Books Are Forever

One of the first posts I made on this blog was about the Amazon Kindle -- the ebook reader that purports to let you carry an entire library in a hand-held computer. While I love my technology, the whole idea of the Kindle makes my eyes hurt.

Now comes news that shows my initial abhorence was spot on. Apparently Amazon didn't get its ducks in a row before it offered several George Orwell novels for download as ebooks. So instead of working out the situation with the copyright holders, what did Amazon do? It unilaterally deleted copies of the books from subscribers' Kindles. Now Amazon is facing a class action lawsuit.

One of the plaintiffs, Justin Gawronski, has a compelling story about his experience with Amazon's memory hole. Apparently, he was reading his copy of 1984 as a summer assignment for school, and had been using one of the Kindle's selling points—the ability to attach notes to specific parts of the e-book text—to prepare for his return to school. Since he was actively reading the work when Amazon pulled the plug, he actually got to watch the work vanish from his screen. He's left with a file of notes that are divorced from the text that they reference.

So even though Amazon claimed you would always have the books that you bought (even if something happens to your Kindle reader), that turns out to be false. The company can delete the books at will. The Orwell incident (ironic, isn't it?) isn't the only case where the company can take away your books when it wants. Earlier this year, it came out that Amazon can delete your Kindle account whenever it wants to. One Amazon customer found that out the hard way when he made one too many returns.

So what happens when your Kindle account is taken away? Your Kindle still works, and the books you already bought for it will work, but you can't download those books ever again (better have made a backup on your PC!), you can't receive your magazine, blog, or newspaper subscriptions on it anymore, you can't email documents to Amazon to have them converted and sent to your Kindle, and you can't buy any new books for the device. That $360 device only works so long as Amazon decides it will work.

All of this just proves my point even more: they'll never take away my books.

Easily Distracted

Lately I’ve been thinking a lot about how easily distracted we become. “Everyone” is concerned about health care and 2/3 of all Americans want health care reform, including some sort of universal health care, but our congress takes months and months to act. We become frustrated by the slow, messy process of legislating the mess (which some have likened to making sausage) and get distracted but other things – often very silly things. So we end up with a watered down version of what we really want that never does anything; and the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and we’re all unhappy.

The biggest problem is that most of the time we cannot focus on more than one thing at once, and let’s face it, the problems have been pretty big over the past year. We tend to look for any excuse to escape, so we are distracted by really stupid stuff. The 24/7 nature of news nowadays only makes the problem worse. News organizations have to constantly “feed the beast” – fill air time or post new items to their Web sites.
Having worked in television, I can attest it isn’t some basic conspiracy. But we are like sheep, easily led astray – staring at the guy waving a sign that says “look over here.” Usually it has to do with celebrity gossip, sports, or – most likely – being much more concerned with our own problems than with the “big picture” problems. I’m not sure how to solve this, but here are three simple things that might help.

1. Get informed, diverse news and opinion. Having more ways to get our news is a very positive thing – I firmly believe that. Looking for information from multiple sources is also a good way to keep from simply confirming any bias you already have. It helps to get alternate perspectives and to question what you hear or read.
2. Accept that there is usually a legitimate, alternate viewpoint. Anyone who has ever been involved in a news story will tell you that the news entity got the story wrong. This is because bias and perspective play a huge part in how we understand anything. If news reporting were just about reporting “facts” we would never have any news.
3. Expect and demand accountability from news media. Write to news editors and journalists and ask them to focus on the things that really matter. Tell them what you think – but do it in a respectful, constructive manner – and make sure you sign your correspondence, including contact information. Nowadays, the majority of so-called feedback that news media get is anonymous, nasty in tone and completely discounted. Signing correspondence insures that you’ll be taken seriously and that you will be respectful to the recipient.

I guess it goes back to what my teachers always said about politics in general: if you don’t like what’s happening, get involved, get in the game, and stop standing by the sidelines.

Why Do Men Like to Tease?

