym for Universal Health Care...and it could well be an extention of the controversial "mandate" of present-day....

Frankly, the whole "Sactuary District" idea strikes me as someone's idea of "cradle-to-grave" welfare and public housing, with care for the mentally disabled thrown in for bad measure.

My $0.02 on all this:

To be blunt...the S-Ds strike me as a great example of the intense inefficiencies of federal bureaucracy. It's what folks like me have been screaming our heads off about for years. Leave care for the poor to state and local governments! The federal government just botches it all up in red tape.

For domestic programs, the closer to the people, the better--because closeness makes it easier to care, and treat dependents as people, rather than numbers!

I see it as both. If we're referring to politics, then on the liberal side, cradle to grave care would result in Sanctuary Districts if common sense isn't used. On the flipside, the Sanctuary Districts at the time of Gabriel Bell were a place where anyone who didn't have their papers or didn't have money to afford the capitalist system outside the walls were thrown in there, and that's a danger of the more conservative side of the fence.

I think we can both agree that either ideology, if pushed to an extreme and lacking common sense, has the capability to result in the Sanctuary Districts we see in "Past Tense".
 
^Absolutely.

On that note...if you listen sharp during the pre-credits sequence of Part I, one of the cops asks Sisko for "your UHC card".

Somehow...that sounds like an acronym for Universal Health Care...and it could well be an extention of the controversial "mandate" of present-day....

Frankly, the whole "Sactuary District" idea strikes me as someone's idea of "cradle-to-grave" welfare and public housing, with care for the mentally disabled thrown in for bad measure.

My $0.02 on all this:

To be blunt...the S-Ds strike me as a great example of the intense inefficiencies of federal bureaucracy. It's what folks like me have been screaming our heads off about for years. Leave care for the poor to state and local governments! The federal government just botches it all up in red tape.

For domestic programs, the closer to the people, the better--because closeness makes it easier to care, and treat dependents as people, rather than numbers!

I see it as both. If we're referring to politics, then on the liberal side, cradle to grave care would result in Sanctuary Districts if common sense isn't used. On the flipside, the Sanctuary Districts at the time of Gabriel Bell were a place where anyone who didn't have their papers or didn't have money to afford the capitalist system outside the walls were thrown in there, and that's a danger of the more conservative side of the fence.

I think we can both agree that either ideology, if pushed to an extreme and lacking common sense, has the capability to result in the Sanctuary Districts we see in "Past Tense".

I actually agree--common sense is not partisan. It's simply a matter of knowing logically what you believe, with a full and complete understanding of its effects, good and bad.

However...no self-respecting conservative or libertarian would suggest locking up the unemployed in a government-run holding tank. If anyone did, I would be the FIRST to verbally beat that pinhead to a pulp, for his hypocrisy and cruelty.

And...as Sisko clearly stated in Part II, "These people need to get work--not depend on handouts!"

A line that would make any Right-winger proud. :)
 
However...no self-respecting conservative or libertarian would suggest locking up the unemployed in a government-run holding tank. If anyone did, I would be the FIRST to verbally beat that pinhead to a pulp, for his hypocrisy and cruelty.

As a self-respecting libertarian, I wholehearted agree and would gladly be the second to verbally beat that pinhead.

And...as Sisko clearly stated in Part II, "These people need to get work--not depend on handouts!"

EXACTLY! :techman:
 
I also recall that it aired right around the same time the Voyager pilot aired. Voyager was docked at DS9--yet, other than Quark, we didn't see the regular DS9 cast, and I wondered if that was because the DS9 crew were all trapped in the 21st century at the time during "Past Tense" . :)

I included "Caretaker" during my DS9 rewatch just a few weeks ago and I thought the same thing. :) You'd think Sisko would have said hello to Janeway at some point had he been there.
 
I actually agree--common sense is not partisan. It's simply a matter of knowing logically what you believe, with a full and complete understanding of its effects, good and bad.

However...no self-respecting conservative or libertarian would suggest locking up the unemployed in a government-run holding tank. If anyone did, I would be the FIRST to verbally beat that pinhead to a pulp, for his hypocrisy and cruelty.

And...as Sisko clearly stated in Part II, "These people need to get work--not depend on handouts!"

A line that would make any Right-winger proud. :)

Well, as someone who is more liberal than conservative, I agree, and Sisko was absolutely right.
 
I also recall that it aired right around the same time the Voyager pilot aired. Voyager was docked at DS9--yet, other than Quark, we didn't see the regular DS9 cast, and I wondered if that was because the DS9 crew were all trapped in the 21st century at the time during "Past Tense" . :)

I included "Caretaker" during my DS9 rewatch just a few weeks ago and I thought the same thing. :) You'd think Sisko would have said hello to Janeway at some point had he been there.

