Another Lit Wish List Thread

[JD]

I don't know, I've never considered The UFP anything but an independent state. I didn't there was even any dispute about that.

 

[Sci]

Politics as expressed in general culture - and in general practice - is unusually craven and banal. It's often full of small evils,

Congratulations, you've just described human society in general. Or, rather, one particular view of human society in general.

Politics is also often courageous and principled, full of acts of decency both big and small. I interned for a year in a Member of Congress's office, and I just left recently. I saw the office try to bend over backwards to figure out how to help a single constituent who wrote in because she was losing her job, and our Member voted against a number of very popular bills because of his principled beliefs that those bills were unjust.

There are certainly corrupt politicians, and there are certainly principled politicians. And sometimes corrupt people take principled stands, and sometimes principled people succumb to petty corruptions. Politicians, at the end of the day, are just people, no better as a group but also no worse, than anyone else.

I've known several excellent U.S. Representatives (and some lower officeholders) who were tremendously dedicated and hard-working. I've known one who was a fundamentally decent person whose heart was entirely in space exploration, but whose support for his party led to him to vote against what otherwise seemed his conscience (he's now a senator). I've even known a reliable republican who sponsors Democratic representatives in his state's unpaid legislature.

But politics, ultimately, is the art of the possible. And the possible - particularly when gained against the dully implacable - seldom provides good drama.

*shrugs* I think that's subjective, but it's besides my point. MatthiasRussel seemed to be saying that he views all politics and politicians as inevitably corrupt, and my point was to say that I think that's both inaccurate and unfair.

George Patton, not entirely wrongly remarked that "Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. . . . Because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans."

One of the many aspects of American culture that need to change, for the simple reason that you can't be a winner all the time.

Politics is just humanity, that's all.

I disagree. I've seen politics conducted by ordinary persons who were drafted into it (e.g. on "disappearing task forces," etc.), and it is a far better process than politics as conducted by politicians. The usual politics is influence set against justice.

I strongly disagree. I think it's just as often that the usual politics is differing and conflicting ideas about what is just set against one another. Nor do I think other fields of human endeavor are fundamentally morally superior; how many people get undeserving promotions in any field, for instance, or wield influence unjustly, at the expense of their fellows?

You can't escape politics, because everything is politics. All forms of human interaction are political, because all forms of human interaction are ultimately about how to make decisions for groups.

The intense, unyielding, unforgiving pressure that demands that every leader be perfect and no leader ever admit a mistake? That's a major part of our political culture, sorry.

I believe that's a part that is easily surmounted. While the political classes require infallibility, the American public admires honesty (so long as honesty appears to come from strength). I don't think that a President's honest report of their successes and failures would be anything but an asset with the public.

I surely hope you are right, but I suspect that a President who would admit mistakes or failure like that would be set upon and torn apart in most circumstances. Just look at all the people who love to harangue President Obama as "having America" for daring to admit that the United States Government has done the wrong thing to foreign countries in the past and apologize for them. A lot of people in America can't bear the idea of accepting that their preferred leaders, past and present, might have been wrong.

And so's the presence of an American aristocracy and the favoritism shown to the wealthy elite. There is no Federation Wall Street or City of London, thank goodness.

That I agree with. I thought you were comparing the U.S. against other nations, not against the Federation's improved situation.

Ah, a part of our miscommunication. Nope, my intent was to demonstrate that, in spite of MatthiasRussell's assertion that politics and politicians are "always the same," that politics in the Federation was fundamentally different and fundamentally more decent. The Federation certainly isn't immune to corruption, but its "default," so to speak, is fundamentally much more honest, egalitarian, liberal, and democratic than modern politics.

The problem is that a mere military alliance wouldn't get to declare a state of emergency and put troops on every streetcorner, nor to negotiate peace treaties, nor to grant territorial concessions, nor to do any number of things we've seen the Federation do that mark it as a super-state.

I don't think it's a mere military alliance, but a unified defense and humanitarian organization. It would be akin to the NATO powers uniting their militaries, their diplomatic corps, and their humanitarian efforts under a single, independent command structure (so that, say, the Polish Land Forces and the Canadian Army were one and the same, so too the American Department of State and the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs). Such an organization would necessarily have the power to negotiate treaties and make territorial concessions.

A Federation created along these lines would undoubtedly grow more uniform and more state-like over time. Once granted and exercised, power tends to accumulate.

True -- but, frankly, an organization you describe would inherently be a state, from its very beginnings. Any time you hand an organization the right to make law and to use force, you've created a state.

As I argued several years ago, ultimately the confusing evidence stems from the writers having changed their model for the Federation over time, from evolving ideas about what the Federation is behind the scenes.