I used to think they pulled baby boys aside at birth and slid them a handbook on the flair and function of teasing their sisters with style. I had plenty of experience with teasing, practically from the time I was born. I have both an older and a younger brother and they practiced their skills on all four of their sisters.

My older brother elevated teasing to an art form – spending hours, even days, executing his particular brand of devilry. He’d speak to the middle of my forehead all day or call me any strange nickname he could think up or make fun of one physical attribute or another. In hindsight, pretty stupid stuff. But it’s enough to drive a seven- (or eight- or nine-) year-old to distraction.

My mother’s response was consistent: “Just ignore him!” I love my mother, but this advice was dreadful for obvious reasons. First is the essence of my brother’s nature. He is stubborn – even more stubborn than I am. Second, and more importantly, is the essence of my nature. I cannot hide my feelings. I am the world’s worst poker player. One high school English teacher said you could read my entire day on my face. Now imagine the combination of these two aspects in our respective personalities. If I had somehow managed to “ignore him” without for a moment imparting any emotion on my face – a feat that’s like climbing Everest for me – my brother’s response would be to try even harder to get a rise out of me. He would see it as an immense challenge worthy of conquering. Sadly, I never gave him such a challenge. Ignoring him is a practical impossibility.

My younger brother is also an expert tease, but he has his own unique style. Being a dozen years older, I avoided the brunt of his teasing, at least until he grew taller than me. When we could finally see eye-to-eye, he started pushing on the top of my head, to help me shrink enough so that I’d be shorter than him. Then he’d play word games, being deliberately obtuse and “misunderstanding” something I’d said to the point of ridiculousness. He still loves that game.

My brothers gave me a lot of practice dealing with the fine art of the tease. But I quickly learned the practice isn’t exclusive of sisters. Boys, in general, love to tease. They love getting a rise out of us and seeing us get all in a dither.

Most of the women I know don’t like this much. It’s irritating. It makes you uncomfortable. It brings out the worst in us. So why do it?

For my brothers, I can only guess that they couldn’t inflict any physical harm (no wrestling, no tackling, no hitting your sisters), so they resorted to a little mental torment. All siblings like to fight, and this is a good way to get your licks in without doing any physical damage.

But what about adult men? Is it a form of flirting? A way to get our attention? Going back to Mom, her response would be a resounding, “Yes. He’s only teasing you because he likes you!” That’s probably true, but aren’t there better ways of getting our attention?

Looking back, the tormenting from brothers probably prepared me for the strange teasing and games that happen in the adult world: in interpersonal relationships as well as the corporate world.

So why do men like to tease?

The only logical answer I can come up with is – because they find it so much fun.

Taking a Stand

Yesterday I got together with my parents for Mother's Day, like a dutiful daughter. Amazingly, the topic turned to... torture. Sounds strange on a day when you're supposed to be celebrating Mom, but in our family, discussions often turn to politics, religion and other taboo subjects.

I've been mulling over the whole torture issue for several weeks, since President Obama declassified the memos advancing the Bush administration's case to use torture on suspected terrorists in response to a FOIA request from the ACLU. The memos are a legal response, justifying all kinds of "harsh interrogation methods" to extract information from terror suspects. I hate even using that euphemism (which many in the media seem hell-bent on doing) because it almost seems to side with those who would use any means to justify their behavior, and I don't think there is any justification for this. It is torture. We treated other human beings this way.

The Bush administration used these memos to make the case that what they were doing wasn't torture. But if one of our soldiers had been water-boarded, slammed against a wall, deprived of sleep, food and clothing, then shut in a box with crawling insects, you'd better believe we would be screaming about the torture that soldier had to endure. (This is precisely what happened in many of the cases outlined in the memos.)

I thought our country was better than this. In the past, we always said that we were better based on the fact that we didn't treat people this way. We didn't treat Japanese POWs this way during World War II, even though many of our soldiers were tortured in Japan's POW camps. We prosecuted U.S. soldiers in Viet Nam following the My Lai massacre. We could always hold our heads high and say that we wouldn't do the things the enemy does. Anyone who stepped out of line was held to account.

