"Start today for as little as $999."

God bless the free market, eh?

Posted August 9, 2007 12:08 PM by Seth Gordon

I love the section where they explain how much money their authors are going to make.

Posted August 9, 2007 12:11 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Have you written a manuscript and you’re tired of being rejected by the traditional publishing houses?

Like PublishAmerica?

Posted August 9, 2007 12:16 PM by julie

Yet another upside--the possible improvement in slushpiles everywhere.

You do have Scalzi's recipe for schadenfreude pie, right?

Posted August 9, 2007 12:21 PM by fidelio

Re #3: Heh, indeed, has Travis sent an MS yet?

Posted August 9, 2007 12:21 PM by Michael Bloom

Conservatives turn to PODs? Turnabout is fair play.

Posted August 9, 2007 12:23 PM by Xopher

I'm with ya there, Teresa, on being torn. Hmm, publishing scam, but they're targeting authors I potentially don't really want to see get ahead. Hmmm.

"The problem is, most publishing houses shun conservative authors. Liberal authors get their foot in the door while conservative authors get the door slammed in their faces!"

Yeah. I mean, just go into your local bookstore and wander into the political commentary section. You can feel the left-wing agenda oozing out of the shelves. Oh, wait, that's from when those liberal books are squished between the onslaught of Coulter, Rush, and Hannity and their ilk pulp-fiction diatribes. Clean-up on aisle six.

Posted August 9, 2007 12:45 PM by Steve Buchheit

Is Townhall a "vanity" publisher?

No. Vanity publishers will charge you thousands of dollars to print a truckload of books, which they will not help you distribute.

Let's see now... As it happens, I have here an example of a book from a small press that uses Lightning Source to produce its print books. I paid the publisher nothing. I received five author copies, as did my co-author. The book is not just "available to order" but is part of the distribution deal the publisher negotiated with Borders, and books from the publisher are available on the shelf in my local Borders. Cover price is $12.99, which is fairly typical for a trade paperback of that length. Royalties are 7% of cover price.

Or of course, I could publish it through Townhall, and pay a mere $999.99, plus whatever the author discount price is on ten copies. Let's see -- the cover price will be $17.99 (a very reasonable price compared with the $12.99 at my current publisher), so the 40% discount as the author will bring that down to $10.80 per copy, plus shipping. Yes, only a thousand and a bit, so technically not thousands, if you round down. Now, I won't receive any royalties or distribution on the basic service, but I could upgrade to one of the premium packages, where not only will I receive royalties but it will be available through Amazon *and* can be ordered by any bookshop that chooses to do so. Of course, those packages will cost thousands, but they're quite right about not printing the truckload of books...

Dear God, it really is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Posted August 9, 2007 12:51 PM by Julia Jones

I guess I'm just imagining all those books for sale by Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, the Swift Boat Veterans, etc.

Posted August 9, 2007 1:04 PM by Dave Lartigue

Oh. Oh, that's just beautiful. *sits back and contemplates the beauty*

Although I have to say the second book TBogg quotes has the potential to be a rip-roaring good read:

For Such a Time As This is a five week Bible study that challenges single Christians to discover and surrender to God’s purpose and plan for them, and truly experience the great, unsearchable riches of Christ while serving and placing Him first in one’s life. Walk through the scorching fires of Nebuchadnezzar’s unmerciful furnace, grace the twinkling, rolling hills of the Augusta National Golf Course, and witness God’s miraculous Hand in a crowded back booth in McDonald’s and a stressful intensive care unit on Christmas Eve.

Posted August 9, 2007 1:05 PM by Electric Landlady

Oh dear, oh dear--the squishy liberal part of me wants to help warn. . .but I have books to write and people to see and grandkids to babysit and breadlines to help on and vigil lines to stand on and letters to editors to send and. . .

Oh dear, oh dear, did I miss my chance?

Jane

Posted August 9, 2007 1:05 PM by janeyolen

Is it OK for someone to rip off people you don't like?

(Would you be surprised to find out they have another domain name where they do the exact same thing except substitute a few words in the description of the manuscripts that Large Corporate Publishers won't accept?)

Posted August 9, 2007 1:06 PM by Seth Breidbart

Walk through the scorching fires of Nebuchadnezzar’s unmerciful furnace, grace the twinkling, rolling hills of the Augusta National Golf Course, and witness God’s miraculous Hand in a crowded back booth in McDonald’s and a stressful intensive care unit on Christmas Eve.

Whaat? Where did the golf course thing come from?

I mean, the others I can see. The three Israelites tried in the furnace (Shadrach, Mesach and Abed-nego; yes, I too won a prize for Scripture Knowledge when I was a nipper at prep school), obviously. Intensive care - miraculous recovery. McDonalds - well, there's a long tradition of "however mean the job, God ennobles it".

But Augusta?

Alternative interpretation:
Walk through the scorching fires of Nebuchadnezzar’s unmerciful furnace, grace the twinkling, rolling hills of the Augusta National Golf Course, and witness God’s miraculous Hand in a crowded back booth in McDonald’s and a stressful intensive care unit on Christmas Eve. 14 days. Book your tour places now online. Guests are warned that the tour may be physically strenuous.

Posted August 9, 2007 1:52 PM by ajay

Maybe they'll publish Conservapedia in book form!

Posted August 9, 2007 1:55 PM by Christopher Turkel

Seth #12: That was my first thought as well, but they (like Townhall.com) appear to be a part of Salem Communications, all of whose holdings are right-wing and/or Christian media outlets.

Judging by the size of Salem and News Corp, it's hard to not scoff every time I hear complaints about how the "New York Liberal Media" (who publish folks like Bill Bennett and Rush Limbaugh, incidentally) are keeping the conservatives down.

Posted August 9, 2007 1:57 PM by Adam Lipkin

With apologies to Wittgenstein: what one need not speak about, one should pass over in silence.

Posted August 9, 2007 2:06 PM by Jon Meltzer

The idea that a publishing house would reject a book because it represents a Conservative (or Liberal or whatever) viewpoint is funny to me. My understanding of the industry is that publishers exist to make money. If they think a book will sell, they buy it, if not, they don't. Since when could publishers/editors afford to buy a book that won't sell simply because they don't agree with the message, or turn away a book that will sell simply because they don't agree with the message. It's a business. The individuals involved all have different perspectives and political ideals, but when it comes to buying books, their job is to make sure that they make money. They can save their political editorials for their own books and blogs.

Posted August 9, 2007 2:08 PM by CosmicDog

Oops, I meant
"Since when could publishers/editors afford to buy a book that won't sell simply because they agree with the message..." Please ignore that first don't.

