nancynall.com » Onward, Don Quixote.

Onward, Don Quixote.

I’ve never been a fan of his fic­tion, but I’m think­ing maybe Har­lan Elli­son is a man worth admiring:

Nine years ago, Mr. Elli­son sued Inter­net ser­vice providers for fail­ing to stop a user from post­ing four of his sto­ries to an online news­group. Since set­tling that suit, he has pur­sued more than 240 peo­ple who have posted his work to the Inter­net with­out per­mis­sion. “If you put your hand in my pocket, you’ll drag back six inches of bloody stump,” he said.

Now there’s a copy­right war­rior I could march into bat­tle with. Sooner or later some­thing will cut him down; I’ve come to the real­iza­tion that the gurus are right, you can’t fight free, even law-abiding peo­ple don’t think it’s steal­ing when the per­son on the other end is just some face on a back cover, and any­way they’re prob­a­bly rich and I’m not, so go ahead and down­load their book onto your Kin­dle, what’s the harm?

I’m get­ting ahead of myself.

The NYT looks at the lat­est fron­tier in copy­right theft — books. Until now, steal­ing books didn’t pay, so to speak, but with the Kin­dle and other e-readers, the doors are open:

Sites like Scribd and Wattpad, which invite users to upload doc­u­ments like col­lege the­ses and self-published nov­els, have been the tar­get of indus­try grum­bling in recent weeks, as ille­gal repro­duc­tions of pop­u­lar titles have turned up on them. Trip Adler, chief exec­u­tive of Scribd, said it was his “gut feel­ing” that unau­tho­rized edi­tions rep­re­sented only a small frac­tion of the site’s con­tent. …An exam­ple of copy­righted mate­r­ial on Scribd recently included a dig­i­tal ver­sion of “The Tales of Bee­dle the Bard,” a col­lec­tion of fairy tales by J. K. Rowl­ing. One com­menter, post­ing as vicious-9690, wrote “thx for post­ing it up ur like the robin­hood of ebooks.”

I’m try­ing to sep­a­rate my intel­lec­tual reac­tion from that of my gut, which thinks vicious-9690 is most likely a 300-pound jerkoff with one hand buried in his pants and the other in a box of Froot Loops or, as Stephen King puts it suc­cinctly later in the story:

“The ques­tion is, how much time and energy do I want to spend chas­ing these guys,” Stephen King wrote in an e-mail mes­sage. “And to what end? My sense is that most of them live in base­ments floored with car­pet­ing rem­nants, liv­ing on Funions and dis­count beer.”

I sus­pect King is wrong, that there are Russ­ian and Chi­nese and Amer­i­can hack­ers work­ing on sites to sell the Twi­light nov­els for half off the retail e-reader price. Or maybe not — maybe this is all a mat­ter of the cheap and sleazy under­cut­ting the tal­ented and suc­cess­ful. “The robin­hood of ebooks” says a lot about the igno­rant mind­set of the peo­ple who do this, as Robin Hood took from the rich and gave to the poor. I’ve known a few authors in my life, and they range from mid­dle class to upper-middle. A few more can’t quit their day jobs (usu­ally teach­ing). All of them work harder than most of us, and if you saw what they earn for every copy they sell, you’d be amazed — it’s far less than you prob­a­bly think. The Stephen Kings and Stephe­nie Mey­ers and J.K. Rowl­ings are rare exceptions.

So bully for Elli­son and his 240 take­down let­ters. He may be fight­ing a los­ing bat­tle, but he’s on the side of the angels. (I sent a take­down let­ter of my own a while back. It was a beau­ti­ful feeling.)

So, a lit­tle blog­gage? Sure:

Of all the things writ­ten about Eliz­a­beth Edwards, this is the best. And the sad­dest: It’s from Dou­ble X, the spin­off of the XX blog at Slate, which I’m still exploring.

As some­one who wrote about the Vanessa Williams/Miss Amer­ica explo­sion a thou­sand years ago, there’s some­thing about see­ing a head­line like this — Pageant Dou­ble Stan­dard? Steamy Pho­tos of Miss Rhode Island Won’t Threaten Her Crown — that makes me feel 1,001 years old.

Dear Tom Fried­man: In the past eight years my feel­ings about you have moved from admi­ra­tion, to grudg­ing admi­ra­tion, to dis­like, and now to con­tempt. With good rea­son, you greedy bastard.

We saw the pre­view for “Up” at the movies the other day. I can’t wait. Roger didn’t have to.

I have so much work to do this week I feel pre-emptively crip­pled by it. So I think I’ll do a lit­tle, right now.

76 responses to
“Onward, Don Quixote.”

  1. Connie said on May 12th, 2009 at 9:44 am

    Har­lan Elli­son is def­i­nitely NOT a man worth admir­ing. At a major sf awards ban­quet last year, (Neb­ula or Hugo) he groped Con­nie Willis’s breasts. At the podium. My impres­sion is that the sf writ­ing com­mu­nity con­sid­ers him an a**hole.

    Then again his “Dan­ger­ous Visions” and “Again Dan­ger­ous Visions” com­pletely blew me away. Back in the day.

  2. nancy said on May 12th, 2009 at 9:56 am

    Yet another rea­son my read­ers are the great­est in the world. Noted. Opin­ion amended. (Too bad Con­nie Willis didn’t make him pull back six inches of bloody stump.)

  3. Randy said on May 12th, 2009 at 10:00 am

    With a spouse who makes part of her liv­ing in the pub­lish­ing world, I have learned to be totally on board with pro­tect­ing pub­lished work. I hear a lot of peo­ple com­pare it to the music indus­try, and they say if we are swap­ping songs for free, then why not books? I think the com­par­i­son fails because musi­cians can per­form, and use their record­ings to pro­mote their con­certs (still not fair, but it seems to be the way things are). Authors do read­ings, but those are for sell­ing the book, not to get paid for read­ing. And they can’t even sell t-shirts. Though I might wear an Elmore Leonard shirt, if one were available.

  4. Heather said on May 12th, 2009 at 10:28 am

    The arti­cle about Eliz­a­beth Edwards was spot-on, but the mis­spelling of “hero­ine” as “heroin” – twice – was really annoying.

  5. Connie said on May 12th, 2009 at 10:34 am

    OK, not last year, but 2006. If you search their names together you can find plenty of reports of the event.

  6. moe99 said on May 12th, 2009 at 11:03 am

    Given my per­sonal sit­u­a­tion, I feel rather sorry for Eliz­a­beth Edwards. She doesn’t talk about it, she gets pasted. She talks about it, she gets pasted. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

  7. Hank Stuever said on May 12th, 2009 at 11:11 am

    So who can’t spell “Fun­yuns” the right way — Stephen King, “in an e-mail mes­sage,” or The New York Times copydesk?

  8. jeff borden said on May 12th, 2009 at 11:14 am

    Did any­one here see that the Philadel­phia Inquirer has hired John Yoo to be a legal colum­nist? That’s right, kids, the man who wrote the memos allow­ing the last admin­is­tra­tion to tor­ture at will, the man who ought to be fac­ing dis­bar­ment if not crim­i­nal pros­e­cu­tion is going to be paid $1,750 per col­umn for his work. This fol­lows the Inqy pay­ing wingnut ex-Senator Rick San­to­rum the same hand­some fee for his wit­less commentaries.

    This is the kind of big city daily news­pa­per think­ing that sim­ply puz­zles me. At a time when bud­gets are being slashed, jour­nal­ists are being fur­loughed, pages are being cut…the Inquirer believes it’s a good busi­ness deci­sion to hand­somely pay a a creep like Yoo for his legal insights.

  9. nancy said on May 12th, 2009 at 11:17 am

    Hank, I KNEW there was some­thing wrong with that, but couldn’t put my fin­ger on it.

    Know­ing news­pa­per copy desks, there was prob­a­bly a 90-minute con­fab over how to han­dle that — add a (sic)? cor­rect it but put it in parens to indi­cate it wasn’t the writer’s orig­i­nal choice? — during which, 1,000 more sub­scribers died.

    Good luck with your book. Hope no one pirates it.

  10. LA Mary said on May 12th, 2009 at 11:17 am

    My ex had/has a pret­ti­ness not unlike John Edwards. I met him in col­lege, and once he came to pick my up at my job at the NYT Rocky Moun­tain Bureau. A very wise woman there told me to watch out for men pret­tier than myself and I should have lis­tened to her.

  11. coozledad said on May 12th, 2009 at 11:18 am

    I won­der if this was part of the inspi­ra­tion for “Up”:
    http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​T​h​e​_​W​h​i​t​e​_​D​iamond
    I had a pleas­ant email exchange with Mr. Dor­ring­ton a cou­ple of years ago. His father (now deceased) was an avid col­lec­tor of antique agri­cul­tural imple­ments, and Gra­ham con­structed a website/museum ded­i­cated to his mem­ory. He was very help­ful and quite will­ing to over­look my ignorance.

