new posts in all blogs
Viewing: Blog Posts Tagged with: rantishness, Most Recent at Top [Help]
Results 1 - 25 of 31
How to use this Page
You are viewing the most recent posts tagged with the words: rantishness in the JacketFlap blog reader. What is a tag? Think of a tag as a keyword or category label. Tags can both help you find posts on JacketFlap.com as well as provide an easy way for you to "remember" and classify posts for later recall. Try adding a tag yourself by clicking "Add a tag" below a post's header. Scroll down through the list of Recent Posts in the left column and click on a post title that sounds interesting. You can view all posts from a specific blog by clicking the Blog name in the right column, or you can click a 'More Posts from this Blog' link in any individual post.
"Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."�Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas," The One Un-American Act." Nieman Reports, vol. 7, no. 1 (Jan. 1953): p. 20.
There has been an annoying spat of censorship events at various schools recently. The most recent was twitted about by He With His Finger On The Pulse Of All Things Biblio, M. Lieberman of BookPatrol. The story revolves around a teen poetry anthology (POETRY...being read by TEENS. Holy crap) called Paint Me Like I Am:Paint Me Like I Am is a collection of poems by teens who have taken part in writing programs run by a national nonprofit organization called WritersCorps. To read the words of these young people is to hear the diverse voices of teenagers everywhere.
Unfortunately, "[t]o read the words of these young people" has apparently offended ONE mother of a teen who complained of the Superintendent of the Vineland, NJ school her son attends. Sup. Charles Ottinger read the offending poem and said "in no way, shape or form" should the book be allowed on school shelves. The principle did an interesting, though also egregious, thing in that rather than complying with the Super's order to pull the book, he TORE OUT THE TWO PAGES that contained the offending poem so the rest of the book could be shelved for student use. [Side note, while I appreciate the Solomonetic approach of splitting the proverbial book...tearing pages out is a rather lame solution. You are *still* censoring the book *AND* you have mutilated the book itself.] The poem, which I have tragically failed to find in full online, is apparently laden with "bad words" and written from the point of view of a drunken abusive step-father...arguably not a "happy, shiny people" piece.
I am tired of the Lowest Common Denominator being allowed to define and direct our schools and libraries (and government, but that is another rant). One person complains about a given book [or books] and FAR too many schools/libraries are willing to just roll over and pull the material. Sometimes it is because the administrator is of an equally small mind but more often than not, I wager, it is because it is just not seen as a fight worth having. I suggest that it is a fight worth having...to fail in this fight is to guarantee the ascendance of mediocrity and the rule of the narrowest mind.
Children do not need to be protected from challenging material, they need *context*. They do not need to be told they are not able/old enough/mature enough to read certain things, they need the intellectual guidance to *understand* the material as written. To refuse the exposure doesn't "protect" a child, it denies from the child a necessary skillset for adult life...the ability to read, absorb, contemplate and embody challenging ideas...in all their forms.
A virus analogy is quite apt. It is well established that our over-use of certain antibiotics in children has lead to not only to the evolution of drug-resistant bugs but, far more dangerous, the impairment of kids/young adults immune systems to be able to fight common bugs. Kids *need* to get sick...because it is by exposure/illness that the body builds antibodies to fight future infections. We make kids *more* susceptible to *serious* illness by denying them the ability to get sick now and again and, thereby, allowing them to build up antibodies.
Reading...the exposure to the ideas embodied in books...works on the mind in much the same way. The more you read, the greater your ability to comprehend complex/difficult/challenging material in all forms. Context is the critical variable...obviously there is a burden put upon parents (and teacher, etc) to help kids understand the things they read, *especially* when that material upsets or troubles them. But is is through that process of getting upset and resolving those feelings that a child *learns*. Denying children challenging material is simply to deny them the ability to learn.
Children are not infants. They do not need to be protected from the likes of the Brothers Grimm; the racism of Huckleberry Finn or the violence of Lord of the Flies or the language in Of Mice and Men. They need context. They need to be able to read these things and talk about them...with parents, teachers and peers. They embody the things they read and it makes them stronger...and smarter...and able to process bigger, more complex challenges down the road.
Treating kids like they need to be protected from any thought or idea that might challenge/offend/frighten them serves *no* purpose but to impair their ability to rationally analyze the data that bombards them every day. Dumbing down our books and, worse, dumbing down our libraries does nothing but dumb down our children. They deserve better. They *need* better.
At a time when the world is becoming more complex and arguably more dangerous, there are far too many people doing all they can to impair the next generation's ability to analyze and rationalize. Dogmatically held positions are held sacrosanct and those that dare challenge them with logical analysis are dismissed as "elitist". We need kids to read more...to be exposed to more...to build up the intellectual capacity to combat the myopic worldview that is becoming far too prevalent.
There is no such thing as a moral book or an immoral book. Books are well written or badly written. That is all.
Well, shipped the cases out on the 4th for a delivery on the 11th. The cases were all in Sacramento, CA on the 10th and should have been here (1.5 hours away) on the 11th without a problem. Unfortunately, FedEx decided to send all 9 cases north to Portland, OR...apparantly to punish me for an otherwise painless and problem free show lead-up.
I will definitely not be able to get my cases in time for any set-up today. All cases are now on a truck heading back down to Sacramento. The lurking issue is whether they can get them from Sacramento to here before 9am tomorrow. I would *very much* like to avoid having to drive to Sacramento...so I am hoping they will *either* be able to shift them over to "express first am delivery (8am)" (unlikely as it does not appear they will get into Sacra. before the cutoff). My hope currently rests on their getting the cases to South SanFran and my being able to pick them up in the early am from the terminal. We shall see.
On the plus side, in addition to getting a bunch of work done and selling two nice books this morning, I've had a great outpouring of support and offers of assistance (from driving to overnighting books ) from others out here for the show. Even when there is really nothing that can be done, amazing how much a bit of support can lift one's spirits.
Kills me not to be able to start setting up right away...but I just have to roll with this and hope all works out. I should have further news around 230-3pm. We shall see.
A Reading, PA man has been indicted on Federal charges of forgery/fraud charges. According to the charges, he has made over $300,000 over the last several years foisting "signed" books to buyers on Ebay. The only upside here is that he apparently would buy a genuine inscribed copy and then have a company MAKE A RUBBER STAMP of the signature and use that to "inscribe" copies that he would then foist on buyers on ebay...the silver lining being that his bogus crap books should be easier to spot than "better" forgeries.
That is the real problem with this thief (can you really be a forger if all you do is rubber-stamp books?) and others like him. I do not have much...or any...sympathy for those who buy forgeries from sellers on ebay. Unless you know the seller to be reputable (this does *not* count ebays own "I am not a crook" system) personally and/or professionally, I think you have to *presume* that what you see listed on ebay is fraudulent. If, as here, you pay real money for a book from "bev103162smith," you deserve whatever arrives at your door.
