From: runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan)
Subject: Re: Lacarno = Kirk (Spoilers "1st Duty)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:22:54 GMT
Organization: HP, Cupertino, CA, USA

kyle@uunet.uu.net (Kyle Jones) writes:
>>>>> Nay, I'd say Locarno has learned the lessons of life very
>>>>> well. [...]
>>>
>>> Not at all.  Wesley's confession didn't bring Josh back, and Josh
>>> decided for himself to attempt the maneuver.  Self-immolation for
>>> no gain was more stupid than the stunt they pulled to land them
>>> in mess they were in.  Locarno was right; Wes should have resigned.
>> Oh come on.  The team screwed up and they should have faced
>> the medicine.  No flame, but your response IMO speaks badly of
>> you.  People should own up to their actions IMO.
>
>...  Tbe benefits of
>keeping silent should have been weighed against the the benefits
>of coming forward with the truth.  

Are you sure that they weren't?

>Despite Picard's sanctimonious
>speech, there is nothing special about the truth.  There are only
>actions and consequences.  

Of course, I disagree, but this is one philosophy.  It does not appear
to be the philosophy taught by Starfleet, though.  Is there something
special about the truth?  Well, apparently, that's an issue that we
could debate for hours.  However, the teaching of Starfleet was that
there *is* something special about the truth, hence violating Starfleet
training could cause serious problems for the team members later on.

>He goofed and he died as a result.  The other members pinned the
>blame on him because it was his fault.

Actually, there isn't any proof of this.  It is just as likely that one
of the other pilots `goofed', and Josh tried to correct the situation.
We can't be sure that the squad leaders words in the inquiry represented
a reality (Josh may have been having no problems at all dealing with
normal maneuvers).  {As a side note just to continue a debate, this is
one of the reasons `truth' is interesting... it tends to lead to `trust'}

>Picard never respected Wesley.  He only saw Wesley for what he
>could be, and never for what he was.  It was always Picard's
>expectations, Picard's approval, Picard's respect. ...

This is an interesting perspective, and one I certainly don't agree with.
Picard had expectations, certainly, and often Wesley exceeded them when
Wes was upon the Enterprise.  Picard was certainly proud of Wes, and I
believe he even said so on occassion.

>> If Locarno was unwilling to come forth and admit his mistake, was willing
>> to let someone he commanded take the blame just because he's dead and
>> won't care, then he's unfit for command.
>
>...  It is foolish to expect commanders to take the blame for
>the actions of their subordinates.  

Perhaps.  However, various episodes have indicated that commanders *are*
held responsible for the actions of their subordinates, and, indeed,
the commanders *expect* to be held responsible.  It seems to be one of
the key points of command within Starfleet, hence the squad leader was
unfit for command by Starfleet definition (at least, in as far as I can
determine that definition based on actions and words from several
Star Trek episodes).  Whether it is foolish or not is probably a debate
best left elsewhere.

>> If you don't believe you should be held accountable for your actions then
>> there's no need to go any farther.
>
>No, I do believe people should be held accountable for their
>actions.  But I also believe that justice is never absolute, ...
>...  I don't agree with the
>military's dogmatic attitudes regarding what they consider truth
>and honor and justice.

Which makes debating whether Locarno is responsible or not an unending
one, doesn't it?  We'd have to debate the base rules for what's `right',
and, then, should we agree on that, debate whether Locarno and/or Wes
did what was right by that definition (or some stretching of the defn).
Fun, perhaps, for deep, philosphical discussions around a warm fire with
glass of grape juice and some guitar strummings for dead-end meanderings,
but it makes for long notes strings, eh?

>Perhaps.  Locarno obviously had a lot of potential.  You don't
>think he could learn from this latest experience and become a
>better officer?  If you threw people out every time they made bad
>decisions, there wouldn't be anyone left in Starfleet.

Well, it was the fact that he didn't behold `The First Duty' as the
first duty that made him less than good material, right?  They kept
Wes, though he is just as responsible.  Its just that the first duty
training kept.  If you threw people out every time they made bad
decisons, yes, there would be a problem.  Hence, they only throw them
when the decision is bad and isn't corrected (yeah, yeah -- definition
of corrected depends on those ground rules we haven't yet debated.  So?)

Mark Runyan  {r.a.s. random rationalizer}