While the past months have seen a sharpening of the economic hit taken by the retail sector, the recent weeks' news has been no less than startling in the publishing world. According to a November 24 report in the industry paper, Publishers’ Weekly, “Josef Blumenfeld, v-p of communications for HMH [Houghton Mifflin Harcourt], confirmed that the publisher has ‘temporarily stopped acquiring manuscripts’ across its trade and reference divisions.” He added that this is “not a permanent change,” though when new manuscripts would be considered was not stated. It is not clear as to whether manuscripts already approved and set for release would make it to bookshelves.
Blumenfeld also noted that any future manuscripts would be rigorously assessed for “market interest”. It is of note that “artistic merit” is not the primary criteria.
Houghton’s announcement comes on the heels of a leaked internal memo from the previous week wherein Random House, which is owned by the international media conglomerate Bertelsmann, proclaimed that it would freeze all pensions at their current level and would not offer pensions to people hired after January 1, 2009. There have since been reports of a major restructuring of the publishing housed under Random’s umbrella, with the number being reduced from five to three. This, despite the claims of the Bertelsmann website on November 11 that, “After nine months of the 2008 financial year, Bertelsmann reported a solid business development. The international media company achieved revenues almost at the level of the previous year in its continuing operations.”
Since these revelations, the news from the industry has grown increasingly worrisome; San Francisco-based Chronicle Books announced that it will be cutting back almost 5% of its staff due to the outlook for 2009. Macmillan has announced a pay freeze for staff earning $50,000 and over, and the establishment of a pool to provide for modest increases for those earning less. Penguin has likewise frozen pay for those earning $50,000 or more.
Over the last two decades, many publishing houses have been absorbed by non-publishing entities, and the emphasis has been on making fast profit for the shareholders, rather than on building a solid literary or cultural institution. In the last few years even the largest of houses have been taken over, merged with, or outright bought by enormous entities whose bottom line is not cultural enrichment. These new organizations show a lack of willingness to take chances on new literature, and a quick abandonment on any projects that do not garner immediate attention. As we are seeing with HMH, in tough economic times even the supposed raison d’etre of a publisher – to find and publish new material – is sacrificed to cut costs.
Concurrently, the retail aspects of the book business underwent several major changes – from the rise of the “big box” bookstores and the resulting explosion of retail shelf space at a time when readership had been declining, to the advent of the internet as a shopping venue. Both had an adverse effect on the more traditional independent and family-owned bookstores, with many going under, partly due to the publishers’ refusal of deep discounts which the larger chains were offered. A series of lawsuits by the American Booksellers’ Association in the 1990’s obtained cease and desist orders against such un-equal business practices.
The current economic situation is also felt by the large chains. Borders has been teetering on the brink of bankruptcy for months and its third quarter reports show overall sales down 10%. Should the company fail, the return of product would be more than most publishers could fiscally bear, and approximately 30,000 workers would be rendered unemployed. The ripple effect would also very likely take down distributing companies, who would be forced to reduce staff as well. What once might have been the dream of many independent booksellers would actually spell the doom of massive segments of the industry.
While certain independent stores are able to scrape by on the strength of the demand for used books, the resource is not infinite; it does take the publishing of new books to eventually supply that market. Were the publishers to fail, even the stores which exclusively sell used books would see their stock dwindle. In recent years, the number of failed independent book stores has increased, succumbing to the economic pressures of meeting increased rents and decreased sales.
The book business has not until recently been viewed as a means to get rich. Very often writers and sellers of the books have scraped by, their love for words and ideas taking precedence over profit. The same can be said of many publishers and presses, some of which have maintained that integrity and a number of which are still producing vibrant, unusual, and original works. Rather than banking on the Next Big Thing, or, as is more common now, The Next Blockbuster Sequel, they have built their reputations on presenting well-written, enduring works with an eye to artistic advancement. It is quite possible that they will triumph in the end - but it's going to be rocky for a while.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Saturday, December 13, 2008
For C H by way of an answer
I will tell you a story about novels. For some time I wrote short and very short stories. Which thing I liked to do - idea, story, done. Next idea. I was also in a circle of people who were involved in the comic books industry. Many of them were successful to greater and lesser degrees, and most of them wanted me to be successful as well. So advice was offered and I, having never really thought about writing in terms of "success", listened.
"You need to write a novel. No one buys short stories."
The thing is- the implications of which I know now, but which didn't strike me right then - I used to give my stories away. I'd go to readings and read, or story groups and read. Sometimes people wanted copies and I'd copy them out (by hand - I had no computer yet). What I wanted was for people to enjoy the things. It seemed to be working, with people waiting for me to read, and showing up without stories of their own but wanting to see what I had made that week. It was really wonderful, and I am glad I did actually enjoy it at the time, as well as having the memories of it.
But I started writing a novel. And this was in 1994 or so. I have re-started at the 100 page mark repeatedly. It will eventually be a good story, and there are many atmospheric and lovely bits to it. I sometimes think of just assembling the fragments or de-sembling the fragments. Sometimes I think maybe it should take the form of a collage. It started on the backs of envelopes, and is in my old laptop now. I have recently re-started it with a different point of view. But it is about slaying monsters, and so is the writing of it.
There are times when I unproductively hate all the characters involved - good and bad and in-between - times when I have spots of affection for them. Some times I want to finish it, sometimes forget it. There are times when I feel I've killed my little children since the short stories are largely gone from me.
"You need to write a novel. No one buys short stories."
The thing is- the implications of which I know now, but which didn't strike me right then - I used to give my stories away. I'd go to readings and read, or story groups and read. Sometimes people wanted copies and I'd copy them out (by hand - I had no computer yet). What I wanted was for people to enjoy the things. It seemed to be working, with people waiting for me to read, and showing up without stories of their own but wanting to see what I had made that week. It was really wonderful, and I am glad I did actually enjoy it at the time, as well as having the memories of it.
