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

We’ll soon see what kind of “freedom of speech” she practices with her comment moderation.  This is the comment I left on her blog:

“I’ll be the first to defend your right to espouse a bigoted opinion ... and I’ll be the last to agree with it.”

“Tangentially: Why is it that as soon as somebody disagrees with a certain type of extremist, they start squawking about their free speech rights being trampled on?”

Because they’re not interested in what you have to say. If they want you to say something, they’ll tell you what to say. I also think that they see things differently (read: delusional) - they’re the unsung hero championing rights, you’re the rabble rouser bent on screwing with the candy-land version of life. Don’t you wonder what’s in the water some days? It sure as hell isn’t flouride.

I fully support her right to send bigoted, poorly-reasoned letters to RWR. I don’t recall seeing any discussion of censoring her.

It’s funny sometimes how people assume that freedom of speech means that others must AGREE WITH you. Nope, it just means you aren’t prevented by the government from expressing it. That’s all.

Nice job, Candy. I expressed my opinion on Kate’s blog, so no need to repeat it here.

But I just have to say--because I’ve always wanted to: I don’t have a scintilla of decency.

Cool.

On a sidenote, I loved Nora Roberts’ comment about the many spokes in the wheel of romance.  Bless her, I’m not fond of her romances, but she just went up quite a few notches in my esteem.

And uh… I clearly should read the latest comment prior to mine before cheerily posting.

Sorry, sorry, sorry… and um, I do like the JD Robb romances!

the candy-land version of life

I thought the Candy-land version of life was right here, on this blog.

a scintilla of decency

I wonder if it’s a not-very-distant relative of the chinchilla.

Sorry, my brain got addled reading Jan Butler’s response, because I couldn’t see why she was defending her right to free speech when no-one had argued that she shouldn’t have it.

JEEEEzuz. FIRST first amendment my big white butt. I was actually admiring the woman. Thinking wow, she’s strong for coming to my blog and asserting her point of view.

So I even went to her blog to say we’d disagree and never convince each other and I hoped she’d use her obvious talent and bravery in other areas blah blah blah

She didn’t let my comment go through. Fine. That’s okay. It’s her blog.

But THEN to pull up the First Amendment crap?

My Admire-o-meter died with that one.

and you know what? That hypocrisy really did end my interest and admiration. I mean honestly. It’s a one way street:
HER morals
HER first amendment rights
HER RWA.

except she did get me a thousand comments in my blog ::nora roberts!!::

Okay, hell, I take it back. I love Jan Butler. I just don’t want to listen or read any more of her opinions--or go out drinking with her at any nationals.

You know, I’m usually among the first to arrive at any First Amendment fiesta, but I’m a little confused as to how this has even become a First Amendment issue.  To me, the Achilles Heel of Butler’s argument begins and ends here:

I advise RWA to stand for something, for a change, and this being a prime example of something they could stand for which would actually please most of the membership.

To imply that anyone who disagres with Butler’s definition of Romance is not “standing for something” of ethical and moral value is a fatal error of logic and ideology.  This is not a clash of the moral and the godless; this is a disagreement among individuals who stand for different moral and ethical principles.  Different, not absent, and not without integrity all the way around.  That my own morals and ethics—which do not need to be wrapped in the vestments of religious dogma to find witness to their integrity—urge me to stand against the tyranny of ONE VERSION of Christianity reigning ignobly over the spirit of Democracy may make me heretical in some circles, but it does not make me blasphemous.  To imply, however, that my divergent opinion condemns me to the profane realm of the fallen woman is, in my self-respecting opinion, decidedly unChristian and undemocratic.

The unfortunate fact--one borne out by these attacks--is that we no longer have a concept of “rights” that protect anyone but those who stand on the left side of the creek.

This steals my breath.  Is she actually attempting to say that she’s a victim in our current political climate?  A political climate created by those on “the right side of the creek” who have consciously and purposefully been sponsoring an effort to focus negative, judgmental and vindictive attention on things such as gay marriage and abortion in an effort to rip people apart who don’t fall into some assinine mold conforming to their personal standards of acceptability? 

No...she can’t really be that disingenuous, can she?

Honey, if you’d like to post this brilliant gem on her blog, just write me. I’ll hook you right up with my blogger ID, and you post away, and sign your name with a “Candy, guest of Annie.” It would be my pleasure. And I know a bunch of other authors who would probably offer the same.

And hot boys making out with each other while dressed up as pirates.

Candy, where is your decency?!? Also, where is your movie collection? Cuz I’d like to take a peek at it.

I wonder if the reason those poll results haven’t been released is that the results don’t say what the pollsters want them to say.

I strongly doubt that the average American romance reader is as violently, urgently offended by male homosexuality as right-wing rabblerousers like Jan Coulter Butler would like to believe.

Fiveandfour said: she can’t really be that disingenuous, can she?

I’m sure she genuinely believes that she and others like her and being persecuted. That’s the mentality we’re dealing with here. It’s almost impossible to have a civil conversation based on reason and logic with people who’ve drunk so much of the Kool Aid.

One of the Founding Fathers (I’m pretty sure it was Thomas Jefferson; this sure sounds like Jefferson) once made the comment about why he INSISTED freedom of speech be in the Bill of Rights (to paraphrase):

It wasn’t so that any schmuck on the street could say anything they wanted. It was so every stupid idea and statement in the world could be criticized freely.

