Condalmo

Gas Tax Holiday.

Politics ahoy.  If the gas-tax holiday over the summer becomes a reality - and it won't, but if it does - I'm sending the $30 it will save me (and you, and all of you) to the Obama campaign.  I didn't want to get this site into politics again, but come on:

Hillary Clinton has now joined John McCain in proposing the most irresponsible policy idea of the year—an idea that actually could aid the terrorists. What's worse, both of them know that suspending the federal gas tax this summer is a terrible pander, and yet they're pushing it anyway for crass political advantage.

Clinton and McCain have learned a destructive lesson from the Bush era: as Bill Clinton said in 2002, it's better politically to be "strong and wrong" than thoughtful and right. The goal is to depict Barack Obama as an out-of-touch elitist. By any means necessary.        

I could highlight a long debate among economists on suspending the gas tax, but there is no debate. Not one respectable economist—and not one environmentalist or foreign policy expert—supports the idea, unless they are official members of the Clinton or McCain campaigns (and even some of them privately oppose it). To relieve suffering at the pump, send another rebate check or provide tax credits or something else, but not this.

Why is this gas pander so bad?...

On top of everything you can read at that link: as Obama pointed out the other day, it's slight of hand so that McCain - and Bandwagon Hillary - can look tough and concerned.  As he also pointed out, for the vast majority of people, the savings will amount to around $30.  Which will buy you half a tank of gas.  Don't take his word for it, and please don't take my word for it - take every conservative and liberal economist's word for it, because nobody with a calculator should be falling for this crap.  If Hillary wants to be known as the candidate for change, this works well, because the gas tax holiday will give you just that.  A pocketful of change. 

Hillary wants you to know she cares.

I want you to know Hillary is full of shit. 

John McCain 2000 would have known better.  John McCain 2008, well, whatever works, right?

Chip Kidd's "The Learners".

Chip Kidd's work (as a well-known and talented cover designer) was featured in a collection.  He's also written two books: The Cheese Monkeys, and The Learners.  I've written here about my appreciation of his covers, but to be honest hadn't felt much interest in his writing.  You know - actress turns to singing, singer turns to acting, movie star with great skills turns back to writing poetry/painting/photography after starring in a really big popular series of movies, the usual. 

I became interested in the new one right around the time I was turning up the heat on studying for my counseling/psychotherapy exam:

Fresh out of college in the summer of 1961, Happy lands his first job as a graphic designer (okay, art assistant) at a small Connecticut advertising agency populated by a cast of endearing eccentrics. Life for Happy seems to be — well, happy. But when he's assigned to design a newspaper ad recruiting participants for an experiment in the Yale Psychology Department, Happy can't resist responding to the ad himself.

What experiment?  This experiment:

 

The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

 

 

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.^[4]

So, did I like it?  Yes.  I liked the book.  But.  I liked the humor, but at times felt a little bit like I was stuck in a sitcom.  And I was confused by what appeared to be Kidd's disinterest/inability in really digging into the ramifications of the experiment and the effect participation in the experiment had on Happy.  I know, he's happy, he's unhappy, he's not feeling like himself, so he's the un-happy.  Right, I get it.  But considering the moral crisis Kidd wants us to believe Happy is going through, remarkably few words are actually devoted to the crisis, except as asides, reminders that Happy isn't happy.  But I didn't want asides mixed in with chuckles; I wanted the experiment to take center stage, because look, Happy, you just fried a dude.  Or at least, you thought you did, and thought you had become the sort of person that could do that sort of thing.  I didn't want hijinks involving a very large dog name Hamlet wearing shoes as a promotion and then going PG-13 berserk. 

 

But look, that's a minor quibble, no doubt made larger because of my background in this field, my interest in the subject matter.  If you're really interested in Milgram's work, you'd be better served elsewhere.  I doubtless would have been happier if Happy (sigh) had, after the experiment, endeavored to recreate the experiment over and over and over with paid actors.  That's probably just me, though.  The takeaway here is that it was an enjoyable enough read, made me laugh, didn't feel like a waste of my time.  In all the ways this book could have been spectacularly bungled, my complaint's probably pretty low on the list.

(As a final note, I read an interview with Kidd - I think it was with Birnbaum - in which he indicated yes, he would very much like to see this made into a movie.  Which would be good, except too late Shatner beat you to it!)

Soft Skull, Fall 2008.

The Fall catalog's there for your list-making perusal.  Me?  The Delivery Room, Noir, Flying to America, and - of course - Get Your War On.  You?

In the dictionary.

Okay people, let's talk about good dictionaries.  Comment or e-mail me.  I want to know what dictionary you recommend, and why.  I haven't bought a new dictionary in well over ten years, so I need to shop around.  Thanks.

UPDATE ONE:  No sooner do I post this, Grant Barrett comprehensively responds!  The man moves quickly.  However, no actual recommendations, just guidelines, so let me know your favorites.

Obama's running mate chosen; older (slightly) than McCain.

The best part is her reaction to his question.  82 years old, friends: we should be so lucky. (via)

Lennon and the terrible music.

