TrekLit politics

[Sci]

"If any kind of political statement about Bush was intended, it was more like "hey all you people that wish he was assassinated: here's what that feels like. Not so comfortable with the idea now, are you?""

At this point, this is the only even halfway convincing argument I have seen, and in addition to Rush's comments, one of the only attempts to offer a truly reasoned counterargument that has any chance of being supported by the text itself.

Point me to the sentence or sentences from the text of Star Trek: A Time to Heal which depict Zife's assassination as a good thing.

However, I still do not agree with it: such a thinly-disguised parallel of a sitting president being killed, is still something that is completely and totally inexcusable. Working with an assassination scenario--there are reasons to do that. But I see little difference between this and the movie someone made (which Rush cited) that actually depicted GWB being killed. Both have no place in the political discourse, or in ANY sort of reasoned discourse whatsoever.

Bullshit. Death of a President made an insightful comment about the nature of American political culture through its depiction of a fictional George W. Bush assassination, and it did so without depicting that assassination as a good thing. It has a place in artistic discourse and in political discourse, and to say that it does not is undemocratic.

 

[Thestral]

I'm sorry but he did was treason. As stated in US Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 115, 2381 Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. PFC Manning did that.

From the US Constitution, Article Three Section Three: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. "

Now, aside from that - in what way was Pvt. Manning hypothetically levying war against the United States or adhering to/giving aid or comfort to her enemies?

I think we've drifted quite a ways from TrekLit politics here. Maybe this portion of the discussion should be split off to another forum?

There's a forum down near the bottom the the front page that is always good for this sort of stuff. Also, some of the coarser language would be a better fit there too.

At this point, this is the only even halfway convincing argument I have seen, and in addition to Rush's comments, one of the only attempts to offer a truly reasoned counterargument that has any chance of being supported by the text itself.

What's wrong with "the text does not support your point of view in depicting the act as a positive thing?"

However, I still do not agree with it: such a thinly-disguised parallel of a sitting president being killed, is still something that is completely and totally inexcusable.

But I see little difference between this and the movie someone made (which Rush cited) that actually depicted GWB being killed. Both have no place in the political discourse, or in ANY sort of reasoned discourse whatsoever.

To both of these - why?

 

[Steve Roby]

I love the ignore filter. I just wish it could also work on quoted material.

 

[Rush Limborg]

All this naturally begs for the question, Sci: how can you know what the "intent" is?

It's usually fairly obvious. If it depicts an assassination as a good thing from which positive consequences flow which the narrative endorses, we can be fairly certain that the intent was to support the assassination.

For instance, it's fairly safe to say that the film Valkyrie supported the idea of assassinating Adolf Hitler. (No, I am not comparing Bush to Hitler, it's just the most prominent recent film I could think of that featured a political assassination or attempted political assassination.) By the same token, it's safe to say that the episodes "What Kind of Day Has It Been," "In the Shadow of Two Gunmen, Part I," and "In the Shadow of Two Gunmen, Part II" did not support the attempted assassination of fictitious U.S. President Jed Bartlet.

And if we look at Star Trek: A Time to Heal, it's pretty obvious from the use of the phrase "the merciless hands of Section 31" and various other story elements used to create a sense of ominousness and dread, that the assassination of Min Zife is not considered by the narrative to be a good thing.

That really depends on the creator.

But if we look at the narratives they create, it's fairly easy to determine what the narrative is endorsing. In Death of a President, for instance, the narrative did not endorse the idea of an assassination of George W. Bush -- it depicted the entire event with a sense of dread and horror, and it depicted the consequences of such an assassination as being even more horrific.

Spoiler: Death of a President

In fact, the twist to the story in that film is that an Arab-American is accused of the assassination and locked up even after it turns out that the real assassin was an African-American father whose son died in Iraq.

The twist to that story therefore constitutes using the assassination of Bush as a plot mechanism to critique U.S. legal and racial attitudes in the wake of the start of the War on Terror; it doesn't endorse anything.

...Point me to the sentence or sentences from the text of Star Trek: A Time to Heal which depict Zife's assassination as a good thing.

