Have smartphones killed the three-day weekend?

Memorial Day weekend marks the beginning of summer and all it evokes: vacations, slower workweeks, casual dress codes, getting the pool ready and pulling out the outdoor furniture. It would seem an ideal time to take a break, but our ability to unplug and relax is under assault…..

I’m glad to see the mainstream media tackle these issues. They are usually seriously discussed only among those of us who are singing to the choir. The Digital Age has brought us many new things of great convenience, but there’s no denying it has also changed things so much that the scale is pretty much offset.

Click on the article title or here to read the entire article.

Maugham and Dan Brown

It’s popular to bash Dan Brown. The author of Angels & Demons, The Da Vinci Code, The Lost Symbol, among others, is often criticized for a clumsy or lazy style of writing. I confess to having only read one of his books so I can’t claim to be a “fan” per se, but I admire Brown’s obvious ability to entertain and feel comfortable in his own skin as a writer. He regularly brushes off the criticism and keeps fans lining up for his latest books. Speaking of, today is the release date for Dan Brown’s latest novel, Inferno, and all the same old criticisms are again being tossed his way.

I can’t help but think of William Somerset Maugham (1874-1965), one of my favorite writers and author of the classic, Of Human Bondage. Maugham received, and continues to receive by some, much of the the same criticisms as Dan Brown hears today. What it comes down to is a simple, clear language that is meant to be understood as opposed to impressing the critics. The horror!

B.R. Myers stirred up the literary community in an article for The Atlantic in 2001 titled, ‘A Reader’s Manifesto: An attack on the growing pretentiousness of American literary prose.’ It was later expanded into an excellent book. It tackled this very question that pits writers like Maugham and Brown against those who are lauded by the critics, yet write in a style that is sometimes hard to decipher. Think Annie Proulx, Cormac McCarthy, Don DeLillo…you get the idea, those writers we’re all supposed to like, even if we sometimes read them and wince. The Myers article/book looks at all this and asks questions that dare to take on the literary establishment.

Meanwhile, millions continue to read Dan Brown and still read Somerset Maugham with great enjoyment, critics be damned.

Compare these thoughts from both, almost one hundred years apart:

” I wanted to write without any frills of language, in as bare and unaffected a manner as I could. I had so much to say that I could afford to waste no words. I wanted merely to set down the facts. I began with the impossible aim of using no adjectives at all. I thought that if you could find the exact term a qualifying epithet could be dispensed with. As I saw it in my mind’s eye my book would have the appearance of an immensely long telegram in which for economy’s sake you had left out every word that was not necessary to make the sense clear. On taking thought it seemed to me that I must aim at lucidity, simplicity and euphony. I have put these three qualities in the order of the importance I assigned to them.”

- William Somerset Maugham in The Summing Up

“It’s funny to me that there are critics who say, ‘Oh, it’s a lazy style’. I believe that the purpose of language is to convey an idea and I personally don’t like language getting in the way. I don’t want to read things where I’m just drowning in the prose…There are times when you read for the beauty of language, but there are also times when you read to be entertained or to get information. That’s how I try to write – as clearly as possible so you don’t have to read a sentence twice. All of that is intentional and there are various kinds of devices that I use – very intentionally and very carefully – to create that reading experience.”

- Dan Brown in London’s Sunday Times

It all sounds so familiar, doesn’t it? For better or worse, let the debate continue.

Meanwhile here comes Inferno, expected to be the biggest book of 2013. You can’t help but wonder if Somerset Maugham, having entertained millions with Of Human Bondage, The Razor’s Edge, Cakes and Ale - and so many more - must be smiling on the success of Dan Brown, and Brown’s millions of fans enjoying his books without a thought of literary this or literary that.

- Mike Swickey

Stunning time-lapse video of beautiful San Diego.

Soothing Moment #18

Soothing Moment #18

And what, Socrates, is the food of the soul? Surely, I said, knowledge is the food of the soul.
Plato

The Growing Sentiment on the Hill For Ending 'Too Big To Fail'

This is an update to my post on the importance of breaking up the big banks - an excellent article just published by Rolling Stone.
————————-

If you missed the Bloomberg editorial, “Why Should Taxpayers Give Big Banks $83 Billion a Year?” it’s a must-read. Find it here.

From the Bloomberg editorial (and let this sink in):

The top five banks — JPMorgan, Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. - - account for $64 billion of the total subsidy, an amount roughly equal to their typical annual profits. In other words, the banks occupying the commanding heights of the U.S. financial industry — with almost $9 trillion in assets, more than half the size of the U.S. economy — would just about break even in the absence of corporate welfare. In large part, the profits they report are essentially transfers from taxpayers to their shareholders.