  12. alex said on May 12th, 2009 at 11:45 am

    This is the kind of big city daily news­pa­per think­ing that sim­ply puz­zles me.

    The Sun-Times fill­ing its op-ed pages with the deranged turd smear­ings of Thomas Sowles, Betsy Hart, etc. always puz­zled me too.

  13. paddyo' said on May 12th, 2009 at 12:08 pm

    I won­der how much of that “big-city-daily think­ing” at the Inky is the result of the change in own­er­ship (with an owner who is remu­ner­ated very nicely for … for … well, what IS it exactly that Brian Tier­ney is doing for the Inky?)
    But I digress …

    I guess I’m just plain aston­ished that in every story I’ve read (and that you have cited, Nancy) in recent weeks about thiev­ing aggre­ga­tors and pla­gia­rists and book bur­glars on the ‘Net, the stock lame answer when they are called on it is that they don’t, um, really KNOW how much of that crap is going on at their sites, but gee, it really just couldn’t pos­si­bly be THAT much and besides, dude, all infor­ma­tion “wants” to be free (“my gut tells me” BS, ad nauseam).

    Time for the briefest of ink-stained wretch rants:
    Maybe this is a “well-duhhh” obser­va­tion, but the mount­ing evi­dence sug­gests that ethics and respon­si­bil­ity do not travel so well from the printed-paper page to the digital-pixelated world. These Bozos need a Napster-style 2-by-4 upside the head. But who in the world will deliver the blow?

  14. moe99 said on May 12th, 2009 at 12:10 pm

    This month’s Esquire has a sneak-peak review of “The Road Is the Most Impor­tant Movie of the Year”:
    http://​www​.esquire​.com/​f​e​a​t​u​r​e​s​/​m​o​v​i​e​s​/​t​h​e​-​r​o​a​d​-​m​o​v​i​e​-​r​e​v​i​e​w​-​0​6​0​9​?​c​l​ick=pp


    .… The Road is no tease. It is a bril­liantly directed adap­ta­tion of a beloved novel, a del­i­cate and anachro­nis­ti­cally lov­ing look at the immod­est and brutish end of us all. You want them to get there, you want them to get there, you want them to get there — and yet you do not want it, any of it, to end.

    You should see it for the sim­plest of rea­sons: Because it is a good story. Not because it may be impor­tant. Not because it is unfor­get­table, unyield­ing. Not because it hor­ri­fies. Not because the score is creep­ily spir­i­tual. Not because it is lit­tered with small lines of dia­logue you will remem­ber later. Not because it con­tains warn­ings against our own demise. All of that is so. Don’t see it just because you loved the book. The movie stands alone. Go see it because it’s two small peo­ple set against the ugly back­drop of the world undone. A story with­out guar­an­tees. In every moment — even the last one — you’ll want to know what hap­pens next, even if you can hardly stand to look. Because The Road is a story about the per­sis­tence of love between a father and a son, and in that way it’s more like a remake of The God­fa­ther than some echo of I Am Legend.

    Only this one is dif­fer­ent: You won’t want to see this one twice.…

  15. jeff borden said on May 12th, 2009 at 12:11 pm

    Alex,

    Yeah, I know, I read the S-T every day and wince over the hacks on the op-ed pages. Still, what­ever else they may embody, Betsy Hart and Thomas Sow­ell lack Mr. Yoo’s ties to uncon­sti­tu­tional behav­ior. If I were a bet­ting man, I’d wager this is move is designed to assure rightwingers that the Inqy is open to opin­ions from all spec­trums includ­ing the law­less neo­con fringe. Maybe Yoo will turn out to be a bet­ter writer than lawyer, but I doubt it.

  16. Mary T said on May 12th, 2009 at 12:18 pm

    You know, I’m not for steal­ing con­tent, but I do get tired of the “300-pound guy in the base­ment” com­ments. First, it’s insult­ing to 300-pound guys. Sec­ond, it’s insult­ing to basements.

    Seri­ously, I am online most of my day and I’m a pro­fes­sional, I’m middle-aged, make a good income, blah blah blah. I sus­pect there are rel­a­tively few base­ment dwellers in the great scheme of things.

  17. Rana said on May 12th, 2009 at 12:50 pm

    Mary T — I agree. It’s lazy, offen­sive, and it mud­dies our per­cep­tion of what is actu­ally going on. It’s always con­ve­nient to ren­der “wrong-doers” as some sort of social mis­fits, because then the activ­ity is some­thing that “nor­mal” peo­ple would never do. This both is insult­ing to peo­ple who don’t hap­pen to fit the pop­u­lar ver­sion of accept­abil­ity but who are still good, kind, decent peo­ple — and it hides from view the peo­ple whose out­ward respectabil­ity obscures a myr­iad of nasty behaviors.

    John Yoo is a good exam­ple of this — neat, well-spoken, edu­cated, liked by peo­ple in power — and an amoral bas­tard who thinks tor­ture is per­fectly fine.

  18. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on May 12th, 2009 at 1:12 pm

    In junior high and high school i read “Alas, Baby­lon,” “On the Beach,” “Malevil,” and of course “A Can­ti­cle for Leibowitz.”

    With “The Road,” and “The World With­out Us,” and “Life After Peo­ple,” we seem to be turn­ing the page to an even darker cor­ner of the col­lec­tive uncon­scious. The dystopias of “Brave New World” and “1984” gave way to the post-apocalyptics of the 60s and 70s (the four books i men­tion above, cul­mi­nat­ing in “Mad Max” and his sequels), which is now delv­ing into oblit­er­a­tion, and try­ing to imag­ine what that looks like.

    Tree, for­est, no one, sound?

    Any­how, there’s an odd cur­rent of Wag­ner­ian liebestod afoot that i’m not quite fol­low­ing. An exis­ten­tial zest at think­ing of, hop­ing for, mar­i­nat­ing in our human con­tin­gency turn­ing into obliv­ion. As the philoso­pher said, “Whas­sup with that?”

  19. Bob said on May 12th, 2009 at 1:23 pm

    Con­nie,
    Excel­lent jux­ta­pos­ing of Har­lan Elli­son, a writer whose work I liked when I was a kid, with Con­nie Willis, whose books I’d like my kids to read. I reread one of Ellison’s famous sto­ries, “I Have No Mouth, And I Must Scream” a few years ago, and it struck me as a guy try­ing to build exis­ten­tial fic­tion on a foun­da­tion of sex­ual and scat­o­log­i­cal gross-outs.

  20. moe99 said on May 12th, 2009 at 1:28 pm

    Jeff tmmo: My col­lege advi­sor rec­om­mended A Can­ti­cle for Lei­bowitz as pro­vid­ing per­haps the best con­tem­po­rary under­stand­ing of how the medieval mind worked.

    I returned the favor years later, when I rec­om­mended The Domes­day Book by Willis to him. And yes, early ver­sions of that book were titled “Domes­day” which is the true spelling of the first cen­sus book of Eng­land. But of course the read­ing pub­lic couldn’t fig­ure it out, so they changed it.

  21. Connie said on May 12th, 2009 at 1:46 pm

    I would rec­om­mend Willis’ The Dooms­day Book to any­one. Long before I would rec­om­mend any­thing by Ellison.

    I have a secret love for post apoc­a­lyp­tic nov­els, includ­ing Alas Baby­lon, etc. I hated “The Road.”

  22. brian stouder said on May 12th, 2009 at 1:50 pm

    You know, I’m not for steal­ing con­tent, but I do get tired of the “300-pound guy in the base­ment” com­ments. First, it’s insult­ing to 300-pound guys. Sec­ond, it’s insult­ing to basements.

    Mary T (and Rana) make a gen­uinely excel­lent, enlight­en­ing, (thread-winning!) point. The thought­less thiev­ing 300# guy in the base­ment — which I would have given Chee­tos and orange fin­ger tips — as all-purpose general-utility whip­ping boy springs from pre­cisely the same thought­less place that makes that Amer­i­can Idol woman’s singing abil­ity “surprising”

  23. velvet goldmine said on May 12th, 2009 at 1:52 pm

    Regard­ing Eliz­a­beth Edwards: There is a period of time after an affair in which the cheatin’ spouse is sup­posed to take any amount of crit­i­cism and even pub­lic humil­i­a­tion. I won­der if this is what Jonathan Edwards is doing — actual atone­ment because he wants to stay in his mar­riage and because he regrets his actions? Or is he just putting up with it because his only chance of PUBLIC redemp­tion is to avoid leav­ing his cancer-ridden wife? Either way, it’s incred­i­bly uncom­fort­able to watch.

