text:
Joe: As 2013 draws to a close, we're fortunate to hear from our good friends at the Authors Guild, who share with us an earnest attempt to get members to rejoin.
Which, if you are a regular reader of this blog, you already know is a TERRIBLE IDEA.
The Authors Guild under Scott Turow's leadership has done an awe-inspiring job of trying to maintain the antiquated status quo, where publishers coveted their power and treated most authors poorly; technology is considered the devil's sorcery; and Amazon is Satan himself.
Here, hopefully for the last time, is Scott Turow, presenting a letter by Pulitzer Prize winning author Richard Russo to Authors Guild members. Turow asked for this to be forwarded to friends, so I'm forwarding it to roughly a hundred thousand of my blog readers, interspersed with occasional thoughts from me and Barry Eisler.
Barry: Scott and Richard, thanks for your latest! Joe and I haven't been handed this much bullshit to fisk since that infamous memo from Hachette.
Joe: Or that AAR nonsense. Or the last time the Authors Guild acted stupid, which wasn't long ago. Barry and I have taken the Authors Guild and Scott Turow to task before, and once again we welcome the chance to expose the nonsense the powerful are trying to sell you.
Barry: Also once again, Scott and Richard, we urge you to respond to these (and numerous other) criticisms. After all, don't you guys want authors to be properly informed? Joe's blog has hundreds of thousands of readers who might be misled by our dangerous ideas! Or do you not think this topic is important enough to merit open debate and discussion? Do you really care so little about the authors you're trying to persuade to fork money over to your guild that you won't even engage in a little back-and-forth on their behalf?
Joe: Barry, don't you have an open challenge to publicly debate Scott Turow anywhere, anytime?
Barry: Yes, in pretty much every interview I do and talk I give, and whenever I post on this topic, I make sure to call Scott out on his inaccuracies and his bullshit and challenge him to back them up by debating me. But I can understand why he's afraid to defend his ideas. It's because they make no sense are are so easy to demolish with elementary facts and logic.
You know what impressed the hell out of me? Former New York Times editor Bill Keller invited Glenn Greenwald, a huge critic of Keller's, to a debate in the pages of the Times. That showed a lot of integrity, and even though I'm a critic of Keller myself and didn't find his arguments persuasive, the discussion was hugely interesting and Keller earned a lot of respect from me with that move. So Scott, why not emulate Keller and invite your critics to debate you on the AG blog? Wouldn't that be a smart and honest way to try win a few of the hearts and minds you say you're after? And you can debate us here anytime, as well. Wouldn't that be a minimally honest, transparent, courageous thing to do? Wouldn't it benefit your readers if they could see you debunk our ridiculous arguments? What's stopping you?
Joe: Keep in mind that the Authors Guild shuts off comments when people begin to disagree with the post. (If you'd like to read the letter without Barry and I adding our comments, you can do so here.) And with that, here's Scott...
Scott Turow: Dear colleague,
As I enter the last few months of my time as Guild president, I have a favor to ask.
Richard Russo has written a letter that I'd like you to share with an author you know who isn't yet a member of the Guild. The letter follows, and speaks eloquently for itself. Simply forward this message on to a friend.
I'm happy to report that the Guild has never had more members in its 100-year history. Even so, we are beginning a process of self-renewal for the Guild. Rick's letter is the first step in that process, in which we are determined to explain our benefit to all authors in the U.S., and hopefully, draw in many more.
Many thanks, and best wishes for a warm holiday season.
Joe: Perhaps I'm over-reacting, but I find Turow's use of the term "self-renewal" interesting.
Barry: Interesting as in, what the hell does it even mean? Is it like when terrorists "self-radicalize?"
I'll have more to say about this below (and Russo and Turow will give me plenty of opportunities), but for now, I'll just point out that anytime someone is addressing you with jargon as bizarre and opaque as, "Hi, we're here to self-renew!"--or, worse yet, when they stretch the nonsense out into an even more verbose phrase like "beginning a process of self-renewal"--you are being bullshitted.
Joe: Hah. Well, here's what I think Turow means, even if he doesn't realize it. Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people:
First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization.
Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself.
The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.
My reading of Turow's words is that he cares about the Authors Guild, wants it to continue (self-renew), and needs authors to do so.
Isn't that backwards? Shouldn't Turow be concerned with what the Guild can do for authors, and not what authors can do for the Guild? Isn't the whole point of the Guild to help authors, and not simply to acquire as many authors as possible so the Guild can continue to exist?
How messed-up is it when an organization--created by writers to benefit writers--realizes it has to take steps to explain how it benefits those writers? Has the Authors Guild figured out out that it needs writers more than writers need the Guild?
If so, good for them, because they are correct. Writers don't need the Authors Guild. Many writers do need guidance, but they should seek it from peers who are living in 2013, not in 1998. We should seek help and advice from those who are thriving in this new publishing world, not those who made fortunes in the legacy world, years ago.
Barry: Well, one thing Turow and I agree on here. Russo's letter "speaks eloquently for itself." This is supposed to be the letter by which "we are determined to explain our benefit to all authors in the U.S., and hopefully, draw in many more"? With what? Glittering generalities, unexamined assumptions, and numerous disproven memes?
Seriously, where's the part about how the "Authors Guild" has secured for authors digital royalties better than the 25% legacy industry lockstep? Where the AG has succeeded in preventing legacy publishers from draconian rights lockups? Or gotten the legacy industry to share real time sales data with authors? Or pressured the legacy industry to present royalty statements in a fashion just marginally clearer than the Dead Sea Scrolls? Or dragged the legacy industry away from its insistence on paying authors amounts due only twice a year?
Richard and Scott, you're trying to sell authors on the benefits of membership--membership that will cost those authors money--and you can't point to even one single concrete success you've had (in over a century of existence) in supposedly defending author interests?
I'd be shocked at the poor salesmanship. But I'm not. Because those successes don't exist. And in the absence of any successes to point to, what can Russo and Turow do besides bloviate?
Joe: Wikipedia concurs. For a century-old organization, The Authors Guild hasn't done anything worth bragging about.
So now here's Pulitzer Prize Winning author Richard Russo, the first step in the Authors Guild process of self-renewal.
Richard Russo: An Open Letter to My Fellow Authors
It's all changing, right before our eyes. Not just publishing, but the writing life itself, our ability to make a living from authorship. Even in the best of times, which these are not, most writers have to supplement their writing incomes by teaching, or throwing up sheet-rock, or cage fighting.
Joe: Holy sheet-rock.
Actually, I though the sheet-rock and cage fighting references were funny. (Intentionally funny. Things become unintentionally funny later.)
But I have to take exception to Russo's assertion that these are not the best of times.
In February of this year, I got my backlist returned to me, and self-published the titles once controlled by legacy publishers.
The most I ever made from these books, when controlled by legacy publishers and including all advances and royalties (all of my legacy pubbed books earned out their advances), was $50,000 a year.
This year I've made $1,000,000. Because I--not legacy publishers--control my intellectual property.
There are thousands of authors who were once legacy published, or were rejected by legacy publishers, or didn't even bother submitting to legacy publishers, who are making real money, paying real bills, because of this self-publishing revolution. Visit www.kindleboards.com to talk to a few hundred of them, and read about some of the most successful at http://www.kboards.com/authors/.
This is the greatest time ever to be a writer. Unless, perhaps, you are a writer who was a huge bestseller under the old system…
Richard: It wasn't always so, but for the last two decades I've lived the life most writers dream of: I write novels and stories, as well as the occasional screenplay, and every now and then I hit the road for a week or two and give talks. In short, I'm one of the blessed, and not just in terms of my occupation. My health is good, my children grown, their educations paid for. I'm sixty-four, which sucks, but it also means that nothing that happens in publishing—for good or ill—is going to affect me nearly as much as it affects younger writers, especially those who haven't made their names yet. Even if the e-price of my next novel is $1.99, I won't have to go back to cage fighting.
Joe: Here begins the fundamental disconnect.
Richard, aren't you aware there are thousands of writers making a living from $1.99 ebooks? That what you considered to be a slight (and, actually, it may indeed be a slight when your publisher pays you 35 cents on a $1.99 ebook when I can make $1.36 on a $1.99 ebook using Amazon Select Countdown) in fact represents liberation for writers--and for readers?
Inexpensive ebooks aren't what make authors dig into their retirement funds. Or fight in cage matches. It's quite the opposite. I've made my million bucks this year pricing my backlist at $3.99 and under. And my books weren't available in every bookstore, airport, drugstore, and department store.
In fact, my books weren't available in ANY bookstore, airport, drugstore, or departments store.
Richard: Still, if it turns out that I've enjoyed the best the writing life has to offer, that those who follow, even the most brilliant, will have to settle for less, that won't make me happy and I suspect it won't cheer other writers who've been as fortunate as I. It's these writers, in particular, that I'm addressing here.
Barry: What is this based on? "...those who follow, even the most brilliant, will have to settle for less." Where is the evidence for this? Because all the evidence with which I'm familiar indicates the opposite--including, for example, that a quarter of the top Kindle 100 books are self-published. Ignoring--or denying--the fact that thousands of authors are now making good livings outside the legacy system is at this point like arguing the earth is flat.
So Richard, I'm asking you: given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary (just click on the links in the paragraph above to get started), what is the basis for your fear that you and legacy publishing are all that's for the the best in the best of all possible worlds, and that it's all downhill from here? Do you have any real-world evidence at all in favor of the proposition? If so, why do you not cite it?
Joe: Perhaps, Richard, you believe you are addressing those "less fortunate" authors. But you aren't. Because the only authors who are being forced to settle for less in this new publishing paradigm are hardcover and paperback bestsellers. Those who have won big prizes, and enjoyed huge print runs, and had movies made from their intellectual property. For everyone else, self-publishing and Amazon Publishing represent new choices, and therefore greater opportunity.
Richard: Not everyone believes, as I do, that the writing life is endangered by
Joe: This is a long list here, so we're going to break it down point-by-point...
Richard: the downward pressure of e-book pricing,
Joe: This was my best earning year ever as a writer. It was also the year I did the least amount of work. I only released one new solo novel this year, did zero interviews, zero speeches, zero travelling, zero conventions, zero book fairs, and my only self-promo was some advertising (BookBub and others) and this blog.
All with the titles in my oeuvre being $3.99 or less.
Barry: Ah, the Orwellian language. "Downward pressure of e-book pricing." Known in plain English as "lower-priced books." Which people who value reading and care about readers would presumably want.
But it would be uncomfortable for Russo to make the argument honestly: "I'm against lower-priced books. I think less expensive books are bad." So, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink, he instinctively hides behind the jargon, instead.
My previous publishers insisted on pricing the ebooks of my new novels at $12.99. By contrast, my Amazon-published novels come out at $5.99 (and my new one, Graveyard of Memories, out on February 11, will in fact be priced at $4.99). I've sold far, far more copies of these low-priced Amazon titles, and made far, far more money from them, then I did with any of my legacy priced books. Similarly, my legacy publishers charged $7.99 for my backlist titles in digital. When I got my rights back and self-published those titles earlier this year, I halved the prices--and more than doubled my income. Why is that bad?
And one thing that pisses me off any time I have to listen to whining about how "books are being devalued" and "downward pricing pressure" and similar such bullshit bingo in which Russo engages: it includes not a thought about what's best for readers. Don't readers benefit from lower-priced books? Don't we want more people to be able to afford more books? But to the extent Russo cares about readers at all, it's exclusively in a self-centered, reductionist, trickle-down-economics fashion, along the lines of, "What's good for the publishing industry must also be good for readers" (watch, he really does this a little ways down).
Richard: by the relentless, ongoing erosion of copyright protection,
Joe: I'm wildly pirated. I encourage it. I've even done experiments that have shown my sales increased through piracy.
I have never seen a convincing study that shows piracy harms ebook sales. In fact, I haven't seen a study that it harms any digital sales.
If you are concerned about piracy, make sure your books are easily available, affordable, and have no restrictions on them (DRM, proprietary formats, country boundaries).
Barry: Anyone interested in learning more about what Russo calls "the relentless, ongoing erosion of copyright protection" would do well to read TechDirt, about the best blog out there on the topic. Unlike Russo and Turow, Mike Masnick and the other writers there consistently use real-world evidence to back up their claims that the damage wrought by "piracy" is hugely overrated, to the extent it exists at all. It would be nice if Russo and Turow would imitate TechDirt by themselves citing some actual evidence. For some particularly incisive (and hilarious) reading, here's Masnick absolutely eviscerating some of Turow's crazy claims about piracy, copyright, and the Constitution. Naturally, Turow has issued no public corrections
Richard: by the scorched-earth capitalism of companies like Google and Amazon,
Joe: Ah yes, those terrible capitalist organizations that rose to power by giving customers what they want. And in the case of Amazon, treating authors like customers rather than cheap, replaceable machine cogs.
If Amazon and Google keep being such big, capitalist bullies, the Big 5 might actually have to… I dunno… compete. Or at least try to.
Barry: Well, you have to understand that Turow, at least, thinks competition is bad (likewise innovation). It's important to know where these guys are coming from.
Richard: by spineless publishers who won't stand up to them,
Joe: I thought they tried to stand up to them, by meeting in secret and colluding, then denying it.
Hmm. Perhaps that was a bit spineless. What we need is someone who will stand up to Amazon's tyranny. Someone who will put their money where their mouth is. Someone who is mad as hell, and just won't take it anymore, and will lead the way by refusing to sell any more books through Amazon.
Barry: Yeah, this one always astonishes me. I mean, just because you're being hypocritical, it doesn't mean ipso facto you're wrong, but… this letter is supposed to persuade people to join the "Authors Guild" and its mission of standing up to a company that practices "scorched-earth capitalism" and seeks "world domination" and glories in "burying your competitors and then burying the shovel." And the guys who are leading that charge… sell their books through the very company in question. Who are they trying to inspire with their noble example?
Richard and Scott, you've both said many times how you're set for life, the revolution can't affect you, your intentions are purely altruistic, etc. So what's keeping you from instructing your publishers to pull your existing books from, and to stop offering your new books with, Amazon? How can you presume to lecture others about what sacrifices they should make in their own businesses when you're so nakedly unwilling to put your own money where your mouths are?
Richard: by the "information wants to be free" crowd who believe that art should be cheap or free and treated as a commodity,
Joe: I do believe art should be cheap, or free, and the artist can still earn a very good living. I don't believe ebooks are a commodity, because they don't conform to the rules of supply and demand. I also believe that being able to reach an audience and practice my art without having to impress gatekeepers (agents, publishers, grant benefactors) is an amazing, unprecedented opportunity.
I dislike comparing art to commodities, but probably for the opposite reason Russo does. Commodities include necessities. Art is not as important as food or gas. Art is a luxury. And in many cases, luxuries are interchangeable. Someone wanting my next book, which hasn't been released yet, could derive comparable pleasure from one of Barry's books.
Writers are entertainers. We're not feeding villages. We're not curing cancer. No one owes us a living because we spend hours a writing stories. When it comes down to it, we're really not that important.
And for all of you who spell art with a capital A and want to point to some work of staggering genius that changed your life, I recommend you go without eating for two weeks to put things in perspective.
Barry: This is just a silly strawman. There's no debate here about whether information should be free. The question is, should individuals be able to determine for themselves what prices to charge for what they sell? And no one is arguing that books are a commodity, a notion that in this context is just a distraction. Authors with powerful brands will be able to charge higher prices (I once saw a Ken Follett ebook--I think it was Fall of Giants--priced at something like $21.00. My thought was, Go Ken!). Other authors will find they can maximize their incomes at a lower per-unit price point. Why does this notion offend Russo? Does he support price-fixing, instead?
Every time I ask one of these questions, it makes me a little sad that the president of the august Authors Guild lacks the integrity to respond. But alas.
Richard: by internet search engines who are all too happy to direct people to on-line sites that sell pirated (read "stolen") books,
Joe: Now we've gotten into "you damn kids get off my lawn" kind of cantankery, when you blame search engines for doing what search engines do.
Or… wait! I've got it! Let's require search engines to ban and censor sites we don't like! Information might want to be free, but it shouldn't be! Everyone should pay dearly for it! They should pay $12.99! Er, I mean $9.99, because legacy publishers aren't allowed to control prices anymore because of all that illegal collusion.
I wonder if the Pulitzer judges paid for the copies of Empire Falls they read. Or if (gasp!) they got them for free! Because no good can come from getting free books!
Barry: I have to say it again: here's Masnick absolutely eviscerating some of Turow's crazy claims about piracy, copyright, and the Constitution. Richard, you really should have taken the trouble to read Masnick's piece before publicly repeating Scott's thoroughly debunked and nonsensical claims. After all, you're a member of this thing called the Authors Guild. Don't you care about providing authors with accurate information?
Richard: and even by militant librarians who see no reason why they shouldn't be able to "lend" our e-books without restriction.
Joe: I have recently created a company that will allow libraries to lend ebooks without restriction. No BS. More on this soon. I'll make an announcement in early 2014, but the genesis of it came from this old blog post.
I'm guessing Turow and Russo won't put their ebooks into my program.
But then, it really isn't their choice, because they don't control their rights. If I decide I want their books, my new business can simply deal with their publishers directly.
Barry: Jeez, even librarians are bad guys now? Paranoid much?
Joe: Are you telling me librarians don't carry guns at your library, Barry? Or send you to a prison camp for returning a book that is overdue?
Barry: Maybe we could have a new Authors Guild slogan: "Librarians. The Real Enemy of Reading."
Joe: Oh, Authors Guild, whatever can I do?! Those militant librarians are trying to share my work with more readers, and thereby create more readers for my work!
Barry: Actually, libraries aren't exactly fans of Turow's nonsense. Here's Maureen Sullivan, President of the American Library Association, with a common-sense response to Turow.
Richard: But those of us who are alarmed by these trends have a duty, I think, to defend and protect the writing life that's been good to us, not just on behalf of younger writers who will not have our advantages if we don't, but also on behalf of readers, whose imaginative lives will be diminished if authorship becomes untenable as a profession.
Barry: I have to ask again: where's the evidence of your duty to make sure the authors you're addressing are being provided information that hasn't been debunked? That's backed with a modicum of evidence? That's been minimally thought through? Why doesn't this noble sense of duty extend to the president of the Authors Guild ever publicly correcting any of the embarrassingly egregious mistakes people like Joe, Mike Masnick, and others are always having to point out to him?
But that's not how Russo conceives of his "duty." He says it himself, and couldn't be more clear: his duty, as he conceives it, is primarily to "protect the writing life that's been good to us." Everything else is subordinate to that.
"We have to protect the system that's been good to me us…" Why does this sound familiar? Oh, right -- because it's been around for so long. It even has a name: protectionism.
Joe: You know what would be nice? If someone would think about readers!
Hey, didn't James Patterson also spout similar nonsense earlier this year? Didn't some blogger take Patterson to task for saying that?
Readers have more choices than ever. They have more books available to them, at lower prices, than ever before. It doesn't matter where they live, or if they can physically get to a bookstore or library, because ebooks are delivered instantly. It doesn't matter if they have vision problems, because ebooks have adjustable font, or will even read themselves out loud.
Ebooks are the best thing to happen to readers since the Gutenberg Press, and to the writers who are now able to reach those readers directly.
Barry: Just to amplify that last point: if your primary goals have to do with what's best for readers, and if you think more reading is good for society, then you cannot be opposed to lower-priced books. If you are opposed to lower-priced books, then you might care about readers and reading, but you must by definition care about other things more. Such as, I don't know, ""protect[ing] the writing life that's been good to us."
Joe: How about the "younger writers who will not have our advantages"? Does this mean I won't… I won't...
Barry: Yes, Joe. You won't win a Pulitzer.
Joe: Nooooooooooooooooooooo!
Barry: But seriously, I get so tired of this weird, evidence-free universe Russo's ideas float around in. What "advantages?" Russo won big in a system that worked for him. I'm happy for him. But what happened as a result is that he became incapable of understanding that the system in question produced thousands of losers for every winner. You can see this stunted worldview on display in the New York Times op-ed I referred to earlier, where Russo tries to divine what Amazon's price-matching feature portends for the book world by exclusively contacting a few rich and famous cronies. This is exactly like Warren Buffett trying to figure out what a new provision in the tax code might mean for America by phoning up Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Pierre Omidyar.
Richard, younger writers are doing fine. Follow a few of the links above and you'll see. Or do some minimal Internet research of your own. I'm glad the old way worked for you--truly. And I love your books. But you have to understand that the old way isn't the only way. That makes sense, doesn't it? That there are other ways? That industries evolve? That other systems might work for other writers, and that those writers should be free to pursue what works for them even if it makes you personally uncomfortable?
Richard: I know, I know. Some insist that there's never been a better time to be an author. Self-publishing has democratized the process, they argue, and authors can now earn royalties of up to seventy percent, where once we had to settle for what traditional publishers told us was our share.
Joe: And that was only if legacy publishers would even deign to offer us one of their take-it-or-leave-it unconscionable contracts.
Also, Richard, please tell us if you've been able to get 70% royalties from your publishers, or if you just accepted what they told you was your share.
And another thing: you make these statements as though suggesting they're incorrect, but then you never bother stating how they're incorrect. Can you please refute something? Or form an actual argument? Can't you do a single thing to persuade via logic and facts? A hyperlink? Anything at all other than evidence-free conjecture?
Barry: I was going to say the same thing. Russo states two opinions with which he obviously disagrees, then throws in a fact--authors can now make 70% royalties--as though this proposition is equally dubious. Nobody's "arguing" that authors can now earn 70% royalties. This is just a fact, and one that Russo apparently doesn't know how to discuss rationally. That, or he doesn't know the difference between an opinion he doesn't like and the indisputable facts that might form the basis for that opinion.
Hmm, I just can't figure out why this letter hasn't inspired me to help the Authors Guild engage in its process of self-renewal. Maybe it's just me?
Richard: Anecdotal evidence is marshaled in support of this view (statistical evidence to follow).
Barry: I think this might be the most breathtakingly unself-aware claim in the entire letter. Russo is complaining that proponents of choice in publishing refer only to anecdotes? Please, Richard, take a few minutes and reread your letter. And by all means, point to even a single anecdote, a statistic, or any other piece of supporting evidence from the world outside your imagination. If you think argument without solid evidence is worthless, why have you published such an evidence-free letter as this one? How can you not see that you're exemplifying the very behavior you decry, while your critics exemplify the opposite?
