I’ve added a new Forum discussion section to the website. Simply click the “Forum” tab above. If you’re already a registered user of the comments section, you’re good to go.
Sometimes people feel a desire to discuss stuff on their own, topics that I might not be posting about. The Forum should serve that purpose. I see it as a wilder and freer place than the comments section, which I police fairly vigorously in order to maintain civility, but do try to keep away from personal insults.
Borders Goes Bankrupt. Will Books Survive?
Borders Books and Music, which once employed 30,000 workers at more than 600 stores, is bankrupt. Those numbers have been halved. And even after these massive cuts, analysts say, Borders is probably doomed.
The next time you walk past the empty ghost store where your local Borders used to be, you may ask yourself: Are we becoming a post-literate society?
Everywhere you look the printed word is under economic siege. Despite a 20 percent increase in demand in recent years, libraries are laying off, closing branches and reducing hours. Newsweek, one of the most venerable titles in magazine history, was recently sold for a buck (plus a promise to assume tens of millions in debt). Twitter is priced at $3.7 billion, nearly twice the public enterprise value of The New York Times ($2.03 billion).
The key word, of course, is the one in front of the word “word”: “printed.” We are reading more than ever. Just not in print.
According to a fascinating new study conducted by the University of Southern California, 94 percent of all data is now stored in digital form. (That ticked up a point as you were reading this.) Thanks to the Internet and various gadgets we read about 4.3 times more words each day than we did 25 years ago.
The more words we read, however, the less we want to pay the people who write them. The Times of London lost 90 percent of its online readership after it put its website behind a $4-a-week pay wall.
Why does this matter? Quality. The Huffington Post, recently sold to America Online for $315 million, points to a possible future in which the rewards go to ruthless aggregators who cater to Google common search phrases with slideshows about kittens and Lindsey Lohan. They rely on free blogs for most of their content. We’re getting exactly what they pay for: crap.
If you think journalism is bad now, it’s going to get even worse. The message is as loud and brassy as Arianna: real journalism doesn’t pay. Inevitably the best and brightest are gravitating to other fields.
Another unintended consequence of the digital revolution is lower memory retention. I recall significantly more of what I read in print than online; I’ve found the same to be true of my friends.
Norwegian researcher Anne Mangen told Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam about a paper she published in The Journal of Research in Reading. Mangen believes that we remember more of what we read in print than on a computer screen. This additional retention is due to variables that serve as unconscious memnonic devices: fonts, position of text, images, paper texture, etc.
“The feeling of literally being in touch with the text is lost when your actions—clicking with the mouse, pointing on touch screens, or scrolling with keys or on touch pads— take place at a distance from the digital text, which is, somehow, somewhere inside the computer, the e-book, or the mobile phone,” argues Mangen. “Materiality matters…One main effect of the intangibility of the digital text is that of making us read in a shallower, less focused way.”
My personal experience convinces me that there is a difference. On the Kindle, everything looks and feels the same. When I read the Times on newsprint, part of what helps me remember a story is the ad that ran next to it and the photo underneath. Sure, Kindle readers remember much of what they read. But not as much as old-fashioned bookworms.
It is hard to quantify the value of a country’s intellectual life. But as Americans read more and more, less of it printed, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that we are losing something precious and irreplaceable.
So what’s the solution? European booksellers, publishers and newspapers receive generous government subsidies. Here in the U.S., where pseudo-free markets are a national religion, the feds bail out billionaire bankers, not bookstores.
In order to successfully compete with online sales and e-books, brick-and-mortar retailers will have to learn the lesson of Borders: middle of the road equals mediocre.
Beginning at least ten years ago Borders buyers began eschewing risks. Buying into the “blockbuster mentality” of stocking stacks of sure-thing bestsellers, they stocked fewer books by midlist authors—profitable, but not bestselling, titles. Browsers found fewer surprises at Borders. As for top-selling books, they’re cheaper at Costco and on Amazon.
Barnes and Noble has been struggling too, but their strategy seems to stand a better chance than Borders. B&N’s inventory is wide as well as deep. The fronts of their stores feel “curated,” the way good independent stores bring in customers with the promise of discovery and serendipity. If consumers want something obscure, odds are there’s a copy or two in the back, spine out.