But I started writing a novel. And this was in 1994 or so. I have re-started at the 100 page mark repeatedly. It will eventually be a good story, and there are many atmospheric and lovely bits to it. I sometimes think of just assembling the fragments or de-sembling the fragments. Sometimes I think maybe it should take the form of a collage. It started on the backs of envelopes, and is in my old laptop now. I have recently re-started it with a different point of view. But it is about slaying monsters, and so is the writing of it.
There are times when I unproductively hate all the characters involved - good and bad and in-between - times when I have spots of affection for them. Some times I want to finish it, sometimes forget it. There are times when I feel I've killed my little children since the short stories are largely gone from me.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
David McCord
It’s been over a decade since he died. I have a variety of angers about this.
On an artistic level, I am angry with him for killing himself- his stories were like nothing I’d read before; the ideas he had, and his raw turn of phrase showed the beginnings of promise being fulfilled. It was clear that he was suffering, and, unlike many people who attempt it, he was able to turn that into honest and good prose. It was exciting every time a little book came out- and I, who never cared for anthologies, would scrape together the pennies to buy one with one of his stories in it. I wanted to see where he was going, what his talent would bring, what would happen when he turned that corner into greatness. He was on his way.
I am angry that his mother died, and angry that she felt compelled to involve him in her death. I do not see how a mother could do such a thing, and yet, I do understand how a human being could be so ill, so much in pain, that sense abandons you and you ask to be put down. In this, my anger extends to medical practices and mores which forbid assisted suicide. How cruel a time and place, such cruel laws which put children into the position of killing their parents, and parents their children. In the name of “life”, they suck away any compassion, any future for those who have to take on the task unwillingly.
To the people who sold or gave him heroin…. There is rage there. There is too much rage. And for him, for taking it. For giving himself a deadline to stop which I sometimes wonder if he intended to meet, or if he intended to use as a period to get some things in order.
I am angry that Lisa has the memories of all this. I am angry that people still think of suicide as "romantic", that drug use it still - in some unhealthy circles - viewed as a "price we pay for genius".
For trying to bring Lisa along with him. For that, O, I am angry at him. I know he did not want to be alone. She loved him so - she did not want him to be alone- she would go where he went. It is one of the most unfair things in the world to ask someone to die for you who would willingly do it.
I am angry at me for not picking up the clues, even as they were laid right out there. “We’ll be with mother soon.” I almost laugh now- I did not know that she was in a vase on the mantle, did I? No, not until later that day. It was not too late then, but by the time I put it together, it was. Sitting on top of the hill in Oakland with him and Lisa, it just seemed an odd thing to say, but nothing so horrible, nothing so sinister, not an “Enjoy us while you can, though we are in extreme pain, because we’re going soon, because we’re in extreme pain”.
On an artistic level, I am angry with him for killing himself- his stories were like nothing I’d read before; the ideas he had, and his raw turn of phrase showed the beginnings of promise being fulfilled. It was clear that he was suffering, and, unlike many people who attempt it, he was able to turn that into honest and good prose. It was exciting every time a little book came out- and I, who never cared for anthologies, would scrape together the pennies to buy one with one of his stories in it. I wanted to see where he was going, what his talent would bring, what would happen when he turned that corner into greatness. He was on his way.
I am angry that his mother died, and angry that she felt compelled to involve him in her death. I do not see how a mother could do such a thing, and yet, I do understand how a human being could be so ill, so much in pain, that sense abandons you and you ask to be put down. In this, my anger extends to medical practices and mores which forbid assisted suicide. How cruel a time and place, such cruel laws which put children into the position of killing their parents, and parents their children. In the name of “life”, they suck away any compassion, any future for those who have to take on the task unwillingly.
To the people who sold or gave him heroin…. There is rage there. There is too much rage. And for him, for taking it. For giving himself a deadline to stop which I sometimes wonder if he intended to meet, or if he intended to use as a period to get some things in order.
I am angry that Lisa has the memories of all this. I am angry that people still think of suicide as "romantic", that drug use it still - in some unhealthy circles - viewed as a "price we pay for genius".
For trying to bring Lisa along with him. For that, O, I am angry at him. I know he did not want to be alone. She loved him so - she did not want him to be alone- she would go where he went. It is one of the most unfair things in the world to ask someone to die for you who would willingly do it.
I am angry at me for not picking up the clues, even as they were laid right out there. “We’ll be with mother soon.” I almost laugh now- I did not know that she was in a vase on the mantle, did I? No, not until later that day. It was not too late then, but by the time I put it together, it was. Sitting on top of the hill in Oakland with him and Lisa, it just seemed an odd thing to say, but nothing so horrible, nothing so sinister, not an “Enjoy us while you can, though we are in extreme pain, because we’re going soon, because we’re in extreme pain”.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Oooh Gosh Not too bright
So, I forgot my password once again and couldn't post for a while. I am working on a couple of things, and will be up and running soonly.
Also- apparently periods and exclamation points are not allowed in post labels. It should be:
Oooh. Gosh. Not too bright. (So, why they mentioned the exclamation point in their alarming note, I do not know.) Oh, wait- the post label! Ahh.... Did I mention I'm not too bright? Haven't had coffee, neither.
Also- apparently periods and exclamation points are not allowed in post labels. It should be:
Oooh. Gosh. Not too bright. (So, why they mentioned the exclamation point in their alarming note, I do not know.) Oh, wait- the post label! Ahh.... Did I mention I'm not too bright? Haven't had coffee, neither.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Standing Up To The Madness - review
This review appeared in a slightly different form on the WSWS on May 27,2008
Amy Goodman and David Goodman, Hyperion, 2008 (Hardcover), $23.95
Amy Goodman is well-known as the host of Democracy Now!, the independent news program broadcast on a variety of public radio and television channels, as well as the author or co-author of a number of books on political events. Her views are firmly located on the liberal left, with an orientation toward “left’ elements in and around the Democratic Party, such as Rep. Dennis Kucinich, and the Greens.