I wish he were still alive so I could send him a batch of macaroni and cheese. And a couple books. And some Brussels Sprouts.

I have a Blogger profile.  It says I’m both a single mother AND an author of erotic and paranormal romances.  Whaddya think my chances of getting a comment through are running about now?

Well, I’ll try it.  Let’s see what happens.

Btw, my bra and panties don’t match right now.  Is that indecent?  Or does the fact that I am, alas, wearing both, give me that much-admired chinchilla of decency?  Cuz I’ve already got enough pets.

(just googled Chinchilla to make sure it really WAS an animal and not some type of cactus or something, and damn, people.  Those suckers are hella cute!  I think I DO want a chinchilla now!  And if I get one, I’ll name it Decency.)

One of the Founding Fathers (I’m pretty sure it was Thomas Jefferson; this sure sounds like Jefferson) once made the comment about why he INSISTED freedom of speech be in the Bill of Rights (to paraphrase):

It wasn’t so that any schmuck on the street could say anything they wanted. It was so every stupid idea and statement in the world could be criticized freely.

I don’t know if Jefferson said that or not, but that sounds a lot like Justice Brandeis, who made a lot of the Supreme Court’s memorable statements on free speech.  One of my favorites, from his concurrence in the very important case, Whitney v. California:

“that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.”

Here’s an article from the First Amendment Center that’s really, really good, too: http://tinyurl.com/q2ekv.

(Just in case my comment gets “accidentally lost” I thought I’d post it here, too.  Also interesting to see ZERO comments on her blog.  Somehow I can’t imagine that no one has commented on such a hot-button issue.)

You know, free speech? First Amendment? The one that enables them to make a book or a website or a movie or a joke as smutty as they like, and I don’t dare tell them they can’t?

Actually, the problem is that the First Amendment doesn’t say that people cannot disagree.  It says that anyone can say anything unless it’s deemed obscene, or unless it constitutes a nuisance, such as yelling on a bullhorn in a residential neighborhood at 3 a.m., or unless it’s speech that’s a form of conduct, such as fraud or incitations to violence. 

So nobody’s free speech rights have been impacted so far.  Many, many people have affirmed your right to say what you like, and their own right to disagree.  THAT is Free Speech.  Of all the comments I’ve read about your letter, I have read only ONE that expressed outrage that it was printed at all.  And I’ve read comments on a lot of blogs.

I’ll refrain from voicing my other opinions, since I see the moderation is on and no comments yet appear.  I’d like to see if this one goes through.  Controlling what shows up on your website is your right, although it is amusing to see selective censoring of comments on a post about free speech.

And I would like to see you address the actual facts brought up by those who have critisized your letter.  It would be much more effective a defense of your stance, IMO, than this erroneous post about First Amendments rights.

*throws up double devil horns in your honor* Spot on. Sadly, I think the point is missed.

The RWA does stand for something, just not for what Jan wants. And I get that. I understand it’s frustrating, hell, I was frustrated right out of belonging for years as I watched them take money from erotic romance authors and use their sales figures but treat us all like garbage. This is changing slowly and I’m a member now. I can understand how disorienting that might be to people who liked the old regime of narrowness.

Seriously, as I said at Kate’s and my own blog, Jan has a right to say all the hateful crap she wants. But the first amendment works both ways so I get to call it hateful crap. God/goddess/or other sentient entity bless us all every one.

Is she actually attempting to say that she’s a victim in our current political climate?

I hear this a lot from the conservatives in my life (I’m related to quite a few).  When I point out that, hello, they control ALL THREE BRANCHES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, they mumble something about liberal media and the Decline of Values in Society.

I won’t paint with a broad brush and say all conservatives think this way, but I think there’s a vocal subset who’s so invested in a persecution complex that they honestly can’t acknowledge that not only is no one persecuting them, but that they hold the reins of power.  They’d lose too much of their identity if they did.

I read Ms. Butler’s latest letter.  Then I read it again. I’m still trying to figure out who she thinks has trampled on her First Amendment rights.  Talk about a straw man argument! 

Disagreeing loudly with you is not trampling on your rights.  Barring you from having access to a forum like this one may be an infringement of your rights, although perfectly within the rights of the website holder, but I don’t see that happening either.  Both Kate and the SBs gave Ms. Butler a forum to speak her views. 

And the point-by-point demolition of those views was priceless.

I think the rightwing persecution complex is their main tool.  Somebody has to be infringing on their basic rights and they need to be enraged.  Fear and hate is what pulls them together and gives them a feeling of solidarity. 

Hitler used a similar tactic.

Darlene said: Talk about a straw man argument!

Political “debate” these days is RIDDLED with straw man arguments. These people don’t want to argue with a real point of view—just a made-up one that can be easily defeated. Very cowardly, IMO.

She compares dipping a crucifix in urine and calling it art to the subject of our discussion--gay romance? Do I have that right? Good Lord,I hope not. Oops,I blasphemed.

The same First Amendment rights that give her the right to speak give me the right to disagree. Frankly, I’m sick to death of people who express an opinion publically and then howl to the heavens (More blasphemy) when we all don’t subscribe to it.

As for being a screaming child, the only whining I hear is coming from her:

“Do as I say or I and all my friends will take our toys and go home.”