Hint: here's one possible explanation.
Richard: Those of us who are alarmed, we're told, are, well, alarmists. Time will tell who's right,
Joe: Actually, I can tell you. I'm right. You're wrong. I don't require time to reveal that. Facts and logic are what reveal that.
Barry: Richard, I don't think you're an alarmist. Sometimes alarm is called for. Sometimes, in fact, its absence can only exist as the product of denial (anything short of alarm in the face of Edward Snowden's revelations, I would argue, would be naive at best. Plus, the surveillance state really does think of itself as a giant octopus doing unspeakable things to the earth!).
No, I don't think you're an alarmist. Rather, I think that, at least on this topic, you're thoughtless. Likewise Turow. If you thought about these things a bit, if you did some minimal research, if you would stop amplifying debunked claims that never made sense in the first place, you might feel less alarmed. So no, it's not the alarm that concerns me. It's the lack of thought behind it.
Joe: I don't consider you an alarmist either, Richard. I consider you a protector of the Old Way of Doing Things.
Barry: The OWDOT?
Joe: It transposes two letters, but I like how that sounds.
Barry: No, I think we can make it work: OWoDoT. Get it?
Joe: Okay, I'm going with it. Richard, the OWDOT treated you well. In some ways, it's natural you would want to protect it.
But that's the sort of thinking that bankrupted Kodak. There exists a new technology that allows for a new way to reach readers. This way is faster, easier, and cheaper than it has ever been in history.
Instead of embracing this invention, publishers have been trying for years to stop it. And they had good reason to try--because they didn't control the ebook market like they controlled the paper market.
Barry and I explain it all in Be the Monkey. It's free, so don't concern yourself with tracking down a pirated copy.
Barry: Seriously, Richard, why don't you try reading it? I know you can get much better confirmation bias by calling up a few friends who are situationally exactly like you and who you know share your world view. But is that really the best way to pressure-check your opinions? To come to grips with new ideas?
Joe: Hey, aren't we both friends who are situationally similar and share the same world view?
Barry: Yes! And we punish ourselves regularly reading and responding to the Russos and Turows of the world. I'd love to see them do something remotely similar.
Joe: Won't happen. First of all, they won't even respond to this. Second, when I call you it is because I want dissenting opinion, not corroboration. I want you (and the many other peers I rely upon to pressure-check me) to prove me wrong. To find points I missed. To beat me in a debate.
I seek alternative views, not yes men.
Barry: It's fine to discuss things with your pals. But there's no excuse for shielding yourself from information that contradicts your biases. Or for failing to engage your critics--especially when you're on a self-declared mission to protect and defend authors from scorched-earth capitalism and all that.
Joe: Richard, I think you're worried because you did well in the past, and you fear you won't be able to equal that success in the future. Those who benefit from the status quo tend to want things to stay the same.
But grumbling at the wind won't stop it from happening. Building windmills, however… that's what Barry and I and thousands of writers who will never join the Authors Guild are all doing. We're embracing the future, and doing fine.
Richard: but surely it can't be a good idea for writers to stand on the sidelines while our collective fate is decided by others.
Joe: Kinda like, um, the Big 5 deciding our fate?
Barry: Yes, I'd be much more comfortable letting my fate be decided by purveyors of ignorance like the Authors Guild.
Or--crazy idea, I know--writers could even make decisions for themselves. Or, if they want to act collectively, they could form a guild that's worthy of the name (though I'd recommend calling it a union rather than a guild, unless the idea really is to use a medieval term to signify the organization is archaic). We would know if such a union exists by whether it's able to get legacy publishers to change some of their more antediluvian and draconian practices (again, 25% lockstep digital royalties, etc, etc). Richard? Scott? Could you share some of those successes with the authors you're attempting to bring in on your process of self-renewal? If not, then leaving aside for the moment the medievalism of the terminology, why are you calling yourself a guild?
It's a serious question. Here, I'm a skeptical author. Can you demonstrate to me how the Authors Guild represents my interests in any way that's meaningfully adverse to legacy publishing? Can you provide any case studies of circumstances where legacy publishers were treating authors poorly, and you were able to effect meaningful change beneficial to authors? I don't know why you would have left such evidence out of your letter (after all, you've pointed out that you disdain evidence-free argument).
And if such evidence doesn't exist, can you accept that you're much less a guild--and certainly not a union--but rather something more akin to the legacy publishing industry's best-known lobbyist?
RIchard: Especially when we consider who those others are. Entities like Google and Apple and Amazon are rich and powerful enough to influence governments, and every day they demonstrate their willingness to wield that enormous power.
Joe: Kinda like, um, the Big 5 wielding enormous power?
Barry: I'd actually like to see the "Authors Guild" wield a little power on behalf of authors and against legacy publishers. Unless… wait, I get it. Why would the AG ever wield power that way? Because just like what's good for authors is good for readers, what's good for legacy publishing is good for authors. It all makes sense to me now.
Joe: Richard, did you read the part above where I said how much money I made this year? I've made more money self-pubbing in the last six months than I made in eight years with legacy publishers.
That's because I had no power before. My legacy publishers had the power. Once the power came back to me (via my rights reverting), I did what they couldn't do: I reached readers.
Amazon and Google and Apple empower writers. But you don't like them because they're eating your corporate partners for lunch.
Richard: Books and authors are a tiny but not insignificant part of the larger battle being waged between these companies, a battleground that includes the movie, music, and newspaper industries.
Joe: Here's the same kind of thinking I was taking Turow to task for earlier.
I'm not an industry. I'm an author. I don't care about trying to protect an industry. That's not my concern. My concern is reaching readers.
You and Scott found cozy spots in the legacy industry, and now you're afraid it is going away. Which is understandable, because it is. And since you can't find any logical or factual way to defend your position, you spout nonsense and hope no one is paying close enough attention to call you out.
I managed to find my place, and make a good living, in the self-publishing industry. But if that goes away, I'll roll with it and try to figure out the next thing that comes along.
I don't fight to protect the status quo, because I'm already looking at 2015 and deciding how I can thrive there.
I believe you're looking at 2001 and wondering how to get back to those good old days.
Richard: I think it's fair to say that to a greater or lesser degree, those other industries have all gotten their asses kicked, just as we're getting ours kicked now. And not just in the courts.
Joe: Was that a DOJ/agency pricing reference? If so, I fried that fish already.
Barry: What is it with this "we" and "our" stuff? It's like a David Brooks column, or a Colbert parody. Why are some people unable to understand that their own situations and preferences aren't representative of those of everyone else? It's weird.
Look, I'm sorry if Russo feels like someone kicked his ass. I don't feel that way. I'm doing fine in the new system. Thousands of other writers are, too (and readers are doing better than anyone).
We're not telling Russo or Turow what to do. Why do they have to get up in our business? The more I watch the defenders of the OWDOT try to convince everyone else that there's only one right way to publish books--their way--the more I'm convinced that the revolution in publishing is fundamentally about the forces of group control, on one side, and the forces of individual freedom, on the other. I know this characterization would likely upset Russo and Turow, but who's intent on telling other people what to charge, who to work with, and how to publish? And whose attitude is just, "Look, do whatever you think is best for yourself, but stop trying to interfere with me?"
Joe: As for the other industries getting their asses kicked, perhaps they should have--I dunno--listened to what customers wanted and tried to compete?
And you speak for "our" industry. It is no longer "my" industry. Yet I am an author.
This kind of talk is why I started calling you guys the Publisher's Guild. Because you want to protect the industry that served you, not other authors. All glory to the OWDOT!
Richard: Somehow, we're even losing the war for hearts and minds. When we defend copyright, we're seen as greedy.
Joe: Actually, you're seen as naive.
I'd love to live in the world I want to exist, but I'm stuck in this world. This world has digital piracy. Digital piracy has not been shown to harm artists. The efforts used to combat digital piracy irritates consumers--ask any consumer who wants to transfer an ebook with DRM to more than one of their ereading devices, or to share it with Mom, or to store a copy on their hard drive in case the proprietary format ever changes.
The music companies could have looked at Napster and said, "Hey! People like to listen to and share digital music files! How can we give people what they want?"
Instead they said, "Hey! Let's sue!"
End result: the biggest retailer of music on the planet isn't a music company, it's a computer company.
BTW, you are losing the war for hearts and minds because you are wrong. You and Scott are in the elite minority and are desperate to defend your standing, but you can't even come up with a halfway decent argument. Or any evidence at all.
Consider that. You believe everything is up for grabs here, that the future is at stake. And both you and Scott are great writers (and Scott's a lawyer, too). And between the two of you, you can't pen a coherent argument? Does that tell you anything?
Barry: Took the words out of my mouth. If you're worried about losing the war for hearts and minds, Richard, maybe it's because of stunningly lame letters like this one? Maybe you'd have a better chance if Scott would correct his egregious misstatements after others have pointed them out to him or otherwise engage his critics? Or if the AG were a tad more transparent? Or if you could answer any of the questions in this critique, and provide a few case studies of actual AG work on behalf of authors that has resulted in meaningful changes by the legacy industry?
Why don't you try telling authors what good the AG has ever actually done them? Can't you?
Okay, let me make it easier. How about listing five things you wish--just wish, it doesn't have to be more than that--the legacy industry would change on behalf of the authors you claim to represent. Can you do even that much? Just name five things. That would be a good start. Because if you're afraid to do even that much, there really isn't much hope, is there? And if there's nothing you wish would change because, again, you think legacy publishing already is all that's for the the best in the best of all possible worlds, then we have a different kind of problem.
Joe: And piggybacking on Barry's point, if you can name five things--hell, if you can name one thing--about legacy publishing that could be changed to benefit authors, then why hasn't the Guild done anything to fight for that?
Richard: When we justly sue, we're seen as litigious.
Joe: Actually, that's when you're seen as greedy. It's like when the RIAA sued that grandmother. It just looks bad.
Barry: Not just greedy. Stupid. And antediluvian. Again, where is the evidence that piracy is actually harming authors? Suing to stop it is boneheaded and counterproductive. If common sense doesn't tell you this is so, have a look at this new London School of Economics Study, which finds that not only isn't piracy hurting the entertainment industry, it's actually helping it.
Richard: When we attempt to defend the physical book and stores that sell them, we're seen as Luddites.
Joe: Wow, this argument is still going on? Didn't I address this four years ago, before ebooks really took off?
I love bookstores. I've signed books at more bookstores than any author in history (over 1200). I even have a plan to help bookstores, which I hatched with Blake Crouch (and not a single bookstore has taken us up on it.)
But my main goal as a writer is to find readers. Those are my customers. So I go where they're actually buying books, not where I'd like them to buy books.
Barry: I get so tired of these canards. Richard, I don't think you're a luddite (again, I think you're thoughtless, based on how little thought I've seen in your public writings regarding publishing). And I don't care if you want to "defend the physical book and stores that sell them," whatever that means. As long as you're okay with my selling books how, and at what prices, and with whom I want. Live and let live--are you okay with that?
Richard: Our altruism, when we're able to summon it, is too often seen as self-serving.
Barry: Maybe because… it's not altruism?
I know, I know… it's always for a good cause. That's why we called our invasion of Iraq "Iraqi Freedom." It's why a federal law to disenfranchise gays was called "The Defense of Marriage Act." Why is it the people who most want to get up in other people's business always tell themselves they're doing it out of altruism? I guess they couldn't do this shit if they were honest with themselves.
Richard, have you read Reinhold Niebuhr's Moral Man and Immoral Society? Here's one of my favorite quotes, perhaps worth some reflection: "We have noted that self-deception and hypocrisy is an unvarying element in the moral life of all human beings. It is the tribute which morality pays to immorality..."
Joe: You hit a home run with this one, Richard. I agree 100%. Because what you believe is altruism is, indeed, self-serving.
You're not concerned for the welfare of others. Others are doing fine. You're concerned about your welfare, and the welfare of the Authors Guild, though you have yet to show why the Authors Guild is good for authors. You haven't even tried.
Richard: But here's the thing. What the Apples and Googles and Amazons and Netflixes of the world all have in common (in addition to their quest for world domination), is that they're all starved for content, and for that they need us. Which means we have a say in all this.
Barry: This is a really interesting concept. Has the AG ever tried applying it to the legacy industry? Or is the legacy industry inherently, ineluctably beneficial to authors?
Right, I forgot. What's good for the legacy industry is good for authors. My question was nonsensical. Never mind.
Joe: Barry! Stop questioning OWDOT!
Barry: I know, I know. I should just let go and be assimilated. But seriously, wouldn't it be great if the AG could provide a few case studies of how, because publishers are starved for content, the AG has used its "say" to effect meaningful change for the authors it claims to represent? If they could do that, maybe they could even win a couple hearts and minds, and they wouldn't have to worry so much about processes of self-renewal.
Richard: Everything in the digital age may feel new and may seem to operate under new rules, but the conversation about the relationship between art and commerce is age-old, and artists must be part of it.
Joe: Like artists were a part of it in legacy publishing?
Could you assume, for a moment, that perhaps the Big 5 treat Pulitzer winners and bestselling authors a bit better than they treat all other authors?
Perhaps you and Scott were able to play a part in the relationship between art and commerce because your publishers allowed it. Perhaps you got better ebook royalty rates than your peers (and then had to sign NDAs saying you can never admit it publicly). Perhaps you had a say so in the price of your books, your distribution, your titles, your cover art.
The rest of us--the mid-list majority that the Authors Guild purports to represent--were not treated like you and Scott were.
But now, for the first time, we can directly reach readers. We aren't simply part of the conversation about the relationship between art and commerce--we directly make decisions about that relationship.
Richard: To that end we'd do well to speak with one voice,
Barry: You mean… act like a union? Collective bargaining? Wring more favorable terms from the industry that in lockstep pays authors a mere 25% in digital royalties, and deigns to pay us only twice a year? After all, they need our content!
Richard: though it's here we demonstrate our greatest weakness.
Joe: I'll posit that our greatest weakness is being shills and lackeys and toadies for the legacy publishing industry because we've so desperately craved their attention due to their being the only game in town.
In fact, wasn't the Authors Guild created to inform about and protect authors from the publishing industry? How did it go from that to openly defending publishers who break the law and cost us money?
Barry: Well, since you ask, it's called regulatory capture. The AG is a textbook case.
Joe: Could that be why this letter is so lame? They can't come up with an argument because they're the bad guys? They can't persuade because their position is indefensible? They can't debate because it's one big house of cards?
Why not be honest?
Barry: I know that was a rhetorical question, but again: Orwell.
Joe: Join the Authors Guild! We represent the .0001% of you who are already hugely successful! And we get all the stupid mid-listers to support our cause! We scare them with alarming boogeymen tales:
- Beware rampant piracy!
- Do you want all the bookstores to vanish?!
- Amazon is taking over the world!
- Google is scanning our books and violating copyright!
- Kindle text-to-speech is violating copyright!
- Copyright as we know it is becoming unenforceable!
The only way to stop these terrible occurrences and quell your misguided fears is to join the Guild... and pay $90 a year!
This point is extremely important, so I want to tease it out a bit more:
The Guild is trying to scare you to join, because it can't convince you using facts and logic. And the things the Guild wants you to fear aren't really scary at all..
- Piracy isn't going to harm your sales as long as your books are affordable, available, and easily accessible.
- Record stores vanished, but musicians still flourish. I made $1M this year without selling a single book in a brick and mortar store.
- Amazon may indeed take over the world, and then commence its thousand-year-reign by offering customers great deals and authors great royalties.
- Google book scanning was believed by the court to improve book sales and the lawsuit was dismissed.
- Text-to-speech is no longer an option on new Kindle Paperwhites, but it wasn't because of anything the Guild did.
- Using copyright to make sure no one is selling your intellectual property without your permission is still important, and supported worldwide (in fact, copyright protection has gotten so strong that if anything it's out of control). But peer-to-peer file sharing doesn't harm sales, and restricting use on digital files is almost universally hated by libraries and consumers.
Nothing the Guild says is scary actually is scary. These are fear mongering tactics that depend on you not looking at them too closely and not thinking about them at all. The Guild uses these tactics because they can't convince authors to join based on facts, logic, or even common sense. So they resort to fear-mongering, instead (in fairness, fear-mongering can be pretty damn funny).
Barry: This is the most insidious thing about the Authors Guild. The name itself is so perfectly misleading! The right name is the most important part of propaganda. How could anyone oppose the Patriot Act? Are you not a patriot? And what could possibly be objectionable about something called The National Security Agency? Don't you want the nation to be secure? So yes, "Legacy Publishing Lobbying Arm" wouldn't be nearly as effective in getting authors to join. Tell those authors it's for them, and regardless of the truth you're already halfway there.
Richard: Writers are notoriously independent cusses, hard to wrangle. We spend our mostly solitary days filling up blank pieces of paper with words. We must like it that way, or we wouldn't do it. But while it's pretty to think that our odd way of life will endure, there's no guarantee.
Barry: Writers might have to stop filling up blank pieces of paper with words? What is Russo even talking about here? Is he saying that if publishing evolves and authors are free to publish in new ways, writers will have to stop writing?
That losing effort for hearts and minds, Richard? Could it have something to do with fanciful assertions like this one?
Joe: So, let me get this straight. You want some sort of guarantee that we can stop technology from advancing, halt the future, and force readers to buy books the way you want them to rather than they way they want to?
Filling up blank pieces of paper with words will endure. Actually, the "paper" part of that won't. But filling up a screen with words--writing stories--will always be around. Even if all stories were free. (I'll touch in this in a future blog post--you guys are gonna love it.)
What won't endure is the legacy publishing cartel having a quasi-monopoly on book sales because it owned the distribution channels.
We get it, Richard. You and Scott did very well with the OWDOT. And you want things to stay that way. And you'll mourn those days when they're gone.
But for the majority of writers, that attitude is like mourning British rule in the post-revolution United States. "Ah, remember the good old days when we had the hell taxed out of us but had no representation in government?"
Richard: The writing life is ours to defend. Protecting it also happens to be the mission of the Authors Guild,
Joe: Actually, Scott's intro, and your letter, have not done a single thing to persuade authors that they need the Guild. You spouted a list of disquieting things happening in the industry, but haven't shown how the Guild is spearheading movement toward the greater good, or helping writers in these apparently scary times, or doing anything other than lamely attempting to recruit more authors to help you self-renew.
Barry: I'm really getting tired of the self-serving bullshit about "altruism" and all the rest. Look, the AG exists to defend a system, one that (coincidentally) has been very good to its president and to Russo. It's not about defending "the writing life." That's just fatuous. More people are living the writing life than ever before. Russo doesn't care about them (actually, I don't think he even knows about them). He cares about preserving a system.
Joe: All glory to the OWDOT! Everytime I say that I think of:
Which is oddly appropriate. And also sort of a tie-in to Be the Monkey. You don't want to be the frog, or be hypnotized by the toad.
Richard: which I myself did not join until last year, when the light switch in my cave finally got tripped. Are you a member? If not, please consider becoming one. We're badly outgunned and in need of reinforcements.
Joe: Reinforcements for what? Reinforcements to pay the Guild $90 in annual dues so the Guild can self-renew?
Barry: "Engage in a process of self-renewal."
Joe: Right. How about this: Guild, renew thyself. Because "self-renew" doesn't mean "writers do it for you by paying dues."
Or, at the very least, explain why I should pay you $90 a year when you consistently defend the legacy industry that has screwed thousands of authors while attacking the self-publishing industry that has benefited tens of thousands of authors?
Barry: The cave imagery, though… that felt about right.
Richard: If the writing life has done well by you, as it has by me, here's your chance to return the favor. Do it now, because there's such a thing as being too late.
Joe: And then missiles will blow up little Daisy!
Join now, before it's too late!
Barry: Okay, that was honesty leaking through again. It's like saying, "If you're one of the one percent, if America's economic system as currently configured has done as well by you as it has by me, then fight to preserve it!"
Joe: Can somebody, somewhere, please form a writing organization that actually benefits writers? That doesn't exist to help the rich get richer? That won't succumb to Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy or regulatory capture for a decade or two? That won't use the power of a large untitled group to further the agenda of an entitled few?
Barry: Yes. The legacy industry has its lobbying arm, cleverly entitled "Authors Guild." An organization that really does use its power to protect the interests of authors would be a welcome counterweight.
Or here's another way to think of it. Look, we're not arguing that the Authors Guild does nothing on behalf of authors. A quick trip to their website will reveal various services they perform. But you have to understand these services in context. Think of them as offering help to fishes--but only to the ones that agree to remain in and work to preserve the aquarium. Fishes that want to jump the net and swim in the adjacent ocean freak them out. It's not so much that they're anti-fish… they're just pro-aquarium. But they won't call themselves that. They call themselves pro-fish, but, whether they realize it or not, that's not really what they're about.
We're also not arguing that Amazon, Apple, Google, et al don't need competition and strong push-back. They certainly do. But we do find it telling that this organization calling itself the Authors Guild wants to push back only against these companies--which have done so much to empower authors--while doing nothing at all to push back against the legacy industry that refuses to share the wealth in digital royalties, that only pays authors twice a year (seriously, is that alone not incomprehensible and unconscionable?), etc.
Joe: If this is the best the Authors Guild can do to win your allegiance, do you really want to join this organization? It's the opposite of the old Groucho Marx joke. I refuse to be a part of any organization that is too stupid to convince me to join. Because if they can't convince me, how are they going to do me (or anyone else) any good?
Or to put it another way: it is impossible to elect a leader stupider than those who voted for him.
How stupid do you have to be to buy this nonsense? How can anyone consider joining an organization that can't even justify itself, let alone justify what it will do for you?
Scott Turow began the letter asking for a favor. He wanted authors to share this letter.
I'm asking the same favor. Everyone reading this blog post, please share it with other authors.
Barry: Because Turow and Russo can be counted on to do all they can to hide from it. And the Authors Guild to do all they can do to suppress it.
Joe: Tweet it, link to it on Facebook, discuss it in forums, talk about it in public, add your comments below, and try to inform as many writers as you can.
Let them either explain themselves and reform--or vanish.


