Oh Noes! Not Orson Scot Card!!

I had originally considered posting this on my SF blog, No Krakana, yet the more I wrote, the more I realized that it would fit better here. So, on with the show.

io9 has directed my attention to an interesting discussion that's been popping up around the SF/F genre blogs. Mainly, that Card has won the Margaret A. Edwards award, which is defined as thus:

The Margaret A. Edwards Award, established in 1988, honors an author, as well as a specific body of his or her work, that have been popular over a period of time. The annual award is administered by YALSA and sponsored by School Library Journal magazine. It recognizes an author's work in helping adolescents become aware of themselves and addressing questions about their role and importance in relationships, society, and in the world.

Anyhow, they brought into specific focus, Card's two complementary novels Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow. Truth be told, these are two wonderful stories, with great overtones dealing with human nature, civilization, and just how a child transforms into an adult.

Yet, what's brought up the most hassles are some of Card's other writings, specifically his thoughts and opinions on homosexual marriage.

One can imagine the joys of the SF Feminist blog and (amusingly enough) the School Library Journal, and one can't forget the diatribes over in the comments for the article on io9. Overall, they've been along the lines of "well, he's evil incarnate for saying the things he does in his non-fiction essays, but you know, we'll just sweep it under the rugs."

Frankly, I'm amused by this whole thing. I can admit to being conservative (a night upon unforgivable sin in the world of the SF/F genre fandom) yet there have been liberals who have received lifetime achievements awards; though I despise Streisand's stance on gun control, that doesn't mean that I dislike her films or music.

But ultimately, that's an irrelevant point. Who cares if you can or can't separate the art from the artist.

Has Card not entertained, and taught a generation of children the joy of books? Do those books not teach us to try and see the other? Whether that other is the alien "buggers" or the bully who wishes to kill you?

As far as the Award is concerned, that is what matters.

Beyond that though, why the angst over his opinions? I don't agree with John Scalzi's politics but I absolutely adore his novels. I agree with Card's politics, and I absolutely adore his novels. Wow, imagine that, I love well-written novels that I find intriguing, regardless of the world views of the authors.

Fortunately though, the SF Feminist blog is more interested in actual discourse and discussion about Card's opinions and essays (including a well written dissection of one of Card's essays on the Mass. Supreme Court's fiat creating same-sex marriage in that state).

But that's not relevant to the discussion here, as it's a discourse on the existing articles rather than what we're talking about here.

What I find oddest is that all the comments that I've read have fallen on one of two sides of this divide. The first is that Card should have never gotten the award for being such an evil right-winger. The second is Card should have gotten the award because the two books in question are good, but he's still an evil right-winger.

And I do mean all, I've just spent the past three hours looking at every blog entry concerning this, and every comment on those blog posts. Maybe there will be additional thoughts from people on my side of the aisle now that io9 has pushed it out, but sadly I'm not counting on it.

I for one, am offering up a heartfelt "Congratulations, Mr. Card."

I don't think he's evil; I don't think he's ignorant or unlettered. I don't even think he's an "asshat" (sure the rant referenced in that article is nigh upon incoherent, but that doesn't mean he's evil, just that he has a hard time separating criticisms of his novel from criticisms of himself--an affliction which other authors have had many times).

In fact, I'm going on the record as stating that I believe the same way as Mr. Card regarding homosexual "marriages." I believe they are an attack, by liberal elites (socialists/communists), directed against the fundamental building blocks of Western civilization. Consider numbers, 25, 26, and 40 on this list of ways that Communists planned on destroying Western Civilization.

• Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
  
• Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
  
• Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

In fact that the number of items on that list are completed, or nearly so, is disturbing.

But, I do want to know what is it about genre fandom which breeds liberalism?

Tolerating Intolerance

In one of the comments I have recieved since I added the commenting capability, someone accused me of misquoting Mr. Chesterton via the slogan of the KrashPAD which adorns the banner graphic. "Tolerance is the virtue of a man without conviction." And truthfully, fifty years ago, I would have seen that. Fifty years ago, tolerance still meant "a disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior or a permissible difference."

Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. Tolerance has shifted definitions in the wider context of our society, what Josh McDowal called "the new tolerance." If tolerance still meant putting up with someone or something in spite of the fact that I do not like or agree with the idea or person (which I am all for) then I would not dream of having that quote on my banner. Unfortunately, today tolerance now means that we not only have to put up with those ideals or people, but to actively embrace and celebrate the views and practices of others, and that we also value those views and practices that we don't agree with to the degree that we value our own. This is a statement and belief that I cannot, as a Christian, accept. There are some things, some ideas which are fundamentally against my religion.

And this also applies to some ideas and concepts in my political beliefs as well.

Voltaire stated, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it." This is no longer an acceptable form of tolerance. Today, we cannot disagree with one another, and this has lead to the only thing which is not allowed to be tolerated is intolerance.

Of course where I have issues with a lot of this not tolerating intolerance, is that the intolerance label is applied to my beliefs almost exclusively. Pro-Lifers are called intolerant because they do not believe abortions should be legal, while abortionists do not have to tolerate the pro-life position. Creationists, and proponents of Intelligent Design are intolerant (as well as considered backwards and stupid) because they do not believe in the Theory of Evolution, while evolutionists are court-protected against having to defend their ideals while indoctrinating the minds of children. We must celebrate Islam within schools, but consider it intolerant if our children have a Christmas break.

It is this which lead Mr. Chesterton to make that statement, and as long as tolerance is defined as such, I proudly wear the badge of intolerance.

Roadmap to Break the Law

70,000 maps, in comic book form, of the United States border marking roads and water tanks are going to allow illegal immigrants to sneak into this country easier and safer. Of course our good friend Mexico is the government giving these things out to Mexico's citizen.

And Mexico says there's no invasion of the U.S. by Mexico.

This on top of the Mexican military being inside the U.S. protecting gun runners, and by inside, I do not mean some random section of the Arizona border, but rather the Texan border where the countries are separated by the Rio Grande. Yes, the Rio Grande, which even during the dry season has a 200 foot river bed.

And Mexico says there is no invasion of the U.S. by Mexico.

These excursions by the Mexican military have almost become routine for the U.S. Border Patrol. Even to the point that Edward Nelson, former Chairman of the Border Patrol stated in 2003 that "we are in a state of war, and we are fighting enemies who have brought the battle to our shores. If ever there was a time for the United States to put troops on the border, it is now." That was in March of that year.

And Mexico says there is no invasion of the U.S. by Mexico.

A catholic priest wrote an editorial in a Georgian newspaper claiming the wonders of illegal immigration, and how businesses need to be able to hire illegals to support the wonderful social services that those businesses provide.

And Mexico says there is no invasion of the U.S. by Mexico.

Sooner or later our government is going to have to accept that the sieve we call a southern border needs to be closed. Sooner or later, we're going to have to stop the Mexicans from walking into our country and attacking our government agents. We as a people need to stop believing that protecting our borders is a racial thing. The Lefties out there want you to believe that folks such as the Minuteman Project are racists for attempting to protect our borders, but they're not. People such as the Minutemen are not singling out people because of their race; they're stopping individuals from coming into our country. Just because those people all come from Mexico, and happen to be Hispanic, has no bearing, the fact they're coming across our borders illegally does.

The truth of the matter is that regardless of what Mexico says, their military and citizens are pouring into our country. If that is not an invasion, I'm not certain I know what that word means any more.

Barney Frank, Fighting for Gay Marriages

Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) believes that an "angry, divisive" fight is coming to Massachusetts. What is this fight? Why a proposed Massachusetts constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages that amendment proponents are attempting to get on the 2008 ballot.

The Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) has gathered 124,000 certified signatures (double the number required). MFI's president has gone on the record as saying "All they want is an opportunity to vote on the definition of marriage."

What is Mr. Frank's response? Why he's quoted in an AP interview as saying "Basically, they're the disturbers of the civic peace, we now have social peace in Massachusetts. They're the ones who want to stir it up…This is a non-issue in Massachusetts."

