The Douchebag Bible (56 page)

complaining about how unfair things are is ever

going to balance the equation. If that strategy

really worked, wouldn’t it have worked by now?

Addendum: A lot of commenters are asking

“Well, why would there be black people in 10th

century Scotland anyway?” There is a small

percentage (0.16%) of black Scots in present times,

and they have apparently been there for quite a few

generations. Whether they stretch back to the 10th

century is not something I know, nor is it something

I care enough about to research.

But historical accuracy aside, plausibility is

not really an issue here. 'Mulan' was set entirely in

China, and yet they still managed to shoehorn

Eddie Murphy in there. It can be done. Though, in

fairness, he was a dragon in that movie, not a black

man.

The other comment I’ve seen arising is that

black people have gotten certain rights and

privileges by complaining in the past. No. They got

them by demonstrating, conducting campaigns of

civil disobedience, participating in highly

organized boycotts, etc. It’s not the same thing.

Of course, there are times when I find myself siding

with the PC pussies, such as in the case of Orson

Scott Card.

When I was young, I read a book called

‘Ender’s Game’ by Orson Scott Card and so, I’m sure,

have many of you. It’s a very popular book among

young adults (and adult-adults as well, I’m sure). It

is, in my opinion, a very good book. I’m not alone in

believing this. It has 2,400 five star reviews on

Amazon. It won both the Nebula Award and the

Hugo Award (prestigious in sci-fi circles). And next

year, ‘Ender’s Game’ the movie is set to come out,

featuring Harrison Ford.

This is a book that meant something to me as a

kid. It was empowering in a lot of ways, with its

themes of unashamed intelligence, looking outside

of the box, persevering against adversity and finding

your own power through thought and calculated

action.

The problem: the aforementioned author,

Orson Scott Card, is a completely homophobic

asshole. This is not the case of the guy making an off-

color joke and the LGBT crowd taking it too

seriously. This is not a case of him being

misconstrued or misinterpreted in any way. He is

proudly homophobic.

He called gay marriage, “The end of

democracy.”

He is on the board of NOM (An activist group

dedicated to fighting gay marriage).

He actually said this: “Laws against

homosexual behavior should remain on the books,

not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone

who happens to be caught violating them, but to be

used when necessary to send a clear message that

those who flagrantly violate society’s regulation of

sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as

acceptable, equal citizens within that society.”

He is a man who is, at best, confused. At worst,

evil. And I’ve bought at least three of his books. Can

I, in good conscience, ever buy another one? Can

anyone, in good conscience, see the movie based on

his work? Do we judge the art by the sins of the artist,

especially when said artist is still alive and profiting

directly from our purchases? Or does art stand alone,

separate from the flaws of the artist?

My conclusion is this: FUCK ORSON SCOTT

CARD. I hope he dies soon so that I can buy his

books without imagining some of my money going

to him.

I'd like to shift our focus back to music, if I may. I

have a controversial opinion on modern music and

that opinion is this: contemporary music should be

judged more by the quality of its lyrics than by the

music itself.

This is not to say that I discard purely

instrumental pieces. I have enjoyed many electronic

pieces that incorporate little or no lyrical content

whatsoever. Further, I acknowledge that a lot of

music genres—metal, bluegrass, folk, alternative

country, etc—do incorporate musical complexity

that bears being judged on its own merits, regardless

of lyrical quality. The level of artistry, precision and

sheer emotional force renders certain musical pieces

exceptional in and of themselves. But no one would

listen to the music of Lady Gaga or even my hero

Marilyn Manson by itself with no vocal/lyrical

accompaniment. It would be incredibly monotonous

and repetitive.

Most of the music that is popular is written to

only be interesting with vocal accompaniment. So

why should the vocal accompaniment be so banal?

Why should people sing about such boring and

bland topics? Why not infuse your lyrics with depth

and meaning? Why not convey something

important? How did we get from The Beatles, The

Doors and The Rolling Stones to Justin Bieber,

Nikki Minaj and Nickelback?

It is true that The Beatles started off as a boy

band. But then they started experimenting with

powerful psychoactive drugs and the music

improved incredibly. The Beatles, The Doors and

The Rolling Stones were all mainstream acts in their

time. They were not under ground. You didn't have

to dig around to find them. They were the

mainstream. Now the mainstream is conspicuously