The issue is not whether or not it was considered a "good thing". The events of "In The Pale Moonlight" were hardly a "good thing".

Remember, the ending of that ep was gut-wrenching and disturbing. Sisko himself admitted that his actions were morally wrong. And yet he said, "A guilty conscience is a small price to pay...so I will learn to live with it."

In the case of Death of a President--

Spoiler: Death of a President

the killer seems to be given what to some might be termed a "sympathetic" motive.

Now, I'm willing to accept that maybe that film had intended to paint the assasination as a bad thing. However...was it truly necessary to make the president in question an actual, live, sitting president?

I mean...you could take the author's word for it, I suppose. However--let's be honest here. No one is going to "admit" that the goal was to claim that African-Americans are inferior and somehow inherently less qualified to hold the Oval Office.

Of course there are people willing to say such things. Just ask David Duke.

Duke's political carreer was destroyed by all that? I'd hardly think anyone on the left or the right would repeat his example.

Using the ellipses is a perfectly valid way of establishing that I am referring to the entirety of Nerys's post when I speak, and does not constitute an insult, a misquote, or a way of twisting her words.

Returning to my first post in this thread--had I behaved in that manner, I would have been severely taken to task for it.

If you were to take any of my posts and use ellipses to refer to the entirety of it, I wouldn't give a shit and wouldn't feel insulted at all.

I sincerely hope not. However, more than anything else, the "so there" incident--

Recall the memorable incident when I ended an argument with, "So there".

I barely remember that, if at all. I'm afraid you have a much longer memory for apparent slights against yourself than I do for slights against myself.[/QUOTE]

--grounded in my mind the importance of how you word things. It's not a "slight against myself" so much as it is taking note of the fact that a considerable amount of folks behaved as if I had lost a lot of ground by writing that. I'm simply applying the lesson.

For one thing, I hardly think beginning a response to a quote with--

Bullshit.

--gives one any ground in matters of civility.

It's just a matter of: be careful how we speak. I've almost never agreed with President Obama on things...but he had a good thing going with his Arizona memorial speech.

However, I still do not agree with it: such a thinly-disguised parallel of a sitting president being killed, is still something that is completely and totally inexcusable.

But I see little difference between this and the movie someone made (which Rush cited) that actually depicted GWB being killed. Both have no place in the political discourse, or in ANY sort of reasoned discourse whatsoever.

To both of these - why?

Again, the reason why it's wrong to depict the death of a live, sitting president is because...it's an actual, sitting president.

If a work of fiction were to use a completely fictional president (such as Jed Bartlett, or the president in the fourth season of 24) for such purposes as Sci described...the message would be easily accepted and stomached. As it stood, the fact that it was a real-live president who died in the film--a president who, worse, was still in office at the time--frankly overwrited said alleged message, instead calling attention to itself.

 

[Rush Limborg]

I think we've drifted quite a ways from TrekLit politics here. Maybe this portion of the discussion should be split off to another forum?

There's a forum down near the bottom the the front page that is always good for this sort of stuff. Also, some of the coarser language would be a better fit there too.

Absolutely!

 

[DimesDan]

I've just read this thread after seeing it's creation the other day. It's been an insightful few pages, what I think you should all do, and I'm surprised a mods not come in yet to tell you all to just calm down. It's just a fictional world, yes sometimes Star Trek has been used as a political commentary on American Politics and even World affairs from time to time. It is a fictional world and the rules and political stances that occur in 2011 shouldn't mean squat in the 23rd and 24th Centuries.

As for Manning, I personally think he should have the book thrown at him as he wears the uniform of a nation and he seemingly broke the code of that nations armed forces and I would have the same stance if it was someone wearing the uniform of Her Majesties Armed Forces. But then again, there is a part of me that thinks that if he were a journalist then he should have a parade in his honour as that's what some journalists do, investigate and reveal the sordid secrets governments what covered up.

That's just my opinion though.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Personally...I suspect the mods are giving us free reign in this thread to let us blow off some steam....

 

[Janos]

a basic principle of civil disobedience is that if one violates the law in the name of moral duty, one must be willing to accept the penalties of that violation, including incarceration.