Your argument there is very well-argued (certainly, the behind-the-scenes idea of the Federation has evolved over time; I think presently to something less than a state), but I don't think that anything you cite substantially conflicts with a super-NATO type model. The Astronomical Committee, Bureau of Agricultural Affairs, Federation Supreme Court, etc. might be assistant or coordinating bodies rather than governing ones

Perhaps with the first two. But the Federation Supreme Court apparently possess the power of judicial review and can overturn Federation laws -- that's clearly more than just an ICJ-like institution. It's far more probable that the Federation Supreme Court is exactly what it says on the tin -- the Federation's Supreme Court.

There's also the existence of a Federation Cabinet, which, again, is not something non-states tend to possess.

The situation in "Homefront" is expressly a "state of emergency" declared by the Federation President. It's a defense-related emergency, which wouldn't place it at all out of bounds for a primarily defensive and humanitarian organization to declare and then enforce.

Yes, it would. Only a state can declare a state of emergency. NATO cannot declare state of emergency in Belgium and put troops on the streets of Brussels; only the Belgian government can do that.

I'd never noticed before, but "Doctor Bashir, I Presume" never seems to say that Federation law, rather than United Earth law was violated when Bashir was genetically enhanced. The rationale given is Earth-centric (the dangers of another Khan Singh). Even the line "any genetically enhanced human being is barred from serving in Starfleet or practicing medicine" specifically references humans, rather than Federation citizens. Perhaps the Federation Supreme Court would address an issue of Earth law conflicting with the shared guarantees of the Federation Consitution?

That's certainly possible -- but that only helps the argument that the Federation is a federal state rather than a confederation or defense alliance.

And that some of the novelists are quite dismissive of the idea that the view on the matte painting should be seen as binding canon for where the Federation President's office is.

But their objections appear to stem almost entirely from the extant choice of the Place de la Concorde in Articles and a number of related novels - hence I would include them among persons who are attached to what has been portrayed in the novels.

I think their objections stemmed more from their opinion that it's unreasonable to argue that one interpretation of the view from a matte painting constitutes a solid canonical fact that trumps work that's already been put into the novels.

I strongly disagree with you about Articles of the Federation -- but that's neither here nor there, because the Palais de la Concorde did not originate from Articles. While Keith R.A. DeCandido did develop many of the details of the building and its history, the Palais de la Concorde itself was first established by David Mack in his 2004 novel A Time to Kill.

(I do maintain, though, that the Place de la Concorde was poorly chosen as a location for the silvery building seen in establishing shots of Paris, which is was meant to be

Well, let's ask.

David Mack, why did you chose to put the Palais on the Place de la Concorde? Did you intend for it to be the silvery building seen in DS9's "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost?"

He did (or KRAD did, for A Time For War, A Time For Peace, and David Mack's book was published first). Whoever chose the Place de la Concorde explained why they chose it in a thread here just after the book was published (since pruned). IIRC, it was selected because it was a conveniently located open space, and the history of the site was an unknown bonus until a reader asked about it.

Fair enough, but I'd like to see this confirmed if possible.

interior view issues aside. I also think it would be a terrible waste to cover it with a building.)

That's fair enough. On the other hand, there's something to be said for the idea that things change over time, even when some people think they shouldn't. Plenty of people objected to placing the National World War II Memorial on the National Mall at the end of the Reflecting Pool, for instance, but it's there now. So I do think that objection, while fair, is also somewhat subjective.

I never understood that objection. The part of the mall the monument sits on was somewhat blighted before it was constructed. I remember visiting it two years or so before construction began, and being struck by its poor condition - there was essentially nothing there, and what was their reflected poorly on our capital.

I agree. Frankly, even as recently as a year ago, the Reflecting Pool looked just awful -- filthy and disgusting. I'm glad they've dug it up and are putting in a filtration system. And I think the World War II Memorial fits in with the Mall perfectly.

But such objections did exist. People worried it would conflict with the aesthetic of the Mall, that it would "interrupt the great conversation between Washington and Lincoln" by getting between the Washington Monument and Lincoln Memorial.

I don't know, I've never considered The UFP anything but an independent state. I didn't there was even any dispute about that.

Same here, until I came to the TrekBBS.

 

[Cicero]

*shrugs* I think that's subjective, but it's besides my point. MatthiasRussel seemed to be saying that he views all politics and politicians as inevitably corrupt, and my point was to say that I think that's both inaccurate and unfair.

I think the statement as written entirely fair. Politics does seem to be rather constant in its level of corruption, and its level of inefficiency (when viewed over a sufficiently large timeframe). Whether the motto is S.P.Q.R., E Pluribus Unum, or United in Diversity (), the politics are much the same. For every Gracchus, there seems to be a Milo - or, worse, a Cato.