Posted August 9, 2007 2:11 PM by CosmicDog

(maniacal laughter)

(wipes tears from face)

ooohhh, man is that funny.

I feel sorry for neocon knuckleheads getting taken by this about as much as I feel sorry for Rush Limbaugh getting caught on prescription shopping and busted coming back from a possible sex tour.

Posted August 9, 2007 2:12 PM by Greg London

Has it occurred to anybody that this is the Liberal conspiracy to keep conservative authors out of traditional publishing houses? I mean, if they're publishing through Townhall, they're not still submitting to actual publishers, are they?

All it takes is 3-4 mean-spirited liberals... wait, haven't I had this discussion before?

Posted August 9, 2007 2:12 PM by Scott

#12 Seth Breidbart, well, it's not okay for *me* to rip them off. But then, I have principles and scruples. Given the blathering on about "the market providing" and "market forces" form the right, I see this more along the lines as a "plague upon both (their) houses."

That said, money flows toward the author. And I'll say that to anybody who asks.

Posted August 9, 2007 2:24 PM by Steve Buchheit

I guess a lot depends upon whether one's goal is "better books" or "better books that I agree with."

Posted August 9, 2007 2:36 PM by Sarah S

We could warn them, but we're liberals so obviously any warning from us is part of the liberal conspiracy to keep them out of print.

I find the neat recursion of this concept ... shiny.

Posted August 9, 2007 2:37 PM by Charlie Stross

Turned down by a "traditional" publisher? Gasp, I never knew PublishAmerica rejected conservatives.

Posted August 9, 2007 2:37 PM by Dave Kuzminski

Hmm ... what happens if we do a quick reformat from Project Gutenberg and submit Das Kapital to these folks?

Posted August 9, 2007 2:41 PM by Charlie Stross

@#20 Scott: Shhh...

Posted August 9, 2007 3:01 PM by julie

Would they turn down a book for being too liberal?

Posted August 9, 2007 3:06 PM by Diatryma

Seth (12), that's why I'm torn. No one deserves to be ripped off. On the other hand ...

Posted August 9, 2007 3:12 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

#25: Do you want to mock these people who are providing such a service to the conservative movement?

For shame.

Posted August 9, 2007 3:13 PM by Jon Meltzer

I guess the scammers have realized that the reality-based community isn't a good target market for them. Targeting people who believe that there's a Vast Liberal Conspiracy to Silence Conservative Voices (i.e. Neocon Nutjobs) is a much cleverer scam.

As Charlie pointed out, if Teresa (or anyone in the RBC) told them it was a scam, would they listen? Of course not. She's part of the conspiracy.

This reminds me of the scene where the hero tries to save the villian but can't, and the villain falls into the flames/grinder/devouring maw. The hero goes "Damn! I tried my best!" and the audience goes "YAYYYYYY!"

Posted August 9, 2007 3:22 PM by Xopher

Sigh...in that moment between clicking post and posting, I noticed that I spelled 'villain' two different ways. A before I after L. Or something.

Posted August 9, 2007 3:23 PM by Xopher

Teresa (28) I think Charlie has it right. Go ahead and warn them. You stay true to your principles, and get to laugh even harder when they don't listen.

Posted August 9, 2007 3:28 PM by Seth Breidbart

Would it be too evil to point out that:
* townhallpress.com is hosted on a server owned by Nippon Telephone and Telegraph?
* To avoid revealing their identities, the people who purchased the domain name used an anonymous domain registration service in the Cocos Islands?

If they're good, upstanding citizens, they have nothing to fear from liberals invading their privacy, do they? Or do they have something to hide? Inquiring minds want to know, especially now that News of the World is no more.

Posted August 9, 2007 3:32 PM by C.E. Petit

ajay #13: perhaps the Augusta National Golf Course is there to demonstrate that all that camels-through-the-eyes-of-needles bit is just liberal hippie propaganda?

On the whole, though, I think I'll go with your second interpretation.

Posted August 9, 2007 3:33 PM by Electric Landlady

Well, while I am fascinated by the concept of a twinkling golf course, the whole Miraculous Hand of God in a Back Booth At McDonalds sounds a little bit pervy to me. Not that I have anything against erotica or romance novels - I just prefer that my heroes be a little less Alpha/Dom/Masher. I wouldn't rule out borrowing the book from a library though. For research purposes, of course.

Posted August 9, 2007 3:59 PM by nerdycellist

I honestly don't see the problem. Any action or that harms conservatives is, more or less by definition, a Good Thing. I'd go so far as to argue that even the scammers themselves are engaging in a morally neutral act; no doubt the virtue inherent in harming republicans cleanses their grimy littls souls of the sin inherent in the theft.

Posted August 9, 2007 4:13 PM by Scott H

Did Peter Crossman get a blowjob from these folks before getting Religion?!

Posted August 9, 2007 4:17 PM by Paula Lieberman

Do not warn them. The best, and only thing to do, is to ignore the matter altogether and move on.

Why?

Because not only will they not believe anything coming from a member of the VLC, but, once they realize that they have been scammed, they're going to find a way to put the blame on said VLC and in particular the ones that are now known to them.

It's like getting in the middle of a troll fight. You're not going to get any rationality here. All one can do is make sure the trolls do their arguing somewhere away from you.

Posted August 9, 2007 4:18 PM by Jon Meltzer

#25: Hmm ... what happens if we do a quick reformat from Project Gutenberg and submit Das Kapital to these folks?

If you include $999 in the same envelope, I bet they accept it.

Meanwhile...

#8: Is Townhall a "vanity" publisher?

No. Vanity publishers will charge you thousands of dollars to print a truckload of books, which they will not help you distribute.

No, not a vanity publisher! Townhall will charge you thousands of dollars (the $999 is just to get in the door) but they won't print a truckload of books! Rather than paying the money and getting firewood for the winter you pay the money and get nothing.

Posted August 9, 2007 4:22 PM by James D. Macdonald

Here I was, trying to imagine who in the wide weird world of wonderment could possibly deserve to be victimized by PODscammers more than just about anybody else, and hooray!— Making Light came through with the answer once again.

Thanks Making Light!

Posted August 9, 2007 4:31 PM by j h woodyatt

Jon @ #38: "once they realize that they have been scammed, they're going to find a way to put the blame on said VLC"

Ah, you haven't carried it all the way through. If the VLC doesn't tell them, they'll blame the VLC for not offering gratuitous advice they would have ignored.