My comment, that may have lead to you posting this (if I can be presumptious ), was more about people cheering from the sidelines and encouraging this kind of behaviour. And, in the end, the internet supporters stay in their nice homes and the person they may have duped into action goes to prison. I think people should just be careful about how they express themselves on all side of this issue.

the state has a moral and constitutional duty to ensure those penalties are not cruel and unusual. If anyone imprisoned for any crime is being subjected to abuse or endangerment while in prison, then the penal system is failing in its duty of care.

Agreed.

However, while I agree, I always found it interesting that people that are willing to break the rule of law are the first to wants its protection.

And four, as Sci pointed out, the paramount principle of the American legal system is the presumption of innocence. A person who has not been convicted of a crime should not be presumed guilty of that crime and should not be punished for it, particularly not to an abusive extreme.

Agreed, but that also means people on one can't say I think Mannings a patriot for his actions and then on the other hand say his innocent until proven guilty.

I think we've drifted quite a ways from TrekLit politics here. Maybe this portion of the discussion should be split off to another forum?

Agreed.

And, to try to get back to Trek, were any Starships named after any world leader? In addition, named after any Democratic and/or Republican U.S. President?

 

[Thestral]

Again, the reason why it's wrong to depict the death of a live, sitting president is because...it's an actual, sitting president.

That's not an explanation. Again: why?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Bad taste?

Although in the case of Death of a President, I understand why they used a real prez.

 

[Sci]

And, to try to get back to Trek, were any Starships named after any world leader? In addition, named after any Democratic and/or Republican U.S. President?

The U.S.S. Hammarskjöld, apparently named after former United Nations Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld, has appeared in TNG: Losing the Peace and SCE: Out of the Cocoon, both by William Leisner.

The U.S.S. Bhutto, named for the late former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, appeared in the novel TNG: Greater Than the Sum by Christopher L. Bennett.

The video game Star Trek: Legacy apparently had a ship in it named the U.S.S. Robert E. Lee, presumably named after the Confederate States general, which I find deeply offensive, but I digress.

The video game Star Trek: Starfleet Command featured a U.S.S. Arafat, presumably named after former Palestinian Authority President Yassir Arafat. Your mileage may vary on that one.

The U.S.S. Benjamin Franklin appeared in the novel TNG: The Haunted Starship. It was a Daedalus-class ship commissioned in the late 2100s.

The U.S.S. Bismarck, presumably named after Otto von Bismarck, 19th Century Chancellor of the German Empire and Minister-President of the Kingdom of Prussia, appeared in the TOS novel The Wounded Sky.

A U.S.S. Bolivar appeared in the TNG novel Rouge Saucer and another in a Star Trek: Starfleet Academy comic. Both were presumably named after Simón Bolívar, the liberator of South America from the Spanish Empire.

The U.S.S. Churchill, named after some obscure British Prime Minister , was featured in a DC-era TOS comic.

The TNG novel Sins of Commission and the SCE novella Fables of the Prime Directive feature ships called the U.S.S. Crockett, presumably named after former U.S. Representative Davey Crockett.

Several ships named U.S.S. Jefferson, presumably after 19th Century U.S. President Thomas Jefferson, have appeared in video games, as did a U.S.S. Gorbachev, presumably named after the former President of the Soviet Union. Video games have also featured ships named U.S.S. Jackson, possibly named after U.S. President Andrew Jackson.

The U.S.S. John F. Kennedy appeared in The Wounded Sky, as did the U.S.S. Sadat, presumably named after former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.

Ships of the Line 2011 featured the U.S.S. John Glenn (the first American in space, and later a United States Senator from the State of Ohio).

The SCE novella Enigma Ship featured the U.S.S. Lincoln, presumably named after U.S. President Abraham Lincoln.

The video game Star Trek: Armada featured a U.S.S. M.L. King, Jr.. The video game Star Trek: Starfleet Command III featured a U.S.S. Reagan, which may have been named after Ronald Reagan, and a U.S.S. Thatcher, likely named after former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Other video games have featured ships named U.S.S. Washington (after George Washington, presumably) and U.S.S. Victoria (after the former Queen-Empress of the British Empire).

