Smart Bitches Trashy Books | All of the romance, none of the bullshit.

From today’s “Publisher’s Lunch” ("Published Daily. Except When Not.” HA.):

Children’s book author Jon Scieszka has been named our first national ambassador for young people’s literature by the librarian of Congress, James Billington. The post does not come with specific responsibilities; rather, Scieszka is expected to act as “an evangelist for reading.”

An evangelist for reading, eh? Can we have an evangelist for reading Romance? Please? I’ll do it! I’ll cast out the spirit of evil wooden dialogue and virgin widows, and bring the light of fluid prose and spicy sexual attraction to all readers and writers! And I’ll wear a really, REALLY hot pants suit while I do it? On stage?

According to the Church of Christ OldPath.com archive, “Public scripture reading is an important part of the work of an evangelist.” Well, then. I’m down. I’ll take my Count’s Blackmail Bargain out to the street - it’s 15F and feels like 3F so I better get points for braving frostbite in the name of Mantitty - and read aloud with great dramatic flair. Anyone want to meet me in Central Park at 12:30 pm? One of the characters smotes his chest, so this is perfect reading!

Anyone? Anyone? Can I get a “Amen?”

Before you all go, “Who is Sean and why is he rambling?” let me preface by saying, I know Sean personally from back in high school, I think. I’m not sure when I met him but he’s one of Hubby’s friends from way back and he’s in our rotisserie baseball league. Sean, like everyone who engages in aerobic respiration, has a blog. I really like his blog, mostly because I know him personally but had NO idea all these thoughts were going on in his head. Sean’s blog, it is some funny shit.

Sean asks a pertinent question, and garners an answer from Robert Bluey, author of the Bluey Blog and “director of the Center for Media & Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, a think tank whose mission is ‘to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.’”

Why do people hate Hillary Clinton?

Bluey’s answer, from Sean’s site:

Americans began to dislike Hillary during the 1992 campaign and only grew more hostile throughout her husband’s eight years in the White House. I think part of the problem stems from the fact she had no intention of following the typical role of first lady, preferring instead to be a political bulldog. This partisanship alienated a large number of Americans who won’t soon forget the Hillary of old no matter how hard she tries to remake herself.

Keep in mind that during Bill Clinton’s eight years as president, America became a country deeply divided along partisan lines, leading to the contentious 2000 election. This wasn’t entirely Clinton’s fault, but because Hillary was so closely identified with his political and policy objectives—beginning with her failed health care plan—Americans were left with a bad taste.

Now that it is officially 2008, and the election year, it’s time to pay attention to the candidates running for president. I’ve been ignoring them until now because it was too damn early for half of them to start campaigning in my never-humble opinion. Hubby is a political junkie, and considers following politics like following baseball or football. It might be his favorite sport (though he won his fantasy football league this year so maybe politics is #2 in light of his win). I personally try to avoid paying too much attention to any political ads, because they are so nasty I feel unwashed when I’m done watching even a 10 second spot.

I’m also completely turned off by American politics on the whole, because somehow there’s this bizarre expectation or demand that one candidate is supposed to satisfy every ideal I possess, and so the candidates are trying to appeal to a slate of requirements, regardless of their actual preference or voting history. Candidates cease being “real people” and start molding themselves into electable models - because it’s more important to get elected rather than doing the job you’re ‘hired’ by the voting public to do.

But the question of Hillary is fascinating to me because I realized I was dreading her run for president not because I had anything against her as a candidate, but because I was dreading the negative and horrifically awful attacks that would be leveled against her. There’s this virulent hatred of all things Clinton but especially things Hillary that makes people absolutely batshit insane about her, even if they know jack crap about her voting record as a senator. I’ve heard it from radio personalities, random people in conversations, even people whom I suspect make decisions about candidates based on facts and information. Hillary Clinton provokes a knee-jerk gut-level abhorrence that I do not understand, and to which I so do not want to bear witness during this year’s onslaught of political ads.

But why is there that knee-jerk rejection of all concepts Hillary?

The one line of Bluey’s response says it all:

“I think part of the problem stems from the fact she had no intention of following the typical role of first lady, preferring instead to be a political bulldog.”

So the explanation is: people hate Hillary because she didn’t embrace the traditional role of a First Lady by serving as quiet fashionable hostess in the White House and instead carved out a new role for herself as First Lady/political playah. She was aggressive (or assertive, depending on who you ask) and wasn’t content with a traditional gender role, so she’s therefore evil.

This isn’t news. I am betting that the democratic nomination will be based on the question of whether the US is more racist or more sexist, but still. I didn’t expect the reason for the hysteria against Clinton to be spelled out like it was political wisdom: “She’s not demure. She’s a bitch. Therefore we hate her. Pass me some steaming American family values, please.”

Here at Smart Bitches, we’ve only endorsed one candidate who was running against Bill Napoli, and sadly, she didn’t win. It’s not like we’re in the business of endorsing presidential candidates, but any candidate who is called a bitch as often as Hillary Clinton is obviously going to catch my attention. Personally speaking, I think she’s just fine as a senator and would likely be an exceptional president - except that the knee-jerk revulsion she inspires would get in her way at every moment and she’d have a hell of a time getting anything done.