David Goodman, Amy’s brother, has written for a number of left-liberal magazines including Mother Jones and the Nation, as well as more mainstream outlets such as the Washington Post and The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on PBS.
Standing Up to the Madness begins with a well-known citation: “When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the American flag.” This saying, attributed to various people, has become something of a mantra in certain circles on the American left. The litany of complaints which follow—eroding civil liberties, increasingly stark economic divisions, the war in Iraq—are presented with no close examination. Each ill is viewed as having a single unifying cause, to wit: the Bush Administration.
No mention is made of the connection between the breakdown of democracy and the growth of social inequality, or between the predatory war aims of the US elite and the attacks on democratic rights at home. In a word there is no suggestion that the policies of the Bush administration reflect more than the “madness” of one individual or perhaps, at most, neo-conservative circles. The book never raises the larger question of the failure of the social and economic order, capitalism.
The question asked by the authors in the midst of it all is, “Where is the outrage?” To ask such a question is to insult the millions of people who have indeed expressed outrage, and who are suffering from the attacks described. By implicitly blaming the population for the lack of opposition to the assault on democratic rights the Goodmans shift attention away from the critical role played by the Democratic Party—the supposed opposition party—in enabling the rise to power of the Bush Administration through the hijacked 2000 election, the passage of the Patriot Act, the war on terror and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
In Stop the Madness the Goodmans seek to set out positive examples of citizens who have taken on the powers that be, “grassroots activists [who] have taken politics out of the hands of politicians,” in the words of a commentator. Such individuals may be courageous and sincere, but their efforts become part of a political argument the Goodmans are constructing: these local, “grassroots” efforts obviate the need to challenge the overall political set-up and, specifically, to make a conscious break with the Democrats.
While few of the cases detailed in the book’s chapters will be new to listeners of Democracy Now!, since many of the subjects have appeared as interviewees on the show, there is value in reviewing the stories as part of a whole, in terms of painting a broader picture of the crisis and breakdown of American bourgeois democracy.
The first subject, Malik Rahim, of New Orleans’ Lower Ninth Ward provides special insight into what the residents of that area faced before, during and since hurricanes Katrina and Rita. It was through his and his neighbors’ efforts, along with an unexpected visit from a detachment of Veterans For Peace, that the area saw any relief in the initial aftermath of the storms. Unwilling to play games with people’s lives, he and his group offered help even to the racist vigilantes who had recently threatened them with violence.
Malik’s story is an anomaly in the book, as he is the only one who seems to have any sense of the history which brought his city to that desperate point. One of the founders of Common Ground Relief, a collective dating from the first few weeks after Katrina hit, Rahim and his neighbors are determined to salvage and rebuild whatever they can while offering help to others in the Gulf area. Of all the narratives in the book, his is the most affecting, and certainly the most dramatic.
While Rahim’s organization surely is doing good works, the area affected is far beyond the scope of any small organization to fix. The treatment of the survivors of Rita and Katrina continues to be abysmal, and resources continue to be lacking on the scale needed. Coming up on three years after the catastrophe, the people still face official stonewalling, constant threats to cut off what little aid they do receive and demonization by the press (not coincidentally around the expiration deadlines for aid packages).
The work of Common Ground is heartfelt and needed. However, it is not nearly enough. Rahim’s experience serves to point out the continuing neglect by the US government of pressing social needs as it pursues the war in Iraq and makes permanent tax cuts for the wealthiest citizens with bipartisan agreement.
The case presented in Chapter 3, “Librarians Unbound,” begins with a visit by two FBI agents to the office of the Library Connection of Connecticut (a consortium of 27 libraries that share a computer network). The agents were in possession of a “National Security Letter” (NSL) seeking “any and all subscriber information, billing information and access of any person or entity” using the library systems’ computers on February 15, 2005, between 2 and 2:45 p.m.
The executive director of the Library Connection, George Christian, noted in particular one clause stating that recipients of the letter could not disclose “to any person that the FBI has sought or obtained access to information or records.”
Christian, however, did tell a few people in the library system, and the executive committee met with its lawyer (an action that may very well not be legal under the draconian National Security Letter provision of the Patriot Act).
The librarians realized that they had two choices—either comply with the NSL, or sue. They elected to sue then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and engaged the national office of the ACLU to represent them. With their case, John Doe vs. Gonzales, they sought an injunction against being forced to comply with the National Security Letter, and launched a challenge to the constitutionality of the NSLs. Over the course of the trial, the librarians were required to keep mum and their names were only released inadvertently when a judge ordered the release of certain court documents.
As they do throughout the book, the Goodmans focus exclusively on the role of Bush when discussing the assault on civil liberties. We read, for example, that the Patriot Act was “rammed through a compliant Congress three months after the 9/11 attacks.” A page later: “When President Bush rammed the PATRIOT Act through a fearful Congress shortly after 9/11.” The complicity of Congress, and particularly the Democrats, in erasing the separation of powers and its leadership’s co-operation in passing and re-passing the sinister and authoritarian Patriot Act goes unmentioned except in terms of their supposedly being “forced” to comply.
In the chapter on American scientist James E. Hansen’s fight against official censorship of his findings on global warming, we are treated to a sub-chapter entitled “Showdown,” in which Rep. Henry Waxman, Democrat of California, is presented in the mold of Mr. Smith from the Frank Capra film “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”—i.e., boldly challenging the powers that be on points of scientific freedom. Also featured are Reps. Peter Welch, Democrat of Vermont, and John Yarmuth, Democrat of Kentucky, both of whom are presented in a very positive light. The role of villain is played by Rep. Darrell Issa, Republican of California. Waxman is one of the Democratic Party’s leading frauds, a demagogue who issues subpoenas and stages hearings without serious consequences for anyone.