The *problem* is that now and into the untold future, these bits of garbage are going to be polluting the secondary market. Even if you would never think about buying an inscribed work from ebay, you are going to have them offered to you in years to come by "innocent" buyers and/or their families. Rubber-stamp copies, one hopes, should be reasonably easy to spot...but I wager there are better (and worse) examples out there... I'd go so far as to suggest that unless you know the provenance of a given inscribed copy, it is not unreasonable to presume it is forged.
Worse still, the growth of this kind of fraud poisons the well...driving potential collectors out of the field either because they have been burned or because they read articles like the above and decide it is just not worth the risk/headache. I know at least three of my clients started working with me only after they had been buying on their own on ebay and been burned more than once...I wonder how many knew they'd been burned, but lost the desire to pursue books altogether. As it stands now, I actively try to guide my clients away from inscribed modern lit and into "safer" (and more client-specific) areas.
Ebay, of course, "has no comment"...as they steadfastly hold that they simply provide an infrastructure for the transactions and have no responsibility to police their cesspool for stolen property, fraud or forgeries. To paraphrase the good Dr., if you want to avoid forgeries, retain a book(wo)man you trust.
Bowdlerizing has a long, rich literary history. Named for a 16/17th century physician who published a heavily edited edition of William Shakespeare "safe" for women and children, it is a practice that has had a small but passionate following ever since...generally within communities that wallow in moralizing, self-righteous indignation and a healthy sense of holier-than-thouness. Admittedly, I may be slightly biased, as I find gutting of literature to be on about the same plane as any other "abuse of innocents" activity...
The
Talk of the Sound posted a cleverly titled entry yesterday:
Now Playing in New Rochelle, "Book, Interrupted"! on the English Departments' decision to require students to return copies of the class book, "Girl, Interrupted" so that they could...literally...tear out pages 64 through 70 before returning them to the students continue their lernin'.
Per English Dept. chairwoman Leslie Altschul, "The material was of a sexual nature that we deemed inappropriate for teachers to present to their students, since the book has other redeeming features, we
took the liberty of bowdlerizing." [emphasis mine]. Bowdlerizing is not a "liberty" to be taken..it is an offense to be inflicted (c.f. "I took the liberty of thwacking Ms. Altschul in the forehead with a copy of Girl, Interrupted."). The article notes that the District has a "book challenge process", but that the district failed to follow their own policies.
The article also provides a succinct summary of why Bowdlerizing is such an ugly thing: "Bowdlerizing is a particularly disturbing form of censorship since it not only suppresses specific content deemed 'objectionable,' but also does violence to the work by removing material that the author thought integral," said Joan Bertin, Executive Director of the National Coalition Against Censorship. "It is a kind of literary fraud perpetrated on an unsuspecting audience."
I'm tired of the lowest-common-denominator controlling the "public good". I'm tired of small-minded, pseudo-religious bigots setting the bar for what is and is not acceptable. Shouldn't school be where you are *challenged* in your conceptions and analysis...where you *learn* to think critically and cogently? Do we *really* want out classrooms defined by material that does not offend anyone, lest it be purged (or, you know, the offending pages be purged).
I suggest that one's willingness to rip pages out of a book should be inversely proportional to one's ability to hold the job of "English Department Chair"...in fact, I think I might go so far as to say that if one is happy to tear great chunks of text out of books before handing them to students, one should not be teaching at all. There are plenty of stalls that need mucking, fish that need gutting and/or graves that need digging...just about anything that keeps books from your hands.
Thanks (so to speak) to
Joyce and LB for the late night posts about the good times in New Rochelle...
Apparently the Miami Herald is up for sale, too.
Next up, the WSJ will announce they will be printing the paper on Fruit-Roll-Ups. That way you can eat the paper when you're done reading it (value-add) *and* they can get in on that much-sought-after school lunch program subsidy...
I have just had it confirmed that the Nov/Dec issue of Fine Books and Collections Magazine is the last hard copy issue. Starting Jan, 2009, they are going "digital only". Perhaps this should not be a surprise, US News and the Christian Science Monitor have both recently gone digital only. However, they are both "news" venues...and as such, the web (and push delivery and all sorts of other techish things) lends itself to their content. Personally, I think the world of Fine Books and Collection does *not* lend itself to digital only.
I *want* hard copies, nicely organized, on my shelf. I *want* to be able to go back to old issues when I run across something that I know they wrote about. I *want* the content in my home, all the time. I am *so* pleased that our last ad in the magazine was a "celebration" of our first ABAA show. I want to be able to keep that...to show it to the boys...and their boys and girls in many years.
Most of all, I *want* to be able to keep and control the data. I want to be able to get a back issue if I loan one out and it does not return. I want the archive. I trust that FB&C will keep "back" content and have it searchable and all that great stuff. HOWEVER, they will only do so as long as they exist...or choose to do so...and/or as long as their hardware does not catastrphically fail. I am uncomforatable with the risk of losing data (and that is what the textblock is) that I value with no ability to do anything about it... Urgh.
That said, it is not my business and I am confident that Webb and his team are making the decision after careful consideration and contemplation. Webb has indicated that they have triple the number of readers online as they do for the print edition. I don't doubt that...though I know several of the clients I can directly trace back to FB&C are significantly "anti-tech"...no email, not computer...and we will lose them in this switch.
On the other hand, it does reach deeper and broader with very minor incremental costs. It certainly does have interesting options and opportunities. Push tech that could put new content onto my iPhone, auction calanders dynamically updated, integration with Facebook, dynamic content and "community" elements that might more deeply engage subscribers, interesting ways-from an advert standpoint- to reach new customers, etc.
I think it will be interesting and I hope it will be good. I will miss the paper though. Paper is good. Paper is real. Paper lasts. We shall just have to wait to see how long this medium lasts...
Read the rest of this post
Per the NYTimes:
Shortly after becoming mayor, former city officials and Wasilla residents said, Ms. Palin approached the town librarian about the possibility of banning some books, though she never followed through and it was unclear which books or passages were in question.
Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who said she attended every City Council meeting in Ms. Palin’s first year in office, said Ms. Palin brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting. “They were somehow morally or socially objectionable to her,” Ms. Kilkenny said.
The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, pledged to “resist all efforts at censorship,” Ms. Kilkenny recalled. Ms. Palin fired Ms. Emmons shortly after taking office but changed course after residents made a strong show of support. Ms. Emmons, who left her job and Wasilla a couple of years later, declined to comment for this article.
In 1996, Ms. Palin suggested to the local paper, The Frontiersman, that the conversations about banning books were “rhetorical.”