Posted August 9, 2007 4:32 PM by Linkmeister

I think the straightforward way to look at it this:

For every thousand dollars some neocon nutjob spends on a vanity press putting his consiracy theories into print, that's a thousand dollars that won't go to Bush's third reelection campaign effort.

It sounds like they're appealing to the 27 percenters who'd support Bush even if he grew a tentacle-beard and sprouted bat wings.

I don't think reason will work with these folks. Best to allow them to choose the action that will result in the least amount of damage to the country.

Posted August 9, 2007 4:32 PM by Greg London

As Townhall Press says of their lead author, award-winning Doug Giles, "...the little voices in his head still won't go away."

Looks like they've got their market pretty-well figured out.

Posted August 9, 2007 4:38 PM by James D. Macdonald

Charlie (33): No kidding? They're going to that much trouble to hide their roots? Cool! It's much more fun to shoot at people who know they're doing wrong.

Posted August 9, 2007 4:39 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Lord-a-mercy! I just looked to see which awards Doug Giles has won.

Remember the Communicator Awards? Doug has two of them!

Posted August 9, 2007 4:45 PM by James D. Macdonald

I'd have thought the correct course of action was obvious: rail loud and long against this scam. Make it clear that you're one of those smarty-pants liberals who thinks they know what's best, and that what's best for anyone thinking of using Townhall Press is to keep their money. They'll flock to it out of sheer spite, and you'll get to have your schadenfeude pie and eat it too.

Posted August 9, 2007 4:48 PM by Nathanielperson

I guess the scammers have realized that the reality-based community isn't a good target market for them.

Nah, they just realized that despite all the stereotypes about champagne-swilling limousine liberals, we don't have a lot of money.

Posted August 9, 2007 4:53 PM by Seth Gordon

Das Kapital in the original is NOT in the public domain, the government of Germany owns the copyright and does NOT want it in print in Germany.

Germany and Disney are in collusion regarding, infinite time copyright.

Posted August 9, 2007 5:04 PM by Paula Lieberman

#45, Macdonald.

Oh, my! I missed that thread those five years ago... I think these folks deserve some Hogus and a Black Hole or two for Professionalism (rather, lack thereof), which have more open and honest voting involved! (Something about peer awards, peer over one another's shoulder and outbid one another for the votes....)

Posted August 9, 2007 5:10 PM by Paula Lieberman

Scott H (#36): So it's good that anybody who disagrees with you should be hurt? Are you capable of seeing the results if everybody thought similarly?

Paula (#48): In the US, Das Kapital is public domain.

Posted August 9, 2007 5:11 PM by Seth Breidbart

Paula@48: Are you sure you're not thinking about Mein Kampf?

Posted August 9, 2007 5:14 PM by Debra Doyle

Paula, I wonder if you are thinking of Mein Kampf as opposed to Das Kapital.

Posted August 9, 2007 5:18 PM by Claude Muncey

Paula@48: Germany and Disney are in collusion regarding, infinite time copyright.

I think England has "Peter Pan" under an infinite copyright term.

Didn't know about "Das Kapital" though.

Posted August 9, 2007 5:18 PM by Greg London

Dang, beat to the punch . . .

Posted August 9, 2007 5:19 PM by Claude Muncey

You're right, it 's Mein Kampf I was thinking of. Duh...

Posted August 9, 2007 5:35 PM by Paula Lieberman

I think England has "Peter Pan" under an infinite copyright term.

No, it was willed to the Greater Ormond Street Children's Hospital in London. I remember because I used to get pediatric research papers from them.

But we could be saying the same thing, since England has a national health care system, unlike certain other countries I could name.

Posted August 9, 2007 5:35 PM by hamletta

Hm, my bad. Maybe someone who understands the Peter Pan situation (obviously not me) could explain it a bit more on the wikipedia article. Peter Pan is currently listed under the perpetual copyright article with a vague mention that it is only sort of a copyright. What exactly is perpetual, if anything, is unclear.

Posted August 9, 2007 5:53 PM by Greg London

CosmicDog #17:

This is even funnier, given that there are (as several people have pointed out) a lot of conservative books out there. In fact, this is one of the results of lots of think-tank jobs for conservatives, which often amount to academic jobs without any teaching load, and leave some time for writing books.

Nobody deserves to get ripped off. But I do find it interesting that the scam here plugs into the "The Liberal Establishment won't let some ideas be discussed" meme, which is one that's definitely pushed by conservatives. Now, there are definitely limits on what you can get discussed in the MSM--see the discussion on the Overton window from a few months back. But:

a. Nothing remotely like mainstream conservative thought fails to fall in that window. See Fox News, most talk radio, CBN and other Evangelical Christian television productions, the Wall Street Journal, etc.

b. This seems not to apply so much to books. Charles Murray and Pat Buchannan and Thomas Sowell and David Friedman have all published a bunch of books, despite being spread out across the right end of the political spectrum. (Friedman is libertarian, though, not conservative; the spectrum has too few dimensions.)

I've noticed this before: part of the underlying "story" a lot of conservatives tell themselves about their place in the world involve some kind of persecution by the mainstream media. And maybe this is even historically accurate--certainly, it looks like in the days of three TV networks, the window was a lot narrower, and probably kept all kinds of ideas out of public discourse. But some part of the modern conservative movement seems tied up in a kind of persecution complex--the MSM not letting any conservative views be aired, meddlesome judges at war with Christianity, reporters and Democrats and public intellectuals undermining our troops, etc. And it's weird. I mean, I can see feeling like the MSM won't let your views be heard under some circumstances, but isn't it hard to do that when you're a conservative, and you've got to mute Fox News so your complaint can be heard? Isn't the "people in power are persecuting our kind" line hard to believe when your side's been in power for six years?

Posted August 9, 2007 6:10 PM by albatross

Jim (45), I figuratively fall upon the floor and roll about laughing ...

Two of them! Pray tell, in what categories?

Seth (50), Jim Macdonald and I, and many others as well, have spent hundreds of hours working with writers' websites and newbie authors, trying to educate them about publishing scams and how the industry works. One of our greatest frustrations is the unwillingness of many writers to believe that an agency or publisher that's offering them a quick and easy path to literary success may not actually have their best interests at heart.

POD self-publication scams are some of the hardest to address, because they're constructed from an abbreviated set of the same tinkertoys used to build the real publishing industry. For instance, there's the claim they all make that "Your book will be available in thousands of bookstores all over the country." Since newbie writers don't know any better, they assume it means that their books will be physically present on bookstore shelves. They're mistaken. What it actually means is that if a customer already knows about the book and wants to buy a copy, they can go to a bookstore, have them put in a special order, prepay the entire amount, and come back and get the book when it arrives.