Yesterday, the former vice president was on the Sunday morning talk shows - again - to defend what he and others in the Bush administration ordered following 9/11. Former Vice President Cheney still maintains what they did was not torture, although his defense mainly centers around the idea that their waterboarding of suspects did elicit information. Despite his protests, there is evidence that this is not true. Still, this is a canard. Whether or not it gave us good information, do we want to be a country - a people - of torture?

My discussion with the parental units was also interesting because we haven't really talked about this issue yet and still we'd come to the same conclusion: this is absolutely horrible, and why aren't more people upset about it? Independently, we'd all read a fantastic op-ed from Leonard Pitts of The Miami Herald on May 6th when it was printed in The Salt Lake Tribune. Pitts' concern is also that more people, and Christians in particular, are not taking a stand against torture.

As my parents and I discussed it, Dad (who happens to be a Biblical scholar with a PhD in religion) was especially saddened and said, "Why is it that we Christians throughout the ages seem to come down on the wrong side of things? The Crusades, the Inquisition, slavery, now this."

There's still time, though. We don't have to be forever known as a people of torture. As Americans, we can say that we won't condone this any longer. We can ask our political leaders for an independent investigation that will get to the bottom of this. As Christians, we can ask our religious leaders to stand up in opposition to this treatment of other human beings. We can ask them to speak out from a perspective of faith.

Finally, as a Christian, I can ask my ultimate question: "Who would Jesus torture?"

Life with Beagles

When people have children, they force their unsuspecting (single) friends to watch countless hours of video of their obviously fabulous offspring and sit through endless scrapbooks highlighting their amazing antics. Since I have no children, I've never been able to reciprocate. My new digital camera changes this. I have managed to create a very short video of my roommate, Brontë.

A little background: Brontë is 10 years old and she is a beagle, which means she doesn't greet you with hugs and kisses when you come home, she greets you with a howl. Well, for hound dogs, it's called baying. Brontë is very, very good at baying. I think it's her way of leveling the playing field since she has no opposable thumbs. As her vet says, Brontë is very good at asserting her rights, whatever she deems them to be.

Note: Please forgive the quality - I'm still learning how to use the camera and the editing equipment.

Fun with Pottery

Like most people with an artist's soul, I dream of one day owning a little shop somewhere - occasionally selling some of my work. But the practical side of me - the side that likes paying the bills and eating three times a day - has a bigger voice. If I ever become independently wealthy, I'll spend my days painting and making pottery. Until that happens, pottery is just a passion.

I have managed to sell quite a bit along the way. I also give away a ton of it to friends and family for Christmas and birthdays. It's to the point now that they really look forward to getting the pottery as gifts. I don't have to force it on them like a five-year-old proud of the mishapen lump the looks something like an ashtray. Nowadays, my bowls are round, the glaze is gorgeous and while pottery is never perfect, some of my stuff is truly art.

Hope you enjoy. Let me know what you think - especially if you have some

suggestions.

It's the End of the World as We Know It

Forget partisan politics.
Forget the inability of politicians to put our country first or educate themselves on history.
Forget the doom and gloom spouted by religionists and economists.
Here's incontrovertible proof that the world is about to come to an end:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/02/12/in-ford’s-theater-obama-invokes-forbidden-word/

As every Shakespearean scholar and true theater buff knows, there are just some things you never, ever say. Invoking the name of the Scottish play – particularly in a theater – is absolutely verboten. Most of the actors, directors, crew members I’ve known or met won’t even speak that name outside a theater. But within the hallowed walls? Bite your tongue. It’s unthinkable. They can quote you numerous occasions where merely performing the Scottish play has brought disaster to a theater company.

Now the president has spoken that name in a theater, and a theater where another president was assassinated. Suffice it to say, nothing else matters. There’s no hope for us now. The world is coming to an end.

