If the Justice Department says somebody did something, then whether or not you believe them often depends on your political affiliation. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Competitors have been trying for years to find a way to defeat Amazon, and now the public is finally hearing about it. The competitor’s strategy may have been… collusion.
According to the Justice Department, book publishers worked with Apple to raise the prices of their new e-books so that Amazon would have to raise its prices too if it wanted to sell the same e-books. These high prices would give publishers more money and Apple a chance to get into the e-reader business with its iPads.
It’s all pretty complicated for a guy like me who just wants to read and write low brow schlock. So I’ve tried to break down this legal conflict into terms most people can understand.
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT vs. APPLE
The Justice Department claims that the collusion scheme was concocted by Steve Jobs himself. Steve Jobs? If Steve Jobs came up with this collaboration between Apple and book publishers, then it must have been a great idea. Steve Jobs may have been an evil genius, but at least he was a genius. If only he were alive today, he would crush the Justice Department like the bureaucratic lapdogs they are!
Unfortunately, for a brilliant Steve Jobs idea to be executed, you need Steve Jobs.
Even without Steve Jobs, Apple has plenty of geniuses. The Justice Department is usually lucky to achieve competence. The Justice Department, however, has power on its side. Without Steve Jobs, I give the edge to the Justice Department.
APPLE vs. AMAZON
Apple makes a bunch of cool stuff and sells it for as high a price as it can. Amazon sells a lot of cool stuff, and sometimes lowers prices way too much to attract customers.
Apple (may have) worked with the book publishers on the “agency model” to increase prices of e-books. Therefore, Apple has the book publishers on its side. Amazon has the United States Justice Department on its side. Therefore, Amazon has the clear advantage.
AMAZON vs. BOOK PUBLISHERS
The book publishers want to keep e-book prices high in order to make more money. Amazon wants to keep e-book prices low to attract more customers and over the long term make more money. Amazon has destroyed huge book stores who at one time had destroyed smaller book stores. The only thing the book publishers have destroyed are the hopes and dreams of millions of aspiring (and probably really bad) writers who can’t get their books published (I’m one of them, so I’m allowed to insult myself).
Without the Justice Department, I’d take the book publishers. But the Justice Department is a game changer.
Once again, Amazon has the edge.
BOOK PUBLISHERS vs. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Are you kidding? If Apple can’t take on the Justice Department, then book publishers have no chance.
WHO WILL WIN?
There are a few factors that make predicting a verdict difficult. The first is the law. Only a few people understand anti-trust laws, and I’m not one of them. If you’re reading this, you’re probably not one of them either. That’s okay; that means there isn’t any pressure on us to pretend to know what we’re talking about.
The second factor is the facts of the case. We only know the Justice Department’s version and a few quotes from book publishers denying everything. That’s not enough to form a valid opinion.
The third factor is the judge(s) who will preside over this case. The judge’s political opinions (liberal vs. conservative) will probably matter more than the law or the facts.
Since we don’t know the law, the facts, or the judge’(s)’ political beliefs, any speculation about a verdict is pretty useless. At least now I know who to blame for those $16.99 ebooks.
When somebody announces that he is going to "xerox" copies on a non-Xerox machine, does anybody dare to correct him? (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
You would think a company would be proud if one of its trademarks became a generic word. Products like Band-Aid and Aspirin and Xerox have become actual words that will live on for generations, even after the founding companies have faded into obscurity. If I started a company and a trademark became an actual word, I’d be proud for making a semi-permanent contribution to the English language.
But evidently something horrible happens when your product or trademark becomes an actual word. You, the creator, can lose some legal protections for your trademark, and others may benefit from your generic word. I’m no lawyer or business guy, but it sounds like that sucks.
The reason this matters is that Google and iPad may be on the verge of becoming generic words, and if that’s the case, lots of money can be involved. None of that money is coming to me, so I don’t care, but I’m interested in the language part of this. Will Google and iPad become generic words? Maybe, but I don’t think so.
Some would say Google is already a generic word. “Google” is often used as a verb, and that’s a reliable sign that a brand name is a generic word. But too many people hate Google for it to become a legal issue.