Yog's Law states that money should always flow toward the writer. It's a good and useful rule. However, it can be difficult to track where and in what direction the money is flowing. Another way to judge a non-academic publisher is dead simple: do they have a distribution deal, beyond making their books available via online bookstores and special orders? If not, and if the books they publish don't have a built-in audience (say, they're about how to build your own navigational tracking devices for small sailboats, or they're erotic novels tailored to the exacting specifications of a rare variety of fetishist), you can safely say the publisher is either crooked or clueless.

It's a complicated point. Many otherwise intelligent writers refuse to believe it until they've been run through the mill a few times. Some don't believe it even then.

I don't doubt that Townhall.com's authors run true to form. Everything they need to know about this subject is available to them at Making Light, Absolute Write, and other sites. There's no mechanism that keeps right-wingers from doing a spot of research and finding those sites before signing the contract. I've done everything I can; and yet I know that many writers will fail to heed the warnings.

I don't believe that anyone deserves to be robbed. It's just that when I contemplate this bunch, it hurts a lot less than usual.

And by the way? One more odd wayward fact? In general, authors are a left-leaning class. You can always find notable exceptions, but on average they're a left-of-center bunch. I think it may be significant that I know of exactly one writers' forum where loud, unoriginal, standard-variety right-wing sentiments are the norm: the Publish America Message Board.

Posted August 9, 2007 6:14 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Greg @ 42 It sounds like they're appealing to the 27 percenters who'd support Bush even if he grew a tentacle-beard and sprouted bat wings.

If Shrub grew a tentacle-beard and sprouted bat-wings, I'd be tempted to vote for him. But only if he announced that nice senator Palpatine as his running mate.

Posted August 9, 2007 6:21 PM by Vian

Greg #57 --

The Peter Pan copyright was willed to the Greater Ormond Street Children's Hospital in London; like other copyright holders, they control the rights and collect royalities. As of January 2008, they will continue to collect royalties, but will no longer control the rights.

That's the surface story. The machinations of how that works . . . I have no idea.

Posted August 9, 2007 6:22 PM by Jeffrey Smith

The legislation on the Great Ormond Street Hospital and _Peter Pan_ can be found at
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_28.htm#sdiv6

Posted August 9, 2007 6:24 PM by John Mark Ockerbloom

Albatross (58), you're right. They adore the idea that they're a persecuted minority, even when they're having to make up their persecution out of whole cloth.

Much-rejected writers also tend to feel they've been unjustly denied the success that's due them. It's a perfect combination.

Posted August 9, 2007 6:32 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

I'd love to see a list of "published" titles that result from this.

Then I can keep an eye out for them in the 25 cent book bin at the Goodwill Thrift Center.

Posted August 9, 2007 6:38 PM by Stefan Jones

Greg: Basically, they don't hold a copyright. There is a parliamentary order that anybody reproducing or adapting the story should pay them a fixed royalty. But they don't get (e.g.) the right to deny a licence, or impose any other terms on the use of the work, or to fix that royalty themselves. It would also likely not apply to any works that were not adaptations of the story, but rather derivitives of it in some other form (e.g. a sequel).

Posted August 9, 2007 6:49 PM by Jules

At last, there's a place that will publish those scathing slice-of-life masterpieces about how The Only Reason I Didn't Get that Position Is Because They Had to Hire a Black Woman with Three Times My Credentials, and how ever since America ceased to be a meritocracy where people knew their places and prayed in schools, we've begun to fall like the Roman Empire! 'Cause you can't find stuff like that anywhere else, and we are all the poorer for it.

I absolutely do not believe that anybody deserves to get ripped off. But I do cherish the warm, fuzzy feeling that comes from imagining how many dollars that might otherwise go into right-wing election coffers will be going to a vanity press instead.

Posted August 9, 2007 6:52 PM by Aconite

In a just world, Townhall Press would be the only press the Limbaughs, Hannitys and Coulters would be published after Regnery was hit by the comet's fireball.

Posted August 9, 2007 7:08 PM by Linkmeister

Snarl. "place the Limbaughs etc."

Posted August 9, 2007 7:09 PM by Linkmeister

#64 Then I can keep an eye out for them in the 25 cent book bin at the Goodwill Thrift Center.

No, you won't find them there. Why not? Because the books won't physically exist. That's the beauty of vanity POD. You pay for publishing but the books are never printed. Meanwhile the publisher tells you that's a good thing.

Posted August 9, 2007 7:40 PM by James D. Macdonald

#69: What, you don't think the proud new author won't buy a stack for Christmas presents?

Posted August 9, 2007 7:50 PM by Stefan Jones

Liberal authors get their foot in the door while conservative authors get the door slammed in their faces

Yeah, sure, we get our foot in the door, but that's when those mean liberal publishers slam the door. Thus do they in one fell swoop break our toes and our faces.

Posted August 9, 2007 8:25 PM by Serge

No longer satisfied with applying artificial grass to blogs, conservatives have hit upon a new scheme - pods. Harking back to the old conservatism that gave rise to "Return of the Body Snatures", new-line conservatives are taking a page from their pink o'enemies, and growing their own voters in pods.

Posted August 9, 2007 8:34 PM by thanbo

thanbo 72: That's what I meant above by "turnabout is fair play," but no one got it.

Posted August 9, 2007 8:36 PM by Xopher

Okay, it's very hard to feel sorry for the authors who are being ripped off.

Feel sorry for the libraries.

Every so often we get a person who wants a copy of an obscure book: sometimes self-published, sometimes a small publisher that's a step removed from self-publishing, sometimes just a book that's very old. And said person is very, very upset that we don't stock the book. Our failure to stock the book is part of a liberal conspiracy. (Did you know that ALA wants to corrupt children with teh sex and teh communism? Yeah). We must interlibrary-loan the book (at considerable expense).

To be fair, I've gotten this from a liberal once, who proceeded to harangue me for fifteen minutes about the state of the country ("Yes, that's true...") and the state of library funding ("Oh, I absolutely agree..."). But nine times out of ten, it's people who want some conservative Bible prophecy wingnutry.

Posted August 9, 2007 8:44 PM by Emily H.

And, hah, I forgot my original point, which was:

The last thing we need is more obscure conservative books being hawked on the internet, sending people to the library to demand them.

Posted August 9, 2007 8:46 PM by Emily H.

Xopher @ 73, I got it, but wasn't able to come up with a witty (or even particularly intelligible) reply. "We are POD people. Join us..."

