Here's a shameless plug for my employer, Acorn Media. Today I had the pleasure of discussing our upcoming releases with online radio host Simon Barrett.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/simon-barrett/2011/01/28/don-klees-of-acorn-new-dvd-releases
Friday, January 28, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Biograph-ically Speaking
Attempting to encapsulate Bob Dylan’s musical career is an unenviable task. Over the course of five decades, Dylan has not only revolutionized popular music (far more broadly than detractors might wish to admit) but also weathered more artistic rises and declines than any other major pop artist. In that time, his work has been sliced and diced into numerous compilations, some of them ostensibly spanning nearly the entirety of his long career, yet none of them make quite as strong a case for his artistry as the 1985 box-set Biograph.
When Biograph came out twenty-five years ago, Dylan had recently released a pair of reasonably good albums (Infidels and Empire Burlesque), but the consensus seemed to be that his career was on the downside. As a result, despite only covering work through 1981, Biograph seemed more like a career summation than a recap of the story so far. In the years since then, starting in earnest with 1997’s Time Out of Mind, Dylan has been on the kind of artistic roll that few pop artists manage, let alone 40+ years into their career. For all that great work from the late-80s through today, though, Biograph remains the release that best balances all the varied sides of Dylan as an artist. Favoring neither the obvious nor the esoteric, this three-disc collection mixes cornerstones of Dylan’s songbook with work that still divides his fans, particularly some from his “born again” period. However, far from being jarring, these combinations allow one to better appreciate Dylan’s enduring gifts as both a writer and performer. A song like “I Believe in You” might be more overtly religious in its lyrical content than some listeners will care for, but there’s no denying the power of Dylan’s vocals or the beauty of its melody. Hearing a song like this in the same sitting as an acknowledged classic such as “Tangled Up in Blue” highlights how true he has been to himself as an artist over the years.
Another highlight of Biograph is the presence of both enjoyable alternate versions of familiar songs and some that had never before been (officially) released in any form. These songs spotlight one of the most curious aspects of Dylan as an artist. Over the years, he’s often been one of the most erratic judges of his own work, letting excellent material sit in the shelf while lesser material is released on his albums. Even since Dylan’s return to artistic prominence, this trait can be seen in the "Bootleg Series" release Tell Tale Signs, a collection of out-takes and alternate versions from 1989 to 2006 that’s virtually the equal of any of the acclaimed albums from recent years.
A case in point on Biograph is “Caribbean Wind”, a fantastic song recorded for the 1981 album Shot of Love. Very similar in tone and approach to 1983's "Jokerman" (and every bit as powerful), it was left off of Shot of Love in favor of a number of forgettable songs and only released four years later. Regardless of the path it took, though, "Caribbean Wind" sounds great on Biograph, all the songs do. Even if this set only covers half of Dylan’s career, what it shows us about why his work matters makes it invaluable collection.
Monday, January 24, 2011
What Did You Call Me?
Former (and would-be future) Senator George Allen is really missing the point about his use of the word "Macaca" to refer to a campaign worker for his opponent. The issue is not whether rhe word is an established racial slur or something Allen made up. The issue is what it says about Allen's judgment. He either knew the term was offensive or he said it on camera not knowing what it meant or (if we again take him at his word) knowing if it might come off as offensive or just plain bizarre. Either scenario reflects a serious lack of judgment. Politics is such a poisonous area these days that it's hard to expect the best and the brightest to jump in, but we certainly deserve better than George "Macaca" Allen.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Stationary
It's unlikely that anyone will ever know for certain just what demons, chemical or otherwise, haunted Bowie during the making of this album. Even Bowie himself isn't quite sure, if the story that preceded his performance of the song Word on a Wing on his 1999 Storytellers performance is to be believed. Whatever the causes, the effect is undeniable. No other album in Bowie's 40-year achieved the same balance between accessibility (Golden Years was one of his few top 10 pop hits in America) and musical experimentation (the inscrutable title song remains one of Bowie's most ambitious works).
