Morning Fog

Readers, Check Out Kindle

Yesterday I acquired a Kindle 2, the newish e-book reader from Amazon.com.  That might surprise some people who know me because I do read a lot, I like books qua books - the feel of a good hardback, a hefty reference volume - and I'm not one to adopt every new technology instantly if it doesn't do something useful for me.  I have no use for texting, for example. 

Briefly (in case you're still in the dark about it), with your Kindle you buy electronic books at discounts off "real" book prices, download them instantly, and store them (up to 1,500 of them, according to Amazon) on your reader, which has the footprint of an average book but is much thinner.  Some people, like the Washington Post's tech critic Rob Pegoraro, object that the technology is proprietary, meaning you can't lend the e-book, or give it away, or pass it to a friend.  Others just say that it doesn't replicate the feel, the tactile, visual, or olfactory pleasure of a "real" book.  Both are right; if these factors are critical to you, you may not need or want a Kindle.

But from my perspective, as someone who's not glued 24/7 to a computer or phone screen and doesn't wish to be, Kindle represents the future of book-reading, if reading books has a future.  I don't expect to use it for everything (not for reference works, or those with a lot of photos, or cookbooks, to name three).  No, for me, the Kindle is for everyday reading of the kinds of books I would normally read once and then get rid of - current novels, classics too maybe, popular history, books that I might buy and find I don't like.  Its overwhelming advantages are:

• It's green:   Of books I read, maybe one in 10 are keepers.  The rest pile up and overflow the shelves; their resale or charitable-contribution value is almost nil.  A huge proportion of used books in the world end up in landfills or (best scenario) shredded and recycled. The Kindle will eliminate that.  The book I want to keep, I can keep (or even buy a hard copy of) but the others aren't a problem - not for me, not for landfills, and not for the forests.

• It's convenient:  Slimmer than a single regular book, The Kindle goes many places a real book might not, even in a purse or jacket pocket.  You can sit where you want to read it, and you don't have to find an internet or cellphone connection (often a problem overseas). Moreover, by carrying this one object, you actually have a whole library of books at your fingertips, as well as periodicals and blogs you can get by subscription.  That's a benenefit any time, but especially when you're traveling!

• Overall, lower cost and greater availability of books:  Clearly there's a saving for consumers and publishers alike when a physical, manufactured book is replaced by an electronic version.  I also expect older books will be available more easily; once it's been produced in an electronic format, there's not much reason for a title to go out of print.

So far, nearly every person to whom I've described the Kindle has gone out and bought one.  Just in case I've convinced you to go buy one, there's a convenient link in the right-hand column.

Constitutional Shenanigans in Latin America

Amid all the concern worldwide over economic trends, interesting news can sometimes be overlooked.  One such case was a Washington Post report last week on three nations of Latin America that have recently undertaken to revamp their constitutions.  Venezuela did so in 1999; now Ecuador and Bolivia are following Venezuela's path.  The latter two are producing new Constitutions with the reported help of a few legal experts from Spanish universities who were also instrumental in the Venezuelan Constitution.  Some commentators express concern that these new fundamental laws could lead - perhaps already have led - to greater populism, similar to the style of Venezuela's leader Hugo Chavez. 

I suspect we will see more Chavez-like attitudes from Latin American countries in the future, but it has nothing to do with their Constitutions; it is a function of economic and population trends.  In fact we might want to welcome such developments, and even the new constitutions, to the degree that they succeed in allowing governments to deal more effectively than their predecessors did with the problems their people face.  We should recognize, too, that despite Chavez's blustering talk, we ought not to take him too seriously - he needs to portray us as the bogeyman to deflect blame from himself when things look bad in Caracas, and the profits he makes from continuing to sell us oil enable him to do so. 

Then, too, these new constitutions seem very temporary.   Constitutions are guiding only to the degree that they are considered permanent, and the political leadership is willing to be bound by them.  There is little history of leaders in Latin America doing so -- Venezuela has just amended its new Constitution after only ten years, for the purpose of allowing Mr. Chavez to continue longer in power.  Moreover, even with the most noble of intentions on the leaders' part, some of the new provisions seem positively designed to self-destruct.  Here's an excerpt from the above-mentioned article:

"While the U.S. Constitution has seven articles and 27 amendments, Venezuela's constitution has 350 articles, Bolivia's has 411, and Ecuador taps out at 444. Each document spells out a lengthy list of rights. The Bolivian constitution, for example, guarantees rights to food, water, free education and health care, sewer service, electricity, gas, mail and telephones, cultural self-identification, privacy, honor, dignity and a life free from torture and physical, psychological or sexual violence."