Posted August 9, 2007 9:30 PM by Joel Polowin

On warning them: well, you can try, I suppose.

Recently, I had an email from a wannabe asking, in the usual aggrieved tones, just what the heck he had to do to get published for money, already. All his friends said that his SF was very good, but it kept getting rejected. He was pretty much convinced that the editors were conspiring against him. Should he self-publish? He'd heard that it could be done on-line, practically for free.

I'm sure many here have had the same experience - I'm sure our hosts have.

I replied to the effect that I didn't know about his fiction, but judging on his email, it might help if he made sure his cover letters were correctly spelled and punctuated, and it was always a good idea to spell his intended recipient's name correctly. He answered to the effect that he was sorry about that - he hadn't taken the care he should. This was a hopeful sign, so I said, OK, send me your best story, and I'll look at that and tell you why it's getting rejected, and this might help you fix it.

Perhaps this was hubris on my part. God knows I have enough trouble myself. But I felt I knew more about it than he did, and there was a sense of obligation.

But no story came back. No more correspondence at all. I can feel in my bones that he's talking to a podshop somewhere, and finding, to his joy, that they'll publish him, sure they will, just sign here.

You really can't blame the wolves if the sheep take a ticket and join the queue.

Posted August 9, 2007 10:06 PM by Dave Luckett

And of course, burned authors will sue Townhall Press. Because their lawsuits aren't frivolous.

Posted August 9, 2007 10:08 PM by mythago

Dave you're lucky he didn't glom onto you as the One True Link to Getting Published.

I'm only minorly so (published) but my brother thinks I Have the Secret. I keep trying to impress on him that 1) he needs to find the right publisher, 2) make sure he is getting paid for it and not putting out any money. He writes well. He's trying to sell a novel about Vietnam experiences. But he wants it published so badly that he may go to the dark side. I have cut him off from asking about writing/selling fiction, which is easy because we only see one another at Thanksgiving and Christmas because he lives in Grove, Okla. and I live in Kansas City, MO.

Posted August 9, 2007 10:23 PM by Paula Helm Murray

C.E. Petit #33: There is a difference between News of the World which has been around for about a century and a half, and which is currently owned by the Dirty Digger, and Weekly World News which began publication in 1979.

Posted August 9, 2007 10:54 PM by Fragano Ledgister

Townhallpress is advertising "We can turn your manuscript into a high-quality book and make it available to 25,000 bookstores".

Notice the weasel-word. Available in bookstores would mean on the shelves, available to readers. Available to bookstores means bookstores can order the book if they somehow divine its existence.

Posted August 9, 2007 11:41 PM by Rozasharn

Greg London #53 ::

As I understand it, the only book under perpetual copyright in the UK is the translation of the Bible authorized by King James (I & V?). I suppose it's considered Crown Property, and is exercised primarily to ensure accuracy.

Posted August 10, 2007 12:35 AM by Don Fitch

From their site, too, I rather like
"If your last name begins with the letter A - Z, contact Dominique at extension 1103."
You'd think they'd be wary of turning away potential customers whose last name began with a Zapf dingbat, but otherwise supremely efficient.

Posted August 10, 2007 12:43 AM by Chris

Emily H, #74, my library system charges for ILL, depending on how far they have to go and how much they spend. I want something the neighboring county has? No problem, no charge. But something that doesn't exist until you order it? Lots of money.

Dave Luckett, #77, there's a guy on rasfw right now who asked us to download his brother's 700-page book, read it, and recommend it to publishers. Someone posted the first paragraph and although everybody but Terry Austin was pretty nice, nobody is encouraging.

Posted August 10, 2007 2:08 AM by Marilee

Chris @ 83

You'd think a lot of their potential customers would be Dingbats.

Posted August 10, 2007 2:27 AM by Bruce Cohen (SpeakerToManagers)

The logical side of my brain is telling me no one deserves to get ripped off, but then I think about how these people are supporting a man who's destroying the Constitution--people who in all likelihood support torture, people who, without being melodramatic, endangered my life & the lives of everyone else in New York City by voting the way they did in 2004, people who think I'm a traitor, and it's hard. I don't know--maybe I'm just very, very angry (possibly suffering from Tom Tomorrow's patented Outrage Overload), but god damnit, if Bush & Cheney & Rove & Gonzales aren't going to prison, it'd be nice to see *somebody* suffer. This is cruel and ugly, I know. But it's how I feel.

Posted August 10, 2007 2:58 AM by Greg

Greg #86: Watch it--pretty soon Bill O'Reilly will be advising his viewers to change the channel before he reads the scathing hate speech you just spewed there.

"This is the kind of thing that goes on on Making Light every day! Hate! Hate! Hate!"

Posted August 10, 2007 3:14 AM by ethan

Oh, I like this! It's beautiful. You're only hypocritical if you don't say anything -- which, of course, you just did; there's hardly any moral obligation to go and tip these folks off on their own turf. First of all, they're not going to listen to liberal bloggers. I mean, have creationists ever shown themselves capable of sense? You've put a warning here. They're perfectly capable of reading it, should they decide to turn around and start reading blogs with sense. They know where you're at. You're just, you know, in the grip of Satan, who doesn't want them published.

I believe this calls for a *sporfle*.

Scott @ 20: my partner, whose morals are different from mine, just said he wishes he'd thought of it.

Posted August 10, 2007 4:04 AM by A.J. Luxton

Fragano @80: There is a difference between News of the World which has been around for about a century and a half, and which is currently owned by the Dirty Digger, and Weekly World News which began publication in 1979.

Yeah: one's a cheap tabloid that peddles a bizarre mish-mash of fabricated nonsense designed to keep the masses amused and distracted, while the other is ...

What was the question again?

(For the uninitiated, "The News of the World" is the Sunday edition of The Sun. And it truly has to be seen to be believed.)

Posted August 10, 2007 4:58 AM by Charlie Stross

Paula @48, Marx died more than 120 years ago, and his works are public domain.

Hitler, however, died only 62 years ago, so his works are still under copyright. His legal heir is the federal state of Bavaria, which choses not to license the works.

Posted August 10, 2007 7:22 AM by inge

From the TBogg post I clicked through to SOUL BAPTISM, and I'm still laughing. Mind you, at first I thought it was an inter-denominational romance novel ("full fellowship with a tongue-talking Pentecostal"), but it turns out to be theology.

Posted August 10, 2007 9:11 AM by Ken MacLeod

inge #90 : That's interesting. Any idea why it went to the Land rather than the Bundesrepublik?