It’s a frightening thought: America’s intellectual future may depend on the fate of a superstore.
(Ted Rall is the author of “The Anti-American Manifesto.” His website is tedrall.com.)
COPYRIGHT 2011 TED RALL
You may want to check out this in-depth radio interview on the syndicated radio show “Writers Voice” with Francesca Rheannon. It’s almost a full hour and it focuses on “The Anti-American Manifesto” and the possibility of revolution in the United States in the near future.
Check out the use of my cartoon in an official invitation to an event at the US Embassy in Frankfurt. Cool, huh?
It’s out! The second official webisode (animated cartoon) by David Essman and yours truly about the downward slide of a typical American family living during the Obama Depression.
This time: Dan and Sarah attempt to hang on to their home.
Back in October David Swanson and I debated the role of non-violence in revolutionary change. As it became clear that Egyptian protesters had driven President Hosni Mubarak out of office, Swanson tweeted, in essence, that non-violence had succeeded and that my contention that radical change is impossible without violence (or the credible threat thereof) was wrong.
Let’s be clear: the uprising in Egypt is not a revolution.
It may become a revolution. Right now, however, all we have is a nice start that–based on observation from outside–appears to have little chance of success. Which is sad, because I am so inspired and elated by the events in Cairo and elsewhere in Egypt.
Revolution is the radical restructuring of society, politics, ideology and, not least, economic classes. In a revolution, everything changes. The rich are no longer rich. The poor are no longer poor. Old elites are driven out of power. Outsiders take over.
In Egypt, the military is in charge. They are run by an existing set of elites. The civilian government of Omar Suleiman, though nominally in charge, remains in place. Suleiman was appointed by Mubarak, and was Mubarak’s right-hand man for many years. Mubarak has been allowed to escape. None of these events reflect a revolutionary scenario.
In a revolutionary scenario, Egypt’s poor would enjoy the prospect of no longer living in slums. Former elites, including Suleiman and the generals, would be on trial or have been killed.
If the protesters in Egypt become revolutionists, they will almost certainly be forced to resort to violent force in order to force the capitulation of the oppressor class, which remains in charge. The removal of Mubarak, though exciting, is little more than a palace coup, a change of personnel.
Emancipation requires more—much more—than sitting in Tahrir Square and singing songs.
I hope the people of Egypt step forward and start that process. Freedom awaits, not only for them, not only for the Middle East, but for all of us.
Posted By Susan Stark
At least two dictators have been toppled from government now, and George W. Bush can’t travel to due to the threat of arrest for war crimes.
What does Obama do in response to all of this information? Propose cuts in home heating for the poor.
The lack of any sense of self-preservation in this man quite stunning and frankly very creepy.
Susan out.
posted by Susan Stark
As I write this at midnight Eastern Time, it is now morning in Egypt. The Egyptians are furious that Mubarak has not stepped down, and they are marching to the Palace to oust the Pharaoh themselves, and demanding the army to help them.
I have a distinct feeling that a game of psychological warfare is being played on the Egyptian people. Getting them so riled up and focused on getting rid of Mubarak that they forget that Suleiman the Torturer is just as bad, if not worse. I know they’re not dummies; even the illiterate peasants and slum dwellers are more knowledgeable in a sense then the average American. But they are just as prone to emotional manipulation as anyone else in the world.
I’ve read that when the Egyptians say “Mubarak Has To Go!” they mean his entire regime. I sure hope that’s still the case, because Suleiman won’t hesitate to use tactics that even Mubarak would cringe at. And if the Egyptians give in to that, it will be a major victory to imperialism around the world. Nobody will rise up if they see that the Egyptians were crushed doing so, either by force or psychological subterfuge.
I really and truly pray that Egypt will not give an inch in their fight for total freedom the entire puppet regime.
Susan out.
Why Is Obama Coddling Egyptian Dictator?
Here is Egypt, America’s neo-con dream come true. Democracy! In the Middle East! And it isn’t costing us a single soldier. You’d think American policy makers would be pleased as punch. So why are they messing it up?