People hate Google because it’s so dominant. People hate Google for its advertising and privacy policies. People hate Google for its algorithms. Teachers hate Google because students end up with a bunch of irrelevant or inappropriate sources for their research papers.
Fair or not, Google is too polarizing for it to become a generic word in the legal sense. No new search engine is going to call itself a google and take the term to court.
If Google becomes a generic word in a legal sense, then it will be because the people that hate Google allow it to happen simply to laugh at Google when it loses some of its trademark protections. But that would take organization and a lot of money to pay off a judge go through the legal process, and I’m not certain Google haters have that much money or organization.
iPad won’t become a generic word because technology snobs that have iPads won’t allow it. I have a tablet that is not an iPad, and when I accidentally referred to it as an iPad, I thought I was going to have to physically defend myself from a violent tech snob who has an actual iPad. The violent tech snob quickly showed me the differences between an iPad and a non-iPad tablet, and I listened attentively and left the encounter unharmed.
Unfortunately, I don’t remember what my non-iPad tablets are called, so I had to rename them so I wouldn’t get accosted again. Non-iPad tablet #1 is called my shmyPad, and non-iPad tablet #2 is called the eyeshPad. A couple tech snobs with iPads have rolled their eyes at me, but we get along, and the trademark protection is safe.
*****
When Band-Aids came out, and somebody using a non-Band-Aid bandage adhesive referred to that non-Band-Aid bandage adhesive as a Band-Aid, I don’t think many Band-Aid owners self-righteously proclaimed, “Excuse me, but that is NOT a Band-Aid. That is merely a bandage adhesive.”
I hope it didn’t happen much. A kid I knew did that in elementary school (no, it wasn’t me), and he got beat up. That type of behavior just wasn’t acceptable when it came to bandage adhesives.
At least the next time I get accosted by a bunch of violent tech snobs for accidentally calling my shmyPad an iPad, I can probably ask for a band-aid afterward without any fear of getting attacked again.
It's not getting banned for my really bad poetry that keeps me from visiting; it's my lack of money. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The consequences of writing can be fascinating sometimes. People get fired from jobs, protested against, and occasionally even killed for what they write. But banned from a country?
A German writer/poet (some old guy named Guenter Grass) has been banned from Israel for publishing a poem that criticizes Israeli nuclear weapons policy. Others can argue about Israel’s possible response to possible Iranian nuclear power/weapons, but that’s not my point. This is about getting banned from a country for something you write.
Here in the United States, we don’t ban people who say/write bad things about our country. If we did, President Obama would have been banned years ago.
But Israel is a different country and might have different laws regarding freedom of speech and political expression. But even so, banning a poet for his poetry might be a bit excessive.
For one thing, he’s a writer/poet. I learned long ago not to try to figure out what poetry means because poems are supposed to use figurative language with layers upon layers of meaning. If this writer is any good, his poem is not even really talking about Israel and Iran: he’s talking about some deeper issue about the state of humanity, and the rest of us are too stupid to figure it out.
If he’s really talking about Israel and Iran, then he’s not really a poet.
Secondly, he’s an old man. One of the benefits of being an old man is that you can say what you want and nobody really pays attention. Israel should just nod politely and give the old man a glass of refreshing lemonade (in a metaphorical way). By banning the old German writer, they made him relevant again, which will only encourage him to compose more stuff.
Finally, how did this German guy live to be so old? Poets are known for dying by self-inflicted methods. The burdens of life can be monumental to the average poet, but this old German guy served in the SS during World War II (he probably didn’t have a choice), so if he really cares about the human condition (as poets are supposed to), then he should really be burdened with overwhelming guilt. I’m not suggesting that he should have taken matters into his own hands (I’m glad that he hasn’t); I’m just surprised that he hasn’t.
Then again, if he’s lived this long , either he’s not really a poet or he’s not a very good poet. I’m in no position to judge whether he’s a decent poet or not because I can’t read German and my poetry stinks.
*****
Communication is a two-way street. The writer writes, and the readers respond. Sometimes it’s best if the readers don’t respond (it happens to me all the time). If Israeli politicians really wanted to hurt this German guy, they would have pretended that his poetry doesn’t matter anymore.