Funny story: I was at work tonight, talking for a few minutes on the phone with my wife.  She asked me if I'd listened to Selected Shorts tonight.  No, says I, why?  She told me that she put it on to listen to while settling the littlest child into bed, thinking the description of the show sounded nice, with music provided by "some quartet" - but apparently, the music "made (her) ears bleed," was horrible, awful, no-good "sort of Chinese orchestral jazz noise, or something" - and the radio was louder than she'd anticipated, the baby wasn't going to sleep, she couldn't reach the radio to turn it off, and - the worst - "the music made me actually want to listen to the theme music for Maine Things Considered instead."  Which, let me tell you, is pret-ty godawful.  We had a good laugh. 

I just got home a few minutes ago and figured I'd take a quick (ha!) look at Google Reader, and hey, there's tonight's episode of Selected Shorts, all lined up.  I open it to see if it says anything about the Earbleed Quartet - and the featured story is by Condalmo friend J. Robert Lennon, he of Ward Six and also Books That Have Been Published On Paper And Read!  I'll have to ask her in the morning if she listened to the story.  I gleefully anticipate a string of venomous invective toward the Quartet, followed by a no, after which I reveal my tenuous yet genuine connection to the author, to be met with likely-deserved skepticism/disinterest!

I vote No on new KFC Nabokov.

Just saw at Maud's that the son will be publishing the father's The Original of Laura.  V. Nabokov has provided me with some especially moving reading experiences over the years.  So, in gratitude, I'm going to abide by his wishes, which seem to indicate that he did not want it read and that it should be burned (a conclusion I reach by referring to his request to have it burned).  Others have made pretty good arguments in favor of publishing/reading it.  But (and can you believe I'm dropping the "but" on Borges?  Who the hell am I?) I don't think we can know the mind of V.N. - maybe he couldn't burn it himself.  Not exactly a wilting flower, that one, but who's to say?

I just think that any intelligent person could think their way into a rationalization of why it should be exposed to the public, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the right thing to do.  An intelligent, motivated person can make a case for anything, right?  I could make a rational(ish) argument in favor of eating KFC every day, but that shit will kill you dead.

Not that The Original of Laura is in any way equivalent to KFC. 

(Or maybe it is, and that's why he wanted it burned.  Someone will have to let righteous me know.)

UPDATE:  Um.

Sarvas on Titlepage.

Mark Sarvas, he of The Elegant Variation, he of Harry, Revised which I finished two nights ago and will write about later (it was good), is on the new(est) episode of Titlepage.

Dude's on tour.

Steve is not happy.

Charlie Rose, by way of Beckett. 

(via.)

Indignant hiatus interruptus.

Bush's '09  Budget Eliminates RIF Funding

by Kevin Howell -- Publishers Weekly, 4/17/2008 8:08:00 AM

President Bush's proposed 2009 budget eliminates all the funding for Reading Is Fundamental's book distribution program that has, since 1966, provided more than 325 million books to more than 30 million underprivileged children.

"With 13 million children living in poverty in this country, the need for RIF has never been greater," said RIF CEO/president Carol Rasco, The annually funded RIF program is currently approved through September 2009, but if Bush's budget is approved, 4.6 million children will not receive 16 million free books the following year. RIF, the oldest and largest children's and family nonprofit literacy organization in the U.S, has been funded by Congress and six Administrations without interruption since 1975.

"With a recent report showing a declining interest in reading among adults and teens, supporting children's literacy is critical to reversing this trend.," said Rasco.

"We received $26.6 million in federal funding in 2007 and we're requesting $26 million this year," said Frank Walter, RIF's director of marketing/PR, adding that 75% of funds are provided by federal grants and 25% is raised locally by RIF's 19,000 volunteer outlets that distribute books at childcare centers, schools or migrant work programs. Ninety percent of the organization's funds go to purchasing new books for lower income children and for motivational reading activities that take place during RIF's book distribution.

RIF's Web site (www.RIF.org) provides a link for supporters to find their senator and representative and send an email message to them and President Bush in support of continued funding. The appropriation committee will be meeting in May and June to decide on budgets.

James Patterson's recent blog urged fans to visit RIF's site and voice their concerns. "RIF, if you don't know, is one of the pioneers of kid-directed book distribution programs," Patterson wrote. "I've already reached out. Do you think you might take a couple minutes to reach out to your congresspersons? Infusing a love of books in our own kids is challenging enough . . . imagine how hard it is to do in families without our resources and level of education."

This is the second time the Bush administration has tried to cut RIF's funding. Bush's first budget proposal in 2001 originally allotted no money for the organization. "There was an uproar across the country and it was reinstated," said Walter.

Ironically, while President Bush continually overlooks the organization, both his wife and mother have held positions within the organization. Barbara Bush served on RIF's Board of Directors from 1980 to 1988 and then on its National Advisory Board from 1989 to 1992 (chairing the Advisory Board for three of the four years.) Laura Bush served on RIF's National Advisory Council from 1996 to 2001.

We now return to temporarily lurking, hovering, and not posting.