Cohen’s Kindle Jeremiad

I know that it’s become axiomatic that the Washington Post editorial page has seen better days. But I was still kind of floored by Richard Cohen’s editorial today on the Kindle, Amazon’s new ebook reader. It’s basically a polemic about Amazon. I was unaware that the Washington Post had so much page space that they were willing to publish an editorial bemoaning the fact that Richard Cohen doesn’t like reading the suggestions page on Amazon. Thank goodness there’s not something important to talk about right now!

Few people love a good bookstore more than me. I’m reminded of it everyday – living abroad, English books are a hard commodity to come by, and a good secondhand bookstore is unthinkable. I would love to be able to wander through the aisles of a bookstore right now. But you know what I love more than a bookstore? Books.

Cohen writes,

Feeling oddly guilty, I bought a Kindle myself. Someday soon, I'm going to see how it works. I hesitate because I know it represents the beginning of the end -- books as books, bookstores, book lovers and, inescapably, the brilliant Frederic Manning, resurrected by a bookseller only to be eventually reinterred as too obscure to be Kindled.

This just seems incredible to me. Clearly Cohen hasn’t used the Kindle (neither have I, for that matter) or really thought through the possibilities of it. One of the biggest things that interests me about the Kindle is the idea that no book would ever have to go out of print again. Organizations like Project Gutenberg exist to try and save works of literature that have fallen out of copyright from disappearing. In fact, here’s a link to a treasury of poetry by WWI service members, including Frederic Manning, published in 1917. As anyone who has tried to read a literature-length piece of writing on a computer monitor knows, it is an (at best) unpleasant experience. The Kindle uses a new technology that gets past that barrier: it feels like reading paper, because the screen doesn’t use an LCD. What the Kindle offers is the ability for unheralded, underappricated works to exist in a cheap, easy and finally readable format. Perhaps only a few people know who Frederic Manning is (I certainly didn’t until I read the editorial), but using technology like the Kindle, people will no longer be beholden to the vagaries of the publishing industry to find a copy of it.

We're #1!

Well, if the Olympic medal count doesn't end up leaving you with the requisite nationalist fervor, apparently we're leading the world in all kinds of things.

Thanks to reader pw for the tip.

Requirements

David Brook’s new column is a frustrating piece of writing. His basic thesis seems to be that Barack Obama, a smart, charismatic guy who has succeeded at most of the things he’s turned his hand to, and who came from a relatively humble background, isn’t really, “fully,” a part of American society.

If Obama is fully a member of any club — and perhaps he isn’t — it is the club of smart post-boomer meritocrats. We now have a cohort of rising leaders, Obama’s age and younger, who climbed quickly through elite schools and now ascend from job to job. They are conscientious and idealistic while also being coldly clever and self-aware. It’s not clear what the rest of America makes of them.

So, cautiously, the country watches. This should be a Democratic wipeout. But voters seem to be slow to trust a sojourner they cannot place.

My question is: this is a problem? Beyond the larger issue of the defing down of “winning” that has been going on all this season (Obama is “only” consistently ahead in the polls, but he should be winning in a blow out! What’s up with that?), I’m curious as to why Brooks says that Obama was in the law school, but not of it. “He was a popular and charismatic professor, but he rarely took part in faculty conversations or discussions about the future of the institution.” Obama was not a tenured professor. If he didn’t take the time to join in faculty politics, I fail to see how that makes him any less a part of the program. According to Brooks, it isn’t enough to be popular and charismatic. You also have to belong in some sort of deep, existential sense. Or something.

Brook’s main complaint seems to be that Obama hasn’t done anything long enough – like, say, just at random here, John McCain (who has done everything he does for a long time now). It doesn’t matter that Obama is a smart, accomplished man – because Middle America, with its deep-seated love of “traditional values” are unsure about him. So unsure about him, in fact, that they keep saying they’re more likely to vote for him than his opponent. People like Brooks worship the idea of the “independent” politician, the one who isn’t beholden to interest groups and the “Washington elite.” But when your guy is a Washington elite, and as tied into the Republican Party as McCain, suddenly Brooks discovers the values of staying in one place and being a Rotarian for the past thirty years.