text:
One Direction Cover Billboard, Still Love What They Do Despite What Simon Cowell Says [PHOTO]
One Direction are a billion dollar business with a new album out next week, so they are the current Billboard cover stars.
Right now, they are happy and love what they do, but Simon Cowell, the architect behind the band, says he thinks they will break up! Gasp!
Leave it to Simon the Acid-Tongued Sour Puss to be negative. But relax, Directioners, the boys say all is right, good and happy. in their universe.
For their soon-to-be blockbuster 'Midnight Memories,' out Nov. 25, the members of 1D were intricately involved in songwriting and playing on the album. That is part of the reason they are so happy. Take that, Simon.
The band co-wrote lyrics to 12 of the 14 songs on the standard, along with co-penning three on the 18-track deluxe version. Niall Horan plays guitar on the record. The band nods to alt folk and glam rock influences, as well. It's all them.
Producer Julian Bunetta said this was intentional, saying, "The facts we knew going into the making of this album was that they were going to do a stadium tour, so we wanted to make sure these songs really felt at home when you play them for that many people live as well as when you put it on in your car."
'Midnight Memories' was written in pairs and individually, and in hotel rooms and on tour buses while on tour. Hunky Harry Styles said that the album's eclecticism comes from the fact that "we have really different taste in music, Niall's really into his '80s rock and you know Zayn and Liam are more into R&B. I think you can really feel our musical influences throughout the album."
Horan admitted he loves the Eagles, Aerosmith, Bon Jovi and the Who.
Still, Cowell, the man who put them together after nixing them as individuals on the British version of 'X Factor,' rained on the parade a little, saying, "Eventually they probably will split and up and maybe want to have their own careers. The choice is theirs, and we've got the opportunity to do both. But from what I hear, they're really enjoying what they're doing and we don't feel there's anything seriously wrong here. They're getting more time off and I hope they stay a band for a long time."
A split is not imminent. They declare that they are happy, with Liam Payne insisting, "We just love what we're doing right now. We've got no intention to change that." So things are solid in the 1D camp! Whew.
"Who knew we would be here three years ago? We're just going to focus on tomorrow and go from there," said Louis Tomlinson.
Amen! We are focusing on the positive that came from the horse's mouth.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
In 1990, I went on a pilgrimage* as a means of thanksgiving for something that had happened. One day, I was part of a small group attempting to climb a path strewn with rocks, on a very, very hot day.
Someone decided, quite sincerely as I recall, that they should go up on their knees, an idea that lasted about sixty seconds. Others were known for doing it, so this person thought it was possible desirable even. I must admit, I agreed, but I was not going to try it.
A discussion of this practice began as we stopped to rest; it was a very hot day as I recall. Our guide, who had led people up and down this path many times, very gently asked why any of us thought we should do this. A few answers sprung up, most of them saying that we thought that God wanted us to make sacrifices. She shook her head, I recall thinking that her large blue eyes looked like seas of compassion, and she said that maybe we shouldn't always be deciding what God wants. She went on to say that what if God wanted us to go home and forgive the person we had the greatest grudge against, rather than climb rocks on our knees?
Our small group fell silent. Who wanted to do that?
Can't we climb rocks on our knees, please? I'll have the rocky road, please!
Today's first reading delivered me back to that rocky path in an instant, as I read these words from Isaiah 58:
This, rather, is the fasting that I wish:
releasing those bound unjustly,
untying the thongs of the yoke;
Setting free the oppressed,
breaking every yoke;
Sharing your bread with the hungry,
sheltering the oppressed and the homeless;
Clothing the naked when you see them,
and not turning your back on your own.
What if setting free the oppressed began with examining our own broken hearts, that are tough with scar tissue? Mind you, I have little clue as to how to do this, but that is what came to mind when I read the passage.
Perhaps that is where the yokes are first broken, setting ourselves free. Only then might we share our bread, shelter others, clothe the naked, and not turn our backs on our own.
Charity can be practiced without ever having a change of heart. Maybe a proper fast for this first Friday of Lent might be to "give up" pride, anger, hurt – or to at least, try to do so.
Can't we climb rocks on our knees, please? I'll have the rocky road, please!
How can we face the most oppressed and impoverished among us, if we can't face the oppressed and impoverished within? This would appear to be why we God asked us on Ash Wednesday, via the prophet Joel, to rend our heats, and not our garments, which is the hardest work of all.
This work can't be done without God and without one another. Are you with me? Let it begin.
*I went to Medjugorje. I was not a practicing Catholic at the time, not even close. And while I don't want to get into stereotypes, let's just say that some may find it surprising that I went there. Anyway, that is another story for another day. If you want to read about that post, you can look at this post. Let it suffice to say that it was a journey that changed my life completely!