Well, how could any government live up to those promises?  If people have these "rights," including free education and health care, government becomes the provider of last resort; it's hard to imagine that it would be very long before something goes awry with a scheme like that.  Possibly Venezuela, with its oil revenues, could manage it, but it's difficult to see how either Bolivia or Ecuador could.  Inevitably, unfolding events will turn these constitutions into anachronisms; they are unlikely to last.

As we in the U.S. deal with one tiny element of inconsidered specificity in our own Constitution (that which limits representation in the House of Representatives to "states," thus excluding the District of Columbia), we need to remain aware of the very fine line between too specific, and not specific enough.  The strength of our Constitution has been its generality and adaptability to social, political, demographic, economic, and other changes. 

Jindal's Republican Response To Obama

Is it a time warp? Since the November election, suddenly, instead of the pasty white sneer of George W. Bush, the Republican Party seems to have a "new" face.  Yes, just as they did when they brought back the three-button suit so we could all look like Dick Nixon, the GOP has taken a leaf out of Al Jolson's book and is appearing in blackface .  First it was Michael Steele, now the Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.  No harm in that, really, but just as vaudevillean blackface was only a facade, the new look of Republicanism is only a hasty mask over the same old party line.  

The evidence is in Jindal's official party response to President Obama's address to Congress and the American people last night, February 24.  [I am indebted to KCCI of DesMoines for printing the full text, which was a bit hard to find.]  For starters, rather than looking forward to the challenges ahead of us, Jindal turned backward to dwell on the stimulus bill which has already been signed into law - but not so far back that he would have to mention George Bush in the same sentence as "Republican."  Jindal thinks the stimulus will "saddle future generations with debt."  I think it's great that Republicans are concerned about generational "theft" (as Sen. McCain calls it).  I only wish they had found this religion about eight years earlier, before their President ran up a debt that's tenfold what the stimulus bill will add to it.  If they had, we wouldn't need the stimulus bill.  Incidentally, Jindal also labeled the bill as "corruption," which I think is quite a stretch.

Jindal also made clear he shares the old Republican predilection for dishonest fearmongering.  Besides that mountain of debt, he predicts a future of "government-run" health insurance (which no one has proposed); "dismantling" our armed forces (ditto); four-dollar gasoline (a Bush innovation, if you want to declare someone responsible); tax increases on "the middle class" (which Jindal must know are not coming); and increasing people's "dependence on government" (evidently he didn't read his advance copy of Obama's speech). 

The Louisiana Governor does admit that "Republicans lost [the people's] trust," perhaps the truest statement he uttered.  He says they want to regain that trust, and I'm sure they do.  But that's going to take more than just a little black greasepaint or even lipstick; what needs to change is the content, the solutions being offered.  That hasn't happened yet; Jindal's talk contained nothing substantively new.   Incidentally, it looks as if this much-bruited rising star of the new Republicanism failed to burnish his brilliance last night -- to paraphrase Sen. Lloyd Bentsen's remark to Dan Quayle, "Gov. Jindal, you're no Barack Obama."

Read on for other comments on Jindal's speech...

Sanford and Clyburn - Dumb and Dumber

Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina got a lot of press attention in the past few days as one of several Republican governors who have said they might not accept all the federal monies that the federal stimulus bill would provide to their states.

That seems impolitic, if not downright stupid, to me - a commitment to principle over common sense, dogma over practicality.  Most states are facing big budget deficits with which federal money in nearly any category would surely help.  Unemployment is a problem in most states; South Carolina is no exception. Wouldn't the voters of South Carolina benefit, if not from economic stimulus or jobs (that Gov. Sanford says won't come), then at least by paying less tax, having more access to unemployment benefits, or seeing fewer state programs cut?  On the other hand, Gov. Sanford is known for his conservative views on economic issues, and he has a conservative base to cater to, so maybe he knows best where his political bread is buttered.  So let's wait to see whether Sanford rejects federal dollars, and to what extent.  Then let the voters decide. Sanford will be up for reelection in 2010.