    My money is on the pre­dictable sce­nario: After a suit­able inter­val fol­low­ing Elizabeth’s death, he and the mis­tress will “find each other again,” and get mar­ried. Then he will make pained-face inter­views about all he has learned from the expe­ri­ence, and how he wants to just keep serv­ing the pub­lic, if only they’ll have him, etc etc.

  24. adrianne said on May 12th, 2009 at 2:23 pm

    I like Han­nah Rosin’s take on Eliz­a­beth Edwards — cer­tainly the most under­stand­ing and nuanced of the com­men­tary I’ve seen. I also loved Rosin’s recent story in the Atlantic about how breast-feeding is not all it’s cracked up to be (the research is very sus­pect), but there’s a huge cam­paign to get all mid­dle– to upper-class women to buy into it anyway.

  25. Scout said on May 12th, 2009 at 2:24 pm

    I find Fried­man insuf­fer­able. An opin­ion shared by Matt Taibbi, who never misses an oppor­tu­nity to fisk his work. Mer­ci­less, but funny as hell.

  26. coozledad said on May 12th, 2009 at 2:38 pm

    I’m sit­ting here eat­ing a bag of Tings while I hit the refresh but­ton, but I’m not mas­tur­bat­ing, and I don’t weigh 300lbs. Yet.
    Speak­ing of mas­tur­ba­tion, I read some­where recently there’s new research show­ing a dimin­ished risk of prostate can­cer for men who
    A) Did not mas­tur­bate fre­quently when they were young, and
    B) Began to do so ener­get­i­cally when they hit age 40, which is
    C)Just another instance of med­ical sci­ence telling me I’m fuck­ing doomed.

  27. nancy said on May 12th, 2009 at 2:59 pm

    OK, I apol­o­gize for the 300-pound guy. It was more a reflec­tion of my prej­u­dice about peo­ple who write “ur” instead of “you’re.”

  28. Bill said on May 12th, 2009 at 3:05 pm

    Guan­tanamo, tor­ture, and goven­men­tal deceit are fea­tured in this

    <a href=“http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/magazine/“this arti­cle in Sunday’s Trib mag­a­zine about aChicago lawyer’s fight for two prisoners.

  29. jeff borden said on May 12th, 2009 at 3:06 pm

    Well, the really impor­tant thing that has hap­pened today is that Don­ald Trump, as owner of the Miss USA pageant, has decreed that Car­rie Pre­jean and her aug­mented bosoms will be allowed to remain Miss California.

    I know I’ll sleep bet­ter tonight.

  30. Joe Kobiela said on May 12th, 2009 at 3:29 pm

    Can some one tell me what hav­ing fake boobs has to do with get­ting ripped by the media for using her right to free speech to hon­estly answer a ques­tion?
    I mean come on, she just stated what she believed. What dif­fer­ence does it make if she had some work done. It’s the same tired old lib­eral rant, if you don’t like the mes­sage, destroy the mes­sen­ger. While I’m on a rant,it seems most on this friendly lit­tle slice of cyber­space think the Bush admin­is­tra­tion is to blame for the econ­omy, ok, they over­spent, no doubt there, but can ANYONE explain how in the heck spend­ing even MORE money than the last admin­is­tra­tion with out cut­ting spend­ing is going to help!!! You can go ahead and hate Busch, Chaney and Lim­baugh all you want, but you should put that hatred on the back burner for a while and take a good look at what these peo­ple in Wash­ing­ton are doing.
    Pilot Joe

  31. Sue said on May 12th, 2009 at 3:47 pm

    Who needs Don­ald Trump? Miss Cal­i­for­nia can redeem her­self if she appears in the next Weezer video, a la Miss Teen South Car­olina:
    http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​W​a​n​L​L​nVixC4

  32. mark said on May 12th, 2009 at 3:50 pm

    Wow, what a buffet.

    Yes, all the “good” news­pa­pers should get rid of any last rem­nant of con­ser­v­a­tive thought. At least they can die with their prin­ci­ples intact. Maybe, while there are a few sub­scribers left, they can have Bill Ayres do a guest piece on the out­rage of let­ting a scoundrel like John Yoo appear in print.

    The review of “the Road” that some­one excerpted reads like the racy parts of a Har­le­quin romance.

    So on the board where a com­ment on Limbaugh’s obe­sity is de riguer for refut­ing any­thing con­ser­v­a­tive, it’s inap­pro­pri­ate to rant about a hypo­thet­i­cal copy­right thief with a ref­er­ence to weight?

    Eliz­a­beth “two worlds” Edwards doesn’t care about John’s baby? The blood sib­ling of her chil­dren. How can that be? Never trust any­one that claims they ought to lead because they “care more.”

    Miss California’s mis­take was in not pref­ac­ing her answer with “On this issue, I agree with our new president.”

  33. jeff borden said on May 12th, 2009 at 3:50 pm

    Joe,

    Set­tle down. I couldn’t care less what a beauty pageant con­tes­tant thinks about the price of tea in China, much less gay mar­riage. Noth­ing Car­rie Pre­jean says or does is going to stop or even slow the inex­orable march of gay rights.

    What’s amus­ing to me is the kabuki the­ater this rep­re­sents. Dr. James Dob­son, the nation’s res­i­dent moral scold, embraces a young woman who has posed semi-nude before her 18th birth­day and who accepted the gift of store bought hoot­ers sim­ply because she came out against “teh gay.” And Ms. Pre­jean, who we assume is intel­li­gent enough to under­stand what those come hither semi-nude shots do to the aver­age guy, now says that even as she stood on the cat­walk pon­der­ing the ques­tion posed by Perez Hilton, she felt Satan urg­ing her to say some­thing polit­i­cally correct.

    Sorry, Joe, but this is com­edy gold.

  34. Dexter said on May 12th, 2009 at 3:51 pm

    ““You can go ahead and hate Busch, Chaney and Lim­baugh all you want, but you should put that hatred on the back burner for a while and take a good look at what these peo­ple in Wash­ing­ton are doing.
    Pilot Joe””

    Who hates Chaney? Great actor…wow, that Wolfman…scar-eee.
    Who hates Busch? I used to love it, but about 1976 they changed the recipe, and instead of a great Bavar­ian brew, it then tasted like weak tea and cheap lager all mixed together.
    Who hates Lim­baugh? Me.

  35. Joe Kobiela said on May 12th, 2009 at 4:00 pm

    Dex­ter, Par­don me for the spelling.
    I am just a poor freighter pilot.
    You help me prove my point though.
    Ignore the mes­sage.
    Kill the mes­sen­ger.
    Pilot Joe

  36. jeff borden said on May 12th, 2009 at 4:13 pm

    Joe,

    Some­times the mes­sen­ger is the mes­sage and vice-versa.

    If a prin­ci­pled con­ser­v­a­tive such as, say, Richard Lugar offers up an idea counter to my think­ing, I’ll accept it as a good faith effort by a decent man. I’ll fight against it, but with­out ani­mus. Lugar is a truly decent man who was con­ser­v­a­tive long before some of these Johnny-come-lately punks changed the def­i­n­i­tion of the word.

    Dick Cheney, on the other hand, is sim­ply a very, very, very bad man whose ideas are absolutely unAmer­i­can, a ser­ial draft dodger will­ing to put our own troops at risk by embrac­ing tor­ture in a pathetic effort to link Sad­dam Hus­sein to al Queda oper­a­tives. He doesn’t oper­ate in good faith. He doesn’t deserve scorn. He deserves crim­i­nal charges and a lengthy prison sen­tence for his crimes.

    Lim­baugh is a clown, an enter­tainer, a baggy pants comic. If con­ser­v­a­tives want him to be their pub­lic face, have at it. But you bet your ass I unapolo­get­i­cally hate Dick Cheney. He shit on my coun­try and its ideals. Hate is an emo­tion that should be doled out spar­ingly, but there are few peo­ple in Amer­i­can pub­lic life so wor­thy of it as Cheney.

  37. brian stouder said on May 12th, 2009 at 4:26 pm

    Leav­ing Lim­baugh (et al) aside — here’s the arti­cle of the day, about two women who were switched at birth 56 years ago, and only just now have learned the truth.

    It imme­di­ately made me think of some of the themes Laura Lipp­man explores in her book Life Sentences -

    http://​www​.msnbc​.msn​.com/​i​d​/​3​0​7​04907/

    “Do you remem­ber those rumors of being switched at birth?” she asked, and went on to pro­vide the update.
    “Does this mean I’m not invited to the fam­ily reunion?” Shafer joked. Qualls, Bobby Reed and one of their sis­ters met Shafer at a Ken­newick, Wash., clinic last month for DNA test­ing. A week later, Qualls got the results, learn­ing her likely prob­a­bil­ity of being related to her brother and sis­ter was zero.