text: linear function and nonlinear function 0 linear function and nonlinear firstname.lastname@example.com firstname.lastname@example.com Leyla Ok Leyla is responsible for all departments. She ensures the smooth running and management of Cloudnames Turkey while liaising with the Norwegian office. She's an expert researcher and writer, business consultant and gathers essential information that is specific to the Company's interest. Originally from London, Leyla is a published author, poet and lyricist. Recent PostsSocial Media Marketing influence versus Mass MediaWebinar For BeginnersBrand Building and Social MediaInbound Marketing Automation Solutions Leave a Comment Cancel reply Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.


text:
14 DOLLAR (Make Me Holler)
So yesterday we had our usual weekly zazen thing at Hill Street Center in Santa Monica (details at the link on your left). I'd say between 8 and 10 people attended. I really don't know for certain. Coulda been as many as 11. I took the money out of the donation box and counted it later. There was 14 dollars.
It costs $240 per month to rent the meditation room space at Hill Street Center. I spend another $50 to $100 per month on sundries used at exclusively or at least mainly by the group — tea, food for the one-day retreats, toilet paper, cleaning supplies, etc. Even when everyone who attends contributes $5 a person, which is what I ask for on the website, it usually doesn't cover everything. This was not a problem when I was working full time for the film company I still rep for. But I'm no longer full time with them, so they pay me a pittance. I'm sure as hell not getting rich off book sales either. J.K. Rowling or Dean R. Koontz get rich writing books. Guys who write paperbacks about Buddhism don't. I don't have any wealthy sponsors behind the scenes either. What I get in the donation box is it, period.
So if you come to sit at Hill Street Center, please keep this in mind. I don't have any desire to make money off the zazen sittings. But I can't afford to pour my own cash into it either. When I could afford to, I did. Now things are different.
I hate to be a televangelist about all this. And I won't.
The bottom line for me with the Saturday morning things is this: I sit from 10 to noon on Saturdays at HSC and you're welcome to join me. The end. I'm not trying to start a movement or even a sangha. But I can't do this for free. It isn't free for me and it isn't free for the people who come join me.
Now, and this is totally unrelated but I was amazed someone put this on the Internet, listen to The Troggs Tapes.