Take your toys and do so. Our toys are more fun anyway, and we let anyone play with them.

Long live independant small press!

(More posting on her blog.  I have to repost here because, really, what chance does anyone have of seeing it over there?  STILL no comments showing on her post, and that doesn’t say much for how many she’s going to allow through...)

I have another question I didn’t get to in my prior comment, and that is regarding the persecution argument.  Now, please understand that I am perfectly serious and not being the slightest bit sarcastic with this question--since text is devoid of facial expression or inflection, you’ll need to take my word on that.  But who exactly is persecuting conservatives?

Our president is conservative.  Most of the Supreme Court Justices are conservative.  Conservatives control both the House and the Senate, and currently control most of the same at the state level.  This current administration has made banning gay marriage and gay rights (such as inheritance, adoption, and medical decision-making authority) a priority, which I certainly can’t see as anything but affirming conservative values.  Yes, some media outlets are liberal, but in all honesty, some have a self-avowed conservative bent, too.  (FOX News is one very prominent example, and if I’m not mistaken, has the highest viewership of any news channel.) The majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians and place “family values” as one of their most important considerations when going to the polls.  So on the large national scale, I honestly do not understand who is persecuting conservative heterosexuals.

On the topic of romance, the vast, vast majority of romances are one man, one woman tales.  Even in the epublishing world, the majority of ebooks are one man, one woman romances, although it is less of a majority than in print fiction.  So I’m not understanding the censorship and persecution of conservative hetersexuals there, either.

Harlequin, one of the largest publishers of the so-called “sweet” romances, has cut back on their Presents and Romance lines (two of their most conservative) not because of liberal pressure, but because of poor sales.  That’s the only reason they have cited, and the only one that makes sense.  No business would hurt their own profits to make a minority of their customers happy.  I do understand your frustration in finding romances that fit your tastes.  Many readers have experienced the same thing from time to time as markets change.  But unfortunately, market pressure is the one and only thing that publishers respond to, and voting with your pocketbook, as they say, is the only way to truly get their attention.

Again, not being snarky here in the least.  I am attempting to make a logical argument and give you the chance, on your own blog, to respond to specific points.  I do hope you will respond in the same way because I truly am curious.

I always thought romance was about love not politics. And book publishing was impacted by dollar signs. If her type of romance isn’t being published I would guess it’s because it doesn’t sell. When gay romance and erotica stops selling they’ll disappear. Isn’t that how it’s always worked? Her point of view hasn’t being suppressed. It’s unpopular in the venue she’s chosen to express it. Maybe I’m oversimplifiying things but that’s how it’s always been for me when I don’t like certain trends or can’t find the type of books, music, movies, clothes, you name it that I want.

What’s the big deal, Jan?

So, she doesn’t address the points that dissenting readers made about her letter.  Instead, she launches into a speech on how her first amendment rights are being trampled.  Misdirect much?  It’s a familiar tactic.  Population disapprove of your policies at home and abroad?  Beat the drum of family values and the horror of the prospect of legalization of gay marriage...Don’t look there, look over here!

Politically, I’m basically a Libertarian (I dislike Republicans & Democrates equally ;-P). I believe you have the right to do whatever the hell you want as long as you’re not hurting anyone else (human as well as animal). 
Personally, I have a kind of Tori Amos philosophy about life.  First off you have to be true to yourself because, as Tori put’s it, “you’re just an empty cage girl if you kill the bird.” Secondly, we better do some good with our lives or we will “pay for who we’ve been” in the end. 

I’m probably coming from this discussion from a different viewpoint than most of you. 

I was a Christian for several years.  I don’t mean I went to church on Sunday.  I mean I was a Bible reading, volunteering at a nursing home, hospital, & rescue mission, member of the local aids task force, going to be a missionary christian.  Now, I’m just hoping Albert Brooks got it right in “Defending Your Life.” :-)

I support gay marriage.  I don’t think it’s anyone’s buisness who someone loves and I don’t find anything wrong with homosexuality.  However, I understand why Ms. Butler does.  I understand where she’s coming from.  She believes in the Bible and, like it or not, the New Testament does condemn homosexuality as a sin. 

Having said that, she does not have the right to force her beliefs on anyone else, but neither does anyone have the moral justification to vilify her for taking the Bible seriously (and, while I’m on the subject, no one has the right to rewrite the Bible to fit their political/social beliefs either). I’m not saying she’s being this perfect christian (I really think she would benefit from thinking about “what would Jesus do” before acting), but I do agree with her that the people who profess to be the most tolerant are the ones who are the most intolerant of religon. 

You have the right to argue with her position all you want.  I think she’s wrong, but what do I know.  I think we are doing the equivalent to animals what the nazis did to the gypsies, the mentally handicapped, and the Jews during WWII.

However, I really have to challenge this whole bullshit about how the left is picked on in this country.  The media, I’m talking hollywood here not Fox News, is dominated by the left.  Start keeping track, villian = Christian, ignorant boob = Republican, pervert = conservative, pro-life = terrorist.  Please, prove me wrong.  I dare you, find an example of the Republican being the hero and not the bad guy (yeah, I know, now you’ll find one :lol:)

Overwhelmingly, anoyone with conservative viewpoints in this country is protrayed as an intolerant, racist, homophobic, asshole.  That is why Jessica Lange can go on a talk show and say that Republicans don’t know what the word compassion means and Julia Roberts can point out that the word Republican comes between reptile and repulsive in the dictionary and no one notices.

