Saturday, January 18, 2014
Print over eBooks
« Previous EntryBlog MainNext Entry »nation -- January 16, 2014 at 2:45 PM ET
from PBS.org
Americans prefer print books over e-books
By: News Desk
Although more Americans own electronic readers, most prefer reading print books. Photo by Flickr user srharris
Despite an increase in electronic readers and tablets, most Americans still prefer flipping through the pages of a book.
A report released Thursday found that 70 percent of Americans read print books last year, but only four percent read exclusively e-books. According to the survey, conducted by the Princeton Survey Research Associates International, the average adult read five books in 2013.
While Americans read both print and e-books, the survey also found that half of American adults now own an e-reader or tablet, which is a seven percent increase from 2012.
Bacon on Saurday
I woke up this morning thinking about turning cartwheels down the hallway, but then I thought about my long-suffering wife. She is not too terribly fond of calling 911. I thought about letting my inner Rambo out for the weekend, bur then I thought about the people who would be in harm's way and I decided to have mercy on them. Then I thought BACON and realized no one would be harmed except Fred. So BACON it is
Friday, January 17, 2014
Red State Fear
Robert Reich.Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley; Author, Beyond Outrage
GET UPDATES FROM Robert Reich
Like. 6.3k..Fear Is Why Workers in Red States Vote Against Their Economic Self-Interest
Last week's massive spill of the toxic chemical MCHM into West Virginia's Elk River illustrates another benefit to the business class of high unemployment, economic insecurity, and a safety-net shot through with holes. Not only are employees eager to accept whatever job they can get. They are also also unwilling to demand healthy and safe environments.
The spill was the region's third major chemical accident in five years, coming after two investigations by the federal Chemical Safety Board in the Kanawha Valley, also known as "Chemical Valley," and repeated recommendations from federal regulators and environmental advocates that the state embrace tougher rules to better safeguard chemicals.
No action was ever taken. State and local officials turned a deaf ear. The storage tank that leaked, owned by Freedom Industries, hadn't been inspected for decades.
But nobody complained.
Not even now, with the toxins moving down river toward Cincinnati, can the residents of Charleston and the surrounding area be sure their drinking water is safe -- partly because the government's calculation for safe levels is based on a single study by the manufacturer of the toxic chemical, which was never published, and partly because the West Virginia American Water Company, which supplies the drinking water, is a for-profit corporation that may not want to highlight any lingering danger.
So why wasn't more done to prevent this, and why isn't there more of any outcry even now?
The answer isn't hard to find. As Maya Nye, president of People Concerned About Chemical Safety, a citizen's group formed after a 2008 explosion and fire killed workers at West Virginia's Bayer CropScience plant in the state, explained to the New York Times: "We are so desperate for jobs in West Virginia we don't want to do anything that pushes industry out."
Exactly.
I often heard the same refrain when I headed the U.S. Department of Labor. When we sought to impose a large fine on the Bridgestone-Firestone Tire Company for flagrantly disregarding workplace safety rules and causing workers at one of its plants in Oklahoma to be maimed and killed, for example, the community was solidly behind us -- that is, until Bridgestone-Firestone threatened to close the plant if we didn't back down.
The threat was enough to ignite a storm of opposition to the proposed penalty from the very workers and families we were trying to protect. (We didn't back down and Bridgestone-Firestone didn't carry out its threat, but the political fallout was intense.)
For years political scientists have wondered why so many working class and poor citizens of so-called "red" states vote against their economic self-interest. The usual explanation is that, for these voters, economic issues are trumped by social and cultural issues like guns, abortion, and race.
I'm not so sure. The wages of production workers have been dropping for thirty years, adjusted for inflation, and their economic security has disappeared. Companies can and do shut down, sometimes literally overnight. A smaller share of working-age Americans hold jobs today than at any time in more than three decades.
People are so desperate for jobs they don't want to rock the boat. They don't want rules and regulations enforced that might cost them their livelihoods. For them, a job is precious -- sometimes even more precious than a safe workplace or safe drinking water.
This is especially true in poorer regions of the country like West Virginia and through much of the South and rural America -- so-called "red" states where the old working class has been voting Republican. Guns, abortion, and race are part of the explanation. But don't overlook economic anxieties that translate into a willingness to vote for whatever it is that industry wants.