Posted August 10, 2007 9:36 AM by Jakob

My understanding is that the rights were given to Bayern (Bavaria) by the Allied occupying powers as part of their siezure and disposal of Hitler's personal and Nazi Party property. Outisde of Germany, Mein Kampf is generally either in the public domain, somehow restricted or prohibited in distribution, or a combination of both. The sequel, the so-called Zweites Buch

There are apparently distant relatives of Hitler that would have a good chance of suing for return of the rights, which would be worth a great deal of money. Reportedly, they do not have any plans to do so.

According to this article, the US government claimed the postwar rights for domestic publication, and happily collected the royalties until the publisher bought the rights from it.

Posted August 10, 2007 9:57 AM by Claude Muncey

Sorry -- brain burp.

The last sentence of the first paragraph should read: "The sequel, the so-called Zweites Buch, appears to be in the public domain."

Posted August 10, 2007 10:00 AM by Claude Muncey

Jakob (92): At the time of Hitler's death, there was no recognized Bundesrepublik Deutschland — the US and UK had declared the Third Reich an illegitimate government as part of the prelude to Nuremburg (it's a loooooong, complicated journey down the path of implications from de Groot, so don't ask). The occupying forces applied UK law perforce, and found that the land was the only legitimated government to accept an escheat (return of property to the state when no heir can otherwise be identified). I found this out from Patton's adjutant... who happened to teach property law at my law school (Maj John Cribbet).

And it wasn't just Hitler: That happened pretty much throughout occupied Germany until late 1946 for determining escheats; only then was the BRD recognized and allowed to assert any authority over escheats, and not retroactively.

Posted August 10, 2007 10:00 AM by C.E. Petit

Fascinating, C.E.

It reminds me of the legal gymnastics around the 1979 Tiede case where you ended up with a US federal judge in a US court on still occupied German territory (Berlin) making decisions according to prewar German law, using US procedures.

Posted August 10, 2007 10:23 AM by Claude Muncey

Paula Lieberman (#49): Germany and Disney are in collusion regarding, infinite time copyright.

So *they* have the copyright on infinity? Olaf Stapledon and Andrew ("world enough and time") Marvell would be shocked! And HPL would bear a lasting grudge.

Posted August 10, 2007 11:40 AM by Faren Miller

Actually, C.E. (95), I don't think you get a Bundesrepublik until after you get a Grundgesetz in 1949. The transitional governments are murky in my memory, but I think until at least 1949 supreme power is held by the Allied Control Council. That council retained some residual powers until at least 1972 with the four-power agreement. Some Allied privileges even remained until after German reunification. (Also until various agreements signed after the fall of the wall, Germany's legal borders were still those of 1938, and western Poland was held to be "under Polish administration," with Kaliningrad (Königsberg) "under Soviet administration." But I digress.)

In general the two trends of early postwar German government are the transition from direct military control and the breakdown of Allied cooperation. Government was rebuilt from the local level upward, with Bavaria, for example, getting its postwar constitution in December 1946. Currency reform and the deutschmark don't come along until 1948, at which time Allied cooperation has deteriorated so badly that the US and UK are working on unifying their zones. Bizonia becomes Trizonia when the French go along, and by then the Allied rupture is deep enough that it enables a couple generations of European politicians to claim they like Germany so much they are glad there are two.

Anyway, having state-level government settling property questions in 47/48 makes total sense.

Posted August 10, 2007 12:15 PM by Doug

The very best part, in my opinion: "Authors who choose the BASIC program do not receive royalties." (http://199.238.131.113/prices_programs.htm, popup on the 'Royalties' line item.) So it's not enough that you pay them $999; unless you shell out $1499 for the 'Premium' package, you're doubly screwed. Then again, it's not like there's a whole lot of cash to be had in their royalties structure anyway. (http://199.238.131.113/royalties_discounts.htm)

Posted August 10, 2007 12:32 PM by Andy

Charlie Stross #189: One of them has headlines like 'Vicar caught wearing knickers' the other doesn't.... (And the News of the Screws has been around for a hell of a long time -- since 1843 in fact.)

Posted August 10, 2007 1:10 PM by Fragano Ledgister

I'm baffled by the assertions I've seen here that every thousand dollars a wannabe author blows on this scheme is a thousand dollars they won't be able to use to further their right-wing cause.

The money is going to townhall.com. If anything, this ensures the wannabe's money will go toward furthering right-wing causes, when it might otherwise have been spent on rent or a vacation or an iPod.

Posted August 10, 2007 1:18 PM by Jen Roth

...sorry, the money is going to the people who run townhall.com. Still.

Posted August 10, 2007 1:21 PM by Jen Roth

Jen Roth #101: You're assuming that townhall.com will use the money they "earn" to further right-wing causes. I assume that they'll use it for rent or a vacation or an iPod.

Posted August 10, 2007 1:22 PM by ethan

Doug (98), in name, you're correct. However, in 1946 the Allied Council empowered itself to collect escheats, as it has determined that certain länder had been abusing their authority, as a caretaker for a future republic. I should have been clearer in saying that the länder had exclusive authority, in the eyes of the Allies, from Yalta until late 1946, to accept escheats... except for escheats related to currency, which the Allies grabbed for themselves from the beginning.

Unfortunately, most of the documentation relating to distribution of assets in occupied Germany is not in public files.

Posted August 10, 2007 1:31 PM by C.E. Petit

I don't know. If their other ventures isn't very profitable, they'll probably plow the POD money back into them. If this does represent extra profit for them -- well, they still bankroll the right with their political donations.

I think this is just taking money from relatively ineffectual wingnuts and giving it to wingnuts with more political and media power. It doesn't strike me as a win even on a purely practical level.

Posted August 10, 2007 1:31 PM by Jen Roth

OK - I've got a question in translating editorese. I've had a book making the rounds, sending it to every appropriate publisher. (Not that many approprate to this particular book.)

In at least six publishers the book got to the following stage. The submittions editor liked it, presented it to the senior editor, it got as far as a meeting, and it was rejected on the following grounds:

1)It is well written
2) It is well researched
3) The potential market is just too small.

I'm going to take 3 as a consensus by experts. Question: for the sake of my ego, can I take 1 and 2 as expert opinions too? Or, since editors are often decent human beings, are 1 & 2 simply a standard politeness when rejecting an MS to which you have given serious consideration?

Posted August 10, 2007 1:31 PM by Gar Lipow

Er, "if their other ventures aren't very profitable", of course.

Typing + baby = hard.

Posted August 10, 2007 1:33 PM by Jen Roth

#77 Dave Luckett

The right to freedom of speech in the USA does not include a right to an audience, and especially does not include a right to a paying audience!