How many of you supported the Dixie Chicks being slammed & boycotted for their dumbass comments?  If Mel Gibson had said “Fuck the Christians, they are responsible for all the wars” would anyone have batted an eye?

As I often say, I’m the conservative Republican Bitch.  And Jan Butler is an asshat.

I blogged on this and now I’m spent, utterly spent. :)

If Mel Gibson had said “Fuck the Christians, they are responsible for all the wars” would anyone have batted an eye?

I’d have to say, I think many eyes would’ve batted strenuously if any Hollywood star said that.  I’d expect hurricane-force batting for the director of The Passion of the Christ.  One should not crap in one’s bed, metaphorically or otherwise.

As for the movie challenge *grin* what about Air Force One?  President Harrison Ford being all heroic and kicking much terrorist ass?  I can’t remember, however, if his party affiliation was mentioned.  On the other hand, what about John Travolta as a very poorly disguised Clinton in… oh, hell, what was that movie called?  Don’t make me go to IMDB.  I’m too lazy, and besides, looking shit up defeats the purpose of the whole off-the-top-of-my-head thing.

From my memory of the releases of these movies, the asskicking Prez movie came out at a time when people were pretty happy with the real Prez, and naturally the Clinton-bashing one came out after some real-life Clinton bashing.  Art imitating life and all that. 

Could it be that the current trend of bad evil Republicans in TV and movies reflects current public opinion?  I can’t remember what Bush’s current approval rating is, but last I heard, dismal was too nice a word for it.  Americans, as a whole, are not overwhelmingly happy with Dubya.

Now I could be totally wrong and feel free to hand my ass to me (tho you might want to use one of those back-brace things because damn, y’all, that ass hasn’t seen petite in years) since I turned off my television 3 years ago and never missed it.  The last movie I watched was CARS, so needless to say I’m not exactly a pop-culture diva.  Just thought I’d toss that out for debate.

And I thought that the current trend was Muslim bad guys?  The whole Christian = evil thing is so pre-9/11.

Okay, this is liable to come off confrontational, and I don’t mean it to be. I apologize ahead of time for any squished toes.

However, I really have to challenge this whole bullshit about how the left is picked on in this country.  The media, I’m talking hollywood here not Fox News, is dominated by the left.

You’re absolutely correct. Hollywood is just as biased as the current right-wing administration and the section of the populace to whom it caters.

Hollywood produces images. Images are powerful, but not as powerful as the Pentagon, or the Supreme Court, or a piece of paper with the signature of the Commander in Chief.

Hollywood, for example, didn’t ram the Patriot Act or the Iraq War down our throats after 9/11.

Hollywood didn’t fiddle while New Orleans drowned.

Hollywood didn’t turn its attention away from a simmering catastrophe in the Middle East to debate marriage between consenting adults of the same gender.

Hollywood isn’t ignoring a global climate crisis because it’s more convenient for its corporate and Big Oil buddies.

And Hollywood won’t be instituting the draft when it finally runs out of warm bodies to send overseas to “spread Democracy and the American way.”

In addition, Hollywood hasn’t broken any federal privacy laws, outed any CIA agents, or cut any federal lunch programs and health care for the poorest children in the nation while passing a tax cut for the wealthiest. 

They make MOVIES and TV SHOWS. You can choose to watch them or not. But if you live in America, you’re pretty much stuck with the current regime until something changes.

Hollywood’s left-wing bias may suck ass, but it doesn’t threaten folks’ Civil Rights. Or leave them hungry or sick. Or kill them. For me, this makes a difference, and is why I tend to sport a left-wing bias of my very own. (I’ve named it Fala, after FDR’s Scottish Terrier. It’s almost housetrained.)

As for why “Overwhelmingly, anoyone with conservative viewpoints in this country is protrayed as an intolerant, racist, homophobic, asshole”…

Rush Limbaugh. Bill O’Reilly. Sean Hannity. Tucker Carlson. Pat Robertson. Jerry Falwell. Ann Coulter. Michelle Malkin.

Those are just the ones I can name off the top of my head. Every one of them has made an intolerant, racist, and/or homophobic remark that I could probably google inside of ten minutes. They are the voices of the current right-wing movement. The front lines. You want to know why people think conservatives are assholes? Because you let assholes speak for you.

And now that I’ve alienated everyone to the right of Abby Hoffman, I believe I’ll retire for the evening. :p

What gets me about the Butler Letter is, as I put in my blog when Butlergate broke,

The idea that gay people falling in love is somehow unromantic is fine. (No, it isn’t, of course, but stay with me.) But according to the same types of people who would say something like the above statement, sex doesn’t really belong in romance anyway. They prefer their romance squeaky-clean and sex free. These are generally the same people who remind us over and over that romance novels aren’t about sex, and the physical aspects of the relationship aren’t so important, it’s the people and their sweet kindness and the way they manage to find each other and blah blah blah anything that doesn’t involve cocks. Sex in romance is shameful! What sort of person wants to read about such things? They have loftier interests, they do. They’re interested in people’s souls, much like Satan waving those contracts around.

So that being the case, what difference does it make if the people falling in love are a men/woman combo, or man/man or woman/woman, or man/woman/man, or whatever?