The Goodmans point out that both Bush and Cheney have deep connections to the oil industry. Unmentioned are the Democratic participants’ own backgrounds—for instance, Yarmuth’s previous career as both a Republican and as the heir to a family fortune derived in part from holdings in Ashland Oil Company. His current party affiliation, it seems, shields him from careful scrutiny by the Goodmans.
Hansen’s scientific career goes back decades, and the Office of Management and Budget had censored him during the previous Bush Administration. He also spoke about his disappointment with the Clinton administration in a January 2007 Frontline interview, stating that although the latter did not question the science, it did not do enough to act on the information provided, and noted that, “The United States’ portion of global emissions actually increased during the Clinton-Gore administration.”
The outcome of the more recent hearings into the Hansen case is left up in the air. While the authors note that certain low-level Bush loyalists involved lost their positions, there is no deeper analysis, with the chapter segueing into an account of the actions of author Bill McKibben relating to his April 2007 “Step It Up Day,” and a variety of other “actions,” including Ted Glick’s “No War No Warming” non-violent civil disobedience action on Capitol Hill in October 2007,” which incorporated polar bear costumes and at which 61 people were arrested.
It is a peculiar transition, and the authors’ spotlighting impotent civil disobedience actions is a transparent attempt to focus the energies of the population on pressuring the Democratic Party and Congress.
The chapter ends with a quote from Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize speech: “We have everything we need to get started, save perhaps political will, but political will is a renewable resource. So let us renew it, and say together: ‘We have a purpose. We are many. For this purpose we will rise, and we will act.’”
Meanwhile, as noted on the WSWS April 30, 2008, the proposals from the Democratic presidential candidates on global warming “are no more serious [than Bush’s suggestions to open ANWAR to drilling, and a moratorium on domestic emissions targets]. In addition to the [gasoline] tax moratorium, Clinton is proposing a suspension of oil input into the Strategic Petroleum reserve, a marginal increase in spending on alternative energy sources, and an increase in fuel economy over a period of 20 years. Obama has rejected the tax moratorium on the grounds that companies would just increase their prices to make up the difference, and supports fuel economy standard increases and alternative energy investment.”
While Standing up To the Madness provides numerous stories illustrating the current assault on civil rights, its recommendations in no way add up to a viable policy to oppose war, racism and poverty. The “Conclusion,” entitled “We are the leaders we have been waiting for,” is made up of tepid and unserious propositions. In a subsection titled “Challenge the Corporate Media,” there is first a call to support the stations that air Democracy Now!, a passage which makes for embarrassing reading in its shameless self-promotion. It is then suggested that we “Post ... stories, photos, and media at indymedia.org.”
We are urged to become active in the “national media reform movement”; web addresses are given for such entities as the identity politics-oriented Media Action Grassroots Network, as well as Free Press, which, while more even-handed, is still thoroughly reformist in its outlook and activity.
On page 288, the Goodmans write, “Democrats and Republicans alike have been served notice that lip service and deception will not satisfy the new generation of activists that is demanding real change, and real democracy.” Yet, there is neither a call for the building of a third, independent or socialist party, nor any critique of the capitalist profit system. There is, in short, no “or else” issued at all. The warning is proffered as an idle and impotent threat—one which reveals the role of the Goodmans as nothing more than a pressure group on the Democratic Party.
Amy Goodman and David Goodman, Hyperion, 2008 (Hardcover), $23.95
Amy Goodman is well-known as the host of Democracy Now!, the independent news program broadcast on a variety of public radio and television channels, as well as the author or co-author of a number of books on political events. Her views are firmly located on the liberal left, with an orientation toward “left’ elements in and around the Democratic Party, such as Rep. Dennis Kucinich, and the Greens.
David Goodman, Amy’s brother, has written for a number of left-liberal magazines including Mother Jones and the Nation, as well as more mainstream outlets such as the Washington Post and The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on PBS.
Standing Up to the Madness begins with a well-known citation: “When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the American flag.” This saying, attributed to various people, has become something of a mantra in certain circles on the American left. The litany of complaints which follow—eroding civil liberties, increasingly stark economic divisions, the war in Iraq—are presented with no close examination. Each ill is viewed as having a single unifying cause, to wit: the Bush Administration.
No mention is made of the connection between the breakdown of democracy and the growth of social inequality, or between the predatory war aims of the US elite and the attacks on democratic rights at home. In a word there is no suggestion that the policies of the Bush administration reflect more than the “madness” of one individual or perhaps, at most, neo-conservative circles. The book never raises the larger question of the failure of the social and economic order, capitalism.
The question asked by the authors in the midst of it all is, “Where is the outrage?” To ask such a question is to insult the millions of people who have indeed expressed outrage, and who are suffering from the attacks described. By implicitly blaming the population for the lack of opposition to the assault on democratic rights the Goodmans shift attention away from the critical role played by the Democratic Party—the supposed opposition party—in enabling the rise to power of the Bush Administration through the hijacked 2000 election, the passage of the Patriot Act, the war on terror and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
In Stop the Madness the Goodmans seek to set out positive examples of citizens who have taken on the powers that be, “grassroots activists [who] have taken politics out of the hands of politicians,” in the words of a commentator. Such individuals may be courageous and sincere, but their efforts become part of a political argument the Goodmans are constructing: these local, “grassroots” efforts obviate the need to challenge the overall political set-up and, specifically, to make a conscious break with the Democrats.
While few of the cases detailed in the book’s chapters will be new to listeners of Democracy Now!, since many of the subjects have appeared as interviewees on the show, there is value in reviewing the stories as part of a whole, in terms of painting a broader picture of the crisis and breakdown of American bourgeois democracy.