All right...I guess I lied. I wanted to post this without comment, but I can not. The idea that any politician would go into a public library and seek to have removed any books...for any reason...is beyond contempt. There are many reasons I think she is/was a poor choice as running-mate...this issue states to me that she is not fit to hold any office (including that of the PTA).
On other fronts, I am back in Portland, unpacking and will post a wrap-up of Baltimore shortly...
Read the rest of this post
So Lee Isreal's book, Can You Ever Forgive Me?: Memoirs of a Literary Forger is out. No link, it is not worthy. I am have a soft-spot for literary crime [when it does not involve...er...me]. There are some great stories of brilliant forgeries, elegant frauds and clever manipulations. Of course the punch line is that, in order for the stories to be "known", the evil-doers have been caught and the work/inscription/letter has been relegated to the "forgery files" (mind you, a collectible area in and of itself).
For every "great" forger, there are doubtless a dozen or so marginal ones, passing off Dickens' signed in ballpoint pen...a random search on ebay at any given time will doubtless offer up a wide selection of "inscribed" of dubious veracity. Somewhere between the two poles rests the likes of Ms. Isreal. She is/was, in brief, a book thief and a forger. I did not know her personally, though there are many in the book world that did/do. I have read a galley of her book and will not bother getting a copy. I was planning to review it, as I have been reading a great deal about literary forgeries of late, preparing for a presentation, but then I read Kevin MacDonnell's review on one of the ABAA listserv groups. It is better than any I would have written and he was kind enough to allow me to post it here:
It's 125pp of over-written chatty arrogance, heavily padded with facsimiles of what she considers her best forgeries, of which she is brazenly proud. She describes her forging career as "fun" and drops celebrity names faster than a flasher can drop his trousers, a simile that comes to mind because by the end of the book you feel like you've been assaulted by a forger-flasher.
Although she churned out some celebrity biographies years ago, she happily calls her forgeries "her best work." The closest she comes to explaining why she did it is that she fell on tough times, needed money, and besides, she was alive and the people whose letters she was stealing and/or forging were dead. No further reasons given. At one point she uses the phrase "screw with history" but never gets around to confronting her immorality, and many of her behaviors that she describes at length with glee are appallingly sleazy.
With the exception of Catherine Barnes she describes most dealers as greedy and stupid. The closest she comes to admitting guilt over the thefts is when she says that guilt is mitigated by her help in recovering the stolen letters of "drunken American writers." But she makes very clear that she has little or no guilt over her forgeries. She has contempt for the court system, and readily admits that she never attended AA meetings that were a requirement of her probation and calls community service "bullshit."
Her account of Alan Weiner is that he extorted her for $5,000 in return for not testifying against her, but Alan's conversations with me at the time made clear that he pressed harder than any of her victims to get her convicted, was disgusted by her, and wanted her to spend a long time in jail. I mentioned previously in this list that she left a vile message on his answering machine after his death for the sole purpose of bringing more pain to his grieving family.
Much of her account also relies heavily on what she claims Jack, her accomplice, did or did not do. Both Alan Weiner and Jack are dead, so the reader can draw his own conclusions on whether to trust this account by a convicted thief and forger. By the end of the book it's clear she doesn't want to be forgiven; she wants to be admired. But the reader will find it impossible to find anything to forgive or admire in this vulgar display of narcissism.
This sums her and the book up as well as any could... It would be interesting to find out if she is still under the terms of her probation...as she explicitly states that she has violated the terms and actually having to serve out her sentence would probably be a good thing.
If you want a good read about better forgers, read Charles Hamilton's Great Forgers and Famous Fakes (1980 or the 1996 2nd Revised). A fair number of them I can forgive...for the art of their work, the chutzpa of the attempt and/or the humor of it...but I really find no reason to forgive Ms. Isreal. While it makes a cute title, I don't think she actually wants or cares about forgiveness, nor do I think she deserves it. [Again, thanks to
Kevin for his permission to reprint his review.]
Apparently, everything is Louisiana is going so well that the Senate and House can waste time, money and...you know...their children's intellectual future on yet another "let's teach creationism as if it were a scientific theory" bill. The republican governor (interestingly, a Hindu turned Catholic), is expected to sign the bill into law. The ACLU and an untold number of other rational organizations will then attempt to save LA from its own stupidity.
I know I have ranted about ID before (see, e.g., here, here or here) and will do my best to avoid doing so again. But. Errr. Ahhh. SERIOUSLY! What the hell is going through these people's collective heads? This is a state whose students score 44th and 46th nationally in Reading and Math, 50th in Advance Placement exams, and is second highest in the nation for the number of children living below the poverty line. Yet rather than spend time/money/effort trying to dig its schools...and students...out of the mire, they spend their time trying to further muddying their already murky educational waters. Twits.
England, rather recently, issued new guidelines to teachers on creationism and ID. They included a wonderful passage on what makes and does not make a "scientific theory":
The use of the word 'theory' can mislead those not familiar with science as a subject discipline because it is different from the everyday meaning of being little more than a 'hunch'. In science the meaning is much less tentative and indicates that there is a substantial amount of supporting evidence, underpinned by principles and explanations accepted by the international scientific community...Creationism and intelligent design are sometimes claimed to be scientific theories. This is not the case as they have no underpinning scientific principles, or explanations, and are not accepted by the science community as a whole.
There is something about the very carefully premediated effort to repackage/promote theology as a scientific construct that I just find wildly offensive...to both theology *and* science. I am have too much to do to rail about this today...and it annoys me too much. Please see the "
About FSM" et seq. for an enjoyable analysis of the logic flaws and do not miss the
Open Letter to the Kansas School Board. Admittedly, I am fond of
sarcasm...it is so much more pleasant than screaming and whacking people with boards...
Also, though published some time ago in the renowned scholarly source, The Onion, please also see "
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory".
Because the chaos of trying to get ready for a major show is not enough....
So, I was already a bit tweaky because I had the NY shows (ABAA and Westside Shadow) this coming weekend and the MARIAB Boston Fair the next weekend. This would normally be enough to bring me close to the edge.
On Friday, I committed to flying to the west coast to visit a client...leaving Monday and returning on the redeye Tue/Wed...landing in NY (where, I hope, I will meet my wife who will drive the van down...with the books...on her birthday). Flight, hotel, car arrangements are all made...I should be packed for the show tomorrow and all will be well *twitch*.
I met today with new clients with some truly exceptional items...that I must catalogue between now and...you know...Thursday. While packing, driving, flying, twitching, twitching, twitching.
I love what I do...truly, deeply, passionately....perhaps masochistically. Wish me luck, I should be in rare form by the Boston weekend. *twitch* No loud noises or sudden movements.
Anyway, I may be a bit silent here for a bit...I will, however, do my very best to blog the three fairs.