Remember, this is nothing compared to what's going to happen to you if you criticize the president on Facebook! (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
It’s pretty simple. If you’re a normal guy and you want to stay employed, you don’t criticize your boss in public (or on Facebook). If you’re in the military and you want to continue serving your country, you don’t criticize your superiors, including the President of the United States, in public (or on Facebook).
Recently there was a marine who put his unfavorable opinions about the president on Facebook, and now it looks like the Facebook marine is going to be discharged in a way that is not honorable.
If you’re scoring this, it would be Obama-1 Facebook Marine- 0.
Unfortunately for the Facebook marine, the story might not be over yet.
Taking on a President of the United States publicly is usually a bad idea. Here’s what can happen to common citizens who try to take on the President of the United States publicly.
*You lose your job.
*The I.R.S. comes after you after you’ve lost your job (completely coincidental, of course).
*Journalists sympathetic to the president dig into your past and make public everything you’ve done wrong (and may accidentally make up a few things that you can’t disprove, like you cheated on your taxes and that’s why you’re being audited by the I.R.S.).
*You get called a racist (a new wrinkle unique to our current president).
So far, the score is merely Obama- 1 Facebook Marine- 0, and if the marine is lucky (and the president decides to show mercy), that’s where the score will stay.
The only good thing about taking on the President of the United States is that you become an instant celebrity to others who can’t stand the current president. But beware! This fame can be short-lived.
Where is Cindy Sheehan now anyway?
If you absolutely have to take on the President of the United States, do it anonymously. No matter who the president is, there is always a group of critics that will eagerly publish anything bad about him. Let them do your complaining for you, and then you can keep your job (unless you don’t really want your job anyway.)
If you’re a conservative complaining about a Democrat president, take your complaint to FOX News. If you’re a liberal complaining about a Republican president, take your gripe to the New York Times, or CNN, or NBC.
But the important lesson here is that if you want to keep your job, especially if you’re in the military, you never badmouth your boss in public. And if you badmouth your boss, you never put it in writing. And if you badmouth your boss in writing, you never, ever… ever… put it on Facebook.
Men are intimidated by NFL cheerleader English teachers because we’re scared of having our grammar corrected by hot chicks in skimpy uniforms. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
So there’s an NFL cheerleader English teacher who may go on trial for maybe having an inappropriate relationship with one of her students. It doesn’t matter if she is guilty or not. The fact is that she is an NFL cheerleader English teacher, a subcategory of English teacher that most people are unfamiliar with.
Whether it’s fair or not (or true or not), NFL cheerleaders have a reputation for being models, strippers, or entertainers in their real lives. Being an English teacher seems like an anomaly for an NFL cheerleader. And since the NFL cheerleader English teacher is such a rarity, her teaching methods must be evaluated.
To do this, I’m going to compare the NFL cheerleader English teacher methods to those used by the English teacher I valued most, my 9th grade over-sensitive English teacher.
The over-sensitive English teacher was a good teacher, but she had her faults. She drank coffee and ate Doritos at the same time, and then got too close to us when she talked. She cried way too easily, fleeing the classroom in tears when we made fart sounds for our onomatopoeias.
But for all her faults, she was able to get many students to appreciate language arts, more so than any other English teacher I’ve seen.
*****
NFL Cheerleader English Teacher vs. Over-Sensitive English Teacher!!
NFL cheerleader English teacher displayed awesome cleavage that kept male students transfixed.
The over-sensitive English teacher didn’t display cleavage (which might not have been her fault due to English teacher genetics).
The over-sensitive English teacher assigned us a literary analysis of Robert Frost’s “The Road Not Taken.”
The NFL cheerleader English teacher assigned us a literary analysis detailing the advantages and disadvantages of “Being aggressive! Be, being aggressive!”
The over-sensitive English teacher took three days to show us Citizen Kane so that she could point out all the symbolism, metaphors, and other literary/cinematic devices.
The NFL cheerleader took three days to show us Bring It on so that she could point out plot and… uh… character development?
The over- sensitive English teacher gave really tough spelling tests every week.
The NFL cheerleader English teacher expected us to work on our high kicks every day.
The over-sensitive English teacher cried for a week after John Lennon died.
The NFL cheerleader English teacher went into fake mourning for a week after Al Davis died.
The over-sensitive English teacher hardly ever was absent, even on the days after she cried in front of the class.