The first subject, Malik Rahim, of New Orleans’ Lower Ninth Ward provides special insight into what the residents of that area faced before, during and since hurricanes Katrina and Rita. It was through his and his neighbors’ efforts, along with an unexpected visit from a detachment of Veterans For Peace, that the area saw any relief in the initial aftermath of the storms. Unwilling to play games with people’s lives, he and his group offered help even to the racist vigilantes who had recently threatened them with violence.
Malik’s story is an anomaly in the book, as he is the only one who seems to have any sense of the history which brought his city to that desperate point. One of the founders of Common Ground Relief, a collective dating from the first few weeks after Katrina hit, Rahim and his neighbors are determined to salvage and rebuild whatever they can while offering help to others in the Gulf area. Of all the narratives in the book, his is the most affecting, and certainly the most dramatic.
While Rahim’s organization surely is doing good works, the area affected is far beyond the scope of any small organization to fix. The treatment of the survivors of Rita and Katrina continues to be abysmal, and resources continue to be lacking on the scale needed. Coming up on three years after the catastrophe, the people still face official stonewalling, constant threats to cut off what little aid they do receive and demonization by the press (not coincidentally around the expiration deadlines for aid packages).
The work of Common Ground is heartfelt and needed. However, it is not nearly enough. Rahim’s experience serves to point out the continuing neglect by the US government of pressing social needs as it pursues the war in Iraq and makes permanent tax cuts for the wealthiest citizens with bipartisan agreement.
The case presented in Chapter 3, “Librarians Unbound,” begins with a visit by two FBI agents to the office of the Library Connection of Connecticut (a consortium of 27 libraries that share a computer network). The agents were in possession of a “National Security Letter” (NSL) seeking “any and all subscriber information, billing information and access of any person or entity” using the library systems’ computers on February 15, 2005, between 2 and 2:45 p.m.
The executive director of the Library Connection, George Christian, noted in particular one clause stating that recipients of the letter could not disclose “to any person that the FBI has sought or obtained access to information or records.”
Christian, however, did tell a few people in the library system, and the executive committee met with its lawyer (an action that may very well not be legal under the draconian National Security Letter provision of the Patriot Act).
The librarians realized that they had two choices—either comply with the NSL, or sue. They elected to sue then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and engaged the national office of the ACLU to represent them. With their case, John Doe vs. Gonzales, they sought an injunction against being forced to comply with the National Security Letter, and launched a challenge to the constitutionality of the NSLs. Over the course of the trial, the librarians were required to keep mum and their names were only released inadvertently when a judge ordered the release of certain court documents.
As they do throughout the book, the Goodmans focus exclusively on the role of Bush when discussing the assault on civil liberties. We read, for example, that the Patriot Act was “rammed through a compliant Congress three months after the 9/11 attacks.” A page later: “When President Bush rammed the PATRIOT Act through a fearful Congress shortly after 9/11.” The complicity of Congress, and particularly the Democrats, in erasing the separation of powers and its leadership’s co-operation in passing and re-passing the sinister and authoritarian Patriot Act goes unmentioned except in terms of their supposedly being “forced” to comply.
In the chapter on American scientist James E. Hansen’s fight against official censorship of his findings on global warming, we are treated to a sub-chapter entitled “Showdown,” in which Rep. Henry Waxman, Democrat of California, is presented in the mold of Mr. Smith from the Frank Capra film “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”—i.e., boldly challenging the powers that be on points of scientific freedom. Also featured are Reps. Peter Welch, Democrat of Vermont, and John Yarmuth, Democrat of Kentucky, both of whom are presented in a very positive light. The role of villain is played by Rep. Darrell Issa, Republican of California. Waxman is one of the Democratic Party’s leading frauds, a demagogue who issues subpoenas and stages hearings without serious consequences for anyone.
The Goodmans point out that both Bush and Cheney have deep connections to the oil industry. Unmentioned are the Democratic participants’ own backgrounds—for instance, Yarmuth’s previous career as both a Republican and as the heir to a family fortune derived in part from holdings in Ashland Oil Company. His current party affiliation, it seems, shields him from careful scrutiny by the Goodmans.
Hansen’s scientific career goes back decades, and the Office of Management and Budget had censored him during the previous Bush Administration. He also spoke about his disappointment with the Clinton administration in a January 2007 Frontline interview, stating that although the latter did not question the science, it did not do enough to act on the information provided, and noted that, “The United States’ portion of global emissions actually increased during the Clinton-Gore administration.”
The outcome of the more recent hearings into the Hansen case is left up in the air. While the authors note that certain low-level Bush loyalists involved lost their positions, there is no deeper analysis, with the chapter segueing into an account of the actions of author Bill McKibben relating to his April 2007 “Step It Up Day,” and a variety of other “actions,” including Ted Glick’s “No War No Warming” non-violent civil disobedience action on Capitol Hill in October 2007,” which incorporated polar bear costumes and at which 61 people were arrested.
It is a peculiar transition, and the authors’ spotlighting impotent civil disobedience actions is a transparent attempt to focus the energies of the population on pressuring the Democratic Party and Congress.
The chapter ends with a quote from Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize speech: “We have everything we need to get started, save perhaps political will, but political will is a renewable resource. So let us renew it, and say together: ‘We have a purpose. We are many. For this purpose we will rise, and we will act.’”
Meanwhile, as noted on the WSWS April 30, 2008, the proposals from the Democratic presidential candidates on global warming “are no more serious [than Bush’s suggestions to open ANWAR to drilling, and a moratorium on domestic emissions targets]. In addition to the [gasoline] tax moratorium, Clinton is proposing a suspension of oil input into the Strategic Petroleum reserve, a marginal increase in spending on alternative energy sources, and an increase in fuel economy over a period of 20 years. Obama has rejected the tax moratorium on the grounds that companies would just increase their prices to make up the difference, and supports fuel economy standard increases and alternative energy investment.”
