I think it's weird naming a spaceanything after Obama, seeing how he's been gutting NASA like a trout. Kinda like naming a dog park after Michael Vick. As far as how-political-is-too-political, I think it should be kept to the broader issues (war, equality, racism, slavery, basic human rights, abortion, etc.) and not so much on the specific issues of the day, and REALLY avoid targeting specific personalities. With the specific issues of the day, history probably hasn't made its judgment yet, meaning the author is running the risk of looking like a total idiot in a very short time, and going after specific figures, you're not only making the same risk, but usually coming across as very small and petty.
Actually, speaking of agendas, I confess that I did once toss some gratuitous hominids into my FANTASTIC FOUR novel in hopes of pissing off some creationists . . .
I agree - none of your work has offended me in any way, Mr. Cox, and I've enjoyed all of it that I have read. The vast majority of the authors out there don't, really. It's just one or two that really feel the need to pound the reader's forehead with their 2x4 of righteousness that tend to annoy me. Regarding the Zife question, my only real familiarity with that is through Mike Martin's The Needs of the Many in which Bacco is interviewed about her time in office and whether or not Zife was a Bush analogue in previous novels, he most certainly was in Needs, so I'm willing to admit that my read on that situation is probably a bit off base as it relates to the original story. In Needs, however, I do think it's wish fulfillment. As for Bacco, we've had this discussion before, the fact that she's transparently based on liberal dream president Bartlet from The West Wing is abrasive to me. It's more of an irritation by association.
"Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, etc..." was most definitely trumpeted by conservative folk - of the time. And like Byrd, Wallace changed his stance. If you believe that war is always a fundamental failure and is - at absolute best - the lesser of evils but still very much evil, then maybe so. Again, it's not a matter of ability but of desire. Why make himself the target? Anyway, I find the idea of a completely secret spy organization that answers to nobody and can truly affect interstellar matters a little silly, so... c'est la vis? The Denali controversy isn't exactly widespread knowledge (it's only sprung up since the 1970s after all), so I'm not surprised the Star Trek show writers were unaware of it when McKinley Station was introduced. I'm glad you changed that "you" to a "they" - I was wondering how East TN ended up in Quebec. Either way, it's still a pretty silly comment to make and smacks of exceptionalism.
After the publication of A Time to Heal, I got hate mail from people on the left calling me a right-wing apologist for "glorifying torture" and hate mail from folks on the right for many of the reasons cited upthread. I figured that if I managed to make people on both sides of the fence frothing-at-the-mouth angry with the same book, I must have done something right.
^Well, I certainly enjoyed your Gitmo-style "musical loop" sequence. (Though frankly, Klingon opera is too "cool" to be torture. Now, the "Meow Mix theme", on the other hand...that would've gotten the guy screaming, "OKAY--OKAY! I'LL TALK--I'LL TALK!!!) Still, a waterboarding session would've been nice--maybe after turning the detainee over to the rebels....
It's like when both the left and right parties in Australia call our ABC "bias", you know the ABC has done something right.
It never ceases to amaze me when anyone tries to insist that creative people should only create things that appeal to their personal preferenes. Whether you're talking political or religious views, or simply shouting to the winds that Star Trek can't be my Star Trek without x, y, or z, the lack of understanding or respect for the creative process is stunning. The work of creative individuals in any medium is informed by their experiences and their views. You can't separate what someone does from who they are. You can choose not to read stuff you don't like, but you can't stifle the creative process by insisting it adhere to a set of standards you find personally appealing. I mean, I guess you can try, but good luck with that.
You're presuming they named it after Denali. What evidence do you have of this? It's far more probable that they named it after one of the most important American Presidents than a mountain in a remote corner of North America. My grandfather rants at the drop of a hat about "those goddamn French Canadians" and how snooty they are in Quebec. He grew up being taught to sing in parades about how "we'll" hang Catholics. Canada has plenty of prejudice. Show me a black Canadian politician who could stand a real chance of becoming PM and I might change my mind. 'Till then, I really see no reason to think Americans aren't exceptional in this regard.
Neither of us have any evidence either way of course, it's all conjecture. But considering the height of Denali/McKinley, I think it's perfectly reasonable and avoids the problematic nature you mentioned. Perhaps there's an Earth Station Everest, Aconcagua, Kilamanjaro, and Vinson Massif as well. Anyway, I certainly don't see McKinley as being one of the most important American Presidents - I don't even see him making the top 15. Which, out of 43, isn't that great. Yes, and I'm sure you're quite familiar with the incredibly nasty and virulent racism that lurks - and sometimes parades - about President Obama. So yeah, of course Canada has prejudice, everywhere does. That doesn't mean the non-prejudiced can't outvote them like happened here 2+ years ago. I don't know much of anything about Canadian politics, so... America, fuck yeah? Seriously, that long list of "never could happens" was shockingly arrogant and elitist. You said "could never..." which is quite different from "I mean, in the future, sure" which is still silly, but less so. I'd have the same reaction if an somebody from Ireland or Germany came in here and said "A woman could never become president of the United States" just because the Irish have elected a female president and the Germans a female Chancellor.