This may explain why Republican officials who have been casting their votes against unions, against expanding Medicaid, against raising the minimum wage, against extended unemployment insurance, and against jobs bills that would put people to work, continue to be elected and re-elected. They obviously have the support of corporate patrons who want to keep unemployment high and workers insecure because a pliant working class helps their bottom lines. But they also, paradoxically, get the votes of many workers who are clinging so desperately to their jobs that they're afraid of change and too cowed to make a ruckus.
The best bulwark against corporate irresponsibility is a strong and growing middle class. But in order to summon the political will to achieve it, we have to overcome the timidity that flows from economic desperation. It's a diabolical chicken-and-egg conundrum at a the core of American politics today.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
The Dylan Library VI
Driving home from Auburn today I played "Nashville Skyline." That album denotes 1970. That album denotes the country Dylan. First off I was jarred by "Girl from the North Counstry" with Johnny Cash. What a treat!
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Bookish
The Book We're Talking About
17 Best Bromances In Literature
What It Was Like To Watch Shakespeare 400 Years Ago
9 Teen Novels As Good As They Are Popular
'Goosebumps' Art Brings Your 1990s Fantasies To Life
Maya Angelou Tells Funny Story Behind This Touching Photo
Is Chris Pine The 'Perfect Casting' For Jack Ryan?
13 Words You Probably Didn't Know Were Invented By Shakespeare
Why College Men Are About To 'Lean In'
These Stereotypes About Book Lovers Are Absolutely True, And That's A Good Thing
Posted: 12/06/2013 7:46 am EST
Updated: 12/09/2013 9:18 am EST
stumble
.
kristian sekulic via Getty Images.15,886Share984Tweet255Email476CommentGet Books Newsletters:
Subscribe ..Follow:Book Lovers, Book Lover, Book Lover Stereotype, Book Lover Stereotypes, Book Stereotype, Book Stereotypes, Books News .From grade school onwards, avid readers get a lot of flak. This may be because reading is one of the most solitary pleasures; it's not an obvious means of bonding with peers (even though, duh, reading connects us with other people and cultures). Most sweeping generalizations about book lovers are completely untrue: We all wear glasses, our heads are always in the clouds, and we're usually overcome with crippling awkwardness when we're forced to socialize.
On the other hand, some stereotypes seem to be accurate: We're hoarders, we idealize the lives of authors, and, no surprise here, we spend a whole lot of time in bookstores. These qualities are nothing to be ashamed of. In fact, they should be embraced! Here are 31 absolutely true, and absolutely wonderful stereotypes about book lovers:
1. You never leave home without a book.
2. In fact, you may or may not have been known to show up at restaurants, movie theaters, and bars, with a book in tow.
3. The idea of moving is a profound source of stress, if only because you can't imagine sorting, packing, and lifting your stacks of prized hardcovers.
4. This might be because you have issues with letting go of your prized editions, and could probably be diagnosed as a hoarder.
5. In fact, you'd rather buy a new copy of a book for a friend than let her borrow your personal copy...
6. ...because everyone knows there's nothing worse than bent spines and dog-eared pages, that is, if you ever even SEE the book again.
7. But that doesn't stop you from being obnoxiously pushy and opinionated about your favorite books.
8. Holidays are just another excuse to share classics and hidden gems with your friends and family; never mind their looks of disappointment upon receiving War and Peace instead of the latest gadgets, or even, like, a cool tie.
9. Some people have favorite basketball teams; you have favorite translations.
10. In fact, if authors had trading cards, you'd collect them all.
11. Author biographies and Wikipedia pages are your celebrity tabloids...
12. ...although part of you may only be interested in how famous writers became so well-loved, because you secretly know that you yourself are only one page away from starting the Great American Novel.
13. Bad movie adaptations have the potential to ruin your entire summer.
14. Finding a typo in a book is the equivalent of hearing nails screech across a blackboard.
15. Forget freshly-baked cookies; your favorite smell is a musty, old book.
16. You have strong, unwavering opinions about e-readers versus physical books...
17. But regardless of your stance, you poured one out when Borders finally shut down...
18. And were on the welcoming committee when the new indie bookstore showed up in your neighborhood.
19. You cringe when you peruse airline bookstores. The trashy paperbacks! The terrible translations! The horror! (That doesn't stop you from buying a new book for the plane, though).
20. Packing lightly can be an issue; can you really be expected to pack all of your reading material in just two carry-ons?
21. Vicinity to a great bookstore or library is definitely a bigger real estate perk than exposed brick. Location, location, location!