Interestingly, it's also an album that convinced at least a few doubters of Bowie's talent. Though he had previously dismissed him as "Johnny Ray on cocaine singing about 1984", critic Lester Bangs conceded that Station to Station was a masterpiece that showed Bowie coming into his own as an artist. Bangs, who had previously criticized Bowie's lyrics as among the worst in pop music, went so far as to praise the emotional coherence the album's lyrics brought to its impressive musical mix of rock of rock and soul styles.
Among Bowie's (numerous) classic albums from the 1970s, Station to Station has been largely eclipsed by Low and the rest of the "Berlin Trilogy".While this isn't surprising, and there's a lot of great music on Low, this Bowie fan can't help but feel that at least a portion of the later album's acclaim derives at least as much from the mythology surrounding its making (not to mention his work with Iggy Pop) as from its artistic merits.
The latter notion is, of course, highly subjective speculation on a topic that resists certainty. While Bowie hasn't to my knowledge performed the whole album in sequence as he's done with Low, songs from Station To Station have found their way onto the set-lists of most of his tours since its release. This ongoing re-visitation, including such unique forums as Live Aid and the aforementioned Storytellers program, suggests that the artist himself certainly retained a fondness for the album.
What is certain is that the latest edition of Station to Station is a real gift to Bowie fans, more so even than the anniversary editions of Ziggy Stardust and Aladdin Sane from several years ago. Not only does it include a re-mastered version of the original album, it also includes the full recording of Bowie's 1976 Nassau Coliseum concert. A couple songs from this show, which had been recorded for broadcast, were included on the 1991 Rykodisc version of Station to Station, and I'm thrilled to see the rest of the show get a proper release.
Interestingly, this points to one of the few good things to come out of Bowie's lack of new recordings since Reality in 2003. Whereas legitimate releases of live Bowie had been relatively sparse for most of his career, the last few years have brought concert recordings spanning three decades to CD. While I'd rather have new music from him, these opportunities for rediscovery are an undeniable pleasure.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
I Don't Care About His Personal Failings...
...it's still a fantastic speech. 50 years later, JFK's inaugural address remains a visionary piece of work.
Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, Reverend Clergy, fellow citizens:
We observe today not a victory of party but a celebration of freedom--symbolizing an end as well as a beginning--signifying renewal as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forbears prescribed nearly a century and three-quarters ago.
The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans--born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage--and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge--and more.
To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided there is little we can do--for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.
To those new states whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom--and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.
To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required--not because the communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge--to convert our good words into good deeds--in a new alliance for progress--to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.
To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support--to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective--to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak--and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.
Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.
But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course--both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.
So let us begin anew--remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.
Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.
Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms--and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.
Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths and encourage the arts and commerce.
Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah--to "undo the heavy burdens . . . (and) let the oppressed go free."
And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.
All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.
In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.
Now the trumpet summons us again--not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need--not as a call to battle, though embattled we are-- but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"--a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease and war itself.
Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?
In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility--I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it--and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.
Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, Reverend Clergy, fellow citizens:
We observe today not a victory of party but a celebration of freedom--symbolizing an end as well as a beginning--signifying renewal as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forbears prescribed nearly a century and three-quarters ago.
The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans--born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage--and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge--and more.
To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided there is little we can do--for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.
To those new states whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom--and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.
To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required--not because the communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge--to convert our good words into good deeds--in a new alliance for progress--to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.
To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support--to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective--to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak--and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.
Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.
But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course--both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.
So let us begin anew--remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.
Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.
Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms--and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.
Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths and encourage the arts and commerce.
Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah--to "undo the heavy burdens . . . (and) let the oppressed go free."
And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.
All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.
In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.
Now the trumpet summons us again--not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need--not as a call to battle, though embattled we are-- but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"--a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease and war itself.
Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?
In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility--I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it--and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Monday, January 17, 2011
Does Somebody Need a Hug?
Listening to Speaker of the House John Boehner's recent speeches, I find myself thinking that maybe all a power-mad villain really needs to change their ways is a hug. That's not to suggest that Boehner is a villain, and he doesn't seem especially power-mad, despite his insistence on holding a vote on repealing the healthcare reform law that is guaranteed to go no further than the House.
What is striking about Boehner, though, is how fraught he always seems on a big stage. It's not just the crying, it's the way he seems overwhelmed by whatever event is putting him in the spotlight in the first place.
As much as I think humility is an under-appreciated and overly scarce virtue among our elected officials, this guy is taking it a bit too far. I don't doubt the sincerity of Boehner's feelings, but the fact that he seems unable to control them worries me. If he aspires to be an effective counterweight to the power of the party that controls the government (and has shown the spine to govern, even knowing it would cost them), it seems to me he really needs to show more steely resolve than rivers of tears. Perhaps he'd be able to do it if someone just would give him a hug.
What is striking about Boehner, though, is how fraught he always seems on a big stage. It's not just the crying, it's the way he seems overwhelmed by whatever event is putting him in the spotlight in the first place.
As much as I think humility is an under-appreciated and overly scarce virtue among our elected officials, this guy is taking it a bit too far. I don't doubt the sincerity of Boehner's feelings, but the fact that he seems unable to control them worries me. If he aspires to be an effective counterweight to the power of the party that controls the government (and has shown the spine to govern, even knowing it would cost them), it seems to me he really needs to show more steely resolve than rivers of tears. Perhaps he'd be able to do it if someone just would give him a hug.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
"I Love It When You Talk Retro"or "Do You Sell Books Here?"
Anyone walking into a Borders these days who didn't know the company's history could be forgiven for wondering if they actually still sell books. Even among the creeping clutter of boardgames and cell-phone cases, obviously on some elementary level they do. In the bigger sense of helping a customer find something they hadn't realized they wanted, though, it isn't something I expect to find at a Borders any more.
With that in mind, it was with great surprise that more than a decade after leaving Borders I was on the receiving end of actual book-selling. Admittedly, it was at the registers when it was too late for me to investigate the very sensible suggestion, but it was the most encouraging thing I've seen at a Borders in years. Amusingly, considering how much the conversation felt like something from a different and somewhat distant time in the company's history, the recommended book was called "I Love It When You Talk Retro".
A quick look at Amazon confirmed that the book does, as the clerk described, discuss the origins of everyday expressions. I was tempted to order it from Amazon, but that would seem wrong in a way, not just from a karma standpoint but also because and it's actually nice to skim through a book before buying. Besides, thanks to the slightly desperate ploy that is Borders Rewards, I have a coupon that will let me get it for about the same price as Amazon.
As for the book-seller herself, I predict she'll either quit out of frustration or get promoted, meaning she'll rarely if ever talk to a non-angry customer. Either way, it's probably more of a loss than anyone in Borders' current management will appreciate.
With that in mind, it was with great surprise that more than a decade after leaving Borders I was on the receiving end of actual book-selling. Admittedly, it was at the registers when it was too late for me to investigate the very sensible suggestion, but it was the most encouraging thing I've seen at a Borders in years. Amusingly, considering how much the conversation felt like something from a different and somewhat distant time in the company's history, the recommended book was called "I Love It When You Talk Retro".
A quick look at Amazon confirmed that the book does, as the clerk described, discuss the origins of everyday expressions. I was tempted to order it from Amazon, but that would seem wrong in a way, not just from a karma standpoint but also because and it's actually nice to skim through a book before buying. Besides, thanks to the slightly desperate ploy that is Borders Rewards, I have a coupon that will let me get it for about the same price as Amazon.