We have Congress about to cave on yet another fear-mongering attack on privacy and on the Constitution (and a simultaneous broadening/gutting of FISA), Bernanke is poised to cut rates yet again in an attempt to stave off a recession and the House has approved contempt citations against Bush minions amid teeth gnashing...but what is getting the most focus by the press: Jane Fonda said the word "Cunt" on the Today show.
Fonda, 70, is part of the the 10th Anniversary performance of "The Vagina Monologues." She is reading a monologue *titled* "Cunt" and said the name of the piece on air. That the piece revolves around de-mystification of its subject matter and female empowerment and getting *beyond* pejorative linguistic associations appears to have been COMPLETELY LOST on Meredith and the Today Show folks. They issued a public "apology" for the "remark" and people have been blathering about it ever since.
Mind you, according to that fount of knowledge Wikipedia
the Vagina Monologues has been translated into 45 different languages and performed in over 119 countries. Celebrities who have starred in the play include: Jane Fonda, Whoopi Goldberg, Idina Menzel, Glenn Close, Susan Sarandon and Oprah Winfrey. Ensler [the author] was awarded the Obie Award in 1996 for ‘Best New Play’ and in 1999 was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship Award in Playwriting. She has also received the Berrilla-Kerr Award for Playwriting, the Elliot Norton Award for Outstanding Solo Performance, and the Jury Award for Theater at the U.S. Comedy Arts Festival.
What the hell is going on in this country when no one apologizes for the ongoing rape of our Constitution over the last 7 years or so but public apologies are required for stating the title of a monologue. No one seems to be apologizing for fiscal mis-management that my great-grandchildren will still be dealing with...but people are prostrating themselves to make amends for the "damage" done by a word. Truly, this country is doomed if we can't do any better than this in vetting the wheat from the chaff as to what actually MATTERS in this country.
[Mind you, it is an offensive word and one that I generally avoid. However, it is the nature of its burden and weighted meaning that *gives* it such power in this context....the irony of the apology is sadly rich...]
ADDENDUM: Apparently, this catastrophic embarrassment to the core of the American ideal has also fallen to the wayside... While it is clear that "dirty words" trump government sponsored torture, recessions, undermining the 4th Amendment and nearly all other minor issues....*nothing* beats a mass shooting at a college. The US media pigs will be feeding at NIU's trough for days. I guess I should be thankful that international news streams are so easy to follow these days (
CNN's front page is focused on the shooting with supporting tales of a 10 year old who shot his sister over chips and Valentine's Day "moolah"....
BBC's lead story is "
Bush defends US record on Darfur" and Hezbollah's current threat to Israel, etc....you know, news). It is really bloody sad that the best source for news *about* this country come from *outside* this country....except of course for the violent or prurient, that we do better than anyone. I'm going to bed, maybe it will be better tomorrow....or at least I'll be less annoyed.
So we woke at 2ish am and drove to the bus station where we loaded up and were off promptly at 3:15am. Two hours, some nice orange juice and rewatching The Queen (in which, Helen Mirren does not “get her kit off” (one of my all time favorite actress quotations)) later and we were at Logan.
There were at least two other dealers on theWe arrived around 5am and got our bags check and were through security in short order - next time everything gets shipped except our carry-ons and clothing. Then came the sitting while trying not to drift off (and miss the flight). flight this morn. The flight was...er...long...and torturous…
Not all that long ago, I flew frequently. I flew
frequently for long distances. It never bothered me. That is not the case any longer. I am, I guess, older, bigger, grumpier and/or the airlines have shrunk, you know, everything… The only saving grace was that the gentleman ahead of me did not opt to tilt his seat back…
We arrived at about 11:15am (reflecting the wonderful loss of 3 hours on the way out that are, wickedly, returned to us on the way back). From there, the day radically improved.
We check into the Petite Auberge on Bush St. We have a lovely little room overlooking the private
courtyard. I am typing this in the common room downstairs, nibbling on a very nice roasted mushroom spread on fresh french bread and sipping sherry. All hotels should have hors d’overes and wine/sherry in the afternoons. I can’t wait until breakfast in the morning (we are staying here because it is one of my parent’s favorite hotels, 26 rooms and just wonderful). We had a lovely time chatting with a family from Australia here for the weekend.
After checking in, we wandered over to Chinatown. Tomorrow is Chinese New Year and it was very festive and fun to poke about the shops. We had dim sum for lunch at House of Nan King and that was great. Unusual dim sum, no carts, you just say you want it and the chef sends out plate after plate of wonderful things until you realize you have grossly overeaten. Yum.
Serendipity Books and others tomorrow. I’m going to go slip into a coma.
our first foray into web advertising. I have
enjoyed and followed Wonkette (sorry, no link, still annoyed) from the early days when it was, you know, still Ana Marie Cox's baby. She basically sold it/moved on and it became part of Gawker Media's clot of blogs.
'ette was notable for its *very* snarky and "insider" DC/politico news. Funny, on point and on pulse with a serious love of the loathsome nature of DC and its resident political sleazebags and their minions. You know, the way news should be...
Anyway, they blew through a fair number of writers post-Ana (all male...at 'ette...urgh). Then the frequent poster, Anonymous Lobbyist, came "out" and revealed herself as Megan Carpentier and let us know that she had quite the lobbying gig and would be full time at 'ette. I had dropped back to check it about once every two days or so until Megan began writing...'ette was back. Sharp, funny, profane and just "back". Hell, Megan literally waterboarded a co-worker for our pleasure and amusement...and then destroyed the tape (luckily, there was a secret camera).
I was back to checking it at least twice a day and clicking through on many/most of the posts (i.e. generating money for the site). Then Ken Layne "came back" to 'ette and, in short order, fired the only 'ette at 'ette (it was not a gender thing, apparently, but a style thing....Megan wanted 'ette to be 'ette and Ken apparently wants it to be back in the "snooze" period). There was much gnashing of teeth (notably here) and much outpouring of support for Megan.
About two days ago or so, Megan, Greg Wasserstrom (also recently axed at 'ette) and Hunter Walker (of Gridskipper) founded a new snarky political blog, Cynics' Party ("Exposing hypocrisy, Espousing Profanity since January 24, 2008."). They are off to a great start from a content standpoint...but the off the blocks GoogleAds monetizing resulted in a horrifying amount of Ann Coulter (care, don't say it out loud or an angle looses its wings) and Newt Gingrich newsletter appeals (clearly a deep and disturbing flaw in AdWords).
Late yesterday they redesigned in a way the pushed AdWords "down" the page and added their own support ads. In support of their new venture (and in response to their *very* competitive pricing), I decided to run a wee banner ad on the site. It is our first online buy. How knows, with a bit of luck, it will drawn a new client or two...hope springs...er...eternal. Best of luck to Megan, Greg and Hunter.
