Why publishing deserves to die

I have repeatedly urged those who would be professional writers to pursue it as a fulfilling hobby, not a lucrative profession, because conventional publishing is a dying industry. My thesis tends to be supported by the fallout from the latest Duke scandal. Read, writer, and despair:

In the last 24 hours, we’ve received several of these types of inquiries. This is from a woman at the William Morris Endeavor agency, who requested her information because they want to represent her:

We think this thesis was GENIUS! Can you help in any way? Would be amazing & much appreciated.

I’m an editor at HarperCollins publishers, where I specialize in pop culture and entertainment books. I’m intrigued and entertained by [the writer]’s PowerPoint “f*ck list,” which is making the rounds online and am wondering if you could give me her email address or forward my note of interest to her.

At least Katie Price demonstrated that she had superlative self-marketing talent in addition to her aggressive plastic surgery and willingness to take her clothes off anytime anyone pointed a camera in her direction before being handed her book contracts. This rather unattractive young woman doesn’t even have that going for her.

Et tu, Jonah

Mr. Golberg takes an astonishing position on the Obama administration’s assertion of a right to assassinate American citizens without trial:

Some civil libertarians seem to think we can never, ever kill an American citizen without a trial by jury (and perhaps not even then). That argument would have been silly during the days of conventional warfare. Now it’s plain crazy. And the Obama administration is right. This is no job for courts. Wars and how we fight them are political decisions, properly left to Congress and the president.

Jonah should know better. He is, after all, the one who built the case against the pragmatic, “it’s just this one brick” approach of progressive totalitarianism in his very good Liberal Fascism. He further compounds his error when, after being correctly called on his erroneous reasoning by a reader, he attempts to justify his position by bringing up the example of World War II.

“Surely, “the battlefield” is a very amorphous term these days. An American fighting in Nazi uniform in 1943 could be killed and even singled out for killing without a trial by jury, or at least I think that’s the case. Awlaki — like all of al Qaeda — refuses to play by the rules even the Nazis agreed to. I’m at a loss as to why they should be rewarded for it.”

Of course, the only reason that an American fighting in Nazi uniform – more likely Wehrmacht, but never mind that – could be killed on the battlefield was because no one knew he was an American. The Constitution clearly and explicitly deals with the question of treason in time of war, which makes since because it was written by men who had recently fought in the Revolutionary War, so it is ludicrous to appeal to some pragmatic sense of sobriety and sanity and claim that it supersedes the Constitution.

Article III
[Section 3.] 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.

Jonah isn’t one of National Review’s Trotskyites, so it is a little disappointing to see him toeing the anti-constitutional neocon line on this issue.

The consequence of female choices

I have frequently written on the way that some women choosing to work has a negative impact on the ability of other women to choose to stay home and raise their children. Despite the fact that the economic logic behind this statement is impeccable and the reality of these consequences are inescapable, many critics, especially women, have nevertheless scoffed at this and insisted that the decision of one woman to work cannot possibly have any effect on subsequent choices available to other women.

Their economically illiterate doubts make the following comments by the author of a new feminist book blaming the lack of female executive achievement on a “culture that undervalues an entire gender” all the more ironic:

The New York Times asks about the impact of women choosing to “flee” the workforce (a loaded question), Feldt explains:

They make it harder for the rest of us to remedy the inequities that remain. We have to make young women aware of how their choices affect other women. It should be acceptable criticism to point out that, although everyone has the right to make their own life decisions, choosing to “opt out” reinforces stereotypes about women’s priorities that we’ve been working for decades to shatter, so just cut it out. And, the “individual choice” women have to become stay-at-home moms becomes precarious when they try to return to the workplace and find their earning power and options reduced. If we could see child-rearing as a necessary task and not an identity, and if we could collectively recognize that facilitating it benefits us all, we would go much further in guaranteeing women’s choices than we do when we are expected to uncritically celebrate every individual’s decisions.

The amusing thing is that while Gloria Feldt asserts “We have to make young women aware of how their choices affect other women”, she is talking about the immaterial and imaginary effect of “reinforcing stereotypes” whereas I am pointing to a material decline in real wages as well as a reduced chance to marry a man who is capable of supporting a wife and children, much less is more successful than the woman interested in him.

The Lizard Queen returns

I warned you she wasn’t finished. But Obama is:

Some called a Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton pairing the “Dream Ticket” in 2008. It didn’t happen. But what about 2012? “It’s on the table,” veteran Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward told CNN’s John King in an interview Tuesday on John King, USA. “Some of Hillary Clinton’s advisers see it as a real possibility in 2012.”

Hillary is not going after Biden, she’s going after Obama. This is just a strategic ploy to get her name back in play. Then, after the Democrats lose both the House and Senate in November – and probably even if they just lose the House in an embarrasing manners – Team Clinton will begin playing upon the fears of the surviving politicos that they will lose their jobs in 2012 if they are forced to run with the weight of the Obama administration dragging them down.

Forget 2016. She wants to run in 2012. But she can’t do so without pushing Obama aside. And given what a vindictive bitch she is, the thought of humiliating the man who robbed her of what would have been a historic presidency, and more importantly, an easy walk to a historic presidency, has great appeal to her. The main problem with this scenario is that even if Rodham-Clinton successfully convinces the Democratic superdelegates to dump Obama, she can’t seriously hope to win unless the Republican leadership provokes the Tea Party into supporting a third-party candidate by arranging the nomination of another Dole/McCain RINO.

And they would never be dumb enough to do that, would they?