Orson Scott Card calls out the mainstream media

Will the last honest reporter please turn on the lights? The editor's note reads: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.

In high school I fell in and out of love with Card's writing pretty quickly (which for me means a couple of months and as many of his books as the library had at the time). But I still respect him as an author, and now even more as someone willing to go against his party and most of his professional colleagues in the cause of truth. That takes guts.

Truth, truth, nobody's daughter. . . .
Orson Scott Card may call himself a democrat, but he espouses none of our principles. He is a notorious homophobe, going beyond the usual tried and true path of bigotry in just consigning us all to hell. No, he actually wants to criminalize our behavior so we stop disgusting him by daring not to hide in dark closets where he would really rather we live.

So, no, I cannot accord him any bravery points for "daring" to speak against a party whose issues he never appeared to believe in anyway.
Neither party is a one issue party--although homosexual rights might be of foremost importance to you, there are a whole host of other things to consider in choosing a party to affiliate with. If he is registered as a democrat and has consistently voted for democrat candidates, I would think that makes him a democrat. I wouldn't claim that republicans that are pro-choice aren't republicans.
Well, I would hope both parties would reject bigots from their ranks.

And he doesn't vote Democrat. He actively campaigns against them. He campaigned for Bush in both 2000 and 2004 and has written in support of the opponents of all major Democratic candidates in his district. He admits that he finds no one in the current American Democratic party that shares his views and has to look to people like Tony Blair to be his personal ideal politician. He is an evowed social conservative and generally a fiscal one, too.

The absolute only issue he's anywhere near the Democrats is gun control.
Hum. I am not going to argue about him being a democrat; honestly, I don't care about his personal politics. His stance on anything doesn't affect the truth of his words, and the fact that most journalism nowadays tends to read more like propaganda.

Bigot is a harsh word to be thrown around, and from what I've read of him, not accurate--and neither is homophobe. If he is a homophobe because of his beliefs, then so am I, and I have friends (not close ones, but that's a matter of interests, not sexuality) who are bi and gay.
Every sexist has a mother, so I don't really find the I have gay friends issue terribly dispositive on the matter.

That was the very article I find so loathsome, though it isn't the only thing he's had to say on the matter. He directly says right in there that laws against homosexuality should stay on the books. So what I was born as is illegal. Oh, right, unless I repress myself and act like a good straight girl or asexual monk. I have no other word for that besides bigotry. He's described us as deviants who destroy the moral fabric of society and who are destroying democracy as he knows it. Yes, homophobe and bigot seem about right, even if he's clearly self-aware enough to realize that being both are bad and would like not to be accurately labeled.

And I don't throw around the word bigot lightly.
Then I think you and I are defining words like "bigot" and "homophobe" differently, and to continue this argument will only frustrate and perhaps hurt us both.
If you truly agree with him, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to defriend you. I respect many of your positions that we've discussed in fandom and I do have some appreciation for how difficult it is to be a conservative in lj-fandom. I have meant to tell you I respect you for not fearing to air your views. But I can't continue to have even an attenuated relationship with someone who thinks what I consider to be a very core part of myself to is wrong.
I do not agree with him about making homosexuality illegal, but I do believe that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong. Of course, I also believe that the Bible teaches that all of us are wrong--sinful--in some way, and that none of us is to judge those around us.

If you feel so strongly about this issue that you must defriend me, by all means do so. That is your prerogative, and we all have things in which we cannot compromise. But I shall miss your imput.

Gotta give Mr Card props for speaking the truth about the financial situation.

So if one is not pro-gay rights one is not a Democrat? I didn't realize that gay rights was such an important issue to the Democrats.
This makes me feel a little more hopeful. Finally, someone saying something about the way the media has been, lately. I'm not into politics and avoid it when I can, but even I've been noticing a sad increase of favoritism and one-sidedness in the media. It's getting too difficult to know what to believe anymore :(
It depends on what media (or should that be "medium"?) you're listening to. I could give you links to a lot of alternate, strongly conservative media sites if you're interested in hearing the other side of the story. Wall Street Journal and Fox News also slant more towards the conservative side of things.