Wow, Mr. Frank sure is in-touch with his constituents. If he was, then he would see that the 124,000 certified signatures do mean that this is an issue in Massachusetts. What Mr. Frank means when he says that this is a non-issue, is what any liberal means by that statement: we have the rules in place, now anyone who does not agree with them needs to shut up and sit down.

Whenever pressed, normal, run-of-the-mill Americans have resoundingly supported bans on gay marriages. That is the reason that those pushing the homosexual agenda turned to the courts. They know they cannot win if this is put up for a vote which normal Americans must vote on. Now that they have this moronic ruling in place, they are trying their best to ensure that it stays there. If that means ignoring huge segments of the voting populace's desires, then so be it.

What gets me is that while MFI was gathering these signatures, there was no angry, divisive fighting. MFI gathered signatures quietly, and turned them in without that much hoopla. Oh, but once they were turned in, then the divisive fighting started. KnowThyNeighbor, a pro-gay marriage website has published the full listing of 124,000 people on the list, because they are certain that there's fraud afoot. I personally have no doubt that there may be some folks on the list that should not be, as the company that was chosen to do the actual signature gathering has had trouble in the past with fraudulent signatures.

Regardless, If those people who wish to redefine the fundamental concepts of marriage and civilization really believe that the people of Massachusetts see this amendment as a non-issue, and they believe that the citizens of Massachusetts truly support the slow destruction of marriage, then they would have no problems allowing this amendment to go to the ballots. The problem there lies in the fact that those who believe so, know that the citizens of Massachusetts would vote for the amendment which supports the definition of marriage.

They do not want this to go to the ballot, because they want to ensure that a cornerstone of our society is changed, and not for the better. Of course, if we keep poking holes into the foundation of our society like this, pretty soon, our foundation will not be able to support our society.

What is diversity?

What is diversity? Is it accepting everyone's point of view as an equally valid point of view? Or is it caving into the demands of a minority?Why do I ask this? Quite simple, back in January, a couple of kids in a Fraternity, went to an OFF-CAMPUS party wearing black-face. A couple of other frat kids (this time from a traditionally black fraternity) saw them, complained about it, so those wearing it, took it off.

Think on this, when told that it was hurting someone's feelings, the kids took the stuff off.

Immediately.

Yet that still wasn't good enough for the whiners. At a rally held 3/25 this was said

"The entire organization needs to be kicked off this campus, who led the rally. "Any threat to diversity is a threat to the university." -- Dawn Davison, 27

What exactly is a threat to diversity? According to diversity doctrine, all viewpoints are valid. As long as I think it's right culturally and socially, my actions should be accepted (now can you see why I hate the Diversity Doctrine). Yet what gets me most is the other comment that was shouted during the above mentioned rally.

"Black Power,"

Ahhh. Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. These people are not upset over the black-face, they're wanting more power. They want more black faculty, a required history course dedicated to African-American History.

They want stuff.

When are these foolish people going to realize that I, and everyone else in this world, owes them NOTHING. You can want more all you want, what I say to that, is work for it. Stop thinking that you are owed something. Stop thinking that you're being horridly oppressed. In today's society, as it is now, you have the same opportunities as I. Take advantage of them, learn, work hard, just stop whining and think that you're owed more than an opportunity.

What's more important...

Tell me which is more important police and fire coverage or another lecture on diversity?

Much to my amazement I know which the government of Lansing, Michigan chose. In a fell swoop of laying off 21 police and fire fighters, their proposed budget include $140,000 in diversity programs (Lansing State Journal)

What type of liberal thinking would decide this? What stupidity? Are they thinking that just because they pay $150,000 to a PR firm to send out press releases, or $20,000 on a Harvard law professor, that crime and fires will amazingly handle themselves? That just because they spend a huge amount of money (espeically considering other towns of similiar size spend less or even nothing on programs such as these) that noone will feel the need to commit a crime?

This is an obscene liberal program, and I have to say that I am personally glad that I don't live in Lansing to feel the pain of less police or less firefighters.