I hope it’s okay for me to quote myself, I just still think the point is relevant.

Certainly Ms. Butler has the right to say whatever she wants. But if she wants to dictate who is allowed to read and/or write what kinds of books, she should either open her own publishing company or give her books for free to church groups. And even that’s no guarantee that only the “right” readers will get it.

We can’t control anything or aynone but ourselves, Ms. Butler. Just in case you see this. It’s a pretty good thing to keep in mind.

Selah, you rock.  Really.  Nicely put, and way too coherent for this time of night.

December, there you go with that pesky logic again.  Stoppit, won’t you?  You’re making my brain hurt.

The American Constitution guarantees citizens the right to freedom of speech, but does not guarantee that everyone will agree with your opinion.  Just ask the Dixie Chicks.

Selah...alot of anger there.  I believe the subject of this blog is the rebuttal of asinine comments posted in public places, not your personal political opinions.

Controversial and dumb comments are not limited to Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, politicians, gays, actors, athletes, or the otherwise famous. “Speaking assholes” can be googled for any and all of the above groups.  You may want to consider counseling for all that pent up anger.

dl is so very right. 

Attacking the person by saying they’re angry or some other accusation that has nothing to do with what the person actually posted is a favored ruse of those right folk. 

Addressing the statements made (usually known as facts) is verboten to right folks who, as a rule, are absolutely terrifed of those horrid fact thingies. 

Just sayin’.

Selah, you were brilliant in your assessment of what Hollywood does and doesn’t do and can and can’t do.  Very factual, and that’s just like holy water to ‘em or the light of the sun.  ;-)

Money talks.  More than all these arguments, what will affect the future market is what we’re buying now.  End of story.

dl, if you read down a little ways, Katie brought up the Hollywood angle in her comment, which was in response to my question posted on Janny’s blog wondering who is picking on the conservative right, as Jan claims in her blog post.  So actually, Selah was perfectly on-topic, if you follow the convoluted path of blog comments.  And if this whole debate is about anything, it seems like personal political views are the topic du jour.

Just sayin’s all.

And actually, I didn’t think Katie OR Selah came across as mouth-frothing angry bitches.  Could be because I’m basically a pretty chilled-out person at heart.  Could be because I’ve had a lovely hard cider drink tonight.  (Woodchuck hard cider is my new favoritest thing ever.) Or maybe, just maybe, it’s because they both presented their viewpoints in a reasoned way that is topical and mostly angst-free?  (As much as anyone can be angst-free when hot-button issues are being discussed.)

I enjoy the debate, even though this honestly is more of a clusterfuck on Janny.  Still, when someone is able to articulate their opinion, it’s awesome.  It’s much easier to say, “Ur stoopid HEETHEN & goin to he!! for ur sinz” than it is to explain why you believe what you believe.  (Although I’ll admit the misspelled posts are sometimes much more entertaining.)

And for anyone who might be interested, still no comments showing up on Jan’s blog.  Maybe she’s not home to approve them or something?

She writes inspirational romance?

Heck why didn’t somebody say so before? Now her whole diatribe makes perfect sense.

the New Testament does condemn homosexuality as a sin

The New Testament is open to interpretation because words have to be understood in their context, e.g. whether they’re being used metaphorically, which definition of a particular word is being used etc. There are plenty of Christians who have read the New Testament and who do not believe that the New Testament condemns homosexuality as a sin. The main arguments are that:

among Bible translators there is a widespread view that in the New Testament, the two Greek words that have been translated as homosexual may mean ‘loose living’ or ‘prostitute’. The Revised English Bible is a mainstream published Bible, ratified by representatives of all the Christian denominations in the United Kingdom, written under the chairmanship of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and in this the word homosexual has been omitted from St Paul’s letters altogether. The story of Sodom is not about sexuality; this leaves only the references to sexuality in the codes of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. The meaning of these codes may have been clear at the time they were written. But to us they are a confused mix of values relating to morality, religious practices, nationalist characteristics of Israel, and primitive ideas about purity and health. One such concept was of the pure forms of a man and a woman. This led to the prohibition of shaving in men, to avoid looking like a woman; also of cross-dressing, and of same-sex relationships. Other requirements of purity included the types of animals and fish that could be eaten, which excluded shellfish; and purity of dress, which excluded any garments made with more than one type of yarn. Under the moral code there are strong and repeated injunctions against usury; so much so that Christian moneylenders were unusual for many centuries.
(From the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement

They’ve also got an extremely detailed analysis of all the Bible verses which are generally held to prohibit homosexuality, if anyone wants to read about this at greater length.

My point isn’t that they’re right, because I’m not an expert in all the subjects necessary for understanding the nuances of the languages in which the Bible was originally written, I’m just pointing out that not all Christians agree on this issue, and those who believe that homosexuality is not sinful are not just wilfully ignoring the Bible. They’re interpreting it differently, and those interpretations have been reached on the basis of rigorous analysis.

Selah March wrote:

You want to know why people think conservatives are assholes? Because you let assholes speak for you.

Can’t argue with that.

I read Ms. Butler’s blog entry again, so it’s my own fault my eye is twitching. She warns that ‘disease spreads, too.’ That was a wowzer for me. I guess those who don’t agree with her stand are infected, iho, and will be rapidly spreading our tolerance, acceptance or enjoyment of slippery slopes.

