Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (25070)	3/28/2002 12:34:57 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

William F. Buckley, Jr. March 28, 2002 What book to buy? The frustration in the book business mounts as the years go by, but is probably no more clamorous than yesterday for the reason that publishing houses and authors have simply given up. How do you get word out about a book? The publishing houses are of course professionally concerned in the matter. The basic problem has to do with the cost of print advertising. Many newspapers run book review sections at a loss -- reviews are not widely read, and costs being as they are, advertising rates are almost always higher than a publisher can prudently come up with. You hear advertising on radio for books, usually for fast-selling, fast page-turning thrillers, which generate their own demand. Other devices are sought, most prominently the solicitation of blurbs from people whose endorsement might help engender a spark in the book buyer, who, passing by the shelf, will pause, ponder the blurb that says, "The best book about Hollywood ever written" and maybe reach for his/her wallet. How to address a potential blurber is an aspect of the evolving culture. "Dear Mr. Hemingway: John Tadpole has written a wonderful book about fishing, and since you are the acknowledged master of the art, we especially hope you will want to read this book and give us a line or two we can put on the jacket." More often, the letter from the publisher is pretty utilitarian, and of course the recipient has to measure several things in deciding on the request. One of them is that to undertake to read the entire book is a serious commitment. A typical book (300 pages) requires five to 10 hours of reading time, and people who are other than professional book-readers are therefore being asked to spend all of their reading time for five to 10 days on the problematic book. That is a considerable investment, which the writer is likelier to make if the author is a friend, if the subject of the book especially interests him, or if he feels a public obligation to do what he can to forward the book's fortunes. Most of us in the book-writing business get more requests than could be handled if one were to give up eating and sleeping in order to read all the proffered book galleys. Now the publishers know this. Most of them don't want to invite explicit cheating, and try to find genteel ways of saying: Look, you don't have to read every word of this manuscript; just read enough of it to be confident that the blurb you give us will satisfy you as being honest. If you are disposed to endorse a history of fishing, don't feel you have to read all 57 chapters. But the attempt to lighten the load reaches occasional highs. I have today a request by a publishing company (call it Alexis & Sons) to endorse a forthcoming book on the Alexis schedule. The publisher doesn't intrude by sending along the galleys. "Would you do us the honor of serving as an endorser? We seek a few brief sentences or phrases. I've included an overview of the book along with some biographical information. It would be a privilege if you would like to see the manuscript, which I can send you immediately." Now this publisher will relieve you of the pain of reading the book you are endorsing, but hark! Alexis & Sons will also spare you the pain of devising an endorsement of it. The letter from Alexis has a postscript: "Samples to choose from, rework, or use in any combination: (1) 'I was stunned by the power of ("The Trials of Elmer"). This book will change your life.'" Or, "'(2) "The Trials of Elmer" expresses an emotional depth that moves beyond anything I have experienced in a book.'" The letter in question very nearly prompts me to write to the publisher to say, Yes! By all mean send me a copy! I want my life to change and will absolutely read any book that promises to move me toward emotional depth beyond any other book I have ever read! But I will cool off on Elmer by the time I complete this sentence. What I will definitely look out for in the bookstores is the book on Elmer. I want to read the endorsements of it on the jacket. William F. Buckley, Jr. is editor of National Review, a TownHall.com member group. ©2002 Universal Press Syndicate townhall.com

To: DMaA who wrote (25070)	3/28/2002 12:39:49 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 59480

Reads like, "I'm not gonna get smeared in 2004 as the guy who deep sixed the Political Graft Elimination Bill of 2002." Democrats would have campaigned on the slogan that Bush killed the bill that got money out of politics. You know that's how they would have spun it, right or wrong. Sign it, and they can't smear him. Let the Supremes do the dirty work. Derek

To: DMaA who wrote (25070)	3/28/2002 3:23:58 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 59480

I will give it some thought, and get back to you......

To: DMaA who wrote (25070)	3/29/2002 3:30:14 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

President Bush quietly and unceremoniously signed a law today that will impose major new restrictions on campaign finances for the first time since the post-Watergate reforms took effect.... ...He said in a written statement that the bill presents "serious constitutional concerns," most notably its limits on individual contributions to political parties. Goaded by McCain, first on the campaign trail and later from Capitol Hill, Bush had endorsed such restrictions for corporations and unions. As support grew among lawmakers, he told GOP leaders last year that they could no longer count on him to veto it. "This legislation is the culmination of more than six years of debate among a vast array of legislators, citizens and groups," Bush said. "It does not represent the full ideals of any one point of view. But it does represent progress in this often-contentious area of public policy debate."..... ....."The president is not a hypocrite," the official said. "It would have been completely inconsistent with his position on the bill to have some big South Lawn ceremony with ruffles and flourishes.".... ....White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said: "The manner in which the president signed the campaign finance reform into law was consistent with his views on the legislation." washingtonpost.com The way the Washington Post presents it, the decision to sign is consistent with my interpretation of his thinking.