As for the book-seller herself, I predict she'll either quit out of frustration or get promoted, meaning she'll rarely if ever talk to a non-angry customer. Either way, it's probably more of a loss than anyone in Borders' current management will appreciate.
We're Better Than This - Aren't We?
A friend recently commented in relation to the Arizona shootings that the rhetoric didn't cause the crime, but the crime should cause consideration of the rhetoric. You can have a reasonable argument about whether it's fair to blame the high-calibre comments of politicians like Sarah Palin and Sharon Angle for the actions of a disturbed individual, and certainly many on the right have been more than ready to argue about it, reasonably or otherwise. What's telling, though, is that amid all those denials no one seems to acknowledge the possibility that, regardless of whether it contributed to the shooting or not, the heated rhetoric and lack of civility encourages might not be such a a good thing. Indeed, Palin seemed more intent on stoking the fire further with yesterday's "blood libel" comments.
That got me thinking about how similar this is to the contentious debate about climate change. Putting aside one's view of the scientific study behind the premise that greenhouse gases are causing changes in out climate, has anyone on the political right considered that reducing the levels in the atmosphere might simply be a good thing regardless of ideology. You would think that the prospect of decreasing pollution and conserving valuable resources like petroleum for future generations would be a worthwhile end in itself, but neither major party seems inclined to go there.
Political rhetoric calls for much the same thought process, and thankfully the signs of progress are more positive. Whether or not you think maps with crosshairs designating the targeted political races or talk of "second amendment remedies" played any part in last weekend's tragedy is beside the point. Talk like that, along with baseless accusations that one's political opponents want America to fail, just isn't the way our politicians should be talking to or about each other. As President Obama said in his speech last night, we should be able to disagree without questioning each others' love of country. Doubtless, some on the right will use that comment to question our President's love of country, but hopefully most people will recognize that his admonition speaks to our better natures - and what's more American than that?
That got me thinking about how similar this is to the contentious debate about climate change. Putting aside one's view of the scientific study behind the premise that greenhouse gases are causing changes in out climate, has anyone on the political right considered that reducing the levels in the atmosphere might simply be a good thing regardless of ideology. You would think that the prospect of decreasing pollution and conserving valuable resources like petroleum for future generations would be a worthwhile end in itself, but neither major party seems inclined to go there.
Political rhetoric calls for much the same thought process, and thankfully the signs of progress are more positive. Whether or not you think maps with crosshairs designating the targeted political races or talk of "second amendment remedies" played any part in last weekend's tragedy is beside the point. Talk like that, along with baseless accusations that one's political opponents want America to fail, just isn't the way our politicians should be talking to or about each other. As President Obama said in his speech last night, we should be able to disagree without questioning each others' love of country. Doubtless, some on the right will use that comment to question our President's love of country, but hopefully most people will recognize that his admonition speaks to our better natures - and what's more American than that?
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Requiem for a Bookseller?
The news just doesn't seem to get any better for Borders. In the wake of an announcement that they had been delaying payments to publishers, they ended the year being spotlighted on The Motley Fool's website (http://m.fool.com/investing/small-cap/2011/01/03/the-one-retailer-you-must-avoid#Articles) as "The One Retailer You Must Avoid". This past week, there was talk that Simon & Schuster was canceling author events at Borders. More fundamentally is the fact that the past couple years have seen them cut a shocking number of their most experienced employees, including many of my former colleagues in their buying/merchandising group. Having worked for Borders for seven years in the 1990s, followed by a few years calling on them as a vendor, I want them to pull through this, but it's hard to see how it's going to happen.
What I think about more is how Borders got to this point. I'm sure a lot of former Borders employees (and customers) have varying opinions on when the trouble started. Some might fixate on the 1992 opening of music stores, while others may see the advent of international stores in 1997 as the turning point. More recently, the media has been full of talk about the threat digital media poses to traditional book retailers. From my vantage, though, Borders' problems started long before the Kindle, with roots in an event many employees at the time (myself included) thought was a great thing - the company's initial public stock offering in 1995.