Whee.

This is NOT about First Amendment Rights. It’s about Ms. Butler implying she speaks for RWA, its members, and thereby the genre itself and its readers. And further stating, pretty damn clearly, that those who don’t agree with her are shrill, whiny children who want to block her constitutional rights. And turn the Romance genre into a gay and lesbian love fest.

So far no one’s slapped duct tape over her mouth and locked her in a closet.

So far the big wheel of Romance is rolling right along on ALL its spokes.

I’ve been keeping up on the comments, and you know what I think is cool?

I don’t think that ALL those genres listed as immoral by Jan Butler would appeal to all of us… Most of them would not be my cup of tea, on a personal level.

And yet here we are, defending people’s right to publish and read them.

The first amendment is working. Just not on Jan Butler’s web site. (And incidentally, to rant about the first amendment and then ban comments on your blog/site makes you look really, really two-faced and whiny and juvenile. Just sayin’.)

Go, us. It’s a pleasure to read comments from people with a clue. Especially comments from people with a clue AND a sense of humor.

“You may want to consider counseling for all that pent up anger.”

Oh, my anger isn’t in the least pent up. I’m mad as hell right out in the open. So is a goodly percentage of the mass populace from what I can gather as I watch the polls. I guess the proof will be in November’s pudding, won’t it?

But I take your point regarding assholes on both sides of the equation, I forgive you for missing the point of the conversation, and I thank you kindly for what I’m sure was your well-intentioned concern.

Brava.

I posted a long response to Jan on her blog (the one where she was railing about her First Amendment rights being infringed). I thought it was well-thought out and well-reasoned. I began by pointing out that the First Amendment actually only applied to infringement of free speech BY THE GOVERNMENT and that private entities are free to infringe upon free speech, as long as there is no state action involved. I then went on to point out that I could see no instance where anyone was calling for censorship, but rather where people were simply engaging in the same behavior as her--finding a comment in a debate objectionable and responding. Yes, some of the responses were snappish and downright attacking, but she went there first with her inflammatory language in the original letter to the editor, again in her comments on people’s blogs, and again in her blog on msmentor. But I digress.

My point is this. She has every right to believe/write/feel/post what she did. And I have every right to 100% disagree with it. I will defend her right to spew hatred (her letter and subsequent posts seem as though she cribbed from any number of right-wing extremists), but I 100% disagree with it and now know at least one author I will NEVER buy.

Sad to say, it’s been about 18 hours since I left that post and it’s still not on there. And if you look at her history of posts on that blog, she has very few comments. I just find it incredibly ironic that this great defender of Free Speech is engaging in the very practice about which she rails--censroship. But hey, it’s her prerogative. The First Amendment doesn’t protect my right to post freely on her blog. It simply protects my right from infringement of speech by the state or a state actor.

At least Kate Rothwell allows all comments to be posted, including the ones she disagrees with.

Okay, she steamed me with her latest comment on Kate’s post. Don’t talk about my standing, my experience or my friendships when you don’t know me.

This woman’s full of perceptions, and it’s my constitutional right to hold the opinion that her perceptions are crap.

I’ve got to go away and get to work. Best to write this one quick before the market drops out as according to Butler the only area of Romance that’s growing is Inspirationals.

C’mon, Nora.  You know the hotel gave you the gold-plated toilet paper and RWA does everything you tell them to.  Isn’t that why last year’s GH/Rita Awards Ceremony went so smoothly last year?  ... oh… wait.  Never mind.

This was only my 3rd RWA Conference, and I think it’ll be my last for a while.  Mostly due to financial constraints, but I’d be lying if I didn’t say the atmosphere had a lot to do with my decision as well.  I write erotic romances for epublishers and it’s taken 9 books for me to have a more mainstream (yet still plenty spicy) paranormal romance come out in print.  But does RWA consider me published?  Nope.  And yeah, I’m woman enough to come out and say that irks me.  Don’t like my books?  Don’t buy ‘em.  But don’t tell me I’m not a ‘real author’ because of that.

And by the way, all three years combined?  I’ve only experienced snobbery from exactly ONE so-called Big Name Author.  And that was snobbery reported secondhand, and like all rumor, must be taken with a grain of salt.  One thing RWA does have going for it--they do seem to treat everyone equally at their conventions.  I’ve volunteered at the registration desk, and never saw any Big Names cut in line or try to pull rank.  I’ve never seen and Big Names throwing hissy fits at the hotel desk because their room wasn’t plush enough.  (This year, however, a bunch of people probably saw ME throwing a hissy fit at the front desk because my key never did work properly and they wouldn’t bring us toilet paper, gold-plated or otherwise.  Yep, I’m a diva, what can I say?) And at the AGM, everyone has one vote.  Or they would, if enough people would show up to make a consensus, but I digress.

There’s a very simple reason why Nora’s and Janny’s experiences and conversations differ so much.  Human nature.  We tend to hang around with people who share our interests.  Doesn’t mean we consciously exclude people--"Oh, she’s a Republican, for God’s sake don’t let her sit here!"--but would you really spend loads of time with someone who drove you batshit crazy and disagreed with you on almost everything? 