At first glance the uprising in Cairo and other Egyptian cities puts the United States in an awkward spot. We’ve propped up Hosni Mubarak for three decades. If we cut him loose, our other pet dictators will stop trusting us. If we don’t, all that yapping about democracy and freedom rings hollow. Which do we choose, our purported principles or our actual allies?
Actually, it’s not that hard. We lost the trust of our puppet tyrants when Saddam dropped through the trap door. We lost the people with a zillion CIA-backed coups, not to mention the $37 billion we’ve paid to Mubarak. The dictator’s wealth is estimated at $40 billion. That’s right: no one dime of U.S. foreign aid made it to the Egyptian people.
The Obama Administration has an easy way out. They can disavow the policies of the past 30 years, policies they merely inherited. The president can make a clean break, announcing that he is cutting off U.S. funding to the Mubarak regime until things settle down. Then shut up.
Simple. Yet the president is handling this Middle Eastern crisis with all the class and diplomacy of a George W. Bush.
There’s the arrogance. On Fox News he agreed with Bill O’Reilly that he doesn’t want the Muslim Brotherhood to take over. “I want a representative government in Egypt,” Obama said. Dude, it doesn’t matter what you want or what we want. What matters is what the Egyptians want.
There’s the shortsightedness. Like previous presidents, Obama doesn’t understand that repression isn’t a synonym for stability.
There’s the failure to recognize the broader implications. Hated for Egypt’s joint blockade with Israel of the Gaza strip, Mubarak is viewed throughout the Muslim world as the embodiment of American-funded corruption. Obama’s refusal to cut him loose fuels radical Islamists’ argument that the U.S. will never allow the Palestinians to live with dignity.
Last but not least, there’s that classic Cold War-era mistake: backing the wrong side. In this case, Mubarak’s new vice president Omar Suleiman. Since 1993 Suleiman has run Egypt’s feared Mukhabarat intelligence agency. He is Egypt’s chief torturer.
As head of the General Intelligence Directorate Suleiman was the Bush Administration’s main liaison and coordinator for its “extraordinary rendition” program. Victims of extraordinary rendition are kidnapped by CIA agents and illegally transferred to other countries for the purpose of being tortured.
According to experts on the war on terror, Suleiman is a torturer’s torturer, a hard man who sets a high bar—from which he hangs his bleeding victims. Personally.
One of the CIA’s victims was Mamdouh Habib, an Egyptian-born Australian citizen. U.S. agents bought him from Pakistani intelligence and shipped him to Egypt. “In Egypt,” reports Lisa Hajjar for Al Jazeera, “he was repeatedly subjected to electric shocks, immersed in water up to his nostrils and beaten. His fingers were broken and he was hung from metal hooks. At one point, his interrogator slapped him so hard that his blindfold was dislodged, revealing the identity of his tormentor: Suleiman. Frustrated that Habib was not providing useful information or confessing to involvement in terrorism, Suleiman ordered a guard to murder a shackled prisoner in front of Habib, which he did with a vicious karate kick.”
Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi was a former trainer in the Afghan jihadi camps who famously “confessed” a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda while under torture in one of Suleiman’s dungeons. Colin Powell cited al-Libi’s “information” in his 2003 speech of lies to the U.N. arguing for war against Iraq.
Note the word “was.” Al-Libi died in a Libyan prison in 2009.
Evan Kohlmann, a terrorism analyst for NBC News, cites a classified source: “Al-Libi’s death coincided with the first visit by Egypt’s spymaster Omar Suleiman to Tripoli. “The Egyptians were embarrassed by this admission [that he had lied under torture…Omar Suleiman saw an opportunity to get even with al-Libi and traveled to Tripoli. By the time Omar Suleiman’s plane left Tripoli, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi had committed ‘suicide’.”
Suleiman’s fearsome resume may come as a surprise to you. But Egyptians know all about him. Headlines like ” Obama Backs Suleiman – Led Transition ” (from the New York Times) aren’t making us more popular.
(Ted Rall is the author of “The Anti-American Manifesto.” His website is tedrall.com.)
COPYRIGHT 2011 TED RALL