At the time, I think a lot of us thought that independence from the ownership by K-Mart would pave the way for better things. In retrospect, we probably were just tired of angry customers blaming things like being sold out of an obscure foreign newspaper on being owned by K-Mart as part of their so-called specialty retail group Looking back on it, K-Mart actually seems like the friendly giant in many ways. They provided the resources for the company to expand, improved employee benefits (whatever would-be union organizers claimed) and largely seemed to give the management latitude to do what they thought was best for the growing company.
At the time, though, it was much more appealing to fixate on the symbolism of one's employer being an independent bookseller again. The fact that the stock price kept going up, making the stock options given to encourage staying on seem likely to have real value, did little to dissuade me from that view. As it happened, "the street" turned out to be a bit more demanding than the K-Mart execs, and it's hard to shake the sense that the unavoidable focus on quarterly earnings reports was a factor in some ultimately unfortunate strategic decisions, especially with regard to the company's expansion.
In November of 1995, I helped train the staffs of two new Borders stores, one of them being the 100th to open. The company kept expanding its store count by dozens year after year. And while it seemed to help the bottom line in the short term, it wasn't necessarily a good thing in the long term, because that expansion led to the promotions of a lot of people to management positions before they were ready at the same time that stores were being pressured to keep payroll lower. Borders had always spoken of the importance of their company culture as one of the factors that differentiated them from other retailers. The relentless expansion compromised that culture by putting the responsibility for transmitting the Borders way of doing things in the hands of people who weren't themselves particularly versed in it. Over time, staff members increasingly seemed to know less about both the merchandise in the stores and the way it should be presented. Both of these factors made the stores more difficult and less appealing to shop as a customer.
It's understandable that online retailers like Amazon make it harder for a physical bookstore to compete on selection, especially as ebooks become more widespread, but there's still a place for good bookstores. The key is that the stores need to be a place you want to shop, and this is where Borders has given up so much ground to Barnes & Noble. Borders used to have the stores with the more appealing displays of books and other items, especially in the front of the store, while B&N's displays tended to look a little ragged. In the space of a decade, even the front areas of Borders (that should be appealing to browse) tend to look sloppy, while B&N seems much more interesting and inviting in comparison. I suppose that's why, aside from the financial aspects, the prospect of Borders buying Barnes & Noble seems wrong. Barnes & Noble, while not perfect and certainly facing some challenges, knows who they are. Borders used to have a clearer and frankly superior identity. However, as the stores become increasingly barren and so many of their best and brightest either jumped or got pushed out, that's just a fond memory for me and others who think more about the word "former" in the phrase "former Borders employee".
What I think about more is how Borders got to this point. I'm sure a lot of former Borders employees (and customers) have varying opinions on when the trouble started. Some might fixate on the 1992 opening of music stores, while others may see the advent of international stores in 1997 as the turning point. More recently, the media has been full of talk about the threat digital media poses to traditional book retailers. From my vantage, though, Borders' problems started long before the Kindle, with roots in an event many employees at the time (myself included) thought was a great thing - the company's initial public stock offering in 1995.
At the time, I think a lot of us thought that independence from the ownership by K-Mart would pave the way for better things. In retrospect, we probably were just tired of angry customers blaming things like being sold out of an obscure foreign newspaper on being owned by K-Mart as part of their so-called specialty retail group Looking back on it, K-Mart actually seems like the friendly giant in many ways. They provided the resources for the company to expand, improved employee benefits (whatever would-be union organizers claimed) and largely seemed to give the management latitude to do what they thought was best for the growing company.
At the time, though, it was much more appealing to fixate on the symbolism of one's employer being an independent bookseller again. The fact that the stock price kept going up, making the stock options given to encourage staying on seem likely to have real value, did little to dissuade me from that view. As it happened, "the street" turned out to be a bit more demanding than the K-Mart execs, and it's hard to shake the sense that the unavoidable focus on quarterly earnings reports was a factor in some ultimately unfortunate strategic decisions, especially with regard to the company's expansion.