Please note I’m not saying you have to be friends with only those who parrot your own views.  My best friend since we were 5 and I disagree on several very big issues.  Abortion.  Politics.  Whether it’s immoral to have a gas-guzzling vehicle.  But we agree on many other things, she’s got a killer sense of humor, I love her like a sister and she’s the godmother of my sons.  I can give no higher compliment than that.  We can rationally discuss the other stuff and admit that we both have valid points, and agree to disagree without frothing at the mouth.  And then we move on.

Maybe it’s a concept that Janny should try?

At nationals I sat next to a woman in a workshop who spent the whole time telling me essentially what Jan Butler has on her blog - hell - maybe it was her…

The thing that I don’t get is why people would start soap-boxing on something face-to-face without knowing the other person. Maybe I look Christian (I’m not), maybe I looked conservative (I’m not) - I don’t know. I heard about it for 10 minutes straight, unable to get a word in edgewise until the very end when I calmly said…

“I think that there is room in RWA for all different types of romance, inspriational to erotic. Just don’t read the books that offend you. I’ll continue reading and writing what I want and you should do the same. I don’t want to be part of an organization that favours one sub-genre over another.”

She suddenly realized she was in the wrong workshop and left - funny that.

Cheers, Deb

Oh, you silly lib’ruls! Of course conservative Christians are a persecuted minority in this country. After all, the courts keep insisting they can’t erect crosses or Ten Commandment monuments on public property, which means their freedom of religion is being restricted. Then there are the rulings against teaching Intelligent Design in Dover, PA. And look at the uproar over poor Mel Gibson’s Anti-Semitic remarks. (C’mon, the poor guy was drunk and we all know the evil drink makes you say things you otherwise wouldn’t--er, I mean, say things you don’t actually believe.) I mean, nobody would call Gibson on that stuff if he weren’t a Christian, right?

Yep, the poor sods are awash in persecution.

Also, do you think I can have my scintilla of decency made into a coat without upsetting PETA? Wouldn’t want to antagonize the left-wing nutjobs. They do, after all, control everything.

Jacqueline, sorry but it’ll take you a lot of scintillas to make a coat. I mean, they’re kinda small. Bigger ‘n mice but definitely smaller than rabbits.

I suggest you have your scintilla of decency done up as a vest for your chihuahua and have it dyed to match your outfit. I hear that’s what Paris does with all of her scintillas. Mmm so deliciously soft to carry on your arm.

You’re right, Kate: I’ll need a lot of scintillas to make a coat. Perhaps I can have Nora’s, since she doesn’t want it? And I’m sure a few other kind souls will toss me theirs if ask nicely.

Barring that, since I don’t have a chihuahua, I’ll have it done up for my black cat.

Anyone remember, back in March, when evangelical conservatives held that conference to discuss, “The War on Christians?”

Of course, many dismissed it because it’s hard to fathom how a group that makes up 85 percent of America can be oppressed.

Nonetheless, (some) conservative Christians somehow delude themselves into believing that free speech means having no opposition to your agenda and no dissent against your ideas.

It’s a puzzling position, no?

I began by pointing out that the First Amendment actually only applied to infringement of free speech BY THE GOVERNMENT and that private entities are free to infringe upon free speech, as long as there is no state action involved.

I’m pretty certain that not *all* private entities can infringe on the exercise of free speech, as some of them have been found to essentially be state actors, which include but are not limited to governments.  Public universities are state actors, as are some businesses.  Private and public individuals and entities that *function* like state actors can be found to *be* state actors for the purposes of the First Amendment (as well as the 5th and 14th), if I’m not mistaken.

Actually, the problem is that the First Amendment doesn’t say that people cannot disagree.  It says that anyone can say anything unless it’s deemed obscene, or unless it constitutes a nuisance, such as yelling on a bullhorn in a residential neighborhood at 3 a.m., or unless it’s speech that’s a form of conduct, such as fraud or incitations to violence.

Even in the case of so-called obscenity, which does not count as speech under the First Amendment, there is some protection, in so far as content neutral standards still apply (i.e. you cannot be discriminated against simply because someone deems your conduct offensive). The designation of obscenity is one that must be legally determined on a case by case basis (by a jury under the Miller Test), not arbitrarily made and imposed. 

It might be worth noting that the First Amendment is the most unqualified constitutional amendment, and it was not judicially qualified until 1918, after several individuals were jailed for protesting the First World War.  Over the years, various tests have been used to determine what qualifies as protected speech (i.e. to define the limits of the First Amendment), but the parameters are still quite broad among public entities (i.e. state actors).  And as conservative as the Supreme Court has become, I have it on good authority that Scalia, for example, is extremely protective of First Amendment rights. 

However, not all speech is protected and some conduct is deemed to be speech under the First Amendment (if it is symbolic conduct and meets certain requirements).  Core protected speech is political speech—it always gets the highest level of protection.  However, in one case involving the burning of a draft card (O’Brien), the conduct was not considered free speech, because the law against burning the draft card was not ruled to be one infringing on free speech rights (it was viewed as purely administrative).  Laws that *incidentally* curtail free speech rights are not necessarily unconstitutional.  Similarly, not all speech is given the same level of protection under the First Amendment, although contrary to popular opinion, there is really no legal category of “hate speech,” and even the so-called “incitement to violence” test has an imminence requirement that makes it relatively limited.  On the other hand, when free speech rights clash with other constitutionally protected rights, those must be weighed to determine what gets greater protection under the law.  For example, commercial speech (i.e. advertising), while still protected, does not receive the level of protection that pure political speech does.