text:
Date(s) - 09/17/2017
10:00 am - 2:00 pm
County Historical Society at Columns Museum
608 Broad St
Milford, PA
Originally built for Dennis McLaughlin, Jersey City business mogul, the Columns is a 22 room mansion built in the neo classical style. Home to the Pike County Historical Society and the Columns Museum.
Add events to:
Add events to:
Events RSS Feed
The Milford Farmers Market will have local vendors from the tri-state area, live music and educational programs for all ages. The market has a specific goal of keeping local food and sustainable agriculture in the forefront of public consciousness. The market drives home the point that people can demand better food, better health, a better local economy and a more responsible use of land and resources. All of this makes Milford a destination where the farmers market complements great dining, shopping and outdoor recreation.
Each vendor was selected and vetted by the Air Soil Water team and will include an elaborate assortment of produce, meats, breads, bakery goods, jams, personal products…and more. All fresh, hand picked, home made, nothing industrial. Offerings will change as the weeks go following the natural growing season for fresh food.
2017 amazing line up in alphabetical order.
|Apple Ridge Farm
|Home made breads, pretzels, mustard (Saylorville, PA)
|Bramble Ridge Honey Farm
|Local honey and honey products (Brodheadsville, PA)
|Cranberry Creek Farm
|Fresh milk, yogurt, cheeses (Cresco, PA)
|Flatbrook Farm Garden
|Freshly picked vegetables (Sandyston, NJ)
|Fogwood & Fig
|Plant-based, vegan foods, burgers, sandwiches (Milford, PA)
|Go Goats Milk
|Goat cheese (Middletown, NY)
|Highland Kitchen & Gardens
|Fresh juices, prepared salads, GF baked goods, and more (Glen Spey, NY)
|Laube Farms
|Fresh picked tomatoes, cucumbers, melons,cabbage, peppers (Milford, PA)
|Luna Grown Jam
|Home made jam, jelly, marmalade (Cuddebackville, NY)
|KellyAnn Soaps
|Made from scratch soaps, bath and body products (Shohola, PA)
|Kittatinny Mountain Farm
|USDA Certified Organic produce, herbs, flowers (Wantage, NJ)
|Mangalitsa by Mosefund
|Hungarian breed Pure Magalitsa genetics CERTIFIED pork (Branchville, NJ)
|Maria's Gourmet Edibles
|Delicious stuffed breads and more (Milford, PA)
|Mueller's Vegetable Farm
|Fresh fruits and vegetables (Damascus, PA)
|OMG R U Sure It's Gluten Free
|Handmade gluten free baked goods (Milford, PA)
|Organically fed/natural poultry, meats & specialty eggs, (Honesdale, PA)
|The Renegade Winery
|Locally grown and made wines (Stroudsburg, PA)
|Safford Farm
|Herbs, flowers and vegetable plants (Lake Ariel, PA)
|Sugar Creek Maple Farm
|Pure maple syrup, confections (Honesdale, PA)
|Tamerlaine Farm
|Hot sauce (Montague, NJ)
|TSUBO Aromatherapy
|Various essential oil based products (Narrowsburg, NY)
|Twin Brook Farm
|Grass-fed beef, lamb, mutton, goat, pastured pork (Tyler Hill, PA)
|Wonderland's Tea Party
|Home made cupcakes and baked goods (Milford, PA)
|Woodsfresh Mushrooms
|Gourmet and wild mushrooms (Cresco, PA)
|Woodside Blue Preserves
|Handmade jams, jelly, and marmalades ( Warwick, NY )