Literacy Helps

Agree or disagree with him - you have to admit that it's nice to have a president who actually talks to the people he represents. Case in point, today's Washington Post Op-Ed:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/04/AR2009020403174.html

You may not like what he says or his ideals, but at least he's following through on one campaign promise: more transparency.

It's been a very difficult week for the new president. He's nominated several folks to key posts who have tax problems and some have "lobbyist" problems, too. With sky-high approval ratings, there was only one way to go.

So right out of the gate he's proven he isn't perfect, which everyone knew anyway. But even with these stumbles I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for a while because he's already done two things:

1. Reinstated the rule of law and remembered that a key part of his job is "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
2. Talked to me like I'm intelligent.

Chess and Checkers

I used to play chess with my older brother when I was a kid. I finally gave up because he was much, much better at thinking five or 10 moves ahead. I was pretty much limited to two or three moves ahead. In my own defense, I was young – 10 or 11 when he first taught me to play – and my brother is four years older than I. But I much preferred to play Checkers, a game that doesn’t require you to see very far ahead. My inability to look at the options on the Chess board ensured that I always lost; in many ways it meant I was never even in the game.

I’m getting that same sense as I watch President Obama play rope-a-dope with the Republicans in Congress. The current issue at hand is the stimulus bill the president wants Congress to approve in the next three weeks. Since they are in the minority in both houses of congress now, Republicans are left with one tool at their disposal to have any influence at all in the political process: the ability to filibuster and prevent a cloture vote in the Senate. As Democrats know from past experience, it’s a small tool at that.

The difference this year as in the previous eight, 12 or several dozen years is that President Obama says he wants bi-partisan support for the bill. He has asked for input from Republicans in order to get their support. They could suggest a few compromises and show that they want to work for the good of our country, to help restore our tattered and broken economy. But to do so would mean to tacitly accept that their ideology is failed. So instead, Republicans have come back to the president and told him the only way they would accept the stimulus package is if it is a Republican plan. In other words, no compromise – just do things our way.

At first this seemed completely strange to me. How could any politician think they could have influence in this circumstance against a president who is enjoying over-the-top approval ratings and after being completely routed in the last general election? It didn’t make any sense. Then I realized that the only upside for Republicans as a party is if the plan fails. If they backed a failed plan, then they cannot claim the high road; but if they stood in vehement opposition to a failed plan, well, they were the visionaries who saw the disaster that lay ahead. It’s in their best interest to cling to partisanship. It doesn’t matter that our country is going to hell in a hand basket economically, if they can find an upside politically, they’ll use it.

This is not to say the Republican Party is any worse than the Democratic Party when it comes to partisanship. I’m sure Democrats would be doing something similar if the shoe were on the other foot. I just had a hope that we could put it all away, at least for a week or two, in the best interest of our country. Sadly this isn’t the case.

Certainly President Obama is aware of this. He went to Capital Hill today and did something highly unusual for a new president: he met with the entire House Republican Caucus and asked them to come to the table. It was a pretty gutsy move and it remains to be seen whether any in the minority party will cross the aisle when it’s time for the final vote. Unfortunately they seem to be playing from the Karl Rove playbook and trying to win today’s news cycle instead of looking at the big picture.

Republicans might try to present a better plan ideologically. A few have said that we need more tax breaks for large corporations. Sure, it’s more of the same George W. Bush policies that embroiled us in our current mess, but at least that’s consistent. But to be honest, there’s no upside for Republicans to present an alternative either.

If I were a Republican congressman or senator, I’d look beyond today – or even next week or next month. I’d be careful to avoid any appearance of partisanship, if at all possible. Because when it’s all said and done, the American people won’t blame the president if there is a successful filibuster in the Senate and the stimulus bill doesn’t move forward. The people will blame the obstructionists. Right now, anything that stands in the way of getting our economy back on track is considered obstructionist.

President Obama is playing chess and Republicans are playing checkers.