In November of 1995, I helped train the staffs of two new Borders stores, one of them being the 100th to open. The company kept expanding its store count by dozens year after year. And while it seemed to help the bottom line in the short term, it wasn't necessarily a good thing in the long term, because that expansion led to the promotions of a lot of people to management positions before they were ready at the same time that stores were being pressured to keep payroll lower. Borders had always spoken of the importance of their company culture as one of the factors that differentiated them from other retailers. The relentless expansion compromised that culture by putting the responsibility for transmitting the Borders way of doing things in the hands of people who weren't themselves particularly versed in it. Over time, staff members increasingly seemed to know less about both the merchandise in the stores and the way it should be presented. Both of these factors made the stores more difficult and less appealing to shop as a customer.
It's understandable that online retailers like Amazon make it harder for a physical bookstore to compete on selection, especially as ebooks become more widespread, but there's still a place for good bookstores. The key is that the stores need to be a place you want to shop, and this is where Borders has given up so much ground to Barnes & Noble. Borders used to have the stores with the more appealing displays of books and other items, especially in the front of the store, while B&N's displays tended to look a little ragged. In the space of a decade, even the front areas of Borders (that should be appealing to browse) tend to look sloppy, while B&N seems much more interesting and inviting in comparison. I suppose that's why, aside from the financial aspects, the prospect of Borders buying Barnes & Noble seems wrong. Barnes & Noble, while not perfect and certainly facing some challenges, knows who they are. Borders used to have a clearer and frankly superior identity. However, as the stores become increasingly barren and so many of their best and brightest either jumped or got pushed out, that's just a fond memory for me and others who think more about the word "former" in the phrase "former Borders employee".
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Consequences Have Actions
Though the motives are unknown as of this writing, one hopes today's deadly shooting in Arizona will shock the more sensible elements of the Republican party into realizing that their increasingly pervasive rhetoric about "Second Amendment remedies" and reloading rather than retreating does not belong in our public discourse. At the very least, I hope they're calculating enough to balance the equation that tells us that such talk does not become a party that hopes to be viewed as a credible part of our government, let alone aspires to be in charge of the government. Sadly, even if a political motive is confirmed, I suspect they will attempt to refute any connection between aggressive rhetoric and aggressive action. And while part of me wants to be grateful for anything the Republican party does that isolates them even further from the mainstream of sensible Americans, I hate the idea that it takes the loss of life to do it.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Of Mandates and Mendacity
Republican officials seem to talk a lot about mandates. If it isn't the "individual mandate" in the 2010 health-care reform bill, which they assert is a fundamental threat to our freedom, it's the mandate they consistently claim to have been given by the American people. The theory of an "individual mandate" being a threat to our freedoms is easily dispatched by a look at the provisions of the 1792 Militia Act (May 8th portion), which contained a requirement for free citizens to purchase weapons and was signed into law by George Washington. If an individual mandate was acceptable to no less a champion of freedom as one of our founding fathers, it should be good enough for all Americans.
Thankfully, the Republicans' equally dubious assertion that they received a mandate from the electorate, as opposed to winning some close elections as the result of a protest vote, can be similarly dismissed with a look at the facts. When you review the voting results for Republican candidates versus Republicans in the past few elections, there's a case to be made that, if either party has been given a mandate the past few years, it's been the Democrats.
In the 2006 mid-term elections, nearly 78-million votes were cast between Democratic and Republican House candidates (i.e. the only national offices where every seat was on the ballot). Out of that total, Republican numbers were a bit shy of 35.7M, while votes for Democratic candidates came in around 42M. That works out to 45.9% for the GOP and 54.1% for the Democrats. Since this was a higher percentage for Democrats than the Republican candidates got in the 2004 elections, after which President Bush spoke of the (you guessed it) mandate he'd been given, you'd think the GOP would acknowledge the passing of the mandate torch. If they did, I missed it.