An Introduction

I’d like to thank DP for the opportunity to get in on this blogging business. As he mentioned, we’ve known each other for years and I’ve always enjoyed discussing the events of the day with him. I find that, even when I don’t exactly agree with him, talking with DP about something helps me clarify my thinking. I hope I can bring an element of that to the table.

As to me, as DP mentioned, I’m currently a Peace Corps volunteer in eastern Europe. I work as a high school English teacher in a mixed ethnicity community, which has been a very interesting, enjoyable, frustrating and rewarding experience. One thing that it has allowed me to do, though, is keep up with the domestic political scene from afar. It’s been a bit strange to watch politics change, especially when the cable news echo chamber runs off the rails about something. It’s like looking for a black hole. You can’t see it, but you can see the way it distorts everything around it.

That being said, I’m full of opinions and already enjoy keeping up with blogs. I hope that this will be a rewarding experience for everybody. I look forward to more discussion with you guys out there soon.

Welcome Aboard

The Pseudo Body Politic is happy to announce the addition of a second blogger, Aaron, who will starting blogging this week. Aaron, who lives outside the United States on a Peace Corps assignment, but remains a complete news junkie, will be a great addition to TPBP and should provide some excellent commentary on a wide number of subjects in addition to politics.

Looking for a job takes up an incredible amount of time, you see, and I wanted to make sure that the loyal readers of TPBP were provided with ample news updates. Having known Aaron for years, I can attest that he will deliver the same level (if not a superior level) of completely inane commentary that my readers have grown accustomed to over the last couple of weeks. With any luck, you can look forward to Aaron's posts beginning today or tomorrow. Welcome, Aaron.

Extinct Blog of the Day

Today's orphaned blog belongs to Steven Carlson, a self-described "Child Custody Coach", who started a Child Custody Blog that only ever had three postings. So...if you ever wanted to know the parameters of California child custody law, or buy his great book, "Winning Child Custody: Proven Strategies that can Win You Custody and Save You Thousands in Attorney Cost!" I guess you know where to go.

There's just something about that subtitle, especially the exclamation point, that makes me feel creepy. I realize there are those out there that would probably be into a blog or book like this, but personally, I'm not about to start an e-mail campaign to get Steve to resurrect this site, which hasn't had a post in exactly one and one half years. I don't know if Steve's still out there coaching, but part of me hopes the occupation went the way of the blog.

I will say that in the category of "morbid statistics that there's luckily no way to possibly gather", I'd be interested to know how each child of a parent that bought this book was doing five or ten years down the road.

Joltin' Joe -- A Reader Comments

Reader Dom writes:

I think the only thing you are missing is that Joe (if he stays in the caucus and runs in the democratic primary again in 2012) has lost a primary before... but was still able to throttle Ned in the general with the votes of republicans and those democrats who are still loyal to him (a shrinking number from latest polls, but still could be possible) Even if he runs independent it could still happen.... he might just think he is too electorally safe for the Dems to do anything to him.

I'm very skeptical that could happen again. Clearly he wasn't the flavor de jour of Conn. democrats in 2006, but he still very narrowly lost of Lamont in the Democratic primary, 52-48. Even in the general he only beat Lamont by 10 points, in a race in which the Republican candidate got absolutely no endorsements, support, or votes from his own party. And, remember that was two years ago. He's really alienated a lot of members of the Democratic Party since then. Lieberman presumably carried nearly half of the voting Democrats in the general election. How many would he carry today against a legitimate Democratic alternative (which I think Lamont was)? Remember, there aren't enough Republicans in Conn. to put him over the top without some really significant Democratic support, and I'm just not sure he would get it. If he did actually get booted from the Democratic caucus and joined the Republicans, I really can't imagine Conn. sending a Republican senator to Washington. Dom could be right, but I just can't see his electoral position in Conn. to be anything but precarious.

Post Script: I can't believe I neglected to consider this in my first post, but if McCain is elected, Lieberman's position in the Democratic caucus is a moot point since McCain will give him a cabinet position.

Joltin' Joe

After watching Joe Lieberman’s appearance on Meet the Press yesterday I think it’s worth revisiting his future within the Democratic Party. For quite some time the party line among senate Democrats was that Lieberman was worth having in the Democratic Party because his only consistent and substantive difference was in regards to the War on Terror. However, it’s becoming increasingly clear that as Lieberman becomes a more active surrogate for the McCain campaign that he’s crossing party lines on more and more issues, illustrated yesterday by his endorsement of increased coastal oil drilling.