    “I cried,” she said. “I wanted to be a Reed — my life wasn’t my life.”

    To me, the most arrest­ing line in the arti­cle is this:

    Qualls’ brother, Bobby Reed, said the 86-year-old woman knew his mother and had also lived next door to the Angell fam­ily. “She said she had some­thing she had to get off her chest,” he told the East Ore­gon­ian news­pa­per in a story pub­lished Monday.

    The neigh­bors ALWAYS know more than we do, about ourselves!

  38. jcburns said on May 12th, 2009 at 4:29 pm

    Hey Pilot Joe:
    The Bush admin­is­tra­tion messed things up by sac­ri­fic­ing their (and our) prin­ci­ples, keep­ing secrets from the Amer­i­can pub­lic The “spend­ing a lot” part was just hypocrisy on their part, after all their cat­er­waul­ing about how bad it was. That was their basic theme: bad if you do it, OK if we do it. Sort of the same as Miss Cal­i­for­nia. Gay lifestyle bad. My lifestyle OK…no mat­ter how sala­cious and cor­rupt­ing it may be. Why? Because the Bible tells me so.
    And by the way, Satan called and com­manded you to agree with me.

  39. Dexter said on May 12th, 2009 at 4:37 pm

    br.s. : I saw that story early this morn­ing and sent it to all my friends, some­thing I rarely do any more , as peo­ple just don’t want to be both­ered by news items it seems, sent in emails, any­way, but damn…this one really grabbed me. I am a Twain-nut and I usu­ally am read­ing a few pages of some­thing by Clemens every day…back to basics month, I just fini’d Tom Sawyer and started on Huck­le­berry Finn. And, next on my list is “The Prince and the Pau­per”.
    http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​T​h​e​_​P​r​i​n​c​e​_​a​n​d​_​t​h​e​_​Pauper

    This kind of thing fas­ci­nates and ter­ri­fies me at the same time. It is so wrong!

  40. Sue said on May 12th, 2009 at 4:49 pm

    Dex­ter, just curi­ous, do you read Twain because you read the books as a kid, or is this a later appre­ci­a­tion? I revisit L.M. Mont­gomery about once a year and still find things to appre­ci­ate, but for some rea­son Laura Ingalls Wilder and Louisa May Alcott don’t do any­thing for me anymore.

  41. Dexter said on May 12th, 2009 at 4:51 pm

    Every time I hear about waste­ful spend­ing I think about the giant cargo air­plane that was filled to capac­ity with pal­lets of com­pressed United States paper cur­rency that was sent to Iraq, unloaded , and then when Tenet was asked where it went to, he did his Ralph Kram­den “habba habba habba habba” bit. Hun­dreds of mil­lions of dol­lars and nobody knew what hap­pened to it.
    Any guesses?
    Wol­fowitz promised “the oil will pay for this war and the nation-building…“
    Yeah?
    Bush43 emp­tied the trea­sury into a giant rathole and told us this was nec­es­sary to make us safe.
    Cheney and Rummy orches­trated a tor­ture pol­icy and a mil­i­tary plan that was ridiculed by the gen­er­als like Shin­seki.
    This war was all about enrich­ing pri­vately owned US cor­po­ra­tions who built the war machine, fed the troops, and sucked the US money-teat dry pro­vid­ing secu­rity in all man­ners pos­si­ble.
    Yes, George Bush43 bank­rupted the trea­sury, and Con­gress just went along, even mem­bers who knew it was wrong to per­pet­u­ate a long war did so “in sup­port of the troops”, a hol­low log to stand on, as thou­sands were being killed and injured in the name of “it’s our pro­fes­sion, it’s what we do” — regardless of WHAT KIND or type of fiasco a sorry Pres­i­dent like bush could think up. Hey , Grenada was fool­ish, but it was short-lived, and did not really define Rea­gan, but Iraq and Bush43 will make all the his­tory books, I would guess.

  42. Dexter said on May 12th, 2009 at 5:01 pm

    Sue: The Tom Sawyer vol­ume I just read was given to me by Mom in 1956. I read it then, but I was seven years old, and I prob­a­bly only read a few pages and put it away. Then I read it when I was nine, again when I was 12, and through the years maybe three more times. The only other book I read many times over many years was Heller’s “Catch 22″. After I retired in 2002, I found a store that sold many paper­backs, and as I was brows­ing, there were all these great books I had read in high school but not since, and I bought them all again, and I grab one every now and then for a browse or com­plete read­ing.
    With­out say­ing, books have dif­fer­ent mean­ings as we age. With the wis­dom of our years, we know what the authors were try­ing to tell us, and can appre­ci­ate it.
    Read­ing yields much more sat­is­fac­tion now than it ever did when I was a kid.

  43. Sue said on May 12th, 2009 at 5:22 pm

    I have my copy, my mother’s copy and my grandmother’s copy of Anne of Green Gables, in var­i­ous stages of dis­in­te­gra­tion. I have two “nice” sets of the entire series. Twenty years ago it felt like I was the only per­son out­side of Canada who had ever heard of the books, and then that won­der­ful minis­eries came out and it exploded. My daugh­ter never warmed to the books, so the chain is broken.

  44. Catherine said on May 12th, 2009 at 5:38 pm

    The piece about Eliz­a­beth Edwards was nuanced and sad. Obvi­ously she is a com­pli­cated, smart, insight­ful per­son. Some­one (the writer) who has never lost a child should shut up about how she keeps com­ing back to that tragedy, though.

    The Edward­ses are the LAST time I fall in love with a politi­cian because I think the spouse is great (I’m talk­ing about you, Bill Clin­ton). Eliz­a­beth should have run her­self, like Hillary. No more two for the price of one. And by the same token, I’m not pay­ing any more atten­tion to Cindy McCain or Todd Palin. It’s got to be about the can­di­date. The rest of y’all prob­a­bly fig­ured this out a long time ago…

  45. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on May 12th, 2009 at 6:01 pm

    Yes, Todd Palin should run in his own right.

  46. Scout said on May 12th, 2009 at 6:12 pm

    Joe, for me (and I only speak for myself) the spend­ing issue comes down to this: Bush threw our money into the suck­ing vor­tex that is Iraq. And then kept those num­bers sep­a­rate from the over­all bud­get in a sleight of hand. Obama’s bud­get spends money here, on our soil, to for­tify infra­struc­ture, edu­ca­tion and health care. Plus there is a more hon­est account­ing with the mil­i­tary bud­get included in the overall.

  47. jeff borden said on May 12th, 2009 at 6:44 pm

    Scout,

    Aside from the wasted money issue…

    Won­der where we might be right now vis-a-vis Afghanistan and Pak­istan if the geniuses in the last admin­is­tra­tion hadn’t lied us into war with Iraq? Maybe Osama bin Laden would be rot­ting in a prison, or bet­ter yet, molder­ing in a grave. Per­haps the Tal­iban wouldn’t be reclaim­ing huge swaths of Afghanistan and be within 60 miles of Islam­abad. Maybe we wouldn’t be wor­ry­ing about whether Pak­istan –with its 60-plus nuclear weapons– will even­tu­ally be ruled by the Tal­iban or its allies. We damn sure wouldn’t be as wor­ried about Iran.

    Yes, that nice Mr. Cheney and his mar­i­onette cer­tainly did a fine, fine job for us.

  48. MichaelG said on May 12th, 2009 at 7:40 pm

    I don’t really give a rat’s ass about Miss CA. She’s within her rights to say what she said and I’m within mine to think she’s a jerk for hav­ing said it. And yes, she cer­tainly seems to have become a dupe of the pro­fes­sional big­ots. I’m no big fan of breast enhance­ment but many peo­ple are. That’s fine. I do, how­ever, reserve the right to be amused by the fact that the Miss What­ever peo­ple paid for Miss CA’s pec­toral enlarge­ments just a short time before the con­test. I won­der what other con­tes­tants think about that.

    On the other hand, I’m very happy to see Rox­ana Saberi, the for­mer Miss N. Dak. released from an Iran­ian prison. She seems to me like a very nice kid who was try­ing to pur­sue a dream and to do a good job as a for­eign cor­re­spon­dant. She’s very lucky to have a father with the brains, the money and the P.R. savvy to get her case on the front page and the love and per­sis­tence to keep it there.

  49. caliban said on May 12th, 2009 at 7:43 pm

    Hrlan Elli­son’ a smar­tass, and he’s really the sci­ence fic­tion equiv­a­lent (or dop­pel­ganger or evil twin, cue theramin) of my old Bloom­field Surf Club neme­sis Elmore Leonard. Mr. Leonard would sit in a deck chair weit­ing on legal pads while the pool was closed for swim­ming prac­tice, and then demand we all leave the pool when the life­guards called the first adult swim, even though he was the only adult around.