Not content with that simple solution, however, the Majority Whip of the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman James Clyburn, coincidentally also from South Carolina, proved the greater fool theory, seeking to turn the matter into an issue of race.  Clyburn of course has his own political constituency to play to, but he has said publicly that Sanford's and other governors' rejection of stimulus money would be "a slap in the face" to African-Americans in the state.  That may be true, but I see signs that the election of Barack Obama as President has subtly altered the effectiveness of that approach.  I don't mean to suggest that racism is dead, far from it  (see Race: Ideal and Reality) but I do think this is one of the ways in which we can say that we are now in a "post-racial" era.  Playing the race card has a different effect on the game now; it is unlikely to be as politically compelling, and it won't be helpful to the new President.  Clyburn, Jesse Jackson, and other African-American political leaders need to start understanding how that will alter their strategies.

There are also reports that Clyburn inserted language in the stimulus bill specifically permitting state legislatures to accept the money even if their governors object.  That seems to me even more foolish.  First, it's improper for the Federal government to be trying to manipulate the states in this way when no national policy is involved.  This is just political trouble-making.  Second, the Governors in question already decry the heavy hand of the federal government; this gives them more ammunition and hardens attitudes.  Finally, it gives the Governors no-lose political cover - they can posture as firm conservatives, knowing that their state legislative assemblies will accept the money over their "objections."  I don't think Congressman Clyburn has accomplished anything positive for "his" side of the issue here. 

A last-minute note: Sunday on Fox News, Sanford did not rule himself out as a candidate for President in 2012.  Again, voters -- including those outside his native state -- will have to judge whether burnishing his credentials as a Bush-style Republican will help or hurt him, when the GOP is trying desperately to give itself a new look.    

  

Now, Finally, Time To Be Honest With Ourselves

More people these days are getting deep into paranoia about the economy.  Paranoia, one manifestation of fear, grows out of other fears and uncertainties.  If you see the value of your home sinking by 20, 30, or 50%; or if you've lost your job or are worried that you might, it's natural to look around for someone to blame.  Politicians and talk-show hosts (anyone looking for "ratings" of one kind or another) aren't above trying to fan fears, either. 

So, for example, one woman I know who once blamed the last Republican administration or a few bad bankers for our current pickle has moved on to claim that "they" -- this seems to include the government, both parties, all large corporations, executives, and I don't know who else -- "they" are just out to get our money.  Both the depression and the solutions being enacted are part of a grand scheme "they" cooked up to keep us in economic bondage.  It sounds a little Marxian - Karl, and the brothers too.  

Paranoia does grow out of fear, but let's admit that it also grows out of self-denial.  Things were going so well and now everything's a mess, so it must be someone else's fault, right?  It couldn't be anything you did yourself.  Yes, actually, it could.  Collectively, too many of us were willing to believe the unbelievable.  We maxed out the credit card, spent everything we made, invested our 401Ks in dicey instruments with unsustainable returns, believed that real estate could only go up, bought more house than we could afford, and accepted terms (no down payment, interest-only, loans larger than appraised value) that we knew deep down were too good to be true.  And, we allowed our financial institutions to join the party too, so there was nobody to drive us home once we got drunk. 

The times are ripe for demagogues.  The antidote is being honest with ourselves.

Bail-Outs: It's Not Who, It's What

Everyone is up in arms about bail-outs in the economy these days.   People infer that a bail-out means we are helping somebody who got themselves into a bad situation and doesn't deserve our help.  The term is being applied to executives of banks and automobile manufacturers, and more recently to people who have defaulted on their mortgages.  Unfortunately, it's being misused, and that has led to fuzzy thinking about what's really going on. 

What is "bailing out," exactly?  Since 1951 [according to my Merriam-Webster Collegiate] it has been used to refer to "financial rescue," but more basically, it means using a bucket to remove water from a boat that's leaking and could sink.  Thought of this way, the term really is an excellent analogy of our economy.  If we're "bailing out," it means we're in the boat too.  Which, economically, we damn sure are.  We might be upset with the guy in the boat with us - maybe the leak is his fault if he neglected maintenance, or didn't inspect it carefully enough - but if we have any sense, we don't refuse to help stay afloat.  Will he benefit from our efforts? Yes. But life isn't fair, and to help ourselves, we have to help him too. 

It's the same in the economy.  We can assess fault, we can {and clearly, will] try to ensure those we blame don't get rewarded; but when we start to bail, it's the system and its stability that we hope to save, not the individual bank, executive, or mortgagor.  We don't have the option of trying the other meaning of "bail out" - to abandon ship. 