The momentum is building to break-up these big banks run by 21st Century bandits pulling off the biggest bank jobs ever. If this isn’t brought to a satisfactory conclusion soon, you’ll be hearing cries to nationalize these institutions and bring them under public control.

Isn’t it amusing how those of us in the developed nations of the world have become so comfortable with using big numbers? We think nothing of mentioning a million here, a billion there. Mere hundreds of thousands are no big deal. But then, when you consider that human beings live only some thirty thousand days, give or take a few hundred, numbers begin to take on an entirely different perspective—at least, with respect to time. Our lives don’t even amount to a million hours.
Charles D. Hayes
The Rapture of Maturity: A Legacy of Lifelong Learning
Too Big To Fail? Some pretty big names continue to add their voices to those calling for breaking up the TBTF banks. Sanford “Sandy” Weill John Reed Phil Purcell Sallie Crawcheck David Komansky Richard Parsons Scott Shay The list above is not full of household names, but they all come from the upper echelon of the banking establishment. They all, to one degree or another, think the TBTF banks have got to be broken up. One of those names, Scott Shay, says, “Fixing the banking system and reinstating Glass Steagall should be the highest priority.” I agree. Can anybody really not believe that the repeal of Glass-Steagall was a monumental blunder? Senator Elizabeth Warren has made the argument that many investors believe that with TBTF in place that their investments are safer with the TBTF institutions because it’s a kind of “insurance policy” for the biggest banks. Senator Warren further argues that this “insurance policy,” and the now open secret of $83 billion dollar subsidies to the big banks, puts smaller community banks at a competitive disadvantage. This theme was echoed last week by Senator David Vitter, a Republican, saying, “Megabanks are still receiving special handouts that create an uneven playing field — making it harder for our community banks and credit unions to compete.” The Wall Street Journal (!) on Monday wrote, Anyway, it’s Republicans who should be the natural bank-busters in Washington. The existence of TBTF financial institutions reflects government meddling and crony-capitalist collusion rather than market forces. And as far as pure politics goes, embracing pro-market financial reform would be a much smarter way to rebrand the GOP than any of the policy tweaks in the RNC’s recent autopsy. Conversations with staff of some potential 2016 candidates suggest that their bosses are starting to grasp the political power of the issue. For a party desperately in need of both a messaging makeover and policy entrepreneurship, a push to end too-big-to-fail banks should be an idea too good to resist. What to do? The welfare checks (aka subsidies) should stop. Glass-Steagall should be the law again. The biggest banks should be broken up.  Small banks should be exempt from the onerous bureaucracy of Dodd-Frank and Basil III (put into place to regulate and babysit the big investment banks who are today’s modern day bandits). The perps within the banking establishment - that broke the law and created economic chaos - should be jailed. Some say the big banks aren’t evil because they’re just too big to manage effectively. Well, that can be changed in a hurry, but to give the gangsters a get-out-of-jail free card sends the wrong message which is prison for regular Americans, continued golden parachutes (and even cabinet positions) for the looters. I don’t think so. Too Big To Fail must be in our rear-view mirror sooner rather than later. - Mike Swickey

Too Big To Fail?

Some pretty big names continue to add their voices to those calling for breaking up the TBTF banks.

  • Sanford “Sandy” Weill
  • John Reed
  • Phil Purcell
  • Sallie Crawcheck
  • David Komansky
  • Richard Parsons
  • Scott Shay

The list above is not full of household names, but they all come from the upper echelon of the banking establishment. They all, to one degree or another, think the TBTF banks have got to be broken up.

One of those names, Scott Shay, says, “Fixing the banking system and reinstating Glass Steagall should be the highest priority.” I agree. Can anybody really not believe that the repeal of Glass-Steagall was a monumental blunder?

Senator Elizabeth Warren has made the argument that many investors believe that with TBTF in place that their investments are safer with the TBTF institutions because it’s a kind of “insurance policy” for the biggest banks. Senator Warren further argues that this “insurance policy,” and the now open secret of $83 billion dollar subsidies to the big banks, puts smaller community banks at a competitive disadvantage. This theme was echoed last week by Senator David Vitter, a Republican, saying, “Megabanks are still receiving special handouts that create an uneven playing field — making it harder for our community banks and credit unions to compete.”

The Wall Street Journal (!) on Monday wrote,

Anyway, it’s Republicans who should be the natural bank-busters in Washington. The existence of TBTF financial institutions reflects government meddling and crony-capitalist collusion rather than market forces. And as far as pure politics goes, embracing pro-market financial reform would be a much smarter way to rebrand the GOP than any of the policy tweaks in the RNC’s recent autopsy. Conversations with staff of some potential 2016 candidates suggest that their bosses are starting to grasp the political power of the issue. For a party desperately in need of both a messaging makeover and policy entrepreneurship, a push to end too-big-to-fail banks should be an idea too good to resist.