While Standing up To the Madness provides numerous stories illustrating the current assault on civil rights, its recommendations in no way add up to a viable policy to oppose war, racism and poverty. The “Conclusion,” entitled “We are the leaders we have been waiting for,” is made up of tepid and unserious propositions. In a subsection titled “Challenge the Corporate Media,” there is first a call to support the stations that air Democracy Now!, a passage which makes for embarrassing reading in its shameless self-promotion. It is then suggested that we “Post ... stories, photos, and media at indymedia.org.”
We are urged to become active in the “national media reform movement”; web addresses are given for such entities as the identity politics-oriented Media Action Grassroots Network, as well as Free Press, which, while more even-handed, is still thoroughly reformist in its outlook and activity.
On page 288, the Goodmans write, “Democrats and Republicans alike have been served notice that lip service and deception will not satisfy the new generation of activists that is demanding real change, and real democracy.” Yet, there is neither a call for the building of a third, independent or socialist party, nor any critique of the capitalist profit system. There is, in short, no “or else” issued at all. The warning is proffered as an idle and impotent threat—one which reveals the role of the Goodmans as nothing more than a pressure group on the Democratic Party.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Literacy, bookshops, and publishing
In what has become all too commonplace, the month of February saw the announcement of no less than three bookstores' intentions to shutter their doors. One has since been purchased, and will hopefully survive.
After serving the community for 25 years, Hastings, New York's Good Yarns faced closure until a last minute buyer stepped forward. Prior to that, the store's manager William Tester spoke to the NYT in a piece from Feb. 24- "Unless someone comes along in the next few months who is both passionate about books and has the wherewithal to shrug off something as trite as profit...You have to have some maniac who is not interested in making a living.”
"With so many bookstores having closed their doors on Main Streets in Westchester, the passing of Good Yarns means the western side of the county will have no independently owned comprehensive village bookstore between Bronxville and Chappaqua."
Unless a buyer is found, Vail, Colorado's only bookstore, Verbatim Booksellers will close within the year. Speaking with the Vail Daily, Verbatim's owner Robert Aikens stated, “It has to be somebody who loves books, loves music, and loves Vail, who wants to keep a bookstore in Vail.” The store relocated in 2006 with the aid of $70,000 in donations.
Dutton's Brentwood Books, perhaps Los Angeles' best-known independent book store, has announced that it will close on April 30. Soon after the recent closure of their Beverly Hills location, the property on which the Brentwood's location sits was sold. The property's new owner plans to redevelop.
Doug Dutton, the store's owner stated, "We have been asked if the store will reopen in the proposed new development, or at another site in the area. At present, any plans to reopen or relocate will have to await a real offer in a real situation, combined with a sober assessment of the realities of the book world."
The realities of the book world include declining readership and the continuing conglomeration of publishing houses.
Literacy and Readership
Recent surveys have shown that fewer than half of the American public reads books once they leave school or university. To be sure, falling literacy rates have something to do with this, and this is something which is unlikely to change under the current system. Indeed, among the many human services cuts in President Bush's proposed budget for 2009 is the elimination of $25.5 million dollars for Reading Is Fundamental's Inexpensive Book Distribution Program, which has provided books to millions of low-income, migrant, foster, homeless, and military children since 1975. The program had been funded without interruption by Congress and six Presidential Administrations since its inception.
According to a press release issued by RIF's president and CEO, Carol H. Rasco, “The U.S. Department of Education has shown that the number of books in a child’s home is a significant predictor of academic achievement.” In an average year, working through various agencies the Inexpensive Book Distribution Program gives on 15 million books to over 4 million children who very likely would otherwise have none. Eliminating funding for the program shows, once again, this administration's callous disregard for the less fortunate, as well as for the future development and safety of the population. There has as yet been little protest from the Democratic-led Congress.
For all the hue and cry of Leaving No Child Behind, cut after cut has been made to academic programs from Head Start to Pell Grants. With the elimination of the IBDP, we see yet further decay in the educational infrastructure of this country. The amount of $25.5 million, less than a month's spending on the War in Iraq, provides vital literacy outreach to the poorest segments of our society. To claim that it can not be afforded is both untrue and speaks volumes in regards to where the priorities of this administration and Congress lay. That these cuts will hit hardest where NCLB has already deprived schools of money due to falling test scores means that there will be a further impoverishment for the students and families involved.
Founded in 1966, RIF's goal has been to improve literacy rates by involving adult volunteers, and providing training and materials. Studies have repeatedly shown that access to books greatly improves academic achievement, as does the active participation of caring instructors. RIF's efforts have included writing contests for children, reading challenges, and family literacy programs – all with the aim of bringing a love of literature and participation in writing to children from every background. We now see an enormously successful organization stripped of funding for one of their most effective programs.
The Publishing World
During the 1990's, the rise of the “big block” booksellers and the gobbling up of smaller publishers by larger houses and – in many cases- non-publishing entities threatened the well-being of a great number of independent bookstores. While overall readership was in decline, retail shelf space was expanding at a rapid pace.
Given the nature of the industry, one of the few in which the producer of the product (ie, publishers) sets not only the wholesale, but also the retail price, (roughly a 40% markup), the ability of the bigger stores to offer deep discounts rapidly imperiled many long-standing independent stores.
In the 1990's, the American Booksellers' Association along with a number of their member stores launched a series of lawsuits against the major publishers contending that the chain stores were being given an unfair advantage. In every case, the federal courts found the publishers in violation of the Robinson-Patman act when they offered bigger discounts to the chain stores than were made available to the smaller, independent shops. By the time the lawsuits had been settled, and cease-and-desist orders issued, a number of small stores had closed.
The major publishers, such as Bertelsmann, which owns Random House, Alfred A. Knopf, Bantam, Doubleday, Dell, and a host of other publishing houses as well as a number of newspapers and other media outlets, control not only the books which are published, of course, but also the press coverage of said books, and the film deals (often within the same company, such as with Time Warner, which owns both publishing and film companies).