George Patton, not entirely wrongly remarked that "Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. . . . Because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans."

One of the many aspects of American culture that need to change, for the simple reason that you can't be a winner all the time.

I don't think the statement is meant to be universal. George Custer was a national hero for more than half a century despite being most famous for the last battle that he lost (despite the perhaps greater notability of his service in Civil War victories). It's one thing to lose occasionally, and another to lose regularly.

I strongly disagree. I think it's just as often that the usual politics is differing and conflicting ideas about what is just set against one another.

The output of our national legislature suggests otherwise (at least, of modern high-level American politics). Put simply, the legislature does not serve the people, yet it still acts; it must, ergo, be serving something else. (Individual legislators are a different matter.)

Nor do I think other fields of human endeavor are fundamentally morally superior; how many people get undeserving promotions in any field, for instance, or wield influence unjustly, at the expense of their fellows?

I'm not sure the questions are relevant. The faults of politics need not be taken relatively. But, taking them so: I believe that many fields are superior. The complex sciences are heavily meritocratic (especially away from their highest echelons), the military promotes on the basis of performance (until politics interferes at higher flag ranks), acting success is driven by ability and opportunity (usually blind luck).

All areas of human experience know corruption and inability (not least beginning with family life) but few areas seem to draw it so well as politics. (The elevated levels of business exceed it handily, however.)

You can't escape politics, because everything is politics. All forms of human interaction are political, because all forms of human interaction are ultimately about how to make decisions for groups.

I understand that that definition is now accepted, but it seems uselessly broad. When taken solely in its original sense, it refers only to the business of collective decisions by or for citizens (as citizens), and not to areas of life not related to the state. That is how I mean it here.

I surely hope you are right, but I suspect that a President who would admit mistakes or failure like that would be set upon and torn apart in most circumstances. Just look at all the people who love to harangue President Obama as "having America" for daring to admit that the United States Government has done the wrong thing to foreign countries in the past and apologize for them. A lot of people in America can't bear the idea of accepting that their preferred leaders, past and present, might have been wrong.

While there is some truth to your assertion that many persons cannot accept the existence of past failures (the exaltation of Confederates and their cause being perhaps the most prominent example), I don't think it's broadly responsible for the criticism of the President (or for most rejections of apologies made on behalf of the United States).

Speaking as a solid Democrat - or, at least, a staunch Anti-Republican; really, a Federalist, Bull Moose Progressive, or Radical Republican at heart - I think that honest criticism of President Obama on these issues (as distinct from that which stems from existing dislike, hatred, or search for advantage) actually reflects a perception that he does not understand America.

His argument that Manifest Destiny and American exceptionalism are little different from Greek or British national exceptionalism seem to indicate that this perception is at least somewhat accurate. While that argument may be objectively true (I don't think that it is), it requires a mindset significantly different from that of the average American, and would probably not be made by a President who understood the average American mindset well enough to recognize the potential political consequences.

I don't know what the circumstances of the President's apologies on our behalf are (if he has apologized; Outside the Beltway concludes that he hasn't), but he doesn't seem to understand how we perceive ourselves, even when he praises the United States (and I believe he fully means his praise).

It might be advisable, regardless, for presidents to apologize only for those actions which the large part of America's citizens actually regret.

True -- but, frankly, an organization you describe would inherently be a state, from its very beginnings. Any time you hand an organization the right to make law and to use force, you've created a state.

Not necessarily, except in the broadest sense. The United Nations is not a state, but wars have been prosecuted under its authority, and no small number of regulations have been made binding upon its members, but few would consider it a state. In Max Weber's definition, a looser Federation would not be a state, lacking a compulsory aspect, centralized government outside of certain delegated powers, and a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within its territory (member worlds would retain those rights except for cases of the common defense).

Perhaps with the first two. But the Federation Supreme Court apparently possess the power of judicial review and can overturn Federation laws -- that's clearly more than just an ICJ-like institution. It's far more probable that the Federation Supreme Court is exactly what it says on the tin -- the Federation's Supreme Court.

It might function like the W.T.O.'s court (which I can't seem to remember or find the name of), having the power to declare national laws in violation of the Federation Charter/Constitution without directly interfering with sovereign actions.

There's also the existence of a Federation Cabinet, which, again, is not something non-states tend to possess.

On the other hand, the United Nations possesses one.

Yes, it would. Only a state can declare a state of emergency. NATO cannot declare state of emergency in Belgium and put troops on the streets of Brussels; only the Belgian government can do that.

NATO could, but only in certain limited circumstances. A state of emergency could be declared by NATO in the name of the common defense if Belgium were attacked by another power. (Such capability for combined rapid military reaction was necessary during the Cold War.)