text:
If Kevin O'Connor were giving up his general manager position with the Utah Jazz to accept a similar gig with some rival NBA franchise, to star in his own syndicated cooking show or simply to comb a beach for shells in an endless retirement, that front-office move in Salt Lake City truly would merit "Stop the presses! Extra, extra!" type of coverage. (OK, so few news outlets these days actually own presses and, of those who do, few would spend the cash to print an extra edition when they can simply update their Web site. But you get the point, you've seen the old B&W movies.)
As it turns out, this might not even be a dog-bites-man yawner. O'Connor indeed is giving up the GM job in Utah, as reported by Yahoo! Sports, the Salt Lake Tribune and others. But he is sticking around in an executive capacity that presumably will keep him involved with the Jazz's big basketball decisions.
That's quite different, more a lightening of O'Connor's workload than an end to some era or a significant change in direction for the Jazz.
David Locke, the Jazz's radio broadcaster, went so far as to suggest on Twitter that O'Connor, if looking outside the organization for someone to handle the day-to-day drudge work in his job, almost necessarily had to alter his own title. Few teams would allow their assistant GMs under contract to interview for a lateral move.
Even if it's strictly a flow-chart thing, the usual suspects began to get mentioned as possible hires, as Adrian Wojnarowski of Yahoo! wrote:
San Antonio Spurs assistant GM Dennis Lindsey has emerged as a strong candidate in the search, league sources told Y! Sports. Cleveland Cavaliers assistant GM David Griffin had talked to Utah, but is no longer under consideration, sources said.
Oklahoma City Thunder vice president and assistant GM Troy Weaver had been the No. 1 target for the search, but has decided to stay in Oklahoma City, sources said. The Philadelphia 76ers have shown strong interest in Weaver, but league sources said he's made clear he plans to stay with the Thunder. Weaver previously worked under O'Connor in the Jazz front office before leaving for Oklahoma City.
Walt Perrin, Utah's vice president of player personnel, was mentioned by Jazz beat guy Brian T. Smith as a potential internal candidate.


text:
OAKLAND — If you're wondering what Raiders coach Dennis Allen means when he says that his team's offense is predicated upon patience, pounding away throughout the course of a game, just waiting for the dam to burst, so to speak.
In other words, it was running back Darren McFadden rushing for 21 yards on 15 carries and 108 yards on four carries. Add it all up, and McFadden averaged a gaudy 6.8 yards against the Jacksonville Jaguars on Sunday.
He had four rushes of 20 yards or more Sunday, the same number he had all last season.
His 129-yard effort marked the 13th time he has reached the century mark during his six-year NFL career. It also paved the way for the Raiders to amass 226 yards rushing overall in their 19-9 victory at the Coliseum.
Throw in a 28-yard run by backup back Rashad Jennings and a 27-yarder by Pryor and you see what Allen means about patience.
There are going to be times when McFadden gets stuffed at or near the line of scrimmage, as he was time and again Sunday. Then, he's going to bust loose and rip off the kind of backbreaking run the Raiders are counting upon.
Part of that came about, Pryor said, because the Jaguars were so consumed by Pryor and his running ability. The Jaguars no doubt placed a huge premium on keeping tabs on Pryor on the heels of his 112-yard effort against the Colts a week earlier.
"That's why D-Mac probably had a hundred and whatever he had," Pryor said. "Then our other running back busted out, and that's why I believe he had a great day. The Jaguars, they were shifting big time on me."
McFadden averaged career-worst 3.3 yards last season. He averaged only 2.8 against the Colts in the opener. Yet, he always remained patient.
"Playing football so long, you know," McFadden said. "It's going to come like that, 1 and 2 yards here or there and then eventually they're going to start popping. As a running back, you just have to know."
— For all the talk, and backed up by a contract extension, the Raiders tend to pay little more than lip service to maximizing the talents of fullback Marcel Reece.
Against the Colts, Reece played only 24 of 63 offensive snaps. On Sunday, he ran the ball twice and had one pass thrown his way.
Reece scored Oakland's first touchdown on an 11-yard run in which he spun off a defender inside the 5-yard line and dived across the goal line.
It was just another glaring example of how dangerous Reece can be with the ball in his hands and how misused he is by the Raiders most games.
— Sebastian Janikowski missed a field-goal attempt for the second straight game. This one came from 35 yards.
Let theories begin about what's to blame, or rather who to blame. There are those who think Janikowski misses long-time holder Shane Lechler. Others say first-year punter, and holder, Marquette King still is working out the kinks as the holder on field-goal and extra-point attempts.
The smart money says, Janikowski will be fine and the two misses are nothing more than a talented golfer getting too quick on a swing or not finishing a swing.
After all, Janikowski drilled field goals of 46, 30, 29 and 29 yards in the same game that he missed Sunday.
— Allen said strong safety Tyvon Branch and left guard Lucas Nix suffered ankle injuries.
Of the two, it sounds as if Branch's injury is the most worrisome.
"That looks to be a significant injury," Allen said.
Branch was helped from the field by two team trainers in the first half, and the Raiders wasted little time announcing that Branch was out for the remainder of the game.
Brandian Ross and Usama Young saw time at safety after Branch departed.
As for Nix, he was replaced by veteran Andre Gurode. It sounds as if Nix was coming out of the game, one way or the other.
"I'm not sure when he hurt the ankle but, obviously, with some of the struggles, we decided to get him out of the game so we went in that direction," Allen said of Nix.
There were a few occasions when Nix whiffed on a block or just got manhandled. It wouldn't be surprising to see the Raiders make a change for the Broncos game, be it with Gurode or someone else.
— The Raiders sacked Chad Henne five times Sunday. That upped their total to nine through two games.
To put that in perspective, the Raiders notched only 25 sacks in 16 games last season.
Why the change? Let's give that one to Allen.
"It's just a combination of rush and coverage," Allen said. "I mean, there's some times where we do a pretty nice job in coverage and give our guys a chance to get to the quarterback. We try to be multiple and send several different guys in different directions and our rush has continued to improve."


