stained glass windows keep the cold outside while the hypocrites hide inside …
‘Economic injustices, including ”the hoarding of goods on a great scale”, may create “a climate of growing hostility and even violence, and ultimately undermine the very foundations of democratic institutions”.’
… not for one race, one creed, one world; but for money. effective. absurd.[Public Image, Ltd. - ‘Religion I’]
because there’s nothing so democratic as middle-class white kids protesting for the rights of everybody-except-like-Andrew-Forrest-and-Rupert-Murdoch (is he even an Australian resident for tax purposes?)
the worst is that discourse surrounding the Occupy protests (even in Australia) explores some important stuff (particularly the reality and limit of our representative democracy) … but this is totally overwhelmed—even weakened—by the patent naivety, or arrogance, of the central message.
that said, I enjoy the 1/99% line, and am glad they didn’t let Australia-having-demographic-stats-all-of-its-own get in the way of adopting it. think of all the memes that might not have been generated. it’s flawed, of course, as it addresses statistics over philosophy (if 1% of the population is evil-and-all-that, it doesn’t follow that 99% are blameless victims.)
and, I totally understand, because only-having-an-iPhone-3 and not-being-able-to-afford-gig-tickets are absolutely signs that someone is in serious need.
way to disenfranchise poverty, guys.
well someone had to buy it.
it’s a fairly tight business model with great potential for expansion. its reach extends into a number of areas (including Australia) neglected by the more influential online booksellers (Amazon, Barnes and Noble). it’s also solvent and, this year, is expected to nearly double last year’s £2.3m profit (although that’s hardly big money).
some call the move strategic, as if Book Depository’s profits will have a substantial impact on Amazon.com’s. I view it more strategic in that it prevents another large company—Google?—from doing so, and from gaining a strong foothold in physical consignment (and, yeah, customer base and brand recognition).
I don’t think that Amazon is likely to exert a strong influence over how Book Depository is run. I can’t think them naive enough to ignore how things like offering free postage have encouraged customer interest. Amazon UK already offers free postage to Australia for orders over £25. further, Amazon UK prices tend to be lower than Book Depository prices. its worth considering.
Amazon already holds a decided global monopoly on book sales, ebook sales, and e-publishing (and I’m not wholly comfortable with that). it might be Goliath but—so far—its influence has consistently been lowering retail pricing and making content more accessible. it is criticised as laissez faire, not as restrictive. its threat is a restructure of existing industry, but this isn’t a bad thing for consumers. its publishing interests, and its appointment of Larry Kirshbaum at their head, reflect a concern for bringing together traditional publishing with the digital future.
having said that: yes, Amazon-as-Goliath terrifies me.
but is Goliath truly challenging the kingdom of David? and, if so, is he necessarily a philistine?
sorry, this was pretty rushed. tons busy. I’ll link the sources for the figures through later today.
linguistic competence is totally sexy and it’s worth putting in a bit of dictionary time.
so I am hardly a model for Being Precise with Language. and I don’t think that misusing words is necessarily a bad thing. after all, transformation and adaptation sustain meaning in language. nonetheless, misuse is typically awkward, often ungainly, and—unwittingly—can be the lexical equivalent of grievous bodily harm. for example: objective.
‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ both relate to structures that influence how we think. the terms are central to sociological and philosophical discourse. and to arts degrees.
subjective is the influence of personal beliefs and prejudice;
objective is the influence of external structures (society, culture, politics … )
the terms are in relative opposition, vying for dominance, but neither implies thought free of influence. we are—constantly—thralls of one structure (realistically: of both).Read more
on Amazon’s Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP)
so authors can upload self-published ebooks and Amazon will sell them. naturally, I’m all squeeing pre-teen excitement. and, naturally, I’ve an uncomfortable certainty that there must be some kind of catch.
perhaps that catch is the company: everyone.
The Paedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child Lover’s Code of Conduct claims that paedophiles are misunderstood and offers them advice on how to abide by the law.
perhaps it’s difficult to tread between censorship and freedom. but doesn’t it seem that Amazon isn’t even trying? KDP guidelines prohibit ‘offensive material’, but define it with the gloriously vague sentence, ‘What we deem offensive is probably about what you would expect.’
glib. and kind of suggestive. like the rockstar bookseller-come-publishing-house-of-the-future is making a statement by refusing to take content seriously.
which is just careless, given the how much trouble the industry’s been having trying to persuade people to take ebooks seriously.
on being in class
my degree is flipping rad. but I am RAGING at the number of SMARTARSE, FUCKWIT KIDS who seem to think that their three-year-bachelor-degree and their major in like-English-or-Ancient-Greek has given them some amazing ability for insight that makes their uninformed, unread opinions on the publishing industry somehow RELEVANT to class discussion. DO YOUR READING, MOWERS. or SHUT UP.
as if Amerispelling wasn’t bad enough. the spellchecker in OS4 still automatically capitalises ‘internet’. that’s so last-edition-of-Most-Major-Dictionaries. way to be stuck in 2009, Apple.
is right on track
But it’s not really, is it? I mean. For a while I’ve had difficulty digesting the philosophical idea that, by accepting the certainty of good and evil, you necessarily accept the existence of an ultimate/divine arbiter (read: God). Nonetheless, this is the only way that I could justify the reality of innate ‘rights’.
I believe that ‘good and evil’ equate to ‘right and wrong’ and ought to fall into contemplation of morality rather than theology. Morality is also determined by an arbiter—reality—time and culture and society and situation.
I am lucky to have relative control over the morals of my society, through an elected government. This generally demonstrates concern for (if not completely supporting) my own values: environmental sustainability, equality, social welfare and education.
It is only through the agency of government that I am entitled to so-called ‘rights’. And it is in the power of government to determine what those ‘rights’ are. Essentially, they *are* privileges—determined by subjective moral conceptions of right and wrong, and by the needs and ideals of society—not ‘rights’ determined by a divine arbiter.
Education is not a right. I believe that everyone should be entitled to it, but they are not. Universally, it is second to values that are, in many places, themselves unobtainable.
Having said that. If a government can otherwise finance its infrastructure and practice, it is irresponsible to raise the cost of tertiary education to a point where it is infeasible for a majority. It doesn’t make sense to me—even (and particularly) in the face of economic downturn. I can only wonder what they’re thinking.
editing my scan of a book from the thirties about a girl who has a life. she gives up everything to be with somebody, only to find that he never really loved her anyway. or not enough. they never do love you, do they? it’s part you and part situation and part convenience. I hope I can be in love with somebody more than I am in love with their life, or our life. deep and impossible.
this is the third Evadne Price book I’ve scanned. the heroines are shockingly beautiful, hopelessly impoverished society girls who meander through the story being outraged at the impertinence of men, while spending men’s money on pretty, shiny things. apparently this means they are empowered. inevitably, they fall for the man who seems all stern and controlling, but whose heart is in the right place. who rescues her from her facade of the femme fatale. because it’s always a facade.
I don’t mean to quiz a book from the thirties on gender equality, but it’s a disturbingly prevalent story even today. are we all so pathetic? I love men. they’re brilliant and I’d totes have one of my own. but I hate to think that we depend on them for everything that defines us as a sex.
eek. Tuesday morning. better go scan something.