In many cases, when a smaller press is taken over by a larger one, the “midlist”- consisting of steady but not block-buster sales- is dropped, and the money is put toward finding the “next big thing”, regardless of merit. Oftentimes, if a book does not make an immediate splash, its print run is cut, and copies are pulped or sold as “bargain books”.
What This Means for the Reader
As the sources for new literature are ever shrinking, and the emphasis is put on immediate sales, rather than producing quality literature, there is less reason to enter a bookshop. When what is on offer is an attempt to be the “Next Harry Potter”, or “New Sex and the City”, and so much space is given over to formulaic writing in pursuit of a fast buck at the expense of the development of new ideas and directions in literature, culture and imagination are left by the wayside. The shelf space has to be filled; however, contrary to predictions made at the dawn of the big box age, more space is not resulting in more selection, but less. In an effort to maximize profit, only the most bombastic survive. If a big box store does not commit to buying a title from a major publisher, the title has a good chance of being scrapped entirely.
A great number of independent bookshops offer an alternative to this scenario- focusing on local or small presses, or on specific areas of interest such as art or politics- offering a wide range of selection from many points of view. Many shops will hold onto a title in which the booksellers have confidence in or a love for, no matter how well it sells right out of the gate.
The loss of such shops, many of which are deeply involved in the communities they serve, is not just the loss of a business, but often marks the loss of a place where imagination is given inspiration. The loss of access to information and ideas not otherwise available- even in this day of digital availability- is something to be mourned.
After serving the community for 25 years, Hastings, New York's Good Yarns faced closure until a last minute buyer stepped forward. Prior to that, the store's manager William Tester spoke to the NYT in a piece from Feb. 24- "Unless someone comes along in the next few months who is both passionate about books and has the wherewithal to shrug off something as trite as profit...You have to have some maniac who is not interested in making a living.”
"With so many bookstores having closed their doors on Main Streets in Westchester, the passing of Good Yarns means the western side of the county will have no independently owned comprehensive village bookstore between Bronxville and Chappaqua."
Unless a buyer is found, Vail, Colorado's only bookstore, Verbatim Booksellers will close within the year. Speaking with the Vail Daily, Verbatim's owner Robert Aikens stated, “It has to be somebody who loves books, loves music, and loves Vail, who wants to keep a bookstore in Vail.” The store relocated in 2006 with the aid of $70,000 in donations.
Dutton's Brentwood Books, perhaps Los Angeles' best-known independent book store, has announced that it will close on April 30. Soon after the recent closure of their Beverly Hills location, the property on which the Brentwood's location sits was sold. The property's new owner plans to redevelop.
Doug Dutton, the store's owner stated, "We have been asked if the store will reopen in the proposed new development, or at another site in the area. At present, any plans to reopen or relocate will have to await a real offer in a real situation, combined with a sober assessment of the realities of the book world."
The realities of the book world include declining readership and the continuing conglomeration of publishing houses.
Literacy and Readership
Recent surveys have shown that fewer than half of the American public reads books once they leave school or university. To be sure, falling literacy rates have something to do with this, and this is something which is unlikely to change under the current system. Indeed, among the many human services cuts in President Bush's proposed budget for 2009 is the elimination of $25.5 million dollars for Reading Is Fundamental's Inexpensive Book Distribution Program, which has provided books to millions of low-income, migrant, foster, homeless, and military children since 1975. The program had been funded without interruption by Congress and six Presidential Administrations since its inception.
According to a press release issued by RIF's president and CEO, Carol H. Rasco, “The U.S. Department of Education has shown that the number of books in a child’s home is a significant predictor of academic achievement.” In an average year, working through various agencies the Inexpensive Book Distribution Program gives on 15 million books to over 4 million children who very likely would otherwise have none. Eliminating funding for the program shows, once again, this administration's callous disregard for the less fortunate, as well as for the future development and safety of the population. There has as yet been little protest from the Democratic-led Congress.
For all the hue and cry of Leaving No Child Behind, cut after cut has been made to academic programs from Head Start to Pell Grants. With the elimination of the IBDP, we see yet further decay in the educational infrastructure of this country. The amount of $25.5 million, less than a month's spending on the War in Iraq, provides vital literacy outreach to the poorest segments of our society. To claim that it can not be afforded is both untrue and speaks volumes in regards to where the priorities of this administration and Congress lay. That these cuts will hit hardest where NCLB has already deprived schools of money due to falling test scores means that there will be a further impoverishment for the students and families involved.
Founded in 1966, RIF's goal has been to improve literacy rates by involving adult volunteers, and providing training and materials. Studies have repeatedly shown that access to books greatly improves academic achievement, as does the active participation of caring instructors. RIF's efforts have included writing contests for children, reading challenges, and family literacy programs – all with the aim of bringing a love of literature and participation in writing to children from every background. We now see an enormously successful organization stripped of funding for one of their most effective programs.
The Publishing World
During the 1990's, the rise of the “big block” booksellers and the gobbling up of smaller publishers by larger houses and – in many cases- non-publishing entities threatened the well-being of a great number of independent bookstores. While overall readership was in decline, retail shelf space was expanding at a rapid pace.
Given the nature of the industry, one of the few in which the producer of the product (ie, publishers) sets not only the wholesale, but also the retail price, (roughly a 40% markup), the ability of the bigger stores to offer deep discounts rapidly imperiled many long-standing independent stores.
In the 1990's, the American Booksellers' Association along with a number of their member stores launched a series of lawsuits against the major publishers contending that the chain stores were being given an unfair advantage. In every case, the federal courts found the publishers in violation of the Robinson-Patman act when they offered bigger discounts to the chain stores than were made available to the smaller, independent shops. By the time the lawsuits had been settled, and cease-and-desist orders issued, a number of small stores had closed.