text:
Showing 1 to 15 Total: 679
MySarkariNaukri.com is the best website to look for government jobs in Uttar Pradesh or sarkari naukri in Uttar Pradesh. Get full details of Uttar Pradesh jobs such as eligibility criteria, number of posts, qualifications required, application process, Uttar Pradesh Jobs Recruitment process and lots more. Browse all 2019 Government Jobs in Uttar Pradesh
Checkout the recent employment oppurtunities in Uttar Pradesh in Government Sector. We have the latest jobs of Uttar Pradesh in India. We are the first to announce any recruitment in Uttar Pradesh as soon as it is announced.
Start your job search in Uttar Pradesh today - for FREE!
Register now, and keep informed about all the government jobs in Uttar Pradesh for FREE. You can also get Uttar Pradesh Government Job alerts through Mobile.


text:
They may be small, but the information mice can convey about the movements of humans throughout history is mighty, according to a Cornell researcher.
Jeremy Searle, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology, explores the global distribution of small mammals and has found that house mice (Mus musculus) are ideal biomarkers of human settlement as well. Where people go, so do mice, often stowing away in carts of hay or on ships. Despite a natural range of just 100 meters and an evolutionary base near Pakistan, the house mouse has managed to colonize every continent, which makes it a useful tool for researchers like Searle.
…Searle and co-author Eleanor Jones…showed how mice hitched a ride with the Vikings and set up colonies in areas where the Norwegians settled, such as the British Isles, Faroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland.
Previous research conducted by Searle at the University of York supported the theory that Australian mice originated in the British Isles and probably came over with convicts shipped there to colonize the continent in the late 18th and 19th centuries. He came to the conclusion by using evolutionary techniques to analyze mitochondrial DNA, comparing modern-day mouse populations from Australia with those from their likely regional source in Western Europe.
In the Viking study, he and his fellow researchers in Iceland, Denmark and Sweden took it a step further, using ancient mouse DNA collected from archaeological sites dating from the 10th to 12th centuries, as well as modern mice…
Using mice as a proxy for human movement can add to what is already known through archaeological data and answer important questions in areas where there is a lack of artifacts, Searle said…
"Mice are living artifacts. They can tell us where people have moved in the same way a piece of pottery might tell us where an Etruscan merchant went. And because of the wealth of genetic data we can collect from mice, they might actually tell us much more than a piece of pottery," Searle said.
I love this. His next study carries forward tracking mice from South Asia to East Africa. A study in genes, transportation and unintended consequences.


text:
Message Board
David Hammerton Message Board
Talk about the novels, new and used books that Hammerton has written!
Author Hammerton's Book Reviews
A Tobacco Odyssey with Humphrey Bogart
This is a personal tale, probably based on fact but with a great deal of fantasy, about the trials and tribulations of stopping smoking. The facts about the cigarette 'drug' are plentiful but so too is the fantasy which takes the form of reincarnated Humphrey Bogart. This ghost is also attempting to quite cigarettes. Humphrey Bogart together with the author take this Tobacco Odyssey - to stop smoking - or not, as the case may be. ...


text:
Contract Rite Fit Staffing jobs in Free State in Last Week
Rite-Fit Staffing have been supplying quality staff to the Textile and Clothing sectors locally and internationally since 2002. We are now also supplying staff to the Retail Sector. It is our mission to find the perfect "fit" in terms of skills, personality and the working environment, to the benefit of both the company and the candidate. We are ever aware that we are dealing with people and their livelihoods, as well as the Client Company's productivity and efficiency. To this end we do our best to treat each client, candidate and assignment with sensitivity and sincerity. We pride ourselves on our personalised service and integrity and are preferred suppliers of top quality personnel to a vast number of companies, both in South Africa and abroad. The vast majority of our business comes to us via referrals from companies and candidates and we have successfully placed many special people in great companies.
No results were found.


text:
Wow! Family Stories Turns 1 today.
Where did the time go?
Oh yeah. I've been telling my family's stories ~ the good, the bad, and the ugly. [Of course, sometimes the bad and the ugly tend to be quite interesting.]
Did everyone get a glass of champagne?
[Raising glass in air.]
Here's to many more blogoversaries.
And here's to those who keep coming back time and again to read my family's stories. And since I'm in an Irish mood this week [I wonder why], here's a lil' Irish blessin' t' take with ya':


text:
Our integrated approach provides our customers with cost effective and high-performance solutions to meet the challenges and goals of their specific markets. Nalco Water's Wet End Optimization programs provide unique steps for a wide variety of paper grades and furnishes that integrate our best chemical technologies, engineered delivery systems and system assurance programs to deliver consistent results.
Nalco Water
1601 W. Diehl Road
Naperville, Il 60563
Thank you for your interest in our Pulp and Paper process and utilities products and services.
We found no results!


text:
Middlebury Actors Workshop presents "Seminar" by Theresa Rebeck at the Town Hall Theater on Thursday at 7:30 p.m. Additional performances will take place at 7:30 p.m. on Friday and at 2 and 7:30 p.m. on Saturday.
A recent hit on Broadway, "Seminar" is a provocative comic drama from Pulitzer Prize nominee Theresa Rebeck, an author known for her funny and incisive work.
World-renowned pipa player Wu Man and the Shanghai Quartet will blend the sounds of China and Western string quartet in an unforgettable evening of music at 7:30 p.m. on Thursday in Robison Hall (the Concert Hall) at Middlebury College's Mahaney Center for the Arts.
Bray Wilkins in 'Dido and Aeneas'
Astor Piazzolla is the single most important figure in the history of tango. His innovative style, which came to be known as Nueva Tango, renewed the tango tradition. A unique group of Vermont musicians will come together to present Piazzolla's tangos at 7:30 p.m. on Sunday, at Middlebury's Town Hall Theater.
The Piazzolla Project brings together the talents of four world-class musicians to explore the surprising and always passionate sounds of the Argentinean composer. Two husband-and-wife duos joined forces to establish the Piazzolla Project.
The After Dark Music Series presents Loudon Wainwright III at 8 p.m. on Friday at the Town Hall Theater in Middlebury.
Abby Jenne and the Bessette Quartet will perform at Lincoln Peak Vineyard on Friday from 6 to 8 p.m.
The full text of this article is only available to online subscribers.
Are you an online subscriber? Click to login.
Click here to learn more about our subscription options.
If you have a print subscription, you can now add an online subscription at no additional charge! Just email us with your name and mailing address to set it up.
Middlebury Actors Workshop, a small professional ensemble in residence at Town Hall Theater, announces its 15th anniversary summer production of "Greater Tuna," starring founding members Steve Small and Harry McEnerny. The production opens on Thursday, at 8 p.m. in A.R.T.'s Black Box Theater at the Patricia Hannaford Career Center, 51 Charles Ave. in Middlebury. Performances will repeat on Friday and Saturday at 8 p.m. and on Sunday at 2 p.m. There will be additional performances next week.
ADDISON COUNTY/BRANDON — The Spring Open Studio Tour over Memorial Day Weekend offers a great way for locals and visitors alike to see the Green Mountain State as well as the work of Vermont artist right where it is made. Bright yellow signs are placed along Vermont's roads to mark the way to studios of craftspeople and fine artists during the self-guided tour on May 23 and 25 at a time when the landscape is fresh and inviting and without the crowds of summer and fall.
BRISTOL — Just in time for Easter, Theresa Somerset of Essex Junction will be at Art on Main in Bristol on Saturday, March 22, from noon to 2 p.m. to demonstrate a painting technique that turns simple eggs into elaborate works of art.
These painted eggs — yes, they are real — are created in keeping with an ancient Ukrainian technique called pysanka, which means "to write on." The method is wax-resist, much like batik, used with intensely colored dyes.
MIDDLEBURY — The Middlebury College Museum of Art last week inaugurated its newest addition to the campus's distinguished collection of public art — a reinstallation of Vito Acconci's provocative and seminal sculpture Way Station I (Study Chamber). The sculpture is located adjacent to the pond at the Mahaney Center for the Arts on Porter Field Road.
In conjunction with the exhibition, Acconci will give an illustrated talk, free and open to the public, in Dana Auditorium on Thursday, Nov. 7, at 7 p.m.
Subscribe to Online Edition
Online PDF Print Edition
Copyright 2011 Addison Independent | 58 Maple Street, Middlebury, Vt. 05753 | All Rights Reserved
Site Development by Surf New Media