If 51.4% was enough to give both president and party an electoral mandate in 2004, surely the 55.6% the Democratic candidates got in 2008 would do the trick. As it happens, despite getting over 65M votes (compared to a little over 52M for the Republicans), no one on the GOP seemed inclined to concede the mandate for the victors which they should have had after the 2006 elections. To be fair, though, the GOP was busy obstructing the duly elected government from actually governing, while tacitly approving of scurrilous accusations about the legitimacy of our (American-born) President.
Which brings us to last year's mid-term elections, famously described by our rightfully-elected President as a "shellacking" and infamously described by a number of Republicans as a mandate. Among the high-profile officials using this term is Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who talked about said mandate on the January 2, 2011 edition of Meet The Press. While I can't speak to the quality of Graham's education, it seems to be a little lacking on the math side, because the Senator is claiming a mandate with just 53.6% of the total votes cast for Democratic and Republican candidates (about 45M out of 84M). If 55.6% in an election with considerably higher voter turnout doesn't yield a mandate, then it's hard to see the logic behind Graham's current claim. Of course, this is politics and if there's one thing politics teaches us it's that, while logic should count for more, it doesn't win elections.
Thankfully, the Republicans' equally dubious assertion that they received a mandate from the electorate, as opposed to winning some close elections as the result of a protest vote, can be similarly dismissed with a look at the facts. When you review the voting results for Republican candidates versus Republicans in the past few elections, there's a case to be made that, if either party has been given a mandate the past few years, it's been the Democrats.
In the 2006 mid-term elections, nearly 78-million votes were cast between Democratic and Republican House candidates (i.e. the only national offices where every seat was on the ballot). Out of that total, Republican numbers were a bit shy of 35.7M, while votes for Democratic candidates came in around 42M. That works out to 45.9% for the GOP and 54.1% for the Democrats. Since this was a higher percentage for Democrats than the Republican candidates got in the 2004 elections, after which President Bush spoke of the (you guessed it) mandate he'd been given, you'd think the GOP would acknowledge the passing of the mandate torch. If they did, I missed it.
If 51.4% was enough to give both president and party an electoral mandate in 2004, surely the 55.6% the Democratic candidates got in 2008 would do the trick. As it happens, despite getting over 65M votes (compared to a little over 52M for the Republicans), no one on the GOP seemed inclined to concede the mandate for the victors which they should have had after the 2006 elections. To be fair, though, the GOP was busy obstructing the duly elected government from actually governing, while tacitly approving of scurrilous accusations about the legitimacy of our (American-born) President.
Which brings us to last year's mid-term elections, famously described by our rightfully-elected President as a "shellacking" and infamously described by a number of Republicans as a mandate. Among the high-profile officials using this term is Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who talked about said mandate on the January 2, 2011 edition of Meet The Press. While I can't speak to the quality of Graham's education, it seems to be a little lacking on the math side, because the Senator is claiming a mandate with just 53.6% of the total votes cast for Democratic and Republican candidates (about 45M out of 84M). If 55.6% in an election with considerably higher voter turnout doesn't yield a mandate, then it's hard to see the logic behind Graham's current claim. Of course, this is politics and if there's one thing politics teaches us it's that, while logic should count for more, it doesn't win elections.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Privacy? I think I remember that.