I'd be far less impressed with a female President of Ireland, since the Irish Presidency is mostly ceremonial and it's the Taoseach (Prime Minister) who has real power. I think the Germans have every right to gloat about our inability to elect a female President, though. So do the Brits and the Indians and the Brazilians and the.... Though the Sri Lankans get to gloat over all of us.
^ Just a note: The Indian Presidency is also ceremonial and real power rests with the Indian Prime Minister (although the current administration is having its strings pulled by majority party (Congress) President Sonia Gandhi, but that's another debate entirely).
But the mountain was (re)named after the president. So it's essentially a moot distinction. Exactly. People who assume that a writer's only motives are political are misunderstanding the process. Yes, lots of stories have messages, but if the story isn't good, people won't read it or enjoy it and the message won't come across anyway. So the story has to come first, and often that means having characters think or do things that don't conform to the writer's own politics or beliefs. Heck, if we didn't include characters we disagreed with, how would there ever be conflict? So it's always unwise to assume that everything that happens in a book represents the author's own beliefs or desires. I think she's actually based mainly on Keith DeCandido's grandmother. The West Wing is definitely an inspiration for the style of storytelling and dialogue in AotF and the other Bacco material out there, but as I said above, it's a mistake to evaluate an author's inspirations or agendas in exclusively political terms. Regardless of his politics, Aaron Sorkin is a brilliant playwright, a master of creating characters and dialogue, and that's what I think we writers would feel most inspired to emulate. I don't doubt there are some conservative-leaning writers out there who admire Sorkin's writing style and would love to emulate it -- because as writers their first priority would be the writing. Heck, I'm a huge fan of Poul Anderson's writing style and consider him an influence on my own writing even though I disagree with his libertarian politics. Or perhaps they named it after the great 23rd-century engineer Vanessa McKinley, or something.
Better yet, let's not be gloating about that at all. It's not a race or a contest. I don't agree. New York was named after the English Duke of York, but it's taken on its own identity. I don't think you need to identify all things by their name-origins, and Denali/McKinley is one of them; not unlike Everest. This, of course, is an even more elegant solution and one I like.
Indira Gandhi was not the Indian President, but Indian Prime Minister. When I listed India and Britain and Brazil, I was generically referring to female heads of government -- Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, President Dilma Vana Rousseff, etc. Thank you. If there's no controversy over a space station named for a horrible imperialist, there's no reason for there to be controversy over a space station being named for a president who, whatever else his flaws may be, genuinely has done something historic. KRAD has indicated a number of times that Nan Bacco is primarily based on his grandmother, yes, with some additional influences from Molly Ivins, Anne Richardson, and the characters from The West Wing. (And, hell, President Bartlet in The West Wing is not himself an idealized figure, even from a liberal/progressive POV -- he's a guy who failed to disclose to the American people a serious medical condition capable of disabling him with little notice, and who then ordered the assassination of a foreign ally's defense minister.) In other words: No, she's not just some liberal wish fulfillment figure. I was referring to the writers when I said "they," not speaking in-universe. Nations should, and have every right to be, proud of their accomplishments when they do something good that no or that few other nations have done. The phrase "New York" has taken on its own identity because people care about the unique characters of the City of New York and the State of New York. Comparatively few people give a shit about an obscure mountain in a remote corner of Alaska. If you say "McKinley," most people will think of the President, not the mountain. (And, frankly, I reject the idea that the Federation or United Earth would adopt the name given to the mountain by white guys rather than its original name from Native Alaskans.) It's a mountain named after an imperialist, and even IF the space station is named after the mountain, then you'd have a space station named after a mountain named after an imperialist. If that's not worthy of controversy, why is a space station named after a President who's done something truly historic?
I most not be Most Americans, because when you say McKinley, I think of both. When someone says Denali, I think of Denali National Park. So what was the Malinche or the Zhukov named after? I think they are worse names than the station named after a mountain, which I always believed because it was in orbit right above the mountain.
Two other people far more objectionable to have something named after them than Obama. Again, my point is not to make a ruckus over whether or not McKinley Station should have been named after William McKinley. My points are: secondarily, that the damn station is named after William McKinley, but, primarily: That if naming a station after William McKinley is not objectionable, naming something after Obama should not be, either. If no one cares about naming something "McKinley" -- or "Malinche" or "Zhukov" -- no one should object to naming something after someone who really has made a positive historic contribution to humanity.
Sorry, but whose business is that aside from his family's? There's a difference between "being proud of your nation's accomplishments" and "denigrating other nations for not being yours" - one is patriotism, the other is odious. Things change in hundreds of years, and it's entirely possible there are many Earth Stations named after important mountains. If somebody named a ship "Everest" would you assume they were recognizing the man or the mountain? That's fair, which is why "Vanessa McKinley the engineer" is reasonable in-universe. You're not the only one. Though I definitely thought of the mountain first when younger and I've always assumed the station was named after the mountain. You're assuming facts not in evidence. Sadly, we can't ask Michael Piller. Seriously though, what's the case for naming it after the President rather than the mountain? (And no, I don't know why I'm hung up on this point. ) On this, we agree.
We may be overthinking this. Things get named for all sorts of arbitrary reasons. Look at "America" . . . .. I once named a spaceship the Solanco because I thought it was a cool-looking word, not because it's a common abbreviation for "South Lancaster County (which is where I stole it from).