text:
The timeless play "I Remember Mama" opens at the Hope Summer Repertory Theatre on Friday, July 22. Featured will be HSRT veterans, Susan Ericksen and Chip DuFord.
The play will be presented in the main theatre of the DeWitt Center on the campus of Hope College. The curtain rises at 8 p.m.
One of the best-loved stories ever told of immigrants in America, this timeless play, based on the book Mama's Bank Account by Kathryn Forbes, became not only a hit play, but a successful radio and TV show and movie. The oldest daughter, in this family of tight-knit Norwegian immigrants in San Francisco at the turn of the century takes us through her memories of their struggles with family conflict, loyalty, crisis and financial problems, but most of all her memories of Mama.
Mama is played by HSRT favorite, Susan Ericksen. As an actress, she has performed in regional theatres throughout the country including The Cleveland Play House, The Repertory Theatre of St. Louis, Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park, Baltimore's Center Stage, Virginia Stage Company, and the North Carolina Shakespeare Festival. New York credits include A Woman Without a Name at the Signa-ture Theatre and Peer Gynt at Theatre for a New Audience. This season marks Susan's 22nd anniversary with HSRT. She began as Maria, the novice nun in The Sound of Music, and worked her way up to Head Nun in Doubt. She has been fortunate to portray everyone from Rosalind in As You Like It to Prudy Cupp in Pump Boys and Dinettes. Last season she and her husband, David Colacci, performed in I Do! I Do! for the second time together. As an audiobook narrator she has recorded well over two hundred novels by authors as varied as Nadine Gordimer, Charlotte Bronte, T. Jefferson Parker, Kristin Hannah, and J.D. Robb (Nora Roberts.) She has recorded all of Robb's books in the In Death series with great delight. This series has garnered commercial as well as professional praise, and has earned Ericksen an Audie award for Origin in Death, as well as Earphone Awards for many others.
Playing opposite of Ericksen, as Papa, is Chip DuFord who is celebrating his eighteenth season with HSRT. DuFord is well known for other HSRT performances such as Professor Bhaer in Little Women, Gregory Wagner in Room Service, General Harrison Howell in Kiss Me Kate, Froggy in The Foreigner, Bottom in A Midsummer Night's Dream, Touchstone in As You Like It, Dogberry in Much Ado About Nothing, Mr. Bumble (twice) in Oliver, The Scarecrow in The Wizard Of Oz, The Bullfrog in HONK!, and The Pharaoh in Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat. He has also been seen on Enthusiastic Productions' roles of Mr. Flabbinjaw, and Joel's housecat, Poo-Kitty, in the children's TV program, Come On Over, which has aired locally on WOTV4 in Grand Rapids. He has performed at theatres nationwide for over twenty years, including Sierra Repertory Theatre in Sonora, CA., Oregon Cabaret theatre, Nebraska Repertory Theatre, Milwaukee Repertory Theatre, The Cleveland Play House, and The Monomoy Theatre in Chatham, MA.
Playing Katrin, the eldest daughter of the family and the narrator of the story, is Alexandra Perlwitz, who is a graduate of the University of Connecticut's BFA Acting program. At Connecticut Repertory Theater she has performed in Spring Awakening (Wendla Bergman), Pericles: Prince of Tyre (Marina), Too Much Memory (Antigone), Othello (Desdemona), Antony & Cleopatra (Caesar), Pride and Prejudice (Lizzy Bennet), and Urinetown (Little Sally). She studied acting with Larry Silverberg, creator of the True Acting Institute, a program inspired by Sanford Meisner's Neighborhood Playhouse. This summer she can also be seen in the ensemble of Children of Eden and as Kitty in Taking Steps.
Directing the production is Louis Rackoff. Rackoff was Artistic Director of the North Carolina Shakespeare Festival from 1988 to 2002, where he supervised or directed more than sixty productions. Most recent directing for NCSF included Shakespeare's King Henry V, Much Ado About Nothing, and The Tempest; Anton Chekhov's The Three Sisters; and Lou's original adaptation of Dickens' A Christmas Carol. Lou has been a guest director at numerous professional theaters and universities throughout the country, and has directed the following HSRT productions: The Guys, Billy Bishop Goes to War, El Capitain, The Merry Wives of Windsor, The Taming of the Shrew, and Candide. He was a Production Stage Manager for the New York Shakespeare Festival 1974-1981, and directed a National Tour of the NYSF Broadway production of The Pirates of Penzance. Lou has been Chair of the Department of Theatre and Dance at the University of Southern Mississippi since 2005, where he also serves as Head of the MFA Directing Program.
Performances of I Remember Mama continue throughout the summer on July 23, 27, 29, August 2, 4, 8, 10, and 13.
Tickets are now on sale through the DeWitt and DeVos Fieldhouse ticket offices. Prices range from $10-$26 for musicals and $8-$19 for plays. Season tickets, ranging from $48-$85, are also available.
The ticket office is open from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. Beginning June 14 the ticket office is open on Saturdays at noon. On performance dates, the DeWitt Ticket Office will be open through intermission. The ticket office is located in DeWitt Cultural Center at 12th Street and Columbia Avenue. For tickets call the ticket office at 616-395-7890. For more information visit the HSRT website at www.hope.edu/hsrt.
The DeWitt Theatre is located at 141 East 12th street, Holland.
HSRT is now on facebook! Keep up to date with what's happening this season by searching Hope Summer Repertory Theatre on www.facebook.com.


text:
In an article for The Atlantic, Chrystia Freeland talks about the new super elite and how America (and perhaps the world) may already be a plutonomy, where "the rich display outsize political influence, narrowly self-interested motives, and a casual indifference to anyone outside their own rarefied economic bubble." While not entirely convinced on the later two parts of that statement (blame the eternal rose tinge of the optimist's mind), the first is certainly true. The rich the world over do hold a disproportionate amount of political sway. If a plutonomy is indeed the current (or near-future) state of global politics, herein lies the rub: it renders untrue one of the core arguments in the fight for social justice and equality, that the fate of the rich is inextricably linked to that of the poor.
An economic apartheid
It is estimated that the American 2010 midterm elections cost $4 billion. That's a mind-numbing sum to you and me but for the super rich, the ones who in Ms. Freeland's article say (with no hint of irony) "20 [million] is really 10 after taxes," $4 billion is a half-a-day's work.
We don't have a complete picture of election spending in South Africa – only information on public funding of political parties is required to be disclosed. But we do know that in the 12 months leading up to the 2009 national elections, the Independent Electoral Commission, tasked with allocating and disbursing election funding from the public kitty, paid out almost R90 million (approximately$12.8 million) to 19 political parties based on their representation in the National Assembly and provincial legislatures. The ANC received R61.1 million and the Democratic Alliance, the official opposition, received just R10.5 million. However, based on the spending of both, it is clear that private funding does find its way into their coffers.
Campaigning for the 2009 elections, the ANC spent R200 million, most of which it says it raised from selling paraphernalia. Now I fail to see how that's even possible unless of course they were selling their custom leather jackets or trademark black, green and gold flags for R20 million a pop. The truth is, some of the funds came from the ANC's own investments (of which it has plenty) and the rest from private donations from local and foreign (possibly mostly Chinese?) sources. Without information on these private donations, we're left to educated conjecture to answer our questions. The majority of the $4 billion spent on the mid-terms came from corporations, rich and super-rich individuals, and advocacy groups, so it stands to reason that the same possibly held true for the R200 million spent by the ANC on the 2009 election campaign.
Sure, there is nothing to suggest that this private funding came with strings attached, but in my eight long years as an auditor, not once did I ever come across an exchange of funds without strings attached. And further yet, there's nothing to suggest that any conditions, if they exist, are contrary to the interest of the (as in the ANC's case) 11.7 million people who voted for the party – except of course there is. If strings exist (and I am saying they do), they will almost always be contrary to the election manifesto/policies by which parties and politicians are elected to office, otherwise there would be no reason to make the private donation in the first place (at least not at the disproportionate levels we see being made currently) other than to subvert the said manifesto/policies.
So there it is. The super rich have most of the money and have used it to purchase significant political power, and thanks to globalisation, this applies to developed and developing country alike. The fate of the super rich, is well and truly set apart from that of everybody else, like an economic apartheid of sorts. What links us now is but a strand of common humanity and the fact that we occupying the same hunk of rock, third from the sun.
Is this then enough then to convince the super rich that social justice and equality are worthy pursuits?
When a yacht is not enough
In what was subsequently called a "meeting of colleagues", Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Oprah, Michael Bloomberg and other luminaries on Forbes 400 rich Americans list got together for dinner in May 2009 and decided to use their wealth to save the world. The organisers of the dinner, Gates and Buffet, gathered their peers with the express idea of convincing them to give away at least 50 percent of their wealth to charities during their lifetimes or at death. Some quick and dirty maths based on the 2010 Forbes top 10 rich list shows that if Gates and Buffett managed convince their contemporaries on the top 10 list to do as asked, $135.5 billion would make its way to charitable causes. This is almost half of the amount recorded for total private giving by Americans to charitable causes in 2009 – a number which no doubt included contributions from these very people.
Gates and Buffett didn't stop there. They held two other similar dinners with more of America's super rich, and jetted across the ocean to host similar events in London, India and China. They also inspired at least one Russian billionaire to also pledge his fortune to charitable causes upon his death.
This deluge of funding, riding in on the seemingly irreconcilable concept of philanthrocapitalism, will go toward charitable causes focused on health, education, poverty eradication, human rights, the environment, and other millennium development goal-sounding causes. Poor people problems, basically. And most of the organisations dealing with these causes work where they are needed most, in the developing world.
So the rich, it would appear then, get it. They need no convincing further convincing, or something else going on here?
With the amount of money being doled out and assuming that, all things being equal, money buys resources and resources get things done, the super rich have a significant say in which causes receive the most attention and more significantly, how those causes are to reach their objectives (if not what the very objectives should be). That is after all one of the core principles of philanthrocapitalism – to apply business principles to giving including serving on the board to influence policy direction, stipulating business-like performance obligations (failing which funding is redirected or stopped), and that prized cherry, the right to include your name to brand the activities undertaken. Recognising this, Chrystia Freeland writes in her article for The Atlantic, "arguably the most coveted status symbol isn't a yacht, a racehorse, or a knighthood; it's a philanthropic foundation – and, more than that, one actively managed in ways that show its sponsor has big ideas for reshaping the world." She goes on to suggest that more than impacting lives or the environment, the super rich engaging in philanthrocapitalism seek to leave behind an indelible legacy. They seek to achieve the immortality that the likes of Andrew Carnegie and Alfred Nobel have achieved.
At first sight, these may not seem like competing interests but often, they are. Any programme director who works in the third sector will tell you that funding designated toward specific programmes is problematic, mainly due to the funders' reporting requirements which are admittedly necessary but often inflexible, onerous and far removed from the reality of events at the coalface. Organisations however are seldom in a position to refuse this funding. Even more potentially problematic then would be a funder who not only has a significant say in what the programmes and objectives should be but also in what the programmes should be doing to achieve their objectives.
It may not be an exaggeration to say that the war for the soul of the non-profit sector has gone up a notch thanks to Gates and Buffett, and while not necessarily saying no good will from this, it certainly gives me pause when once again this small sect of the population have, for no reason other than massive wealth, a say that far exceeds their numbers.
It is becoming more apparent that not only is the fate of the rich set apart from that of the poor, the fate of the poor is in the hands of the rich. One can only hope then that the accusation leveled at the super rich – that of displaying self-interested motives and casual indifference to anyone outside their rarefied bubble – is unfounded.
Further reading:
- Kevin Bloom also discusses the same The Atlantic article in the Daily Maverick, citing Thabo Mbeki's "two nations" speech.
- Who funds who?: A comprehensive resource on the private funding of South African political parties
- 6 August 2010 submission to parliament by Lance Greyling of the Independent Democrats: Private Members Bill to Regulate Private Political Party Funding
- The $600 billion challenge, CNNMoney.com (Must read)
– Osiame Molefe is a blogger in Cape Town who blogs at Boos From the Pews.