The major publishers, such as Bertelsmann, which owns Random House, Alfred A. Knopf, Bantam, Doubleday, Dell, and a host of other publishing houses as well as a number of newspapers and other media outlets, control not only the books which are published, of course, but also the press coverage of said books, and the film deals (often within the same company, such as with Time Warner, which owns both publishing and film companies).
In many cases, when a smaller press is taken over by a larger one, the “midlist”- consisting of steady but not block-buster sales- is dropped, and the money is put toward finding the “next big thing”, regardless of merit. Oftentimes, if a book does not make an immediate splash, its print run is cut, and copies are pulped or sold as “bargain books”.
What This Means for the Reader
As the sources for new literature are ever shrinking, and the emphasis is put on immediate sales, rather than producing quality literature, there is less reason to enter a bookshop. When what is on offer is an attempt to be the “Next Harry Potter”, or “New Sex and the City”, and so much space is given over to formulaic writing in pursuit of a fast buck at the expense of the development of new ideas and directions in literature, culture and imagination are left by the wayside. The shelf space has to be filled; however, contrary to predictions made at the dawn of the big box age, more space is not resulting in more selection, but less. In an effort to maximize profit, only the most bombastic survive. If a big box store does not commit to buying a title from a major publisher, the title has a good chance of being scrapped entirely.
A great number of independent bookshops offer an alternative to this scenario- focusing on local or small presses, or on specific areas of interest such as art or politics- offering a wide range of selection from many points of view. Many shops will hold onto a title in which the booksellers have confidence in or a love for, no matter how well it sells right out of the gate.
The loss of such shops, many of which are deeply involved in the communities they serve, is not just the loss of a business, but often marks the loss of a place where imagination is given inspiration. The loss of access to information and ideas not otherwise available- even in this day of digital availability- is something to be mourned.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Curse of the Romanovs - boogity boogity boo
For the past four or so years, I have been aware of the fascination with princesses. Disney's Belle, Cinderella, and etc have spread their sparkles over the eyes of the nation's children. It is annoying, but I try not to read too much into it most of the time (except for the afore-mentioned Belle of Beauty and the Beast, which has always struck me as a dangerously co-dependent kind of story; He's beastly, but if I love him enough he'll be a prince...) Anyhoo.
When it comes to historical princesses, however, I do try to see what is happening. Over the past few years there have been a few books on Anastasia, which personage has the dual advantage of being both royal and mysterious. Did she die, did she live? Poor kid! The hand-wringing over her fate is understandable from a human point of view, to be sure. It is not her fault that her father and family were tyrants, no. But she did benefit from the tyranny, and I wonder at the distinct dearth of hand-wringing over the fate of the children who were victims of the Tsar's pogroms.
Enter The Princess Diaries. Ostensibly the diaries of a variety of princesses, these books serve to suck the mind of the child dry of any historical perspective before it has a chance to take root. Naturally, there is one "by" Anastasia, which covers the war years and the revolutions of 1917. Without fail, revolutionaries (Menshevik or Bolshevik) are described as "rats", or "ugly". Horror is expressed at Lenin's idea that the country should be controlled by the workers.
Princes are also included now- with the publication of "The Curse of the Romanovs". Ostensibly a book about hemophilia, and time travel!, Alexi is the central character. He travels to 2010 in a time machine invented by Rasputin. There he visits- please sit down if you are not already- his cousin who is named- and I wish I were making this up, but I am not- Varda Ethel Rosenberg.
Varda. Ethel. Rosenberg.... Thereby adding insult to bad literature. The sheer insensitivity of naming a central character in such a book after a woman who was framed and killed for being a socialist would be amazing, had I not skipped ahead to the "further reading" section and seen that Pipes is recommended.
It is clear, in reading such books, that a labour of historical revisionism is hard at work. Workers, guard your children, for they are under literary attack.
When it comes to historical princesses, however, I do try to see what is happening. Over the past few years there have been a few books on Anastasia, which personage has the dual advantage of being both royal and mysterious. Did she die, did she live? Poor kid! The hand-wringing over her fate is understandable from a human point of view, to be sure. It is not her fault that her father and family were tyrants, no. But she did benefit from the tyranny, and I wonder at the distinct dearth of hand-wringing over the fate of the children who were victims of the Tsar's pogroms.
Enter The Princess Diaries. Ostensibly the diaries of a variety of princesses, these books serve to suck the mind of the child dry of any historical perspective before it has a chance to take root. Naturally, there is one "by" Anastasia, which covers the war years and the revolutions of 1917. Without fail, revolutionaries (Menshevik or Bolshevik) are described as "rats", or "ugly". Horror is expressed at Lenin's idea that the country should be controlled by the workers.
Princes are also included now- with the publication of "The Curse of the Romanovs". Ostensibly a book about hemophilia, and time travel!, Alexi is the central character. He travels to 2010 in a time machine invented by Rasputin. There he visits- please sit down if you are not already- his cousin who is named- and I wish I were making this up, but I am not- Varda Ethel Rosenberg.
Varda. Ethel. Rosenberg.... Thereby adding insult to bad literature. The sheer insensitivity of naming a central character in such a book after a woman who was framed and killed for being a socialist would be amazing, had I not skipped ahead to the "further reading" section and seen that Pipes is recommended.
It is clear, in reading such books, that a labour of historical revisionism is hard at work. Workers, guard your children, for they are under literary attack.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Comte-Sponville part 2
Well, I liked the first part, where he laid out his terms. Now it's getting a bit muddled, really, and at times it seems back-track-y and at other times very hippy-dippy (with some due respect to hippies, but none to dippies). It is going to take at least a second reading to get a good handle on. As of today I will sum up as:
At least he's not trying to justify killing people. That's a step up, in my book, though it will be interesting to see where the next step lands.
At least he's not trying to justify killing people. That's a step up, in my book, though it will be interesting to see where the next step lands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