Despite the fact that the stardates for both episodes don't match up, I do like to think this was the case as well. One could even theorize that Voyager arrives at DS9 just after the Defiant leaves for Earth. It still works, sort of...

Caretaker: Stardate 48315.6
Past Tense, Part 1 & 2: Stardate 48481.2
 
Some of coincidences noted in this episode are very interesting.

It's an engaging episode, the type that makes you feel like you've watched 5 hours worth of something.

But I noticed they added a cliche element of making things deliberatly menacing or too "futuristic".

Notice the uniforms and emblems the two "police officers"? are wearing-- it looks very totalitarian as if to bring home the message.

Also, the man that finds Dax asks she had any "credit chips" assuming they would be in use by then.

It looked as they were trying to "futurized" 2024 from a then early 90's point of view.

I agree too, with common sense, and with being vigilant, but feeling paranoid is too big an expense, IMO.


The more I see extreme partisan ism, the more I tend to agree with Chris Rock;

The whole country's got a f--cked up mentality. We all got a gang mentality. Republicans are fucking idiots. Democrats are f--cking idiots. Conservatives are idiots and liberals are idiots.

Anyone who makes up their mind before they hear the issue is a f--cking fool.

Everybody, nah, nah, nah, everybody is so busy wanting to be down with a gang! I'm a conservative! I'm a liberal! I'm a conservative! It's bullsh--t!

Be a f--cking person. Listen. Let it swirl around your head. Then form your opinion.

No normal decent person is one thing. OK!?! I got some sh--t I'm conservative about, I got some sh--t I'm liberal about.

Crime - I'm conservative. Prostitution - I'm liberal.
 
Last edited:
(Bulging eyes)

Well...Chris Rock certainly has a way with words!

To be honest, though, it can be a VERY good thing if both the Left and the Right are ditrustful of--and angry about--each other.

A good illustration of how the Founding Fathers envisioned America is the Three Headed Eagle. Observe:

picture.php


The picture emphaszes "checks and balances". It is at the heart of everything the American Representative Republic (or "Liberal Democracy", whichever) is and should be. The three heads, for example, represent the three basic branches of government--Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. The center head (Legislative) has two eyes--the House and the Senate.

But it is the two wings which are important for this discussion. There is a Left Wing and a Right Wing--and indeed, the titles are highly appropriate.

The Left Wing is the "compassion" wing--it's "desire" is to use the powers and resources of government to solve the problems of society (hence "Progressive" and "Liberal").

The Right Wing is the "conservation" wing--it's "desire" is to conserve the resources and culture of the nation (hence "Conservative") and preserve the liberty and rights of the people (hence "Libertarian").

In order for the eagle to fly, both sides must keep themselves strong--"on the alert", as it were. The Left Wing sees problems that need fixing, and asks "Can we do this?" The Right Wing looks at the proposed "solutions" with narrowed eyes, and asks, "Wait a minute--should we do this?", pointing to the rights of the Constitution and the resources of the budget.

Of course, this leads to conflict--as well it should. Frankly, the "partisan bickering" and "ideological conflicts" we hear so much about are necessary to keep both wings alert and strong.

Notice the scale above the Eagle's head. On the Far Left is tyranny. On the Far Right is Anarchy. If the Right Wing becomes complacent, and fails in its duty to "check" the Left Wing's desire to expand government's programs and therefore, power--the eagle drifts Leftward, toward a government that gets progressively too strong.

If, on the other hand (and this is where I freely admit we on the Right need to be careful), the Left Wing becomes submissive, and the Right Wing is unshaken in its compulsion to "conserve", nothing gets done, except for a cut-down of massive proportions--eventually, a limiting of government even beyond what is prescribed in the Constitution, as the eagle drifts farther and farther Right, towards a government that becomes too weak (such as the old Articles of Confederation). And that, in turn, crumbles into anarchy.

So, once the Eagle is "centered" on the government and powers of the Constitution--the power of one Wing must check and balance the other, to tackle the problems which need tackling while at the same time preserving our Individual Rights and regularly balancing our national budget.

In other words, they must then view each other with suspiscion--sometimes even contempt. Bipartisanship is a dangerous friend, which should only be implimented with extreme care and caution.

At its best, it is a wonderful agreement which effectively fulfils the desires of both wings (recentering the eagle where it should be--on the Constitution). If we honestly do agree, it is a wonderful expression of our Unity as Americans.

At worst...it is one Wing allowing itself to weaken and "compromise", causing the Eagle to drift.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top