    Any­way, I’d say both are mas­ters of inte­rior mono­logue and out­wardly aggres­sive dia­logue that embraced Ray­mond Chan­dler and not that abu­sive drunk Dashiell Ham­mett. And how any­body could abuse an exam­plar of truth jus­tice, the Amer­i­can Way, and a role model for boys and girls alike that aspired to lit­er­ary excel­lence Lil­lian Hell­mann is beyond me, unless it was just the booze roar­ing and bab­bling and being con­sid­er­ably big­ger and envious.

    To be fair, I’m biased in favor of Ray­mond Chan­dler and Nathaniel West instead of, say Hem­ingn­way and Ham­mett, who, I think, man­aged to latch onto nat­u­ral­ism at the expense of turn­ing the quo­tid­ian, which is mag­i­cal, into the mun­dane. Sim­plis­ti­cally, in one case, bourbon-soaked impen­e­tra­bil­ity in the second.

    Dash, if I may call him that, was tuber­cu­lar from his expe­ri­ence in WWI, and undou­betdly alco­holic from same. His girlfriend’s hero­ism must have both­ered him, because he saw him­self as the hero res­cu­ing the cursed Dain girls etc.

    Which brings me to Cheney, who indicts him­self with every arro­gant utter­ance. Cheney brought John Kerry to Nixon’s atten­tion, and recruited John O’Neill to attack Kerry. Nixon pur­sued a Viet­nam pol­icy that lacked the slight­est sem­blance of ratio­nal­ity. I mean, if try­ing to blow up the north­ern por­tion of Viet­nam didn’t work, invad­ing Laos prob­a­bly wasn’t going to either. Budt they sent the River­ine boats there any­way, Kerry fol­lowed orders, and he saved crew­mates from dying and per­formed missions.

    When Kerry grew up and became a man of con­science, and fig­ured out this was a boon­dog­gle. Cheney con­vinced Nixon Kerry was some­how untrue to his coun­try. Years later, in ser­vice to the lit­tle ven­tril­o­quist shrub he was bank­ing his finan­cial future on through PNAC and eter­nal Hal­libur­ton con­tracts to fry sol­diers in their show­ers, Cheney was still pissed off.

    It’s fas­ci­nat­ing that in the old White​house​.org, Cheney dis­cusses his vagrant aca­d­e­mic odd­yssey by not­ing that Yale didn’t suit him because it was “cliquish and elit­ist”. Them cheer­lead­ers were shut­ting you out? Mean­while, he went to a bunch of schools and got a bunch of defer­ments because he had “other priorities”.

    So it’s 2004, and Cheney remem­bers John O’Neill and they get together with Rove. Rove and Cheney were draft dodgers extra­or­di­naire. W never did any­thing but fly cover for the OClub. And they launch Swift Boat, and beyond all hope and com­pre­hen­sion, Amer­i­cans are such ninny’s, Repub­li­cans weren’t draft dodgers, they were pro­tect­ing against such dan­ger­ous Com­monists like Kerry they would serve hon­or­ably and save Amer­i­cans from immi­nent death.

    This is sort of strange, when you look at it. Can Amer­i­cans be so bone stu­pid they don’t see what these folks did in the first place, but see through the incred­i­bly unseemly and men­da­cious smear. Holy shit. If Amer­i­cans are that dumb, they might think 2000 was on the fair and square.

    Now we have Cheney as blun­der­buss. He’s such a fuck­ing idiot he’s admit­ted to approv­ing tor­ture. He claims he’s exon­er­ated by plots foiled. Yup. That Cleve­land truck­driver that was going to cut down the Brook­lyn Bridge with an acety­lene torch. The schiz­o­phrenic whack that told them about the Library!Liberty!Library tower. Cheney claims that he’s proven right by the lack of attacks, but every “attack” he claims was stymied is, well, hilarious.

    So here’s what I say. Cheney is spout­ing sedi­tion. And now he’s attack­ing Colin Pow­ell ad hominem. It’s not unrea­son­able to see Cheney’s crap as strik­ing out at peo­ple that walked his talk back in the day when he was chick­en­shit to walk it him­self. And he hates them for it.

    Does Cheney belive in the Impe­r­ial Pres­i­dency, or does he believe in a lit­tle nitwit that Bar­ney pissed on to carry his Strangelove agenda? I think it’s clear that what he despises about Kerry is Kerry’s hero­ism when he wasn’t capa­ble of it.

    Cou­ple of other things to think about regard­ing the ass­hole that appointed him­self vice for the moron Pres. Rummy and Cheney nego­ti­ated the deal with the Aya­tol­lahs to hold the hostages until after Amer­i­can elec­tions in 1980. This is a fact, jack. When the Bush admin­is­tra­tion sent an envoy to Sad­dam to dis­cuss the slant drilling theft by the Kuwaitis of Iraqi oil, they told him they couldn’t care less if he invaded Kuwait. TDhey wanted to try Shock and Awe. If you con­sider cur­rent num­bers about Iraqi inno­cents? That first attack-add 50,000.

    Isn’t Shock and Awe just a ready admis­sion of hav­ing com­mit­ted war crimes? In the long run, Obama will smooth things out. In the short run, human life is sacred, and when Kerry pulled a crew­mate out of the MeKong, wasn’t that an act of heroism?

    It’s hard for me to imag­ine any­body ques­tion­ing the ser­vice of John Kerry. Espe­cially, any­boody that”s daddy bought them a place in the guard and carte blanche to just bail out of the com­mitt­ment. Or some­body that got all those defer­rments because of bet­ter things to do.

    Accord­ing to Repub­li­cans, it’s the Dems that chicken out. In real life, it’s clearly the For­tu­nate Sons. So Cheney decides Colin Pow­ell ought to hang up his Repub­li­can cre­den­tials. Well, he should. These cow­ards dis­honor him. He served, they didn’t. Kerry pointed out that ter­ror­ists are crim­i­nals, and trat­ing them that way is the best way to catch them. Undoubt­edly, that’s true.

    Cheney thinks Rush is a bet­ter spokesman for Repub­li­cans? He’s right. Brain dead whale blub­ber washed up on the beach of intel­li­gent government.

    I don’t know what y’all think, but Cheney is like Nixon reju­ve­nated. And we don’t want it. Nixon was a trai­tor. Dheney is a trai­tor. Nei­ther of these ass­holes bbe­lieve in the Constitution.

    Rush believes in Jabba. He’s a dis­gust­ing drug-addled pig that doesn’t give a shit about the Amer­i­can Con­sti­tu­tion. Back in the day when the Con­sti­tu­tion was being writ­ten, there weren’t abject trai­tors like Cheney. But holy shit. It would do my heart good. If peo­ple would admit Kerry won if that infer­nal ass­hole Ken Black­well didn’t cheat his ass off and steal Cuya­hoga County.

    These ass­holes robbed two pres­i­den­tial elec­tions. For a draft dodger, by a draft dodger. These bas­tards never gave a crap about any­thingthey claimed to care about. They wanted to make cash. Isn’t that hilarious?

  50. JPK said on May 12th, 2009 at 7:57 pm

    It’s the same tired old lib­eral rant, if you don’t like the mes­sage, destroy the messenger.

    I have to admit I’m often brought up short by state­ments like this that open a win­dow for me on the con­ser­v­a­tive view, which par­al­lels in reverse my own prej­u­dices. To me, it’s the con­ser­v­a­tives who have the same old tired rants — hyp­o­crit­i­cally dic­tat­ing moral­ity, wreck­ing the planet for cheap gain, blah blah, every­one knows this drill. I often jus­tify my occa­sional fits of intem­per­ate­ness (or moments of daz­zling bril­liance, depend­ing) with some­thing along the lines of, “well you started it”; whether that refers to Iraq II/torture, Florida 2000, the impeach­ment of Bill Clin­ton, Viet­nam, the Great Depres­sion, slav­ery, or what­ever, depends entirely on the cir­cum­stances of the moment. But I can see that con­ser­v­a­tives have their own list: the highly suc­cess­ful “Bush lied” cam­paign, Carter’s eco­nom­ics and/or for­eign pol­icy, the vin­dic­tive “gotcha” of Water­gate, the ques­tion­able elec­tion of JFK, the New Deal (a/k/a waste­ful enti­tle­ments), maybe fed­er­al­ism, yadda yadda, on and on. My ques­tion for Pilot Joe, mark, Jeff tmmo, and other con­ser­v­a­tives check­ing in here, one that arises out of real curios­ity and a sin­cere desire to under­stand, is: where do you place the lib­eral “orig­i­nal sin”? The New Deal maybe? I will say that my own ire with con­ser­v­a­tives often traces back loosely to many things South­ern, start­ing with slav­ery, and fol­low­ing along fairly faith­fully, even as the rep­re­sent­ing party shifted from Democ­rats to Repub­li­cans, through what seems to me a lot of non­sense about reli­gious sanc­tity and Chris­t­ian excep­tion­al­ism. Also, I don’t have much use for rob­ber barons and what seems to me a mind­less and highly con­di­tional wor­ship of the “free mar­ket,” which too often (again, purely from my own view) amounts to a game rigged in favor of the wealthy. So help me here, please. Where did “we” all start to go wrong as liberals?