One could legitimately expect that he’s not done with his policy metamorphosis, and that as he continues to campaign for McCain (a certainty), and gets a heavyweight position at the Republican national convention (quite likely) his positions will only move further away from those held by the Democratic members of Congress.

Yesterday, John Kerry insisted that he’d always have a place in the Democratic caucus. Most political commentators talk about how, if the Democrats want to attain or approach a 60 filibuster proof majority, they’ll need every member they can get.

What I think is getting lost in the equation is exactly what kind of a member Lieberman will be, particularly if McCain is elected. Surely, in that event his cloture vote could never be counted on to advance a Democratic legislative agenda if it were in any way at odds with the White House (which one would assume would be very often). I cannot possibly imagine how having him in the caucus for a McCain presidency would be an asset.

I think his odds improve with an Obama win, but I’m still not convinced it’s strategically sound to keep him around. His relationship, not with Democratic senators, but with the party in general could not be worse. Obama seems to see him (legitimately) as a turncoat after McCain asked (or pleaded depending on who you believe) Obama to campaign for him during the Conn. Democratic primary (which he subsequently lost of course), and though I think Obama is more strategic and calculating than grudge holding, it’s not inconceivable that he could lean on his party to kick Lieberman out of the caucus, 60 seats be damned. No Democrat anywhere will be headed up to Conn. to get him reelected in 2012. In fact with Conn. being so liberal I’d imagine you’d see very organized opposition to his reelection from party officials. Kicking him out of the caucus might be a way to maximize your chances of seeing someone liberal emerge out of the state in 2012, as I have a hard time believing that he’s got much of a shot at reelection out of Conn. if he’s caucusing with the Republicans.

What do people think? What am I missing? How and why does he stay in the caucus from a pragmatic standpoint?

Chinese Democracy

A lot has been written about how China will deal with the unprecedented scrutiny that comes with hosting an Olympic games. Some believe that political dissidents will cause disruptions during the games and others that China's government will be able to effectively clamp down on such actions. I'd like to cast my vote firmly for the former. I think the actual degree of dissatisfaction the domestic population has with the Chinese government will be exposed. Here in the west, the Chinese government is often portrayed as being extremely powerful, repressive and monolithic. It's also portrayed as ruthless in terms of dealing with internal political dissidents.

I think we're about to find out how true that portrayal is (and I think it's fair to note that it may not be totally accurate) -- particularly how much domestic dissatisfaction exists with the Chinese government. The Olympics will simply be too good an opportunity for anyone with a serious grudge against the Chinese government to remain silent. And, count me as one of the people that think that the Chinese will find themselves wholly unable to control both the media's access to news stories (particularly of a political nature), as well as the spin that foreign journalists put on such news. I read recently (I can't remember where) that there have been 20,000 press credentials issued for the Beijing games. A media swarm that size will not be controlled, not by the Chinese government, not by anyone. You're talking about a fundamentally entitled bunch. What are the Chinese going to do, detain them by the dozens or hundreds? Confiscate their equipment? Imprison them? If it comes to that (and it might, if there's any story to be had anywhere) it's a lose/lose for the Chinese.

Try to control them and alienate a city of press, or give up control and see where the media run with it, which probably won't be destinations that make China look in any way good. The press, especially the western press, will be looking for an excuse to make the Chinese fit into the totalitarian box that they know will sell the best back home. And if something looks fishy, if just one camera gets confiscated, you'll have gangs of pissed off media determined to get to the bottom of it. I don't think it's impossible that the western media have overstated the level of internal dissent in China and that the games go off without a hitch, but I honestly think that's unlikely. All eyes are about to be on China in a way they never have been before, and I think they're about to rediscover the axiom that almost everybody looks better clothed than naked.