How Much for Just the Planet? featured a ship called the U.S.S. Robert Moses, presumably named after the famous architect and city planner.

 

[Christopher]

a basic principle of civil disobedience is that if one violates the law in the name of moral duty, one must be willing to accept the penalties of that violation, including incarceration.

My comment, that may have lead to you posting this (if I can be presumptious ), was more about people cheering from the sidelines and encouraging this kind of behaviour.

That sentence was just one part of the point I was making, which is that if this man did break the law as an act of conscience, he should be willing to pay the penalty for that breach, but that said penalty should not be cruel and unusual, and that any form of torture should not be tolerated. I don't know much about this particular case, so I'm not taking a side; I'm merely pointing out certain principles that should be fundamental.

Agreed, but that also means people on one can't say I think Mannings a patriot for his actions and then on the other hand say his innocent until proven guilty.

I have insufficient information to form a conclusion on the former point. But the latter point is axiomatic.

And, to try to get back to Trek, were any Starships named after any world leader? In addition, named after any Democratic and/or Republican U.S. President?

DC Comics' Mirror Universe Saga featured the ISS Nixon.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

DC Comics' Mirror Universe Saga featured the ISS Nixon.

Subtle.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

USS John F Kennedy from a okudagram in TNG Conspiracy

 

[Destructor]

The video game Star Trek: Legacy apparently had a ship in it named the U.S.S. Robert E. Lee, presumably named after the Confederate States general, which I find deeply offensive, but I digress.

I take it you're not much of a Dukes of Hazzard fan, either?

 

[Sci]

The video game Star Trek: Legacy apparently had a ship in it named the U.S.S. Robert E. Lee, presumably named after the Confederate States general, which I find deeply offensive, but I digress.

I take it you're not much of a Dukes of Hazzard fan, either?

Can't say as I am, nope. Something about naming things after a man who betrayed his country for a government established by wealthy elites for the primary purpose of preserving the institution of slavery from a perceived abolitionist threat tends to make me cranky.

 

[Smellincoffee]

Can't say as I am, nope. Something about naming things after a man who betrayed his country for a government established by wealthy elites for the primary purpose of preserving the institution of slavery from a perceived abolitionist threat tends to make me cranky.

And the cruelest irony is that the flag of the planters, for which so many poor men died so needlessly, is now flown by the descendants and relatives OF those misguided soldiers.

 

[Janos]

a basic principle of civil disobedience is that if one violates the law in the name of moral duty, one must be willing to accept the penalties of that violation, including incarceration.

My comment, that may have lead to you posting this (if I can be presumptious ), was more about people cheering from the sidelines and encouraging this kind of behaviour.

That sentence was just one part of the point I was making, which is that if this man did break the law as an act of conscience, he should be willing to pay the penalty for that breach, but that said penalty should not be cruel and unusual, and that any form of torture should not be tolerated.

I understand what you've said and that you're not taking a side explicitly. My original comment was really for people on this thread that egg this kind of behaviour on from the comfort of their own home free of all the legal penalties.

I do agree that if people break the law, regardless of motivation, they should accept the established penalties and go through the justice system, etc. that will determine guilt or innocence and any related issues. If folks don't like the laws, or believe they are too punitive, they can exercise their democratic rights and talk to their local representatives and make their views known. North America is very different from other parts of the world in this regard.

Agreed, but that also means people on one can't say I think Mannings a patriot for his actions and then on the other hand say his innocent until proven guilty.

I have insufficient information to form a conclusion on the former point. But the latter point is axiomatic.

Reading some of the post by posters who have taken explicit sides - either one - on the issue, one can likely conclude that my point is not aximatic for many people.

And, to try to get back to Trek, were any Starships named after any world leader? In addition, named after any Democratic and/or Republican U.S. President?

DC Comics' Mirror Universe Saga featured the ISS Nixon.

That's it? .......... Oh. I see.

Your response does beg the Q about "how" any Ship (and her captain/crew) with a U.S. Presidents name was portrayed in stories. Also, can one assume that there is a USS Nixon since both universes had Enterprises?