I don't know, I've never considered The UFP anything but an independent state. I didn't there was even any dispute about that.

Same here, until I came to the TrekBBS.

I don't think it ever occurred to me to think of it as anything else until I saw the 2009 movie; if Captain Pike is taken at his word, the Federation is much less than a state (and a possible model for integration short of outright international government).

 

[captcalhoun]

is anyone other than Cicero or Sci even reading all this boring-ass politics any more?

 

[DGCatAniSiri]

In the interests of rerailing this thread, I don't know if I've mentioned this here, but, once more, because I say it a lot, I'm really hoping for at the very LEAST an anthology for DS9 to bridge the gap between 'Soul Key' and the modern era to come out in 2013 for the 20th anniversary. Preferably a trilogy or more, but just SOMETHING that will give the events a little more context. I still have some trouble accepting Kira's new path, and I'd like to get some further explanations about what exactly sparked it.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Since I suggested it to Christopher in the DTI thread I might as well suggest it here, I'd really love to see an "uptime" Federation Temporal Agency novel starring Jena Noi from Watching the Clock, and using the same story structure with flashbacks down time. I think it would be really cool.

 

[RonG]

I'm not sure if these require spoilers...

Spoiler: I'm not sure whether these qualify as story ideas or not, so...

I would love to see another Shatnerverse novel, dealing with Kirk during the events of Destiny - a sort of side-story to the main trilogy... Captain's Destiny just seems natural for a title

Also, as David Mack penned the ultimate and final Borg story in the aforementioned Destiny, and what I believe will be seen as the same ultimate and final MU story once his duology is complete, I would love for a similar story about the Q (or was Q&A supposed to be just that?)

 

[JD]

I'm pretty sure Q & A was meant to be the big Q story, although he said he'd still be around, so there's a possibility he could pop up later.

 

[ryan123450]

Seems like I, Q, and the Q Continuum trilogy were also supposed to be 'ultimate' Q tales, but they still keep coming. I'd give it a few years and expect his return.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Well there is a TOS Myriad Universe idea I would like to see in a story using Errand of Mercy as a jumping off point if you get what I mean.

 

[Relayer1]

Pulled this from the Destiny thread -

considering you can use normal warp to reach another galaxy, but it'd take, like, FOREVER, i'd imagine QS could get you to one. it' just take less-than-forever.

Indeed. What was it, a few days to get to the Delta Quadrant? There's two galaxies about as close or closer than from Earth to the Delta Quadrant - the Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy and the Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy - and 14 galaxies that would be within a months' travel or so at those speeds. The only issues would be the Galactic Barrier and 0 (if Q-Continuum is considered part of the overall TrekLit continuity).

How about some stories about ships (one novel to each ship) sent to explore / contact other galaxies ?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Didn't they do that as far back as Dreadnought!, in 2270?

 

[ryan123450]

Something I'd love to see is a much more leasurely pace, timeline wise. Some of the Typhon Pact books jumped the story forward too quickly. Why not take our time like the Voyager stories are doing and flesh out some of the new characters and situations?

 

[Reanok]

I would like in to see ds9 novels that filled the missing years that were skipped 5 year jump forward in the Typhon pact novels there's alot of characters backstories that need to be filled in like what happened to odo and the situation with what's left of the dominion in the gamma quadrant .

 

[JD]

Something I'd love to see is a much more leasurely pace, timeline wise. Some of the Typhon Pact books jumped the story forward too quickly. Why not take our time like the Voyager stories are doing and flesh out some of the new characters and situations?

Yeah, I was kinda disappointed to see them jumping ahead so far.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Would love to hear more about Garak's efforts to rebuild Cardassian society.

 

[Relayer1]

Would love to hear more about Garak's efforts to rebuild Cardassian society.

I would love ANYTHING with Garak...

 

[DrBashir]

I'd like a series of interglactic spy novels with Bashir and Sarina. Working undercover without benefit of "official" sanction. Sort of a two person Mission Impossible. Figure out a way to bring back T'Prynn (did we ever actually see the body?).

 

[Jedi_Master]

Would love to hear more about Garak's efforts to rebuild Cardassian society.

I would love ANYTHING with Garak...

Agree one hundred and ten percent.

 

[JD]

I'd like a series of interglactic spy novels with Bashir and Sarina. Working undercover without benefit of "official" sanction. Sort of a two person Mission Impossible. Figure out a way to bring back T'Prynn (did we ever actually see the body?).

Meh. I'd rather they just kept him on DS9. The spy thing is a fun little diversion every now and then, but I still prefer him as a doctor primarily. And I'd like to see at least one TV character still on DS9.