This Friday when romance writer Megan Mulry officially releases her latest book entitled "In Love Again," she will be taking a risk. Mulry’s previous two books in her fictional “Unruly Royals” series were published by Sourcebooks , and landed her on the USA TODAY Bestseller list. But for book number three, Mulry decided to self-publish.
“I had a wonderful three-book deal with Sourcebooks, with a one-book option clause," Mulry tells OutFront. But Mulry says her new protagonist didn't fit into the Sourcebooks vision for the series of high-flying British royals and the Americans who love them. The star of her new novel is pushing forty, a departure from her traditionally twenty-something characters that catered to a younger audience. “After my editor, Deb Werksman, and I talked about the option clause," she says, "we both agreed it might be an opportunity for me to self-publish.”
Language is power and when someone invents or uses a new word or term gaining power, we recognize it.
In his column about the debt ceiling, U.S. News & World Report’s Robert Schlesinger wrote:
"Perhaps not so much according to an article appearing in Politico this morning which details the ’debt limit deniers’ caucus, or what might fairly be called the most dangerous people in Washington."
Official: Obama will sign short term debt ceiling extension
The term "debt limit denier" (or "default denier" or "debt ceiling denier") has frequently popped up in editorials and broadcasts this week, almost always directed at Republicans.
It is reminiscent of previous "denier" labels attached to people who doubted the validity of climate change and evolution.
Do you believe, if the debt limit is not raised, we’re headed for economic catastrophe? Who do you consider the "debt limit deniers"? Do you think "default deniers" are dangerous? Should you be allowed to doubt the validity of things like climate change and evolution? What other "denier" labels would you like to see introduced?
Let us know in the comment space below.
By the time I hit college, I had been on the World Wide Web a grand total of two times. I was a fan of traditional books and magazines (I still am) and figured the Internet was some kind of fad (I still kinda do) and couldn't think of a single reason to "log on."
That changed in my second year.
While I was at a used bookstore, I happened upon Seth Godin's book "Email Addresses of the Rich & Famous." According to the author the slim volume contained contacts for hundreds of reporters, editors, programmers, actors, producers, directors, CIA ex-spies, millionaires and entrepreneurs.”
And, it turned out, Tom Clancy.
Burger King launches a new item today - the French Fry Burger.
The $1 food mashup is a standard beef patty with four french fries stuffed in the bun.
Burger King hopes customers will be enticed by a new value option.
They also hope their customers hate America.
Okay, that's probably a little extreme. But ten years ago we would have never seen an American chain hawking something called the French Fry Burger.
— New York Magazine (@NYMag) August 27, 2013
In 2003, the U.S. Congress officially changed the name of french fries to "Freedom Fries" in response to France's opposition to a proposed invasion of Iraq.
All of the House cafeterias complied and many American restaurants followed suit, with some still listing "Freedom Fries" on menus today.
The fact that a popular American fast food restaurant, like Burger King, is now excitedly promoting a french fry burger says a lot about our country's current relationship with France… and Germany.
Because during World War I, there was a similar ban on German-sounding words like hamburger.
Hamburgers became "liberty sandwiches," sauerkraut was "liberty cabbage" and Americans learned to embrace the term "hot dog" instead of frankfurter.
That's why, historically speaking, Burger King's French Fry Burger just might be the most un-American fast food offering ever.
Of course, what else would you expect from a company – like Burger King – that gleefully embraces a monarchy we worked so hard to defeat.
It’s been just over one week since Prince George of Cambridge was presented to the world by his parents, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, in an iconic pop culture moment on the steps of the Lindo Wing at St. Mary’s Hospital in London. It was like Rafiki presenting Simba in "The Lion King" for the first time. (Cue "Circle of Life.") Except this was the second time. Princess Diana showed off Prince William as a newborn at the very same hospital.
And the similarities don't stop there. It was 1982 when Princess Di surfaced from the hospital wearing a loose-fitting green and white polka dot dress. This time around, Kate Middleton wearing a custom Jenny Packham blue dress with white polka dots, proudly displayed her postpartum bump when she handed the baby to all-grown-up Prince William.
The other thing that hasn't changed much is the media's relentless coverage of the princesses. The paparazzi are as aggressive as ever, tracking down Middleton in France last September as she sunbathed topless. And the tabloids are all too ready to publish them with a cover line that is going to sell the most rags. In the U.S., for instance, the magazine industry raked in an estimated $31 million from the Royal Wedding in 2011.
In the case of the topless photos, though, Kate and Prince William took legal action against the photographer and the French magazine that published the photos. According to Hollywoodlife.com, both are now facing criminal charges. Did the royals scare the tabloids away?