 

[Janos]

And, to try to get back to Trek, were any Starships named after any world leader? In addition, named after any Democratic and/or Republican U.S. President?

The video game Star Trek: Armada featured a U.S.S. M.L. King, Jr.. The video game Star Trek: Starfleet Command III featured a U.S.S. Reagan, which may have been named after Ronald Reagan, and a U.S.S. Thatcher, likely named after former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Other video games have featured ships named U.S.S. Washington (after George Washington, presumably) and U.S.S. Victoria (after the former Queen-Empress of the British Empire).

How Much for Just the Planet? featured a ship called the U.S.S. Robert Moses, presumably named after the famous architect and city planner.

Thanks for all your comments and lists of all the world leaders and politicians whose names adorn star ships.

So, focusing on the U.S. Presidents, based on your post and a few others we have:

U.S.S. Washington (likely a Republican based on this, but the 2 dominat parties didn't exist then)

U.S.S. John F. Kennedy (Democrat)

U.S.S. Reagan (Republican)

I.K.S. Nixon (Republican and Spock also referenced him in more glowing terms in one of the movies I think; something about going to China I think.)

Interesting. That it?

Interesting.

 

[Sci]

U.S.S. Washington (likely a Republican based on this, but the 2 dominat parties didn't exist then)

U.S.S. John F. Kennedy (Democrat)

U.S.S. Reagan (Republican)

You missed the U.S.S. Jefferson and the U.S.S. Jackson.

And, of course, there's Earth Station McKinley, so there's at least some precedent for a space station being named in honor of U.S. Presidents.

I.K.S. Nixon

No, the I.S.S. Nixon. As in, a ship of the Terran Empire from the Mirror Universe, named in honor of the Mirror Universe's Richard Nixon.

Interestingly, Age of the Empress: The Reign of Empress Sato I from the first Mirror Universe anthology, contains references to the Mirror Universe's versions of both Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush. Both are referred to as a former emperors in that universe; I would presume the same is true of their Nixon.

If we expand our selection to include Terran Imperial starships, then we can also include the I.S.S. Nobunaga, named after Oda Nobunaga, the unifier of Japan.

Also, I missed various U.S.S. Potemkins, named apparently in honor of the Russian ship named in honor of Prince Grigory Potyomkin.

(Republican and Spock also referenced him in more glowing terms in one of the movies I think; something about going to China I think.)

Not necessarily "glowing," per se. In Star Trek VI, when Captain Kirk is chosen to be the commanding officer who will greet Qo'noS One, the ship ferrying Klingon Chancellor Gorkon to a peace summit on Earth, Kirk objects. In particular, he notes his history of hostility with the Klingons on numerous combat missions. Spock, who recommended Kirk for the job, replies by saying, "There is an old Vulcan proverb: Only Nixon could go to China."

Spock may or may not be facetious when he claims this to be a Vulcan proverb (Christopher justifies it in his novel Ex Macina by claiming that the actual proverb is "Only Soval could go to Andor," and that Spock adapted it for a Human). But his rhetorical point is that only Nixon could open up diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China, a Communist country, because Nixon had been a fierce anti-Communist earlier in his career. As a result of his earlier anti-Communism, nobody who disagreed with the idea of opening relations with the People's Republic of China (and with breaking off formal relations with the non-Communist Republic of China, aka, Taiwan) would be able to accuse Nixon of being soft on Communism.

Thus, Spock's claim is essentially that Kirk is Nixon for the Klingons. Nobody who disagrees with the idea of peace and alliance with the Klingon Empire would be able to accuse Captain Kirk of being soft on the Klingons, because of all of his prior experience fighting Klingons.

Spock isn't really being "glowing" towards Nixon, per se. Nor is he condemning Nixon. He's making an argument about other people's abilities to make arguments, and is in fact being somewhat neutral towards Nixon himself (though he is implicitly treating Nixon's decision to open relations with the PRC as a good thing, since he obviously thinks peace with the Klingon Empire is a good thing).

Historical note: Though Nixon started the process, it wasn't until Jimmy Carter's tenure that the United States established formal diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China and officially broke off formal diplomatic relations with the Republic of China.