Let me say that OSC is a heck of a writer. Not only that, but he is able and willing to share his ideas on how to write well. He shares out pretty good notions to writers about writing. That's generous to my way of thinking.
Elsewhere, he's commented and done editorial pieces about his own slant on life. No, I won't link to it. It makes the bad hurt more.
Suffice to say, that in the realm of personal opinion: OSC is the suck.
His latest? Torpedo job on 'Star Trek'. This would could be interesting and all if he didn't insist on sweeping generalizations and wrong premise.
Star Trek (classic) was not anchored in the 30s SF world "with little regard for science or deeper ideas." Nor did it avoid good SF writers of the late 60s. Harlan Ellison wrote a very successful episode (except OSC uses him as an example of writers ignored.)
Card goes on to misinterpret the historic roots of SF with analogies like: "Whedon's 'Firefly' showed us that even 1930s sci-fi can be well acted and tell a compelling long-term story."
Excuse me? 'Firefly' as 1930s SF?
Ick.