  51. Jean S said on May 12th, 2009 at 8:01 pm

    Cdad, I lost you after quo­tid­ian. Felt like I was read­ing the NYTimes. (Any­one else notice how fond they are of the word?)

    About Eliz­a­beth Edwards, if you can stand one more com­ment: she’s dying and she wants to make sure her kids know HER ver­sion of the story before (and dur­ing and after) Daddy does what­ever he’s going to do.

  52. caliban said on May 12th, 2009 at 8:20 pm

    if you bought that Swift­boat shit, wake up, you are an idiot. Cheney baileed. W bailed. Kerry saved his ship­mates. That lit­tle Nixon piece of shit in his suit. He’s the biggest liar in the his­tory of Amer­i­can pol­i­tics. He’a Catspaw for Nixon. Hwll with the constitution.These ass­holes believe you have no rights. They beliebe Cheney should be able to tell the suprme court you’re a bunch of ass­holes, and some wack job that can just shoot any­body in the face can get away with it, even if he couldn’t care less about the Constitution.

    He’s the most despi­ca­ble ass­hole in the his­tory of mankind. He thinks Scalia has a brain and can judge fairly. Vuck you all, but Scalia, he shoots his friend firsts and then shoots them again.Scalia couldn’t imag­ine recus­ing him­self. If he can’t imag­ine recus­ing him­self, he’s an entirely uin­com­pe­tent judge. He should have recused him­self sev­eral times. If he refused to recuse, he is the sin­gle most arro­gant piece of shit in the his­tory of judge­ship. He thinks he can do any­hing he wants to make whatwever cash he wants. He’s a crook.

  53. caliban said on May 12th, 2009 at 8:41 pm

    Hwre’s the deal, no shit. Swift boat was the most amaz­ing horse­shit of all times. Kerry was a hero. W was a liar. Know what. Who cares. Believe W and Cheney you god­damn idiots. It’s hard to believe hum­jan beings can be that god­damn stu­pid. This Swift­boat shit these lying pieces of shit made up? yeah right. The peo­ple you believe blew up sev­eral thou­sand Iraqis for no rea­son ecx­ept they could try to claim shock and awe. They do not give a shit about human lives. You can buy this Chebey horse­shit, but you killed inno­cent peoople.

    Cheney is the biggest liar in the his­tory of mankind. He believes tor­tur­ing peo­ple for no pur­pose is a bood thing. Look, you put him in that naxi uni­form. There isn’t some ques­tion about what’s torture.

    Does Cheney think he’s some sort of hero? He did things for which the US hung some­body. Cheney knew this for a fact. I

  54. coozledad said on May 12th, 2009 at 8:49 pm

    JPK: If there was ever any doubt that the Repub­li­cans have become the Demo­c­ra­tic party of Stephen Dou­glas, the neo-secessionist move­ment afoot in Texas and Geor­gia should put an end to it.
    http://​alter​des​tiny​.blogspot​.com/​2​0​0​9​/​0​5​/​h​i​s​t​o​r​i​c​a​l​-​i​m​a​g​e​-​o​f​-​d​a​y​_​1​2.html

  55. Deborah said on May 12th, 2009 at 9:08 pm

    I’m with Eliz­a­beth about the creepy other woman, Rielle Hunter sounds like a a sad case. She was for­merly Lisa Druck, her father had her horse killed (she was a show rider in her youth) in a horse mur­der­ing scam to col­lect insur­ance money. He was con­victed (I think, or he died before the case came to trial). She was Jay McInerney’s girl­friend in New York briefly and he made her a char­ac­ter in one of his nov­els, the character’s name is Alli­son Poole. She was an over-sexed party girl. The same char­ac­ter is in two of Bret Eas­ton Ellis’s nov­els. The char­ac­ter is even worse in the Ellis nov­els. Who knows if any of this is really true. If it is, John Edwards picked a doozy.

  56. MitchAlbomFan said on May 12th, 2009 at 9:24 pm

    RE: Har­lan Elli­son, he lost all my respect when I saw the YouTube of him demand­ing his $ when tele­vi­sion series he wrote for were sold on DVDs. Some­how the writ­ers get paid mul­ti­ple times for the same work, whereas the grips, gaffers, and craft ser­vice peo­ple do not.

    I applaud mer­ce­nary cap­i­tal­ists. I just can’t fig­ure out why writer are some­how mag­i­cally enti­tled to share in stu­dio prof­its along with the stu­dio investors who took a risk on a project that was more likely to fail into obscu­rity than become a repack­aged clas­sic. Script writ­ers were paid (well) to do a job. They did their job. Then their hand came out again. That would be like me send­ing my boss a bill every time ver­biage from one of my indus­trial instruc­tion man­u­als was used in a instruc­tion video.

    RE Kerry: I wasn’t on that boat with Kerry. Nei­ther were you, Cal­iban. So I’ll take the word of those who were. Your hate defines you.

    RE Seces­sion: Bitch, please! And all that bull­shit with the George Bush sewage treat­ment plant in San Fran­cisco, and those douchebags in Ver­mont issu­ing crim­i­nal charges against Bush while he was still in office… Now THAT was jus­ti­fied, right? Blue state stu­pid­ity is patri­otic. Red state stu­pid­ity is idiocy. Ahkay. Whatevs.

    Moot.

    The “Montana-made Gun” chal­lenge will reset state rights back to 1900. It will hap­pen like light­en­ing within the next three years. It will com­pletely dis­man­tle the per­ver­sions of Congress’s over­steps of reg­u­lat­ing inter­state com­merce. It’s the most sweep­ing roll­back of Fed­eral pow­ers in our life­time or any oth­ers. It has six votes on the Supreme Court wait­ing for it right now.

    And it couldn’t have hap­pened with­out Obama scar­ing the shit out of Red Amer­ica. Thank you. On behalf of Lib­er­tar­i­ans every­where, THANK YOU!

  57. moe99 said on May 12th, 2009 at 9:35 pm

    Dwight,

    You real­ize you’ve con­verted absolutely nobody here.

    My rant is a lit­tle more mun­dane. I HATEHATEHATE Sears home repair ser­vice. I just spent from 8am to after 6pm wait­ing for a repair per­son who was sup­posed to show up by noon at the lat­est and fix my wash­ing machine. What a frakkin waste of a day. Sears will never get my busi­ness again. I can­not wait to tell the ser­vice clerk that once I get off hold, where I have been for the past 20 min­utes for yet the sixth time today. I gave up a day of work to just sit around home. I will never buy any­thing from them again. And it’s a damn shame because most of my appli­ances came from them.

  58. Catherine said on May 12th, 2009 at 9:54 pm

    The rea­son TV writ­ers get paid for reuse? They have a better-than-average union. Yes, I said UNION.

  59. nancy said on May 12th, 2009 at 10:00 pm

    I like how they get paid for­ever if they intro­duce a new char­ac­ter who gets a spin­off. Oh, to be the “Cheers” bullpen writer who dreamed up Dr. Frasier Crane.

  60. grapeshot said on May 12th, 2009 at 10:29 pm

    Gosh, nn, I must say you have the wrong end of the stick on “free” down­load­ing and piracy. Take a look at what the pub­lish­ers of Baen Books has to say on the sub­ject, and also take a look at a pre­sen­ta­tion regard­ing the music indus­try (although a lot of the prin­ci­ples apply to any artist in any medium):
    http://​www​.baen​.com/​l​i​brary/
    http://​www​.techdirt​.com/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​s​/​2​0​0​9​0​4​2​2​/​0​4​0​7​0​2​4​6​0​7​.shtml

    It is clear that the means of dis­tri­b­u­tion of con­tent has dras­ti­cally changed, and the trick is not how do we pun­ish all the evil­do­ers who are shar­ing con­tent but how to fig­ure out how to make money off this new dis­tri­b­u­tion model.

    So take me, an aver­age jane-schmo con­sumer who loves to read books. Recently I decided to give the ebook for­mat a try. I travel for a liv­ing but no longer wish to carry around a tote full of heavy books and mag­a­zines. Rather than invest in a new elec­tronic read­ing device just yet, I decided to use my Palm, which had two dif­fer­ent ebook reader appli­ca­tions on it.