In my mind, just for the sheer comic value of watching people trip over themselves to throw battery-stuffed snowballs of hate, the most ideal ticket for people’s heads exploding would be a Hillary Clinton/Martha Stewart political ticket. I would throw a ticker tape parade made of the shredded remains of traditional gender expectations, to be sure.

But Sean says it right: “‘Because she is a bitch’ is not an acceptable answer.” In the microcosm of the online romance community, some folks hate Candy and me because we don’t play nice, we don’t give buttery soft and friendly reviews of romance novels we hated, and because we aren’t going to shy away from naming names and titles and saying, “This blew savage donkey cock.” The play-nice expectation of the romance world means we Bitches are a special kind of naughty evil because saying, “I didn’t like this romance novel” is somehow a rather explosive statement. But even that’s a viable reason for disliking us: we aren’t always kind when we say we don’t like something. We named ourselves Bitches because that’s what we are. But in the grand scheme, is what we do important on a world stage? Not hardly.

However, if you’re talking about running a country of over 300 million people, a country currently engaged in at least two active military conflicts with a growing national debt and a few significant problems in the way of poverty, human rights, and a growing housing crisis, wouldn’t having a bitch on board be a good thing? Don’t you want an aggressive person in the White House? If people dislike Hillary because she’s a bitch… my question is, so what’s wrong with being a Bitch?

Here are my Amazon recommendations for today, based on my past purchases. Paranormal this that and the other thing… and?

The most gayest Ken doll ever, Barbie Ken Fantasy Tales Tea Party. I bet his partner is Prince Charming on Ice (a Smart Bitch favorite). And the jealous man in the love triangle? That’d be Prince Derek, who has a bit of a thing for shoes.

Bitchery readers Sarah, Cathleen, and Kristen all forwarded me this link from the great state of Iowa: an aspiring novelist was fired from her job for writing while at work. The Des Moines Register article has an excerpt of her “tawdry lust novel.” Surf shorts hugging asses… le sigh.

Fired for writing on the job? Oh, boy. Most of the time I’m pre-writing and post-dating just about everything so I don’t write when I’m not on my own computer. Alas, being a Smart Bitch is not my full-time job? Oh, how I wish, I wish, I wish upon any available man-titty. But no, I gots me a job. And the folks at my job, they are aware that I am Duchess of Cuntington, and they think my business cards of Bitcherdom are hilarious. I work for awesome people. But writing from work? Specifically, blogging? That is Bad Idea Jeans.

So, writing your novel from work? Also, Bad Idea Jeans. I’m not surprised that she was denied unemployment benefits. Unfortunately, writing, and specifically I am speaking of blogging, is not something that’s discussed in corporate policies of “personal use” of the company internet connection. Most bloggers are desk jockeys; it’s hard to be a blogger if you’re not actually at a computer or don’t have both hands free to type. So do people blog and do personal writing on company time on company machinery? Sure.

But what defines “personal use,” and what writing is ok, and what’s not? Because standards of “appropriate use” and “personal use” vary, each company defines it on their own. If a financial analyst keeps a personal blog detailing her opinions of market trends, and manages to generate good press for her employer as traffic to her site increases, is that personal use or unsanctioned but effective PR for her employer? Depends on whether the employer cares. If another employee is a huge movie buff, and keeps a site that reviews new releases, is it ok for that person to read comments, respond to them, or add new entries at work? Depends on whether the employer cares.

If one employee is using his computer to check his bank balance, pay bills online, or surf through political blogs, is that better or worse than another employee keeping an online community of abuse survivors running through Yahoo:groups? What’s personal? What’s appropriate? And for heaven’s sake, what are realistic expectations of what employees can and can’t do on their work computers? Personal banking ok, personal writing aspirations not ok? So far, the onus is on the employee to not be a dumdum, and one person’s common sense is another person’s not-so-much common sense. Everyone has a story about someone whose supervisor got busted printing out porn or conducting a torrid affair online.

While writing erotica on a work computer, or, in the case of the other person in the Register article, keeping a journal of how one avoids work, is most certainly a major case of DUH, defining personal use and appropriate use now that so much of people’s lives can be conducted online is an issue, one that continues to increase in importance as more people use computers to do their jobs, and find themselves with a free minute or two to get busy with their personal business. Just where the line of demarcation is regarding how far they can go to “get busy” in the name of “personal business” is something that needs greater attention and discussion.

...here’s another rant by another douchebag who doesn’t have a clue about women: ”What Happened to All The Nice Guys?”

Mightygodking does an excellent job of dismantling him line by line so we don’t have to.

I’ll just say that once again, my Rule of Nice Guys pays off: The more a guy professes how “nice” he is, the more he actually isn’t. Truly nice people are not especially aware of how nice they are, and generally don’t think of describing themselves that way. When a person continually insists he’s a “nice guy,” he actually means he’s a plain-looking dude who will allow himself to be thoroughly pussywhipped by a beautiful girl [notice that they’re always attractive girls, because he has standards, dammit] in the misguided hopes that he’ll get some trim, and become progressively more bitter when he finds out this doesn’t work.