Translated into language that's more vernacular--your right to free speech does NOT include any right forcing or demanding my or anyone else's attendance. You can say whatever you want, you don't have the right to have other people listening, or reading, or being forced to be present to listen or read, your speech/writing.

To my perspective that applies to billboards--people have a right to say what they choose, they don't have the right to stick it in my face on a billboard overlooking public roads....

Posted August 10, 2007 1:44 PM by Paula Lieberman

Ken (91), you mean "full fellowship with a tongue-talking Pentecostal" isn't a euphemism? I am so disappointed.

Jen (101), the only satisfactory answer is that we should start a POD operation specializing in right-wing nutcases and hardcases.

Posted August 10, 2007 3:03 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

I feel no great desire to save the right wing from a predatory enterprise such as this. They are already besieged by so many parasites (the church, madison avenue, et al) that no amount of intercession will save them from themselves.

Also, I believe townhall's biggest market will be cranky business owners who think that they know it all because they've run a business. I have run into those folks before -- they're just itching for some kind of validation of their ideas, and preaching to their employees lasts only so long.

Don't get me wrong: in the general scheme, I support anybody who wants to write a book and share it with the world. Good or bad, the more discourse, the better. Even a lousy, ill-conceived political commentary is better than another citizen who sits in front of a TV and drools.

Heck, in the course of researching their manifesto, they might come across some actual facts and learn something.

Posted August 10, 2007 3:04 PM by Steve Libbey

Jen Roth @ 105: You're assuming the owners of Townhall Press actually care about right-wing causes. I don't think they do. I think they've identified a market segment to pitch to in a manner that segment finds appealing ("Your masterpiece isn't being published because you are persecuted for your beliefs"). I don't believe Townhall cares about conservative causes any more than the Christian Literary Agency branch of that hydra that is the Writers Literary Agency cares about Christian causes. It just uses the jargon well.

Posted August 10, 2007 7:03 PM by Aconite

Don@82: I think you mean "VI and I". (One of the interesting experiences of my first trip to Scotland was seeing a gallery of Stuart portraits, including one labeled "James VIII and III".)

Posted August 10, 2007 9:05 PM by CHip

Most of the time I love this site. Then I see people railing on a segment of society that they don't agree with (stereotyped as exactly like a selected bunch of obnoxious blowhards) and saying things basically like "let 'em burn."

Geez, people. "Conservatives" aren't a monolithic bunch any more than "liberals" are, and by your comments you would be shocked and surprised to find out that people you thought of as sane were, in fact conservatives... because I have not run across the types you seem to be envisioning.

Normally I don't get into this— I don't like political vitriol of either stripe, and I hate the assumption that I have to be ashamed because I think differently on political issues than the prevailing view of whichever site I'm visiting.*

I am not saying that conservative "wingnuts" don't exist. (Neither am I saying that liberal "moonbats" don't exist— let's spread that vitriol around a bit while we're at it.) I am saying that generalizing the behavior of the majority from a small vocal sample is a mistake I see all the time and I'm sick of.

The people that Townhall is spamming— and yes, they are spamming, I saw a complaint about it just the other day— are people. By saying that you wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire, you're not denying them their humanity, you're lessening your own.

As for me, don't bother to ask me questions, because I'm going to the non-political areas of the site. Which are very, very good, BTW.

*My views will, by the tenor of this post, be judged as conservative, I have no doubt. Whatever you wish— it really shouldn't be as important as commenters are making it out to be, and if it makes you feel better...

Posted August 10, 2007 11:27 PM by B. Durbin

B. Durbin @113, and everyone else...

Everyone- if B. Durbin rewrites his comment to take out the gratuitous insults, then that'd be a better comment to respond to. This one, not so much.

B. Durbin-
OK, I won't ask you a question. I'd like to gently request that you check out R.R. Moore's initial comment number 123 in the "Because one of the People She Was Learning To Hate Was me" thread, and see the responses it got. Your comment reminds me of it. (The thread called Flamer Bingo could also be of interest.)

The points you're trying to make in #113 are somewhat hidden behind the gratuitous insults. If you wanted to rewrite the comment sans insults, that could be worth a conversation.

It seems like you know that your comment is being provocative for the sake of being prickly, in that you're claiming you won't have a conversation about it. But if it is provocative it isn't because of what you said (or at least, what you might have wanted to say) but how porcupinedly you said it.

Posted August 11, 2007 12:09 AM by Kathryn from Sunnyvale

Aconite @111: I was thinking along those very lines... "Why would THP donate to right-wing causes? THP don't care about conservatives and their causes; THP only want to fleece conservatives with causes." ...but then I had a second thought:

How is this any different from the way the right-wing conservatives in power fleece their rank and file?

The Bushes and Cheneys and Roves and Buchanans and etc. of the world don't have any cannibalism taboos. They happily prey on the people who identify as their tribe. I could totally see THP doing something similar: cynically preying on the "schmucks" with fervent beliefs and deep naiveté, and taking the profits from that to feed the perpetual power machine.

...or maybe I need to take off my tin foil cap and admit that the simpler explanation is the one you, along with my first thought, proffered: that THP is solely looking out for #1.

Posted August 11, 2007 12:39 AM by Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little

Tinfoil is sharp, but Occam's Razor is even sharper.

Paula # 108: I don't understand how this is a reply to my post. I don't by any means disagree, but would you mind unpacking it a little, so I can see how it follows?

Posted August 11, 2007 1:44 AM by Dave Luckett

B. Durbin @ 113: I am not saying that conservative "wingnuts" don't exist.

But in your haste to chastize us, you seem to have missed that those are the conservatives we're talking about: the ones who believe their books aren't being published because of the Great Liberal Conspiracy Against the Real Truth.

Would you care to explain to me why I should not take a moment to enjoy circumstances that result in people who call me a traitor and a deviant, who vote to take away my civil rights, who piss on the Constitution, who believe the poor are responsible for their own poverty, who try to force me to live by their interpretation of their religion, and who believe they don't need to research how publishing works or to perfect their craft (ignoring information to the contrary) getting taken in by someone who plays on those beliefs?

The information the wingnuts need to educate themselves that this is a scam setup is freely available. That they won't take the word of The Great Liberal Conspiracy about publishing is whose fault, exactly?

As I've said above, I don't believe these people deserve to be scammed. Nobody does, even people who call me a traitor, deviant, etc. But hey, I've tried to warn 'em and been spat at for my trouble. I'm not going to pretend it's not delicious to watch the results of their willful ignorance play out after that.