Privacy used to be simple. If you shut your blinds and got an unlisted phone number, you were pretty much covered. As with so many things, the Internet has changed that dynamic, and privacy has gone from a default situation to something you have to actively fight to maintain. The latest sign of this is a web-site called spokeo.com which makes a frightening amount of personal information available to anyone with access to a web-browser. If the information that's available for free is any indication, the material available to paying subscribers is probably an identity thief's paradise. Thankfully, there appears to be a low-hassle and (more to the point) effective way to remove your information available under the site's privacy settings. That's the good news. The bad news is that another web-site doing the same thing can't be far behind.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Buried Treasures of The Twilight Zone
Despite owning every episode of Twilight Zone on DVD, when the Sci-Fi Channel (sorry, the name change to Syfy was just dumb) runs a marathon on holiday weekends, I have to watch. As much as I enjoy seeing the "classic" episodes like Eye of the Beholder, though, one of the great pleasures of the marathons is seeing episodes you wouldn't necessarily tune in for on their own reputation. Certainly. not all Twilight Zone episodes are created equal, and a few are pretty bad. That said, some of these lesser known stories are in their own way just as compelling as some of the program's touchstones and deserve a little extra attention. Moreover, they include some of the finest acting performances ever seen in the series, which is to say in the history of film and television.
Nick of Time: William Shatner's other Twilight Zone appearance, Nightmare at 20,000 Feet, is more famous, even getting a remake in 1982's Twilight Zone movie. Shatner's earlier appearance, though, is a gem that really shows why he was once regarded as one of Hollywood's best young actors. There's no supernatural element here, just a taut character drama about taking charge of one's own fate with a final twist that shows how flexible the format of Twilight Zone was.
Night of the Meek: Reportedly, this story was the product Rod Serling's desire to do a Christmas story with Art Carney as Santa Claus. The end result found Carney playing Henry Corwin, a down on his luck soul whose job ad a department store Santa is the outward expression of his wish that both he and Christmas could be something finer. Carney gets his wish, courtesy of the Twilight Zone.
The Changing of the Guard: Numerous protagonists entered the Twilight Zone and found themselves out of their own time. In Changing of the Guard, a man who feels that time and the world have passed him by has the Twilight Zone come to him. Played marvelously by Donald Pleasance, Professor Ellis Fowler laments that his years of teaching failed to move or motivate any of his students. As he contemplates suicide, Fowler is visited by the ghosts of his former students and learns that he left a much deeper mark than he'd ever imagined. While Rod Serling's script isn't terribly original, it gives Pleasance enough to work with so that the actor's absolute conviction can make this episode something truly special.
The Masks: The only Twilight Zone episode directed by a woman, Ida Lupino (who starred in the episode The Sixteen Millimeter Shrine), The Masks is another concise character piece in the vein of Nick of Time. Lupino, who directed a number of feature films, has an unsurprising affinity for working with actors. As with Nick of Time, though, it's possible that the lack of supernatural undertones may be one of the key reasons this episode is less well-regarded than some other less substantial (and more cliched) episodes of the program.
Printer's Devil: Described in The Twilight Zone Companion as "a fairly run of the mill deal-with-the-devil story", Charles Beaumont's adaptation of his own short story "The Devil You Say?" is admittedly not the most original of episodes, even in comparison to others from the show's later seasons. It's elevated above the ordinary, though, by Burgess Meredith's performance as the, shall we say, title character. Among the highlights is the scene where Meredith's "Mr. Smith" first makes his deal with the struggling newspaper owner, comparing their soul to a vintage wine. Printer's Devil was Meredith's fourth and final appearance on Twilight Zone, which brings to mind the actor's first appearance on the show.
The Honorable Mention for Most Overrated Episode goes to...Time Enough at Last: The twist ending with Meredith's unassuming book-worm Henry Bemis breaking his glasses is probably the most iconic moment in the program's history. That undeniably good twist has helped camouflage for decades that the other 20-odd minutes of Time Enough at Last aren't themselves really all that good. It's obviously a fine showcase for Meredith and he gives it his all. Beyond that, though, there really isn't much more to it. The characters who are disparaging of Bemis and his love of books seem to do so simply because it's what he script requires, and Bemis himself doesn't have much more dimension either. In fact, what stands out most about this episode is how obvious it all feels. It's a twist worthy of The Twilight Zone that its best remembered story is actually one of its least interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)