Some folks might claim they don't need saving, and resent bailing out those who do.  A hitherto obscure TV personality named Santelli [evidently the Howard Dean of the cable news set] got his 15 seconds of fame on Friday by going postal on this theme.  But for that group, a reminder: you don't need saving -- YET.  Trouble begins at the edges, and its first effects are felt by those who took excessive risk, had marginal incomes, or maybe just a bad break like big medical bills.  But no one believes we've hit bottom yet, so if you would like to ensure your spot in the pantheon of those who "don't need help," my advice would be to start bailing.  Bail hard - and if you like, you can grumble while you're at it.

Red Means Stop

Here in Northern Virginia, in at least a few jurisdictions, we will be getting stop-light enforcement cameras again to help catch drivers who run a red light.  Since my wife was almost T-boned at an intersection a couple of years ago by a guy running a red light (a guy who passed by screaming and shaking his fist as if she had done something wrong!), it's been brought home to us how dangerous the practice can be. 

I don't know if other states have these cameras - I assume so - they've been used successfully in Europe for years, but here in Virginia they have been ridiculously controversial.  After a test period, the Virginia Assembly banned them in 2005, ostensibly because of statistics showing there were more rear-end accidents at intersections where the cameras were placed (though fewer of the side-on accidents which cause more injuries).  The real reason, I suspect, is that there seem to be a lot of people who complained about the cameras, people who either believe they have a god-given right to run a light, or that it's not dangerous.

Anyway, in 2007, the Assembly had a change of heart (or a change of political composition) and re-allowed cameras.  That is good news, but the approach is half-hearted.   I hope over time some of these shortcomings can be corrected:

• The fine is only $50 and the offense doesn't affect the driver's driving record.

• A new layer of bureaucracy has been introduced; local jurisdictions that want to install cameras have to get approval from the state Department of Transportation (VDOT)  by submitting engineering analyses of each intersection where they want to install one.

• That means that the cameras are placed in fixed locations, which quickly become known, and if past practice is any guide, we'll also continue the inane practice of erecting signs telling everybody exactly where cameras are.  I'm sure this fixed-location policy is responsible for many rear-end accidents recorded at camera intersections; people trying to run the red see them at the last minute, figure they'd better jam on the brakes, and get rear-ended. It makes folks cautious at some intersections, but doesn't make them less likely to run a light generally.

Though more serious fines and flexible camera placement would work better in the interest of public safety, halfway measures seem to be the order of the day (we're also getting a new law banning texting while driving, but not cell phone use).  Politics is the art of the possible.  Is that always because legislators disagree on the best way to address a problem, or because in some cases they don't seem to bother to understand what the problem is?  It seems hardly possible that some proportion of our distinguished lawmakers have a soft spot in their hearts for those who run lights, but the evidence points that direction. 

Calls for Burris Resignation Premature

Amidst the gathering storm of demands for the resignation of Sen. Roland Burris of Illinois, by a variety of Illinois and national politicians, the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Post, Burris is holding his ground for now.  I don't blame him.

It is clear that Burris may have lied or possibly just misspoke when asked by the Illinois impeachment committee about contacts with Blagojevich staffers.  The difference between lying or not probably hinges on the exact phrasing of the questions, and that in turn will depend on the transcript of those proceedings.  Many press reports suggest that Illinois impeachment panel asked about contacts with Blagojevich staffers in the context of the Senate seat.  If so, his "no" answer seems accurate and reasonable to me because from reports available, the request to raise money came separately from discussion of the seat. 

Second, no offense to Burris, but he doesn't strike me as the sharpest knife in the drawer.  He might not have considered it necessary to mention contacts that took place outside the framework of the Senate-seat issue, and his subsequent confusion, as he recalls more contacts every day, could also be chalked up to ineptitude.

Third, in my mind, being asked to raise campaign funds (in any context) is not at all equivalent to being asked to buy the seat.  Wouldn't Blagojevich naturally ask other Democrats to help raise funds for him?  It seems unlikely that Burris the only one of whom he made such a request.

I don't say that Burris may NOT be a corrupt liar who should resign; it may well turn out that way; but without better answers to some of these questions, it is premature to call for resignation now.

A (Not-So-) Modest Proposal Regarding Holidays, Part II

On Monday, I delved into some reasons we might want to move the Monday holidays back to their specific dates.  (A (Not-So-) Modest Proposal Regarding Holidays, Part I.  Now, I'd like to add some other thoughts about modernizing our calendar, bringing it into closer harmony with the shifting characteristics of our nation.