If you didn't mean for your post to rack up as many troll points as it did, I suggest you take a moment or two and read those links Kathryn from Sunnyvale gave you in #114. They can help people who don't mean to sound like trolls avoid sounding like trolls.

Posted August 11, 2007 8:06 AM by Aconite

Well, it may be my poor internet connection, but B Durbin's post didn't really look like trollery to me‡. It looked like a reaction I have myself, often, on threads here, when we get a little heated.

If we're only celebrating the ripping off of the ones who believe their books aren't being published because of the Great Liberal Conspiracy Against the Real Truth, that's one thing*. I'm not sure that has been made very clear in all the comments.

But an unpublished author, who can't see the flaws in his or her book, will grasp at any straw to explain why it didn't get published. This site gives them that straw, whether or not their books are actually conservative commentary†.

So unless this press is somehow filtering for a'holes, they're going to be taking money from, and wasting the time and joy of, people who are writing pretty much anything and looking for a reason - any reason - that they are being rejected.

And I haven't gotten to the point that I can celebrate that kind of grinding down. Maybe I'm just too far away from the US right now.

-----
‡ and yes, thank you, I have read the referenced threads.
* I'm not sure I'm mad keen on it either, mind, but that isn't the thrust of this comment.
† For instance, how would an author whose badly written mystery story featured a protagonist who happened to be conservative (not obnoxious) read a rejection letter in the light of this spam? "Maybe they rejected it because my detective is conservative?"

Posted August 11, 2007 8:38 AM by abi

The chastising of this publisher, purely as a vanity-press POD, has already started in the usual places.

This is apart from the commentary here, which isn't one of the usual places for warnings about publishers.

Posted August 11, 2007 8:52 AM by James D. Macdonald

My views will, by the tenor of this post, be judged as conservative

Well, no, not really. I have a number of conservatives in my life who have lovely manners. I would tend to base any analysis of your political leanings from facts rather than tenor:

the fact that while you say you've spent time at TownHall, you claim to have never run into a wingnut.

the fact that despite not ever having run into anyone you identified as irrational or extreme in their "conservatism"* in the discourse at TownHall, the meanspirited tone of the conversation here offends you

The coming in with fists flying thing doesn't much help either, although I tend to discount that initially, as (although it is a marker) you may not have learned it at a right-wing site. There are other possible credible explanations.

*I have to agree with you that people who traffic in the type of discourse you don't find offputting don't deserve the label "conservative," but sadly all but a very few traditional conservatives have handed it over to them in return for the chance to win at the polls. Now they're not even doing that. I suppose it got them two deeply reactionary Supreme Court justices, but I wonder how the more thoughtful amongst them sleep sometimes.

Posted August 11, 2007 9:17 AM by julia

abi @ 118: If we're only celebrating the ripping off of the ones who believe their books aren't being published because of the Great Liberal Conspiracy Against the Real Truth, that's one thing*

First, it's "the ones who believe their books aren't being published because of the Great Liberal Conspiracy Against the Real Truth and who refuse to listen to anyone who says otherwise," at least on my part.

Second, I'm not celebrating it. Nobody deserves to get ripped off. But I'm no saint, either, and watching people who've caused me and mine much damage take a bit of damage themselves despite efforts to help them steer clear, and take that damage precisely because of those attitudes and actions that caused so much misery to others, has a feel of cosmic justice to it that I find appealing. I'd be lying if I said otherwise. To categorize that as "vitriol," as B. Durbin appears to do, seems excessive.

Posted August 11, 2007 11:21 AM by Aconite

Maybe we should drop the subject of Durbin's post. Is it really worth the acrimony that this usually generates, no matter what the original post's intent was? I don't think so. But that's just my opinion.

Posted August 11, 2007 11:45 AM by Serge

""however mean the job, God ennobles it"."

And through ennobling, it embiggens the smallest man!

Posted August 11, 2007 12:14 PM by Chris Tucker

Chris Tucker... 'Embiggen'? I like it, but Mr.Webster must be spinning in his grave.

Posted August 11, 2007 12:30 PM by Serge

Serge @122
I'm mostly concerned that we cry troll and let slip the dogs of bingo far too readily these days. And there's very little that makes for a defensive poster like being called a troll.

I saw poor word choice, yes, and disagreement with the tone of the thread. But neither one of those is in itself the mark of a troll.

A troll whisperer (which is what I wish I were) can probably save a borderline poster from the dreaded fate of a life under a bridge annoying goats. We seem to go the other way, sometimes, and supply them with gift certificates to IKEA* to outfit their subpontial domiciles.

-----
* Well, they're Swedish, and trolls are a Scandinavial thing, yeah?**
** And I've been assembling furniture. Whoever designed that damned bed must live under a bridge somewhere.

Posted August 11, 2007 1:33 PM by abi

abi @ 125... True, it may be that we cry "Troll!" all too easily. That being said, I enjoy an honest discussion much more than an exchange of invectives if the other person truly is interested in such honest discussions rather than in raising the hackles of others. Such a person is not a troll in my book.

(By the way, I'm not alone in saying that your recrudescent presence at Teresa & Patrick's Café Américain is greatly appreciated even this means your committing the crime of bandwidth theft.)

Posted August 11, 2007 2:00 PM by Serge

Nicole @115: That was roughly what I had in mind, yes.

The chairman of the board of THP's parent company was listed as one of Time magazine's 25 Most Influential Evangelicals.

He opposes giving the FCC the power to regulate content on the grounds that the radical liberals will use that power to squelch conservative views*:

Sure right now an FCC dominated by reasonable people wouldn't do anything drastic. But let us suppose that with this bill on the books the nation has elected Hillary Rodham Clinton as President. And let us suppose - and it is no stretch of the imagination to believe this - that President Hillary appoints radical liberals to the FCC. With the precedent established that the FCC can revoke licenses over obscene content, these Commissioners determine that conservative views constitute hate speech - and hate speech is obscene. For example, we are strongly supporting a Constitutional amendment and would declare that marriage is between one man and one woman. Let us suppose that these Commissioners declare that such a position is against national policy and constitutes discriminatory hate speech.

Of course the homosexual lobby would organize itself to insure that there were hundreds, perhaps thousands, of complaints against the stations that took this point of view. Armed with that sort of ammunition, the FCC would have no problem finding the excuse for shutting down those voices that broadcast what they would call homophobic views.

But the examples need not be confined to moral and religious questions.

We are also opponents of the Kyoto treaty, which if ratified by the Senate, would drastically affect our standard of living in this countr