The NFL cheerleader English teacher was absent on most Fridays and Mondays during the football season.
The over-sensitive English teacher made meticulous check marks next to each punctuation and grammar error on our papers.
The NFL cheerleader English teacher read our papers in front of the class and had the class do a loud group response for each one, like, “Give her an A!” or “Give him an F!”
The over-sensitive English teacher wrote us insightful and encouraging notes on our papers.
The NFL cheerleader English teacher sent us really interesting (and encouraging… maybe too encouraging) text messages.
*****
Even those of us that value a good education have to admit that most teachers are pretty forgettable. But it’s guaranteed that every student, at least the male ones, will always remember their NFL cheerleader English teacher. I’ll always remember her, and she wasn’t even my teacher.
But I will truly always remember my over-sensitive English teacher, and I hope that during her career she continued to inspire her students, but without breaking into tears after every mishap.
Ugh! Where's Volume #2? They NEVER have the one I'm looking for!(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
We literary types are supposed to be nostalgic about Encyclopedia Britannica discontinuing its printed editions, but those crusty old books might not be worth the emotion. They were never really that practical. They were too heavy to be light reading, but not detailed or current enough to be helpful in school. The first thing teachers used to say before any research assignment was, “Don’t just copy something out of the encyclopedia.”
So, of course, the stupid kids non-literary types would copy something out of the encyclopedia and get an F (unless they had the overly sensitive English teacher who felt sorry for the stupid kids non-literary types and would give them a C for at least copying something).
The smart kids would drive (or have their parents drive them) to the city library, spend hours digging and squinting through the microfiche, and then get infuriated at the misleading titles to articles that never had the information we thought they would have. Finally, we just made up all the statistics, used the article titles in our bibliography anyway, and prayed that our teachers didn’t have private collections of periodicals in their homes.
It was a time consuming strategy, but it worked.
The point is that the encyclopedia was worthless for any academic projects, and we certainly didn’t read them for enjoyment, so what was their purpose? Going online seems to make perfect sense, but again, what is the encyclopedia’s purpose?
The problem with Encyclopedia Britannica online is that the name “Encyclopedia Britannica” is too long for stupid kids non-literary types to find it (yeah, it’s probably ironic that a blog called Dysfunctional Literacy would criticize somebody else’s long name). It’s easier for stupid kids to get on Google and then get distracted by the porn sites they accidentally stumble upon. The stupid kids still get F’s, but the research is way more fun.
The good students will still have to go elsewhere because Encyclopedia Britannica online (or “britannica.com”), while updated more frequently than ever, won’t be an acceptable source for most English teachers. The good news is that students don’t have to drive to the city library anymore to find other online resources. The bad news is that now it’s easier for teachers to find out if you’ve made up your own statistics.
If the online version of Encyclopedia Britannica is even more useless to students than the printed version of Encyclopedia Britannica was, then the online “britannica.com,” while kind of cool, might still be kind of pointless.
If I saw this guy on the street, I wouldn't recognize him any more than he'd recognize me. And that's great! (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Being a writer is better than being an athlete because when writers make mistakes, most people can’t tell. If I forget to put a comma somewhere, fans won’t boo me and tell me I suck. When an athlete screws up, fans scream and send death threats to his family. I like being able to make mistakes without people threatening my family.
Being a professional athlete can be glamorous, but athletic ability fades quickly, and by the time you’re 30, you’d better be planning another career. As a writer, I’m way past 30, and I’m just getting warmed up.
Being an athlete is better than being a writer in one respect: hot chicks with cleavage like athletes way better than writers. The only reason a hot chick with cleavage will go out with a writer is if the writer has a lot of money, but a hot chick with cleavage will go out with the lowliest of bench warmers because that bench warmer might someday become a star. Plus, the bench warmer athlete might be a handsome dude.
But if you take hot chicks with cleavage out of the equation (stay with me here), being a writer is far better than being an athlete.
The reason I bring this up is because of Ryan Leaf. The former San Diego Chargers quarterback got arrested for burglary, and a bunch of stuff from his past is coming up, and I actually feel bad for the guy. I kind of resented him in 1998(?) when he was a first round draft pick (some experts thought at the time that he should be picked before Peyton Manning) and got 14 million dollars, which is probably 5 times more money than I’ll make in my entire life. And right now, I’m really glad I’m not him.