I know I am young (relativistically), idealistic (at least in part) and foolish (in too many ways to count)...however, I think it is flat out *wrong* to start packing up a booth before a show ends. Above and beyond the fact that virtually all the show contracts we sign state that we will not pack up before the show ends (and thus those that do so are in breach of contract) and far more importantly, it just seems rude and discourteous to customers of the show. I think nearly a quarter of those at the fair this weekend began packing up half and hour before the show ended and half or so were packing within the last 10 or 15 minutes.
The promoter was taking money from customers within the last half-hour...admittedly, poorly planned by the customers. Even if you have had a bad show, are grumpy or any number of other things, what does packing up early actually gain you...sitting in line, waiting to get in? Getting out a few minutes faster?...and at what cost? Our last sale of the show came at 5:04 and was north of $1K...a sale that would not have happened if I was in the midst of packing with my booth full of boxes.
Personally, I like taking my time packing up. I chat with some of the other more relaxed dealers, pack everything carefully away and by the time I am actually ready to get the car, there is no line or waiting (admittedly, we tend to be within the last handful to get packed up...). There just doesn't seem to be any reason to rush packing...especially not at the expense of the customers.
Sorry (sort of) for the rant. But really, you pay money for the opportunity to be at a show, show your wares, meet clients and buy books...it makes not sense at all to undermine the last few minutes and, potentially, leave a bad impression with those clients (potential or otherwise) who are there to the end. I'm going to go write a thank you note to the gentleman who spent a fair bit of money with me in the final moments of the fair...because he could.
Gilbert Cruz of Time Magazine interviewed Stephen King recently. In it, King suggests that Time should name Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan "person(s) of the year". His point, of course, being that most/all of the mainstream media appear more inclined to follow Spears' underwear choices (or the lack thereof) than, you know, all those annoying serious and dreary "actual news" events happening about the country and world.
I am inclined to agree with him about the decline of our focus and arguable forfeiture of cultural legacy:
We've switched from a culture that was interested in manufacturing, economics, politics — trying to play a serious part in the world — to a culture that's really entertainment-based. I mean, I know people who can tell you who won the last four seasons on American Idol and they don't know who their f------ Representatives are.
He also had some reasonably clear thoughts about how GWB might most easily get his head around the issue of waterboarding:
So I said something to the Nightline guy about waterboarding, and if the Bush administration didn't think it was torture, they ought to do some personal investigation. Someone in the Bush family should actually be waterboarded so they could report on it to George. I said, I didn't think he would do it, but I suggested Jenna be waterboarded and then she could talk about whether or not she thought it was torture.
It's not every day that a reasonably mainstream literary figure suggests waterboarding the president's daughter. Personally, I tend to believe one should not advocate a practice that one has not (or can not) personally experienced. I'll avoid the obvious issues, but I've always
found it interesting that after the Maine legislature passed the "Maine Law" requiring that no Maine prisoner could be executed without the personal order of the governor, not a signal execution took place for 27 years. Apparently talking about the merits of the death penalty differed from the responsibility of actually ordering another's death.
More and more, we seem to have a great number of people who hold opinions/positions passionately and/or dogmatically with little or no...you know...thought/study/facts/contemplation supporting those positions. Mainstream media feeds into this in a significant way. There was a time, until relatively recently, when the "news", in its various forms, strived to educate on major issues and events. In recent years, if it is not prurient and/or sensational, it is not worth reporting...hell, one of the owners of one of the major news networks testified before congress that his network was not required to tell the truth, that it was, effectively, an entertainment network.
Personally, I'm with Stephen King, I'd like to see some high level discussions about the balance between real news and fake news. Then again, any coverage of such an undertaking would undoubtedly be preempted by another Spears' panty event. I'm going back to cataloguing...annoyes me much less...too much ranting makes me restless...
Read the rest of this post
[Links will be added in the morning...realy quite pathetic]
We had a great bonus day in Seattle. We ended up being scheduled on the 11:50 red-eye out of Seattle, getting into Portland at about 930 or so Tues. morning. We used the extra day to meet with a classmate of Suzanne's and do some book hunting.
We stopped in a number of shops and picked up some very nice stuff...all of which will be shipped to us (even better, as we were pretty much maxed out on the "stuff to schlep" front). After one last nice meal at the Icon, we headed to the airport where we arrived just as Don arrived following his day of wandering.
The flight was long and reasonably unpleasant. I am once again proclaiming my belief that *NO* economy seats should be able to recline. The woman in front of my was, apparently, annoyed that her seat would not fully recline...because my femurs do not telescope. I did, finally, tell her (very nicely) that no amount of "bouncing" at the back of her seat would result in my legs getting any shorter...she apologized and brought her back forward a fraction of an inch. I have bruises on my left knee. Ah the joys of flying.
We made it home, Don drove us all back from the airport, which was a real treat...simplicity at that point was remarkably pleasing. We caught up on minor emergencies. I did some of the acute work I needed to do in preparation of Nick Basbanes speaking at the Baxter tomorrow and we took an all too brief nap.
Finally, because we had spent pretty much two days awake and/or being tortured, we rewarded ourselves by attending the season opening of the Portland Symphony. It was really wonderful...but it was very gentle and lulling when I needed the 1812. I managed not to disgrace myself by falling asleep, but only be the skin of my teeth.
Addendum: Note to self: When you are doing a book fair on the west coast and then a book fair on the east coast the following weekend, pay attention to what you bring west. We remembered, in the nick of time, that a reasonable number of books in Seattle were needed in Northampton this weekend. I had to ship two of our 5 crates 3 day instead of ground. That is, it is costing us more to ship two boxes back than it did to ship them all out. Oh well.
Well, we were picked up at 415am for the airport. I opted not to bother sleeping. I must admit that I am getting older and that blowing off sleep for a night is no longer something that I can just blithely undertake. Really quite pathetic.
Our plane took off from Portland on time as did the connecting flight at JFK. We flew JetBlue and above and beyond the great price ($99 from Portland to Seattle), the service was better than average (sad, but true) and the TV was a nice treat. We watched several National Geographic specials, including one very cool one on Boston’s Big Dig.
One minor rant: Airline seats should not recline at all. It was fine (sort of) back in the days of lots of leg room and all, but even on JetBlue (better than average leg room), it is just annoying as hell. Granted, I am over 6 feet tall and I LOATH having seat backs in my knees. I am the first to say that the seats are not the most comfy things and I know I would be more comfy if I reclined…but I do not do so because it is so frigging rude to the poor person behind me. I wish the annoying woman in front of me felt the same way…
We landed in Seattle at 12 noon, checked into the hotel. I did not know it was possible to have a hotel with two prong plugs (and non-free web access). It is a roof and a bed…and there is PLENTY of free wireless alternatives…but the lack of connectivity is probably a deal breaker before next year.