On this blog, I have said often that in politics we need to work to rediscover common ground among various parties and factions.  I think that's also true in society generally. As the United States becomes more multicultural and more pluralistic, we need to move beyond holidays that mark observances of only one religion, or one group of citizens (like the suggestion that Patriot Day be a full-fledged holiday).  

In brief, I suggest that MLK Day, Easter, Columbus Day, and Christmas all need serious rethinking -- and renaming.  Some may see that as radical (sorry, I ought to have warned you to get the smelling salts out ahead of time).  But shouldn't our federal holidays be defined in a way that all of us can identify with?  If you are among those who value the religious or Italian-American aspects of these days, ask yourself if you would also support federal holidays for Eid-al-Fitr, Kwanzaa, Passover, Cinco de Mayo, Greek Day, and a host of others, for which federal status might legitimately be claimed, and which would create an interesting but unworkable crazy-quilt of holidays.

Thanksgiving is the quintessential "American" holiday.  Its focus is family and friends, it can be celebrated by all of us regardless of religion, ethnicity, or other factors, AND it is blessedly free of the commercialization that accompanies many of our other holidays.  We need more days like it.

Let's look at Martin Luther King Jr. Day.  It might seem that this is a day for African-Americans.  Some states and regions interpret it that way.  But I see it differently.  The more reading I do on U.S. history, the clearer it becomes that the issue of slavery -- along with its legacy of emancipation, civil rights, separate-but-equal, affirmative action, discrimination, and continuing racism -- has affected our society throughout our history and continues as a political factor today, even after the election of our first African-American President.  Issues of equality continue to come to the fore for other groups like Latinos, or gays, as well.  We should continue to observe the day, but we should rename it ("Equality Day"?). Despite its cold January proximity to New Year's, let's keep it on the same date because the identification with MLK gives it significance (besides, it's my birthday too!) 

Easter is not a federal holiday, but we often refer to the school breaks or other events at this time of year as "Easter," which has meaning only for Christians; I prefer "spring" break for this, because even those who may not consider it religiously significant nearly all conceive of it as a time to celebrate the arrival of spring, to dye eggs and give the kids easter baskets.  It's analogous to Halloween in that respect.   If anyone ever feels we need a new holiday, this is the time of year we could use one (we have none in March or April). The spring season is already identified with environmental efforts in the U.S. and internationally, so we might consider making Earth Day (April 22 - it is an already-existing observation originally proposed by U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson), an official federal holiday.    

Columbus Day needs work too.  For starters, Columbus didn't "discover" the Americas. For most Americans, it's just a meaningless day off.  For many Italian-Americans, it's a day to honor their cultural tradition.  But that suggests it should be more like St. Patrick's Day, Cinco de Mayo, or Kwanzaa -- celebrated by those to whom it is truly meaningful, ignored by the rest of us.  Better yet, why not celebrate our ethnic pluralism, from Native Americans on, with an Ethnicity Day, or a Cultural Heritage Day, at this time of year? 

And last, Christmas.  Although it's a Christian holiday, it is commonly observed in various ways by people of many faiths and persuasions.  I have known Hindus and Muslims in this country who put up a tree and exchange gifts as a secular tradition of the season.  To non-Christians and even many Christians, it has become more about gift-giving than anything else, and of course for retailers, it's lifeblood.  The date is arbitrary -- we celebrate Christ's birth at this time of year because it roughly coincided with pagan rites accompanying the winter solstice.  My suggestion:  December 22, Solstice Day, a time of rejoicing, a festival of cheer and light that chases away winter doldrums; a time, too, of gift-giving and of the all-important end-of-year extravanganza of buying that drives our economy. Maybe the change would also help move some of the commercialism away from the "real" Christmas on December 25.

So, that's my whole package.  Religious holidays, and regular events like Valentine's Day and Halloween, would still be observed by those who wanted to, who would decide whether to take a day off work or not.  I omitted Inauguration Day (January 20), the one federal holiday that is not widely observed except around Washington DC, and which comes only once in four years.   I also considered whether we need a new word besides "holiday," since so few of our special days are "holy."  But we all use the word generically now for any day off, and besides, I couldn't think of a better one.  Keep reading below for a calendar that summarizes all this.

Are Links Endangered?

I'm not much into just pasting text or links here without comment, but this item from Slate, "Linked Out," deserves wide dissemination in the blogging world.  It's too alarmist, and I'm doubtful the use of links will be seriously affected, but it's something that bears watching.