22. Some of your favorite, happiest moments as a child were reading books with your parents.
23. Some people rescue stray animals; you rescue books. Stumbling upon a copy of a classic that you already own, abandoned on a stoop or thoughtlessly strewn on a garage sale table, inevitably leads to the "can we keep it? can we, can we?" talk.
24. You fantasize about meeting a romantic interest in a bookstore...
25. And you always judge your potential significant others based on their bookshelves. Atlas Shrugged is more of a red flag than bad manners.
26. You're shocked, confused and disappointed when your life doesn't follow a logical narrative arc. "It wasn't supposed to happen this way!" you sigh when your friend cancels dinner plans, and then proceed to hop into bed to read your favorite book for the eighth time.
27. "So, what do you for fun?" is an anxiety-inducing question. Apparently, most people don't really think reading is all that fun.
28. Look, carrying The Goldfinch around all day is good enough of a work out...
29. You think audiobooks are perfectly viable road trip soundtracks.
30. You took a personal day when the latest installment in your favorite series came out.
31. ...and your ideal Friday night involves wine, a comfy chair, and getting lost in a great book.
Monday, January 13, 2014
Republican Reverse Robin Hood
by Paul Krugman
JAN. 12, 2014
Suddenly it’s O.K., even mandatory, for politicians with national ambitions to talk about helping the poor. This is easy for Democrats, who can go back to being the party of F.D.R. and L.B.J. It’s much more difficult for Republicans, who are having a hard time shaking their reputation for reverse Robin-Hoodism, for being the party that takes from the poor and gives to the rich.
And the reason that reputation is so hard to shake is that it’s justified. It’s not much of an exaggeration to say that right now Republicans are doing all they can to hurt the poor, and they would have inflicted vast additional harm if they had won the 2012 election. Moreover, G.O.P. harshness toward the less fortunate isn’t just a matter of spite (although that’s part of it); it’s deeply rooted in the party’s ideology, which is why recent speeches by leading Republicans declaring that they do too care about the poor have been almost completely devoid of policy specifics.
Let’s start with the recent Republican track record.
The most important current policy development in America is the rollout of the Affordable Care Act, a k a Obamacare. Most Republican-controlled states are, however, refusing to implement a key part of the act, the expansion of Medicaid, thereby denying health coverage to almost five million low-income Americans. And the amazing thing is that they’re going to great lengths to block aid to the poor even though letting the aid through would cost almost nothing; nearly all the costs of Medicaid expansion would be paid by Washington.
Meanwhile, those Republican-controlled states are slashing unemployment benefits, education financing and more. As I said, it’s not much of an exaggeration to say that the G.O.P. is hurting the poor as much as it can.
What would Republicans have done if they had won the White House in 2012? Much more of the same. Bear in mind that every budget the G.O.P. has offered since it took over the House in 2010 involves savage cuts in Medicaid, food stamps and other antipoverty programs.
Still, can’t Republicans change their approach? The answer, I’m sorry to say, is almost surely no.
First of all, they’re deeply committed to the view that efforts to aid the poor are actually perpetuating poverty, by reducing incentives to work. And to be fair, this view isn’t completely wrong.
True, it’s total nonsense when applied to unemployment insurance. The notion that unemployment is high because we’re “paying people not to work” is a fallacy (no matter how desperate you make the unemployed, their desperation does nothing to create more jobs) wrapped in a falsehood (very few people are choosing to remain unemployed and keep collecting benefit checks).
But our patchwork, uncoordinated system of antipoverty programs does have the effect of penalizing efforts by lower-income households to improve their position: the more they earn, the fewer benefits they can collect. In effect, these households face very high marginal tax rates. A large fraction, in some cases 80 cents or more, of each additional dollar they earn is clawed back by the government.
The question is what we could do to reduce these high effective tax rates. We could simply slash benefits; this would reduce the disincentive to work, but only by intensifying the misery of the poor. And the poor would become less productive as well as more miserable; it’s hard to take advantage of a low marginal tax rate when you’re suffering from poor nutrition and inadequate health care.
Alternatively, we could reduce the rate at which benefits phase out. In fact, one of the unheralded virtues of Obamacare is that it does just that. That is, it doesn’t just improve the lot of the poor; it improves their incentives, because the subsidies families receive for health care fade out gradually with higher income, instead of simply disappearing for anyone too affluent to receive Medicaid. But improving incentives this way means spending more, not less, on the safety net, and taxes on the affluent have to rise to pay for that spending. And it’s hard to imagine any leading Republican being willing to go down that road — or surviving the inevitable primary challenge if he did.