I would happily donate my scintilla, but apparently I don’t have one. I was duped, it seems, and my scintilla is, alas, faux.

How mortifying!

As to the gold-plated tp? Let me tell you, it’s not what it’s--hahah--cracked up to be.

JulieT said: Incidentally, to rant about the first amendment and then ban comments on your blog/site makes you look really, really two-faced and whiny and juvenile.

Seriously. The Irony Meter’s pegged so far to the right that springs are popping out.

No matter what Janny says, I have a scintilla and I aim to use it ‘til it can’t scintillate no mo’. So there.

‘Elp!  ‘Elp!  I’m Bein’ Repressed!

Certain elements of my family have embraced country music.  I, myself, am not a big fan of the genre, although there are a few records here and there that I enjoy and some that I just find hilarious (and I mean that in the intentionally funny sense – “Tequila Makes Her Clothes Fall Off,” for example, or “Celebrity.”)

At any rate, their interest in the country scene means that occasionally I come into contact with songs that not only make the R&B guy inside me die a slow, lingering, and agonizing death, but outright tick me off.  One of these is a song by Gretchen Wilson called “Politically Uncorrect.”

First of all, the title itself pisses me off way more than it should.  The grammatical mistake is completely intentional, designed to emphasize the singer’s pride in her backwoods standing and her disdain for all ‘at book larnin’ goin’ on in ‘em uppity Yankee schools.  Anyway, the song is all about how the narrator is in the unpopular and downtrodden minority because she believes in the Bible and family values and supports the troops in action and so on.

Now, I’m going to put aside for the moment the frightening implications that it’s somehow more “American” to be functionally illiterate trailer trash than to be educated enough to know that “uncorrect” isn’t a bloody word in the first place.  And I won’t add my voice to the throngs, Selah notable among them, wondering just who is oppressing the right wing folks when all three branches of government are Republican controlled at the moment. 

But I will address the underlying theme of the song – victimization.  The left wing side of the aisle demands to know how the right wing can possibly claim that they are being victimized by a leftist controlled media establishment while they have the White House and the Congress and obviously hold a majority, given the recent polling numbers on issues like gay marriage. 

Liberals aren’t going to like this very much, and I can’t say as I blame them for the hate mail I am sure to accumulate by saying so, but the real cause of movements like this “Politically Uncorrect” song or Ann Coulter diatribes or Rush Limbaugh rants that receive plaudits and support is that it’s a backlash against the culture of victimization that has gained so much ground in America over the last thirty years or so.

Why shouldn’t the white, middle-class, Christian, family values types claim that they are a victimized minority?  Everyone else does! 

Criminals are victims of capitalist society that kept them in poverty and forced them into lives of crime.  Women are victimized by book covers that show cleavage and dehumanize them.  Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, Mormons, and worshippers of Ra the Sun God are victimized by religious bigotry.  Blacks, Asians, Native Americans, and other racial groups are victimized by centuries of WASP control of American institutions.  Gays are victimized, bigamists are victimized, everyone is victimized by someone, and the fact of the oppression is holding each and every group back.

Now, I am not claiming that any or all of these groups are exaggerating or making fraudulent claims of any kind.  Bigotry, whether based on religion, ethnicity, color, sexual preference, shoe size, or even intellect, is an ugly reality that cannot be denied. 

However, the culture of the victim, in which no one is accountable for their own lives and their own successes or failures, no one can be blamed for unacceptable behavior because it can all be traced back to some grievance suffered, has created a climate in which every American can look for a scapegoat somewhere.

“Liberals aren’t going to like this very much, and I can’t say as I blame them for the hate mail I am sure to accumulate by saying so, but the real cause of movements like this “Politically Uncorrect” song or Ann Coulter diatribes or Rush Limbaugh rants that receive plaudits and support is that it’s a backlash against the culture of victimization that has gained so much ground in America over the last thirty years or so.”

I don’t disagree with your fundamental point. But the “culture of the victim” has been around much longer than the rise of liberalism. I’ve read tracts from the early twentieth century that bemoan the fates of poor, disenfranchised white men trampled by the increasing demands for civil liberties by uppity women and black folks. And didn’t some Southern planters swear it was the evil Northern industrialists who forced them to use slavery as the only means to make an honest living?

The backlash we’re seeing may well be caused by a disgust with the culture of victimization, but only in part. A great deal, in my view, stems from pure mean-spirited hatred for that which is different.

I’ve seen that Gretchen Wilson video you mention, btw. You know what stood out most to me? The hordes of extras she used to populate it—people who were supposed to represent normal, everyday, working-class folks.

And not a person of color among them.

To me? That says everything I need to know about what she and her audience consider “politically uncorrect.”

Oh, fine.  Just be RIGHT over there with all your correct rightness, why don’tcha?

Seriously, though, you bring up a valid point.  After all, nobody thinks they’re a villain, do they?

Just be careful with those scintilas, ladies. You have to make sure they’re free-range scintilas, and not raised on scintila factory-farms in overcrowded conditions.

I understand you can get free-range scintilas at the Zappa Ranch in Montana: fed on organic dental floss, and without those nasty parental advisory labels.

This has been one of the most informative and simultaneously entertaining discussions I’ve run across this week. It’s a testament to the concept of lively civil discourse.