Otherwise, assume they're in Obama's pocket. Because they are. High-ranking democrats are doing a whole lot of stuff that would land them in hot soup if they were republicans, but because they're democrats, the mainstream media is giving them a free pass. It would be ridiculous if the consequences weren't so dire.
I read the Economist. Fiercely independent, pro-free market, but without the weird cultural baggage (envy, anti-intellectualism, intolerance of people that aren't 'real Americans') of Fox News et al. Also Fareed Zakaria, whose refusal to be afraid is refreshing in today's political climate.

I would respect conservative more if they didn't seem to recourse to conspiracy theories as a matter of course--have you actually read the Washington Post's own editorials? Pro free-trade, anti-immediate withdrawl from Iraq, anti-Democratic social-security scare stories, pro school-choice etc. They are thoruoughly centrist and thoroughly sensible, but it is easier to dismiss the Post as a bunch of left-wing loons because conspiracy is the last refuge of--I'm not sure? An idelogue. I'll leave it at that.
Um, I'm not really sure where you're coming from with the Washington Post thing. If you're assuming I watch Fox, I don't. I just know that they're a generally non-liberal, non-democrat news station, and there aren't many of those.
Just that they are generally, with the New York Times, the first example people grab of liberal media.
Why do I not believe non-economists when they talk about the current situation? And no, Thomas Sowell doesn't count, because he hasn't made his living as an economist in years, if ever.

The lack of regulation, particularly of financial derivatives, ie crediety default swaps, which REMOVED RISK FROM LENDERS SHOULDERS is no doubt a more important factor than the initiative to induce more loans for poor people, if only because it was the one that made people fabulously rich--and frankly that, not fear of the big bad daddy government, is what motivates the financial industry. A credit default swap means that investors adopt the risk of debt. This means the guy incurring the debt doesn't have to worry about it. Capitalism only works if those putting forward the cash are those making the decisions and incurring the risks. A less catastrophic, but more clearly infuriating, example of this, is college textbooks at most universtities--prices are sky high because the people that select them (professors who require a textbook for their clases) are not the ones that pay for them (students). So the price of textbooks is unregulated by supply and demand because those paying have no choice, and supply and demand requires choice. In the mortgage market, credit-default swaps meant that lenders didn't have to worry about risk, so lent to all sorts of people because they weren't footing the bill--here, rather than driving the price up, the disjunct between the guy footing the bill and the guy making the decision jacked the -risk- up. So that's the -main- cause the the current mess.

Not to say that the government is blameless. Real Estate Speculation, and the ballooning of American homes and American home prices would probably be retarded if it weren't for the tax exempt-status of mortgage interest payments. This makes buying a new home more inviting, because it means that when you first buy a home your mortgage payments, which are nearly all interest at first, are deducted right out of your taxes. This contributes to the silly notion that a house is an investment--historically, it's been a rather poor one compared to stocks in shear returns, and a stocks doesn't require thousands of dollars of maintenence. But only think tanks and fringe politicitians, plus more thoughtful editorial pages, favor eliminating this. Thus the one bit of governmental intervention that caused the crisis more than anything else is sacrosanct because Americans like it, it being one of the principal bits of middle-class welfare that both political parties are so fond of feeding to the greedy masses of the American people.
It's really depressing the way no one seems to consider the long-term consequences of policies before they're enacted. In government or business.
Business people will always be seduced by their own greed, and American taxpayers prefer seeing money in their pockets come tax time rather than worrying about the consequences, even if they're paying for the saving in higher and less stable house prices. See also--Social Security.
Thanks for pointing out the link, Brat--the article sums up exactly the arguments I might need in defending the Republican role in the housing fiasco.

Sorry to see nymphaea's reaction. Your answers to her were well-spoken, though I'm sure the exchange was painful for you both. ((hug))
I'm glad you find this helpful--some days I feel a little like I'm throwing stuff out into a void. But I read this sort of thing and feel like I have to share it with someone. Only I'm too chicken to do it with my coworkers, so I just spam my flist instead. I'm sure some people on it are very tired of all this political stuff by now.

I'm sorry too. We weren't more than acquaintances and fellow defenders of John Sheppard, but I will miss her occasional comments. The whole thing was more shocking than painful--this is the first time I've had a visible negative reaction to my politics and beliefs. Which just shows how blessed I've been up to this point, I suppose. I just hope I didn't adversely affect her opinion of conservatives in general. *hugs back gratefully*