We visited Twice Sold Tales and met the owner, Jamie Lutton and great fun was had by all. We picked up a few little fun things and have our eye on one or two things that might need to head east with us.
Great Thai lunch followed by a very nice coffee…it being Seattle and all. FedEx delivered all my cases (and those of Don Lingren) to the UPS store near the Pavilion. The *wildly* helpful young man (Chris) at UPS volunteered to schlep crates with us so we were able to bring everything down in one trip (about 2.5 blocks or so).
We dropped everything off at the pavilion and will be ready for set-up tomorrow morning.
I have just learned another "professional nicety", of which I was previously blithely ignorant. It has come to my attention that when a book dealer brings a client of theirs into your shop/booth and said human purchases from you, you owe the introducing dealer a 10% commission. This makes sense, I think, though it was news to me. [N.B. there is an argument that you owe this commission to the other dealer on *all* purchases from such a client *forever*...which also makes sense, but I have heard conflicting opinions...].
This has led me to think about professional courtesies, generally, and what has been happening to them specifically. Changes in the business, particularly the flood of new "dealers" with little or no background in the profession, seems to have resulted in an erosion of some of the niceties of the profession, as perhaps has the growth of web business. The following are the niceties that are front of brain for me...please post or email me with any that I have overlooked:
- The granddaddy, of course, is the reciprocal discount. Typically 20% (10% in the UK, it appears), most dealers who take the business seriously discount stock to other dealers. It is nice when one is purchasing for stock...all but necessary when acting as an agent. When I purchase material for clients, my margin is generally the discount (I do not believe a client should pay more when I secure a book for then than they would getting it from another directly)...as a result, it is very seldom I will purchase a book from a dealer who chooses not to offer a discount. It seems as if this one remains very strong. There is clearly some erosion among internet-only dealers...but most of those who refuse to extend discounts are not "really" book dealers (exceptions, as always, exist).
- Not "doing business" in another dealer's shop/booth. This is largely a book fair issue, though one that applies to shops as well. It is just common courtesy that you do not enter another dealer's booth and pitch a book/strike up a conversation with a potential client of that dealer. It is just plain rude. You do not see it often...but it does happen and is almost always a good way to get someone seriously pissed off at you (and talking about it with all other dealers).
- The aforementioned, "tithe to those who bring you clients". This is straight-foreword and makes good business sense. This is, particularly in certain areas, very much a "networked" profession. A fair number of collectors will not buy from dealers they do not "know" and a personal introduction by one dealer to another can go a tremendous way to in starting a relationship. In my experience, such introductions tend to be limited to "good" customers only...all the more reason to thank the introducing dealer. As I mentioned before, there is a traditional view that such an introduction obliges the introducee to pay a commission to the introducor for the life of the client (or other dealer). Again, I think this makes sense...though the logistics seem to get tricky in time...
- A related, "tithe to those who bring you business". This is also pretty straight forward. If a dealer sends someone to you who sells/consigns material with you, you owe that referring dealer 10%. Again, this is just good business...as you want other dealers to feel comfortable introducing you to their "good clients", so do you want those dealers to feel comfortable referring sellers who do not fit their stock. The best transactions are ones where everyone is happy.
- Do not make an appointment with a dealer and not buy anything. This applies largely to appointment only dealers and falls under the rule of: if you are going to take someone's time, compensate them for it. Obvious exceptions exist for friends (and, perhaps, enemies) but generally if you call and make an appoint to see someone's books, you should buy *something*. It does not have to be much...though bigger is generally better.
- Don't "cut and paste" other's work product. This is obviously a rather recent addition...though it existed pre-web as the more specific "don't copy verbatim another's catalogue description". This practice, again pursued mostly by...er...flakier members of the art, is really more of a nicety issue than an ethical/legal one. While some are attempting to "copyright" their book descriptions (and the issue generates a fair bit of gnashing of teeth), I suggest that one would be hard pressed to succeed in pursuing such a claim and guarantee it would not be worth the time and effort. That said, while "imitation" may be the sincerest form of flattery, copying verbatim another's description is...er...tacky and rude. I've had people ask me if they could quote large parts of some of my more verbose descriptions and I have never said no. I've had others *clearly* cut and paste my descriptions...I keep a little list. Mind you, there is very little truly original work out there...most "good" book descriptions are so good because interesting bits were pulled out of published bibliographies (or earlier catalogues, etc.). I guess the rule might be "don't be verbatim".
[This last should be noted for a future post...there are some wonderful examples of "bibliographic errors" where a mistake was made in a very early bibliography (e.g. early 17oos) and still appears, two, three and seven generations later, because subsequent bibliographers relied on the first bibliographic description and did not bother to handle the book itself. Admittedly, these things may only interest geeks like me...]
Again, if you know of other "nicety" rules that I have failed to include, please let me know. I am also curious to receive feedback (emails will be kept confidential) as to opinions about specific rules and/or issues around the evolution of such rules in "modern times". I am toying with an article on this subject at some point in the distant future...
Some of these issues seem to break over the "trade" versus "profession" views of the art of book dealing. I am a very strong advocate of the "profession" argument. I know there are a reasonably wide variety of business models that are, to varying degrees, equally viable in the marketplace and this adds complexity at times in having people play well together. That said, I also believe (?know?) that the business as a whole is best served when we treat each other with the highest degree of respect and professionalism possible. Thoughts? Comments? Pissy rants?
We arrived around 8am and left a hair after 7pm. I have reasonably comfortable shoes. There is no such thing as "reasonably comfortable shoes" after 11 (or, you know, 8) hours standing on a concrete floor. My feet are extremely displeased. We have another 10 or so hours tomorrow. Urgh.
Now that my whining is out of the way, Day 1 was a pleasant successes. We were busy steadily throughout the day. The day started out a bit slow, but Joyce stopped by early with the nice news that cars were lined up in the lots to get in...well, nice to know there were people waiting to get in...less so for those waiting in cars. There was not a lot of time when there were not at least one or two people in the booth and a fair amount of the time when there were 3-5. Even better, it was a genuinely engaged and happy crowd. It was really a rather fun day.
Did I mention it was 11 hours long. On a concrete floor. After 8 hours during set up. On same concrete floor.
I am pleased (and flattered) to say that I had a client stop in and tell me that my newsletter to clients about this event triggered her and her son
to fly down from Midcoast Maine to spend the weekend. I can honestly say I am fond of all of my clients...but some also just make me happy to do what I do.