When Ryan Leaf melted down, he melted down quickly and publicly. He screamed at reporters, his play on the field got worse, and soon he became known as the biggest bust in NFL history. Now he’s been busted for burglary, and the world knows about other problems he has. This is what happens when athletes melt down. Everybody notices, and a bunch of critics pile on.
When writers melt down, it takes a lot for people to notice. Maybe a James Frey will look silly getting lectured by Oprah, or Aaron Sorkin will get caught doing something stupid/illegal, but people forget, and writers will find work again.
This is what’s great about being a writer. I have no idea what James Frey or Aaron Sorkin look like. When I saw a recent picture of an aging Ryan Leaf, I thought, “That’s Ryan Leaf!” James Frey can probably walk into a store without getting recognized. When he introduces himself to strangers, they probably don’t say, “You’re not…THAT James Frey, are you?”
I’m sure Ryan Leaf got death threats for struggling as a professional quarterback. I’m also sure James Frey never got death threats for lying (embellishing) in his memoir A Million Little Pieces. Maybe a few people ripped out a page and sent it to the publisher for a refund, but I doubt it. A good book is a good book, even if it is a lie.
And if a writer screws up or melts down, the world doesn’t know it, unless he’s silly enough to go on Oprah.
Ernest Hemingway on safari, Kenya, 1954 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I realized today that Ernest Hemingway and I have something in common. It’s not that we both write. Ernest Hemingway wrote For Whom the Bell Tolls and The Old Man and the Sea, and a bunch of stuff that actually got published and read by millions of people, and I write a blog, so the two aren’t really comparable.
Last week some of Ernest Hemingway’s old letters to friends were released to the public, and the news stories and commentaries focused on Hemingway crying when he had to kill his injured cat. That’s not news. Nobody wants to kill their pets. Even tough guys get misty-eyed when their pets die; it’s even worse if you have to do it yourself.
It’s not the revelation about Ernest Hemingway’s cat in his letters that I find interesting; it’s a statement where he admits that he didn’t write very good letters.
I don’t write very good letters either. I’m guessing Ernest Hemingway’s letters are better than mine, but I don’t write letters anymore, and I’m not going to read his, so I guess I’ll never know for sure.
I write to communicate, but I don’t write to be social, which is why I don’t write letters. I don’t have a Facebook or Twitter account. I only email or text when I need to tell people something but I don’t feel like talking to them. I don’t post pictures of myself, my family, and our vacations. I don’t care if others do it, but it’s not for me.
Letters are kind of personal, and I don’t like writing about personal stuff either. I’d much rather write dirty jokes about politicians and celebrities doing stupid stuff in public (while I hope nobody notices the stupid stuff I do every day).
From what I understand, Ernest Hemingway thought he didn’t write very good letters because he wrote a lot of other things first every day, and by the time he got around to writing his letters, he was already written out . His reason for not writing good letters is way better than my reason.
*****
Last summer, my 15 year old dog died. He had been sick for a few months, and we knew the day was coming, but it was still rough, and I didn’t want to talk about it to anyone.
On the day my dog was put to sleep, I texted a couple people to let them know, but other than that, I didn’t write about it. Instead, I wrote a dirty joke about Anthony Weiner’s package for Dysfunctional Literacy. It was actually a pretty good joke. Bill Clinton, Brett Favre, and Anthony Weiner were at the post office comparing their packages when… okay, that’s not the point.
I probably should have at least dedicated the joke to my dead dog, but he got me back. That night I stepped into his final gift in our back yard. And my family thought that was way funnier than my Anthony Weiner package joke.
I’m probably not going to write any letters about my dead dog, but I still think about him a lot. He was a cool dog.
The American public will always respect Bruce Jenner for defeating Soviet Olympic athletes during the Cold War, and he's earned his spots on the Wheaties boxes, but since then he's sold his soul to the Kardashians. Don’t push it, Bruce! (Photo credit: mutantlog)
I know this is one of those things that I shouldn’t care about, but I feel vindicated since I’ve heard that the sales of Wheaties cereal have been plummeting.