The point is that a party committed to small government and low taxes on the rich is, more or less necessarily, a party committed to hurting, not helping, the poor.
Will this ever change? Well, Republicans weren’t always like this. In fact, all of our major antipoverty programs — Medicaid, food stamps, the earned-income tax credit — used to have bipartisan support. And maybe someday moderation will return to the G.O.P.
JAN. 12, 2014
Suddenly it’s O.K., even mandatory, for politicians with national ambitions to talk about helping the poor. This is easy for Democrats, who can go back to being the party of F.D.R. and L.B.J. It’s much more difficult for Republicans, who are having a hard time shaking their reputation for reverse Robin-Hoodism, for being the party that takes from the poor and gives to the rich.
And the reason that reputation is so hard to shake is that it’s justified. It’s not much of an exaggeration to say that right now Republicans are doing all they can to hurt the poor, and they would have inflicted vast additional harm if they had won the 2012 election. Moreover, G.O.P. harshness toward the less fortunate isn’t just a matter of spite (although that’s part of it); it’s deeply rooted in the party’s ideology, which is why recent speeches by leading Republicans declaring that they do too care about the poor have been almost completely devoid of policy specifics.
Let’s start with the recent Republican track record.
The most important current policy development in America is the rollout of the Affordable Care Act, a k a Obamacare. Most Republican-controlled states are, however, refusing to implement a key part of the act, the expansion of Medicaid, thereby denying health coverage to almost five million low-income Americans. And the amazing thing is that they’re going to great lengths to block aid to the poor even though letting the aid through would cost almost nothing; nearly all the costs of Medicaid expansion would be paid by Washington.
Meanwhile, those Republican-controlled states are slashing unemployment benefits, education financing and more. As I said, it’s not much of an exaggeration to say that the G.O.P. is hurting the poor as much as it can.
What would Republicans have done if they had won the White House in 2012? Much more of the same. Bear in mind that every budget the G.O.P. has offered since it took over the House in 2010 involves savage cuts in Medicaid, food stamps and other antipoverty programs.
Still, can’t Republicans change their approach? The answer, I’m sorry to say, is almost surely no.
First of all, they’re deeply committed to the view that efforts to aid the poor are actually perpetuating poverty, by reducing incentives to work. And to be fair, this view isn’t completely wrong.
True, it’s total nonsense when applied to unemployment insurance. The notion that unemployment is high because we’re “paying people not to work” is a fallacy (no matter how desperate you make the unemployed, their desperation does nothing to create more jobs) wrapped in a falsehood (very few people are choosing to remain unemployed and keep collecting benefit checks).
But our patchwork, uncoordinated system of antipoverty programs does have the effect of penalizing efforts by lower-income households to improve their position: the more they earn, the fewer benefits they can collect. In effect, these households face very high marginal tax rates. A large fraction, in some cases 80 cents or more, of each additional dollar they earn is clawed back by the government.
The question is what we could do to reduce these high effective tax rates. We could simply slash benefits; this would reduce the disincentive to work, but only by intensifying the misery of the poor. And the poor would become less productive as well as more miserable; it’s hard to take advantage of a low marginal tax rate when you’re suffering from poor nutrition and inadequate health care.
Alternatively, we could reduce the rate at which benefits phase out. In fact, one of the unheralded virtues of Obamacare is that it does just that. That is, it doesn’t just improve the lot of the poor; it improves their incentives, because the subsidies families receive for health care fade out gradually with higher income, instead of simply disappearing for anyone too affluent to receive Medicaid. But improving incentives this way means spending more, not less, on the safety net, and taxes on the affluent have to rise to pay for that spending. And it’s hard to imagine any leading Republican being willing to go down that road — or surviving the inevitable primary challenge if he did.
The point is that a party committed to small government and low taxes on the rich is, more or less necessarily, a party committed to hurting, not helping, the poor.
Will this ever change? Well, Republicans weren’t always like this. In fact, all of our major antipoverty programs — Medicaid, food stamps, the earned-income tax credit — used to have bipartisan support. And maybe someday moderation will return to the G.O.P.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Pelham vs. San Francisco
San Francisco is a good place to visit if you live in Alabama. It's exciting, but a person can only take so much excitement. There is a time to be excited, and there is a time to be unexcited. Lefty O'Doul and Union Square will always be there for the next time. Would a person who lives in San Francisco find Pelham an exciting place to visit? I think I know the answer to that question. We don't have cable cars and Boudin sourdough bread. There's your answer right there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)