Of added note: My son and assistant joined me at this fair...all 11 hours. Granted, he spent much of it playing on his GameBoy or reading, but he was cheerful and charming all day...above and beyond the call (particularly toward the end). As if being well-behaved under arduous circumstances was not cause enough for celebration, at the very end of the day, he mustered the extra bit of charm to achieve his first "hand sale". As documented in the two images to the side, he first approached the husband with one of "his" miniature books, chatting him up about having a wee Shakespeare that can travel. The husband then called his wife over. As evidenced in the second image, my young assistant then read through the wee volume and closed to deal. It was his very first sale. He is *far* too pleased with himself. Have I mentioned I love my clients.
It was a good day. I hope tomorrow is as much fun. Did I mention it will be another 10ish hours on the concrete floor (the last two or so packing up).
Well, Newsweek treated its US readers as morons twice last year (here and here), now Time joins its competition in "protecting" us from...well...you know, real news. I don't know about you, but I am not certain if I am insulted these NEWS journals view the US "market" as preferring a protracted advertisement for Leibowitz's retrospective to "real news" or if I just feel sorry for our society that "news" has, to all extent and purposes, become lost to our "lowest common denominator" cultural morass.
Sadly, I have been getting most of my day-to-day "news" from foreign sources for the last several years (one of the better side effects of the emergence of the web). CNN, et al have effectively been relegated to the equivalent of an alternative to a poorly scripted "reality" show...which seems to be the niche they are seeking to fill. I have this vague memory of R. Murdoch under oath before Congress stating that Fox "News" had "no obligation" to tell the truth in their reporting...that they were an entertainment corp (I have not citation for this and lack the time to find it...but the memory is reasonably clear (it...er...annoyed me *a lot*)).
I'm going back to preparing for the Boston book fair this weekend. More shortly on this front.
...and the expected bloodbath ensues. The Washington Post has just published an interesting article on the colossal implosion of big-game hunter Jim Zumbo's career. In brief, Zumbo, a 40+ year NRA member, hunting writer, host of a popular TV program on the Outdoor Channel, etc. wrote a couple of posts calling into question "long range shooting" and the use of assault weapons in hunting (i.e. prairie dogs). Since this began two weeks ago or so, he has "resigned" his position as hunting editor for Outdoor Life (for whom he had written for 42 years), been released from his long-time relationship with Remington, had his highly rated hunting program on the Outdoor Channel put "in hiatus", etc. Personally, I am less interested in this chain of events as a "second amendment" issue as I am from the First Amendment side, the "chilling effect" this will have on rational debate and the matter of the power of unintended consequences.
While many people seem to be writing (or ranting) about this without, apparently, reading what he wrote, I thought I would post it here (N.B. the original posts, on his blog at Outdoor Life, have been removed...an interesting ancillary issue (that is, the "loss" of significant writings when they inflame unusual passions)). The following are the two posts that appear to have some folks worked into a lather:
While at the SHOT Show recently, I ran into a guy who complained that too many hunters were taking excessively long shots. He’s an outfitter, and witnessed plenty of people shooting at elk at distances greater than 350 yards. He suggested that that was too far, primary because the majority of those hunters had no clue of ballistics. Most were “Hail Mary” shots. I agree. We read about people making 500 yard shots and more, and that, to me, is ridiculous.
Then at the SCI convention last week, I talked to a guy who bragged that his custom gun kills deer out at 800 yards and better. To each his own, I suppose, but that isn’t hunting. It’s shooting. And I don’t care how great a marksman you are. The risk of wounding an animal at extremely long ranges is high, and where’s the sportsmanship, the ethics, the satisfaction of taking outrageously long shots? I understand there’s a group in PA that shoots deer at 1,000 yards and more. More power to them. Just don’t ask me to support that kind of “hunting.”
(J. Zumbo, 2/6)
As I write this, I’m hunting coyotes in southeastern Wyoming with Eddie Stevenson, PR Manager for Remington Arms, Greg Dennison, who is senior research engineer for Remington, and several writers. We’re testing Remington’s brand new .17 cal Spitfire bullet on coyotes.
I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue. Only once in my life have I ever seen anyone using one of these firearms.
I call them “assault” rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I’ll go so far as to call them “terrorist” rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are “tackdrivers.”
Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don’t need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I’ve always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don’t use assault rifles. We’ve always been proud of our “sporting firearms.”
This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don’t need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let’s divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the prairies and woods.
(J. Zumbo, 2/16)
So it appears that, as a professional hunter, he questions the increasing use of "long range" shots ("shooting" vs "hunting") and the use of "AR and AK" rifles (auto and semi-auto "assault weapons") in hunting (specifically referencing prairie dogs). He *might* have gotten away with this as mere opinion *except* that in his post, he distinguished between "sporting firearms" and "'terrorist' rifles". This alone appears to have worked *many* people into a frothing lather (I'm not posting links to the apparently endless blog posts ranting about Zumbo's "betrayal"...google his name and pretty much the first 45,000 returns are in the "Zumbo=Dumbo" vein).
I will preface by saying that I grew up in rural Maine, have hunted, support the right to hunt (by bow, gun or slingshot) and, in general, support 2nd amendment (which, for those who forget, reads, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.") [N.B. While I do support the 2nd Amend., am I the only one who reads "well regulated" with as much weight as "shall not be infringed"?] I am not interested in discussing what Zumbo said, per se, but rather the reaction and broader implications. Frankly, nearly every "serious" hunter I know would agree with most of what he said...long range shots are flaky and arguably more dangerous and "hunting" with AR/AK rifles, while fun, lacks a certain amount of "sportsmanship." He did not say that such rifles should be banned, per se, simply that they should be banned "from the prairies and woods." By all means, go to a machine gun shoot (Maine had a great event up in Dover-Foxcroft, named for the inventor of the first portable fully automatic machine gun,
Hiram Maxim (who also invented the mousetrap), though I do not know if it is still being held)...but blowing away prairie dogs with an AK-47 does seem to lack a bit of...er...challenge.
The WP appears to have hit on the substantive issue. What is important is not the pros and cons of using a
.50-caliber sniper rifle to hunt deer (or, as it were, collect deer parts) or AKs on prairie dogs, it *is* an issue of not allowing any division or distinction between hunting rifles and shotguns and assault weapons. The NRA and similar gun-rights groups are adamant in pushing the slipper-slope argument that any regulation of assault weapons, sniper rifles, armor piercing ammunition, etc., etc. will inexorably lead to regulation of hunting weapons (ignoring that whole "well regulated" aspect of the amendment). The point they make is that most of the *money* comes from hunters while most of the "feet on the street" passionate advocacy comes from assault weapon owners and that the NRA effectively endorsed this as the salient point by showing that, "the Zumbo affair shows there is "no chance" that a "divide and conquer propaganda strategy" could ever succeed."