    When I went search­ing for ebooks to buy, I was shocked at how dif­fi­cult and expen­sive it was to find books that I wanted to read. Works by best sell­ing authors sold either AT THE SAME PRICE as the hard­back book, or at the same price as a paper­back. So…what kind of idiot thinks that I’m dumb enough to pay that much for an elec­tronic text file with some spe­cial­ized for­mat­ting? Obvi­ously, an idiot that doesn’t seem to real­ize that with a bit of effort, I could prob­a­bly find that eBook on a tor­rent site somewhere.

    Had the eBook been avail­able at a more rea­son­able price, I would’ve gladly paid just to avoid the pain of try­ing to search for a down­load for free. (Oh, and that “free” down­load does cost me. It costs me time, and band­width, and prob­a­bly some more time spent re-formatting as well. If I can buy a song on iTunes for a buck, or an album for 9 bucks, and a tele­vi­sion episode for 2 bucks, all of which costs more to pro­duce than an elec­tronic book file does, why on earth would I pay the full hard­back or even the full paper­back price for a f**king TEXT file?? JEBUS! And yes, I under­stand that writ­ers do work hard! But surely not harder than any other artist!)

    Okay, I thought, I’ll just buy those high prices eBooks in the printed ver­sion, at a later time. For that kind of money, they can take their ebook and stick it where the sun don’t shine, and I will at least have some­thing tan­gi­ble for that $24.95. Or, bet­ter yet, f**k the author AND the pub­lisher, I’ll bor­row it from the library. I mean, really, they must think I’m some sort of boob. As far as I can tell, they’re prac­ti­cally INVITING me to search out a free download.

    Another prob­lem is how pal­try the selec­tion in my favorite genre was. Many respected authors sim­ply have no ebooks avail­able, and oth­ers only had a few avail­able. eBook sites such as eReader and Fic­tion­wise were an almost painful site for brows­ing for titles. If you don’t already know the author or title that you’d like to read, it’ll take you a month of Sun­days to find some­thing that strikes your fancy. (I can’t speak for Ama­zon and its Kin­dle, but I some­how doubt that I’ll ever get an eReader that locks me into a for­mat that I can’t shift from one eReader to another. That’s kind of like sell­ing me a book that I can only read on Thurs­days, or only read in the bathroom.)

    In my expe­ri­ence, peo­ple would far rather drop into a site like iTunes, browse around for a song, maybe lis­ten to some sam­ples, and with a few, quick clicks, have their music on their device in min­utes, than to search high and low for a tor­rent that they think they might like. Con­trary to pop­u­lar belief, tor­rent­ing is time-consuming and a PITA. If only some­one were smart enough to make book files just as easy to buy as songs are on iTunes. But no, they have to be locked down in dra­con­ian DRMs because some­one might (oh the hor­ror) pass it on to some­one else. Never mind that peo­ple have always lent books to friends and fam­ily (rep­re­sent­ing LOST SALES) and lend­ing libraries serve ENTIRE CITIES (again, MORE LOST SALES), and this hasn’t seemed to have harmed authors or the pub­lish­ing industry.

    Piracy exists only because there’s a seg­ment of the mar­ket that’s being under-served, or the offer­ing is at such a high price-point that it offers no VALUE to the consumer.

  61. Joe Kobiela said on May 12th, 2009 at 10:51 pm

    Inter­est­ing,
    Moe was the only one to try and attempt to explain the bud­get, every­one else seemed to say the same tired old things. Hate gwb, cheney is the devil,blah,blah.
    Face facts peo­ple. You can rant and rave all you want but noth­ing is going to come out of all this. No one in the top tier of GWB cab­i­net is going to jail, nor should they. Like I tried to say before, your let­ting all your hatred of the last admin­is­tra­tion cloud your views of the new admin­is­tra­tion. Take a good hard hon­est, (not a thank god he’s not gwb,) look.
    Pilot Joe

  62. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on May 12th, 2009 at 10:53 pm

    Shot, you’re mak­ing me think. I’m not chang­ing my mind yet, but as so many like to point out around here, i’m a con­ser­v­a­tive and hence slow to change, even when it seems obvious.

    Pric­ing isn’t quite as sim­ple as you’re fram­ing the issue (cost of pro­duc­tion plus a profit mar­gin really isn’t the whole story), but i’m just too totally tired to nit­pick. Inter­est­ing points, and i promise to think about them … someday.

    MitchAl­bom­Fan, i think you’re a DNC mole help­ing make GOPs look stu­pider. Cooz, don’t say it.

  63. Hattie said on May 13th, 2009 at 12:16 am

    What if writ­ers were pub­li­cally funded and the pub­lic could down­load any work they wanted for free? This could be paid for by a tax on inter­net use. After all, you can get a book from the library or lend a book to a friend or neigh­bor, and that is not ille­gal.
    In my mind, down­load­ing a book is not the same as steal­ing it from a book­store but more like mak­ing use of work that has already been sold.
    I doubt if any­one will agree with me, but I don’t see how you can pro­vide a liv­ing to cre­ative peo­ple and dis­trib­ute their work widely any other way.

  64. nancy said on May 13th, 2009 at 12:27 am

    Good points, Hat­tie and grapeshot. Down­load­ing books is OK. Down­load­ing ille­gal copies is not OK.

    I agree with all the crit­ics who say these intellectual-property com­pa­nies lagged behind the tech curve — the “if iTunes came three years ear­lier, it’d be a whole dif­fer­ent land­scape” argu­ment — but I have a hard time bal­anc­ing their mis­take with a cul­ture of out­right thiev­ing that arose oppo­site it.

  65. Hattie said on May 13th, 2009 at 12:56 am

    We need some­how to rethink all of this rather than mak­ing it a moral issue.
    BTW: I have a Kin­dle. I down­load sev­eral news­pa­pers a week for which I pay 75 cents a copy. What I get for that is just the “meat” of the paper, the front page, opin­ion, etc. and a few pho­tos. This is fine with me. More news­pa­pers need to jump on board with this one.

  66. mark said on May 13th, 2009 at 12:57 am

    jpk

    I guess your ques­tions are posed in terms dif­fer­ent than the way I look at the issue. I can’t iden­tify one big or orig­i­nal lib­eral mistake.

    I like free­dom. In the weigh­ing of the value of secu­rity verses the value of free­dom, I’m most likely to come down on the side of free­dom. I think it works bet­ter and I think his­tory is on my side.

    I don’t think that what I eat, or smoke, or drink or have sex with is any of the government’s busi­ness. I don’t want gov­ern­ment paid-for med­ical care in part because I’m quite sure gov­ern­ment will quickly take a much greater inter­est in what I weigh, where I travel, etc. The man who pays the piper picks the tunes, or some­thing like that.

    I think it’s just as wrong for Repub­li­cans to cre­ate tax breaks for favored con­stituents as it is for Democ­rats to increase taxes on polit­i­cal or cul­tural opponents.

    I’m opposed to enti­tle­ments for those who don’t need them. I think a will­ing­ness to be char­i­ta­ble with other people’s money is not a virtue. Pro­grams for the poor, the incom­pe­tent and the help­less are fine by me. Pro­grams, sub­si­dies, tax breaks, trans­fers etc. for the rest are the “Road to Serfdom”.

    If you exam­ine the var­i­ous devel­oped coun­tries, almost with­out excep­tion those with the high­est gov­ern­ment spend­ing as a % of GDP have the low­est rates of growth and inno­va­tion, and stag­nant pop­u­la­tions. Why will it be oth­er­wise for us?

    Hobbes thought we needed a Leviathan to rule over us, but he was a very fright­ened man. I fear a gov­ern­ment that engages in large scale wire-tappings to pro­tect me from out­siders and fines (and would even imprison) me for not wear­ing a seat belt to pro­tect me from myself.

  67. mark said on May 13th, 2009 at 1:22 am

    Hat­tie,

    Do you really want gov­ern­ment decid­ing who gets to be a writer and who doesn’t and what gets pub­lished and what doesn’t?

    “down­load­ing a book is not the same as steal­ing it from a book­store but more like mak­ing use of work that has already been sold.” So is it the same as steal­ing it from a USED bookstore?

    “but I don’t see how you can pro­vide a liv­ing to cre­ative peo­ple and dis­trib­ute their work widely any other way.”

    It’s not my respon­si­bil­ity to pro­vide a liv­ing for cre­ative peo­ple. You don’t have a moral right to take from me to give to them. You don’t have the moral right to give away their work to me. It’s their work, the prod­uct of their cre­ativ­ity, and their’s to sell, give away or hide in the attack.

  68. JPK said on May 13th, 2009 at 1:25 am

    thanks for respond­ing, mark, inter­est­ing points.