Meet the Press Review

Host: Tom Brokaw
Guests: Joe Lieberman, John Kerry
Political Roundtable: Chuck Todd, Andrea Mitchell, Mike Murphy, Judy Woodruff

This was a pretty unremarkable interview segment, and a pretty unremarkable show in general. Mostly it was just Lieberman and Kerry arguing back and forth, with a bewildered Brokaw looking on. Every once in a while I wonder how John Kerry lost the 2004 election, and then I see him on shows like this, hear him speak, and then I remember. Fundamentally he just isn't that likable, and uninspiring doesn't even really begin to sum it up. His criticisms on McCain seemed very defensive, and were always issued as a response to Lieberman's points. He also let Lieberman dictate the entire segment, and Lieberman was more than happy to get in three words for every one Kerry could cram in. Maybe he was futilely waiting for Brokaw to actually get control of his guests, but unfortunately (if not unpredictably) Brokaw had either blacked or passed out right after they'd gone on the air.

It was funny to see Lieberman so adamant about everything though, and the vigor with which he attacked the future of his own party, a party one would have thought he'd spent his entire life trying to make worthwhile. His complete adoption of McCain's talking points (Kerry's only good moment was calling him out on his new found support for off-shore drilling), and audition for a spot at the Republican national convention were fun to witness. I can't really imagine why they let him stay in the Democratic caucus. In fact, I think I'll do a separate post on Lieberman later tonight, and leave it at that.

I'm not sure how much commentary I can provide about the second half hour; the political roundtable segment, as slamming my face into the coffee table had really taken its toll by then. I think they talked about McCain's ads, and the VP candidates for a while, but I'm sure that nothing particularly insightful was said, and if you were looking for Brokaw to facilitate an adult discussion...well, I appreciate your childlike naivete. As usual, despite his cleavage comment, Mike Murphy said the majority of the intelligent things, though I thought Chuck Todd's prediction of a Chuck Hagel keynote address at the Democratic national convention was interesting (though I disagree). Chuck Todd's nerdom holds him back sometimes. I'd really like his gut reaction once in a blue moon, but that's just not how he rolls. Andrea Mitchell seemed like she'd gotten it together after a week in which she'd started to ask some pretty existential questions, along with the rest of us, about the role of the American media in campaign politics. Luckily, she had righted the ship and was back to her bland and unremarkable self. Judy Woodruff was about as consequential as an empty chair, which was due in large part to Brokaw's inability to effectively work her in to the conversation. Though I did love her answer to the question, "One minute to go, who's Barack Obama's VP candidate?"
Her Response: "Wow..um, either Bayh, or Biden...or Klein." Well, way to go out on a limb there Judy. You don't think it's going to be the guy, James, that lives in the apartment next to mine? Bold prediction.

Brokaw is rising to levels of facilitating ineptitude such that MTP is increasingly reminding me of a "house meeting" on the Real World. Maybe he should just throw caution to the wind and institute the conch shell meeting rules from Lord of the Flies. It would almost have to be an improvement. Maybe we should all mail him one, and see if somebody at NBC gets the hint. Needless to say, he'll be back again next week, live from China or something. At some point this week I'll decide whether I can keep watching him drive the show off a cliff or if I'm going to switch to George Stephanopoulos.

TPBP Week in Review

The first week of The Pseudo Body Politic has officially concluded. In our first week we had over 800 "hits", over 100 separate readers, and 10 of you shared your thoughts with us in the comments section. I couldn't be happier with how the blog has done in its inaugural week.

Awards section:
The first ever comment of the week goes to "Audie Murphy", for his comment on the Double Standard discussion. I sincerely hope TPBP can look forward to more similarly insightful comments from Audie in the future.

Poster of the week is "aaron" whose combination of witty brief quips and substantive commentary and analysis nudged him to the top of the podium over "nicholas" our most frequent poster, and "amy" who was not afraid to tell it like it is.

Again, thanks so much to anyone who read TPBP this week. Please keep reading, commenting, and making this as rewarding a venture as it has already been.

If any of you have any suggestions as they relate to the content, layout, or any other aspect of TPBP, please don't hesitate to let me know.

Returning to Victory

My apologies to my faithful TPBP reader for not posting yesterday. We had some internet issues yesterday here at the Pseudo mansion, which I'm happy to report are slowly resolving things. Despite this, I would like to take this opportunity to go ahead and claim victory from my friend Dome, who a week ago today threw down the gauntlet, betting me $1 that TPBP would not survive into week two. Well considering this is my 30th post this week, and especially considering I'm the sole arbiter of victory...I pronounce myself victorious. Ship it Dome. My internet issues will not be completely solved until I get a router, but fear not, I will do my best to post in the next several days.