This has just been a week of discovering publishing mishaps...
Amazon, I support your policy on publishing everyone. As a writer, I really, truly do. I am also all for free speech, really, I am. But a book promoting pedophilia? That is the crime of all crimes and is something that can never be defended. Ever. End of story.
The independently published ebook in question is titled, "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover's Code of Conduct" by Phillip R. Greaves.
Here's a BBC's article... it has more info on the whole deal, all of the drama, the controversy, what have you.
"In 2005 a writer called Monica Gaudio wrote a great article called A Tale Of Two Tarts, which discussed (among other things) apple pie’s Americanism (or not) and its evolution from a sugarless mixture of fruit and spices, cooked in a coffin (no, not THAT sort of coffin: read the article!) to its current sweet pastried form.
Roll on five years. Ms Gaudio had pretty much forgotten about her article until a friend of hers congratulated her on her piece about apple pies which she had just read in Cooks Source Magazine (I’m itching to put an apostrophe in there: anyone else?). Cooks’ Source (sorry, I couldn’t hold out any longer) isn’t just a website: it is also a money-making print magazine, which has a whole stable of advertisers which contribute to its finances."
But here is a snippet incase you don't feel like reading the whole shebang:
"Last month an article, “American as Apple Pie -- Isn’t,” was placed in error in Cooks Source, without the approval of the writer, Monica Gaudio. We sincerely wish to apologize to her for this error, it was an oversight of a small, overworked staff. We have made a donation at her request, to her chosen institution, the Columbia School of Journalism. In addition, a donation to the Western New England Food Bank, is being made in her name. It should be noted that Monica was given a clear credit for using her article within the publication, and has been paid in the way that she has requested to be paid."
There are just so many things wrong with what Bill O'Reilly is saying in this clip, beginning with how he nose-dives into a discussion about 9/11. Word to the wise, Mr. O'Reilly, don't mess with the ladies of The View. So let's start with a brief, quoted, annotation:
"Listen to me, because you'll learn."
Just stop now. You are not a professor or some holier-than-thou figure, so get over yourself and your ego.
"Americans wanted to know what his (President Obama's) opinions are on the issue."
Screw what his opinion is. The President's job is to act as an unbiased party and make sure that the law is upheld. I don't care if he does or doesn't want the mosque near Ground Zero. The fact of the matter is, they have a right to build it there, and the President is protecting that right.
"70% of Americans don't want that mosque down there."
Show me the numbers. Show me that poll. I don't know if that is true, so even if it is - why is that? Someone explain to me, PLEASE, how building a mosque in Manhattan is "inappropriate."
"Muslims killed us on 9/11!"
I don't even know where to start on this one, because it is just straight out wrong. No. Muslims did not attack us that day. No. Just no. They were terrorist extremists that happened to be Muslim. Good God, man! Learn to have a little religious tolerance.
The ignorance of people really baffles me. Truly, it does. Was walking off set the most appropriate thing to do? No. But at least they had they stood up (literally) for what they believed in.
Immediately following this clip, Barbara Walters apologized for their actions, and the proceeded to give Mr. O'Reilly a good talking to about how HE was inappropriate. A peaceful discussion is all well and good, but when how long do you endure listening to hate?
As a masochistic New Yorker, I undoubtably love this city - despite my over-inflated Brooklyn rent and landlord who shuts off my water for a full day with out notice. But this is just beautiful ... and some days, true.