    Coo­zledad, I’ve been just gob­s­macked by the seces­sion talk ever since I first heard of it a few weeks ago via the Texas gov. Unbe­liev­able, just unbe­liev­able, after all this time of using patri­o­tism as a blud­geon. Words fail.

  69. caliban said on May 13th, 2009 at 3:59 am

    It’s fairly obvi­ous the State of Israel prac­tices a form of Apartheid and just blows up Pales­tini­ans when it gets tired of bull­doz­ing their homes and ask­ing for papers.. Is their any part of that state­ment that isn’t true? Any ratio­nal observer would say it’s true. But some­how, this bes­tial gov­ern­men­tal behav­ior is OK? Because if I point out that blow­ing up all of Lebanon may have been fine for W and Bibi, it was crim­i­nal, and the wan­ton destruc­tion of the West Bank is sure as shit as dis­gust­ing as any­thing hap­pen­ing in Dar­fur. And this is because Jews were vic­tim­ized, so its OK to be the victimizers?

    Facts in the mod­ern world. Israel is spec­tac­u­larly bru­tal and regres­sive, and engages reg­u­larly in spy­ing on the US, from which it gets the bulk of its income. But if you point any of these facts out, you’re not dis­gusted with the obscene pol­i­tics of the state of Israel, you’re anti-semitic, even though those nomads are semi­tes too..

    Any­body that doesn’t think there’s any­thing wrong with AIPAC’S obscene influ­ence on US vot­ing is seri­ously too stu­pid to be allowed to vote.

  70. Claudia Allen said on May 13th, 2009 at 7:32 am

    I send take­down let­ters out on a reg­u­lar basis for the non­profit where I work. While I sort of under­stand that ordi­nary peo­ple may think they can lift copy­righted mate­ri­als and place them on their web sites, I am gob­s­macked by the orga­ni­za­tions in the pub­lish­ing busi­ness (think major news out­lets) that lift copy­righted mate­ri­als and think “giv­ing credit for the infor­ma­tion” is enough. I’m not talk­ing fair use amounts of mate­r­ial, but a whole sto­ries and reports! How about ask­ing per­mis­sion to reprint? How about just link­ing to the infor­ma­tion? How about offer­ing to pur­chase the mate­r­ial? I’m send­ing one out to an orga­ni­za­tion this morn­ing that I’d really love to name…I see my organization’s PDF on their web site. This PDF came from a pass­word pro­tected area on our web site and it’s clearly marked with a copy­right. It even has a sec­tion that tells how to get in touch to ask for per­mis­sion to reprint. Now I have to go write a “nice” let­ter ask­ing them to remove it.

  71. coozledad said on May 13th, 2009 at 8:27 am

    I think it’s likely that in a few years the Dixie wing of the Repub­li­can party will stage their own Strom-style walk­out, so they can hew closer to the aims of the orig­i­nal Con­fed­er­acy: The cre­ation and main­te­nance of a phony aris­toc­racy, a state man­dated reli­gion, a roman­ti­cized sham of feu­dal­ism, a mil­i­ta­rized for­eign pol­icy, slav­ery for the poor in every­thing but name, and lynch­ing as pub­lic sport. I know a few of them. They want reseg­re­ga­tion and an inva­sion of Venezuela. Same ol’ same ol’.

  72. JRH said on May 13th, 2009 at 8:47 am

    On the other hand, Neil Gaiman pre­sented to the Open Rights Group at the end of last year about exactly why free is a good thing and how it’s worked in his favour as a pub­lish­ing writer. http://​www​.open​rights​group​.org/​2​0​0​8​/​1​0​/​2​4​/​c​o​m​e​-​s​e​e​-​n​e​i​l​-​g​a​i​m​a​n​-​t​a​l​k​-​i​n​-​l​o​n​d​o​n​-​t​o​night/

    Free/paid/copyright war­rior — it just isn’t that sim­ple any more.

  73. brian stouder said on May 13th, 2009 at 9:49 am

    I like free­dom. In the weigh­ing of the value of secu­rity verses the value of free­dom, I’m most likely to come down on the side of free­dom. I think it works bet­ter and I think his­tory is on my side.

    I like free­dom also, and I don’t sub­scribe to the view that there is a zero-sum equa­tion that dic­tates more of one thing equals less of the other. (Is a tax auto­mat­i­cally an infringe­ment on freedom? — or is it most often a ‘force mul­ti­plier’ of freedom?)

    As for his­tory being in agree­ment with the idea that free­dom and secu­rity are in con­flict — I’m hip-deep into the book “Mel­lon” by David Can­na­dine (which, by the by is an EXCELLENT book, and one that Dorothy should check out — if only because it’s also very much about Pitts­burgh), and Andrew Mel­lon and Henry Clay Frick and Andrew Carnegie WOULD agree with that def­i­nite “I got mine” construction

  74. mark said on May 13th, 2009 at 10:36 am

    brian–

    I don’t think it is a zero sum game either, and I think it is often kind of com­pli­cated. At the macro level, I’m hard pressed to think of an exam­ple where less free­dom lead to greater security.

    As a gneral rule, I pre­fer to see the tax code used to raise rev­enue, not to overtly influ­ence behav­ior. But, in many instances I can see the ben­e­fit of user fees, which is some­times con­trary to my gen­eral rule, some­times not.

  75. Croatoan said on May 15th, 2009 at 1:24 pm

    The idiocy of a crea­ture like cal­iban proves that the inter­net has become the last refuge for those who actu­ally belong in a looney bin.

  76. DTS said on May 15th, 2009 at 5:23 pm

    Regard­ing roy­al­ties, pay­ing for use, etc: I think it’s great NN spoke out about ille­gal down­load­ing (the inter­net equiv­a­lent of steal­ing a book from a store)…just won­der­ing why she and Mitch are offended by a writer (Ell­li­son or any other) who cre­ates an orig­i­nal work (just as a nov­el­ist does) and then expects to get roy­al­ties when said work (an episode of a TV show or the show itself, if the per­son helped cre­ate it) is issued on DVD (nov­el­ists get roy­al­ties — and per­haps even upfront pay­ments –for Kin­dle and audio edi­tions of their nov­els, as they should.

    So what’s the dif­fer­ence? Why do you folks defend one and attack the other?

    MITCH: The work (char­ac­ters, sto­ries, etc) is owned by the writer and there­fore his or her intel­lec­tual prop­erty. When­ever it is resold (usu­ally for great prof­its) the writer SHOULD get another piece of the profit. If it wasn’t for him or her, the (poor) pro­duc­ers who invested money (with the hope of MAKING money off of someone’s labors and tal­ent) wouldn’t con­tinue rak­ing in the bucks. Fur­ther­more, MANY of the TV writ­ers who right­fully demand roy­al­ties don’t have the same sort of ben­e­fits — health, retire­ment, etc —  you have while work­ing for a cor­po­ra­tion (I know, I’ve done both: free­lance and work for “the man”). So the monies paid for reuse is basi­cally their annu­ity. Begrudg­ing them that seems _very_ Repub­li­can of you.

    Finally, MITCH: I saw the video you men­tioned. In that case, Elli­son was (right­fully, again) com­plain­ing about being asked to spend part of his work­ing day doing an inter­view — offer­ing com­men­tary that would help sell the DVDs — for free. When is the last time you offered your valu­able time gratis to a com­pany that is look­ing to make as much money as it can?

    NANCY: Regard­ing the Ellison/Willis imbroglio at the above-mentioned con­ven­tion. First, the two have been — or at least were — friends for a very long time. They were into doing silly schtick when at such gath­er­ings. Willis was going on and on, mak­ing Elli­son (who was being _honored_) sit like a child in front of her. I looked at the video. Best I can tell, he prob­a­bly grazed her breast when overzeal­ously act­ing the fool in return. It didn’t look to be a mali­cious move on his part. But most impor­tantly: _She_ never came out in pub­lic and said she was molested. Elli­son has made a lot of ene­mies in the SF indus­try. My gut reac­tion is that they (and those who don’t like out spo­ken peo­ple like Elli­son) used the oppor­tu­nity to insert their unin­formed opin­ions and get back (for what­ever rea­son) at a guy whom they just don’t like.

    I’m not defend­ing Elli­son, but I’m not con­demn­ing him, either. That would be up to Con­nie Willis — a smart, secure, suc­cess­ful con­fi­dent and out­spo­ken woman — should she feel the need.

    So I guess I’m say­ing that I think you were right to sing Ellison’s praises for fight­ing the good fight against inter­net piracy where writ­ing is con­cerned. He was one of the first to do so — I wrote an arti­cle about it for “Pages” — even when MANY writer’s orga­ni­za­tions (and many writ­ers) refused to help out.