Zumbo apologized profusely, but the lifelong hunter and hunting rights advocate was promptly burned in effigy. Granted, the "terrorist" reference was semantically poorly chosen...but his overarching points are at least colorable, if not correct. However, in the
editor's note regarding his "resignation," Todd Smith of Outdoor Life states, "We respect Mr. Zumbo's First Amendment right to free speech, and we acknowledge his subsequent apology and admission of error." This is immediately followed with,
However, Outdoor Life has always been, and will always be, a steadfast supporter of all aspects of the shooting sports and our Second Amendment rights, which do not make distinctions based on the appearance of the firearms we choose to own, shoot or hunt with.
The "admission of error", one hopes, was that of speaking a thought out loud and offending the "all or nothing" approach of the NRA, et al (and, for that matter, they clearly do *not* respect his right of free speech, or they would defend his speech on those grounds). The implications, of course, are clear. There can not be a rational discussion of the pros and cons of any of these issues. You either support the completely unfettered "right to bear arms" or you are an enemy to be attacked and pilloried in any and all ways possible. I find this really troubling.
It appears there can be no rational voices in this matter at all. On the "right", you get thrown out of the club if you support any regulation of anything that goes "bang", on the "left" you get ousted if you acknowledge that hunting...and shooting...is fun, constitutionally protected and generally not such a bad thing. As Yeats said, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity." I think the opinion of a renowned and articulate hunter would be of value in this debate. I bet we don't hear any in the near-term (or at least none not towing the party line of "no regulation is acceptable").
Personally, I am fond of that term "well regulated" and just can't seem to get myself worked up on one side or the other (lacking all conviction). There are firearms that are appropriate for hunting...and there are firearms that are appropriate for target shooting. I am not certain it is unreasonable to have "time and place" restrictions on semi/automatic weapons, sniper rifles, flamethrowers, rocket launchers and such things. There is a rationality issue at play here...in Maine, I am not able to own a
Black Cat firecracker, but there is no problem with my owning a .50 caliber weapon with an effective range of 7,500 yards (yes, 4 miles) and the ability to punch through an inch of vehicle armor or 3/4 of an inch of bullet-resistant glass (there are purportedly over 20,000 of these firearms in private hands in the US). Now there is not doubt that big guns are fun...but does one really "need" one. The same argument applies to ARs and AKs. Unfortunately, no one seems able/willing to discuss these issues in anything but extremes...and well all end up suffering for it.
The worst aspect of the Zumbo affair is that it absolutely confirms the worst fears of "rational voices" and reduces the "debate" over gun control to a battle of zealots. Unfortunately, this appears to be an increasingly common problem in this country, from the President's, "If you don't support me, you support Terrorism" stance to the arguments around Intelligent Design (or the lack thereof) and Evolution. Personally, I'm tired of dogmatic arguments unsupportable by reason or logic. I'm tired of the increasingly anti-intellectual sentiment so pervasive in this country. I'm tired of vapid talking heads on "news" programs telling me that if I'm not embracing the current Anna Nichole Smith pseudo-news event then I am "snob". I'm tired of a political environment where deep and/or long-term thinking is *actively* condemned and ridiculed. I am just tired.
It is a good thing
Carl Hiaasen has a new book out...I bet the twits in Nature Girl will get their's in the end..............
Read the rest of this post
Thanks to ThinkProgress for one of the funniest/saddest things I have read in a very long time. Apparently Fox News has grown tired of their Favorite War Ever(tm)...In defending his obsessive coverage of the Anna Nichole Smith, Fox talking head John Gibson accuses Anderson Cooper and others of "new guy snobbery" and basically attacked them for covering the Iraq war. "Oh, ‘There’s a war on! There’s a war on!’ Maybe, just maybe, people are a little weary, Mr. Cooper, of your war coverage, and they’d like a little something else."
Clearly, the rational alternative to the day to day horror/depression/angst/humiliation of our current plight in Iraq is the death by vomit of an exploited, drug addled, depressed and depressing pseudo-celebrity. Clearly an improvement. The great irony, of course, is that after years of hawking the War and its advocates, Fox is now calling those who speak of it "snobs."
As noted in the blurb, since Smith's death on Feb. 8th, 42 US soldiers have died in Iraq, not to mention nearly 1000 Iraqis. To be Fair and Balanced(tm), reporting on such things is just ever so tedious. If Fox is really lucky, Ms. Shriver will find Gov. Schwarzenegger in flagrante delicto with an illegal housekeeper and smother them both in their sleep...a Kennedy killing the traitorous Republican gov. *with* a good dirty/illegal alien aspect...why I bet no one would talk about Iraq for weeks.
It would be quite funny where it not so deeply, mind-numbingly pathetic and depressing.
Adam Cohen has an OpEd item in the NYTimes that is worth a good read for the bookishly inclined...or at least the bookishly inclined with a healthy sense of irony. He notes that the recent Brookings Institution report on the Iraq war is titled, "Things Fall Apart"...that Rep. Jim McDermott (D. WA) titled his speech calling for the administration to present a cogent plan for Iraq, "The Center Cannot Hold" and that blogs on the conflict are rife with "the blood-dimmed tide is loosed" in the Iraq (see here, here, here or here). Then there is one of my personal favorites, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity."
The common thread, of course, is that all come from W.B. Yeat's, 'Second Coming' and herein rests the irony. The pundits love to quote it...but don't seem to really understand it...or Yeats. Above and beyond the fact that he was far from a Christian (he considered Christianity "an idea whose time had passed"), and far from a democrat (he was a fan of Plato's benevolent dictatorship...or fascism), the poem is really "a powerful brief against punditry."
I offer the final few passages for your review and consideration:
The Christian era was about the ability to predict the future: the New Testament clearly foretold the second coming of Christ. In the post-Christian era of which Yeats was writing there was no Bible to map out what the next “coming” would be. The world would have to look toward Bethlehem to see what “rough beast” arrived.
This skepticism about predicting the future has more relevance to the Iraq war than any of the poem’s much-quoted first eight lines. The story of the Iraq war is one of confident predictions that never came to pass: “We will find weapons of mass destruction”; “we will be greeted as liberators”; “the insurgency is in its last throes.”
The confident predictors who have been wrong in the past do not hesitate to keep offering up plans. That is true of President Bush, certainly: he talks about what his “troop surge” will do as if he had never been wrong before. It is also true of the pundits. The co-author of “Things Fall Apart,” the Brookings guide to going forward in Iraq, is Kenneth Pollack, who is — incredibly — best known for his 2002 book “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq.”
It is bizarre to see shards of “The Second Coming” appended to the Brookings report, or to any of the other plans and prognostications about the war in Iraq. Yeats, who grew up feeling “sort of ecstasy at the contemplation of ruin,” did not just welcome whatever new order his rough beast was ushering in. He believed the only way it could plausibly be spoken of was in the form of a question.
View Next 5 Posts
Your post reminded me of this brilliant article in the Onion:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30359