I never liked Wheaties. The flakes weren’t that tasty when they were dry, and they clumped together in a poopy way when they got soggy, and the syrupy milk tasted funny. Since you had to eat them quickly before they got disgusting, the Breakfast of Champions should have been called the Breakfast of Fast Eaters.
I think it’s finally okay to say that Wheaties is not a good cereal (and never has been). I have gone back to many childhood cereals in my time as a middle-aged adult. I still enjoy the occasional Crunch Berries and the every once in a while Rice Krispies. But I have never gone back to Wheaties.
Wheaties never should have been popular in the first place, and its success just proves the power of marketing. Whoever convinced Muhammed Ali and Bruce Jenner (and numerous other famous athletes) to allow Wheaties to use their images for almost no money was a genius in an Arianna Huffington kind of way. That simple sports theme made Wheaties last for generations longer than it should have.
Wheaties was popular for the same reason Star Wars: The Phantom Menace was popular. People liked them because they were told they were supposed to like them. If you stood outside a movie theater line in 1999 and proclaimed, “Phanton Menace sucks!” you would have gotten jumped by some overweight dude in a Jar Jar Binks costume.
When I declared in 1975 that Wheaties stink (“stinks” was the 1970s equivalent of “sucks”), I was called a (something that rhymes with) “wussy” and given a Raggedy Ann doll to play with. I learned then to eat my Wheaties quietly.
In 2012 if you proclaim, “Phantom Menace sucks!” at a comic convention (the closest thing you can get to Star Wars movie theater line today), everybody agrees, even the formerly overweight guy who burned his Jar Jar Binks costume in 2005.
When something is supposed to be good but sucks, it takes time for certain fans to reach the right conclusion. You can’t just shove it in their faces. Ten years from now people will realize that “I Gotta Feeling” by The Black Eyed Peas is a truly wretched song, but if you proclaim it too loudly today, fans will get defensive and double down, and you might get into a fight over it.
Wheaties had a good run, better than it deserved. The same goes for Star Wars: Episodes 1-3 and the Black Eyed Peas. But a good run built on marketing rather than substance should never happen in the first place.
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I admire Arianna Huffington for three reasons.
First of all, she married a rich guy who was not heterosexual. And when they divorced, she (probably/maybe) got a lot of money for it.
25 years ago when I had more hair and was kind of cute, I had the opportunity to have a rich guy who was not heterosexual give me a lot of money (since I’m a dude, we couldn’t have gotten married, so Arianna had an advantage that I didn’t have). I thought long and hard about it but decided it was a bad idea since I am heterosexual, but now I’m going to have to live with that decision for the rest of my life.
So I kind of understand what Arianna went through. Life is full of difficult choices.
Next, she convinced a bunch of bloggers to write on her Huffington Post for free. She must be very persuasive because I’m a blogger, and I hate writing for free, even for my own blog, Dysfunctional Literacy. Writing for free stinks, but she convinced a bunch of writers to do it… for her blog.
Then she convinced AOL to give her a lot of money for The Huffington Post, a blog so monolithic and pointless, it overwhelms the senses with “WATCH!” and endless columns of today’s news and opinions. And the homepage takes forever to load on a slow computer.
I feel a bit conflicted because I admire Arianna Huffington but I despise The Huffington Post.
At any rate, it was this third crowning achievement that led to a blogger suing Arianna. From what I understand, this blogger (and his class action cohorts) thought that he should get some of that AOL money because it was “free” bloggers like him (some guy I had never heard of) that made The Huffington Post so successful.
No, it was bloggers like him that make The Huffington Post so monolithic and unreadable. It was Arianna Huffington’s mastery of self-promotion that made The Huffington Post so successful.
The blogger who just had his lawsuit dismissed shouldn’t feel too bad. No, he won’t get money from Arianna, but his name is listed in the first paragraph of a bunch of news articles on a bunch of websites this weekend. This is the type of name recognition and publicity he might have been hoping to get when he agreed to write for free on The Huffington Post.
Now he’s gotten a weekend of more publicity than he could ever get just for writing, even for Arianna Huffington.
But he still probably won’t get any money out of it. If it’s any consolation to those former Huffington Post bloggers, I won’t get paid for my blogging this weekend either.
