^ I wasn't going to say anything, but... yeah, ditto.
Ktrek said:
If things are as "optimistic" as you want to believe then why are Admirals and those in high places often portrayed as "corrupt"?
Lazy writing? Trying to instill a false sense of consequence and repercussion through the threats from higher-ups that never manifest? The need to give the characters a challenge, even if an illusiory one? This is one aspect, like the lack of non-humanoid species on Starfleet crews or magical universal translator, that I'm willing to chalk up to the conventions of television.
And how many higher-ups are really 'corrupt', as a plot-point? Most are inept or needlessly antagonistic (though I suppose one might see corruption in such individuals achieving a high rank in the first place). Dougherty, the guy from INS, clearly. Admiral Ross, arguably, for being in bed with 31 (sad that one of the few comptetent admirals is also corrupt). Cartwright, the conspirator. Leyton, for his attempted coup. Pressman, for violating the Treaty of Algeron. An Admiral Raner, who according to Memory Alpha was Pressman's patron in that matter. Kennelly, conspiring with the Cardassians. Mark Jameson, who traded weapons for hostages, and then provided the other side with weapons to even things up. Norah Satie, although it's debatable where she was corrupt rather than crazy. Who else, for the list-memory amongst us? Still, as a plot device, it's only a hanful out of a rather goodly number of flag officers we've seen in the series.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