What to do? The welfare checks (aka subsidies) should stop. Glass-Steagall should be the law again. The biggest banks should be broken up.  Small banks should be exempt from the onerous bureaucracy of Dodd-Frank and Basil III (put into place to regulate and babysit the big investment banks who are today’s modern day bandits). The perps within the banking establishment - that broke the law and created economic chaos - should be jailed. Some say the big banks aren’t evil because they’re just too big to manage effectively. Well, that can be changed in a hurry, but to give the gangsters a get-out-of-jail free card sends the wrong message which is prison for regular Americans, continued golden parachutes (and even cabinet positions) for the looters. I don’t think so.

Too Big To Fail must be in our rear-view mirror sooner rather than later.

- Mike Swickey

Just 6 minutes and 24 seconds. I hope you’ll take that time and watch this video. I found this tonight, double-checked the math (he’s right) and I felt this was something I had to share here. I don’t care if you’re left, right or center politically - this economic reality is something that should concern us all. Economies where wealth inequality is the greatest never offer economic stability. It’s not about the “rich” and the “poor” - not at all. Or those who work and those who don’t. It’s about the top 1% and everybody else. You think you know all about the inequalities? Watch and see if you really do. I think you’ll be shocked.

You may say, “I don’t like politics,” or “I don’t care about that stuff.” Well, I think you will care about this issue if you give yourself 6 minutes and 24 seconds for this video. Please watch and share it with others.

A Stunning Piece of Investigative Journalism

image

I rarely delve into politics at the Notebook. But there are always exceptions and I can’t think of a better one. I’ve been reading Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report since I was 12 years old. (I know - a total geek.) I’m now 53. I have just read, this past week, the finest piece of investigative journalism I can remember in my lifetime. Put simply, if this had been published in a major newspaper - it would walk away with the Pulitzer Prize. The fact that they opened up the Pulitzer to online publications and still disallow anything published in a printed magazine is a travesty - and this article shows why that is so.

If you can get your hands on the actual publication I highly encourage you to read it that way. There are many charts left out of the online version. The digital Time for iPad, etc., though, is page for page like the printed edition.

But, this article is so well written that the simple printed version from Time.com is absolutely devastating - even without all the charts. Like never before, the lid has been blown off of the entire racket of hospitals (profit and so-called ‘non-profit,’) Big Pharma, medical device makers, Big Insurance. the lie of “we lose money with Medicare” (the largest Medicare state, Florida, has hospitals expanding for Medicare patients and ceaseless advertising directed to Medicare patients. You don’t do that if they “cost you money.”), the list is long. 

The biggest surprise? The industry-written law (they don’t want you to know that) referred to as, “ObamaCare” touches almost none of this. Their gravy train is protected.

Again, the printed or ‘digital’ copies on iPad and mobile devices would be the best experience in reading this outstanding piece of journalism. But, here is the link to Time.com - the entire article is VERY long, but every citizen owes it to themselves - and to their country - to read this. It is riveting and the time taken to read and digest this will fly by. It’s that well-written by Mr. Brill.

Do not be discouraged. Steven Brill turned on the lights and the roaches may very well scatter to, at first, defend their abominable practices. In the end, there seems to me, no way that Americans can accept the corrupt status quo after this magnificent piece of journalism that is destined to be talked about decades from now. Thank you, Steven Brill and Time Magazine, for the incredible guts it took to publish this when so many of your advertising pages are paid for by some of the very industries eviscerated in this piece.

Here’s The Link. You will remember this story for years to come.

- Mike Swickey
mikesnotebook.com

“Once a thing is known it can never be unknown. It can only be forgotten. And, in a way that bends time, so long as it is remembered, it will indicate the future. It is wiser, in every circumstance, to forget, to cultivate the art of forgetting. To remember is to face the enemy. The truth lies in remembering.”

– Anita Brookner from the opening paragraph of her 1983 novel, Look At Me.



I love Anita Brookner - and she’s one smart lady.

Say what you want about Elizabeth Warren, but one thing is a given - she’s a fighter. (And a graduate of my old high school - Northwest Classen in Oklahoma City.)

Say what you want about Elizabeth Warren, but one thing is a given - she’s a fighter.

(And a graduate of my old high school - Northwest Classen in Oklahoma City.)

Soothing Moment #17

Soothing Moment #17

Me and My Books

I am, without question, a bibliomaniac. I am one who struggles with ebooks because, simply, they aren’t really books. Don’t get me wrong, I buy ebooks (too many) - but my love is with real, true-blue books, printed and bound with that feel and smell that only books have. I own thousands and can’t imagine not having my personal library. For me, it’s like air.

I’ve always liked this - from A Passion For Books:

We are among those for whom there is no such thing as too many books and, as a consequence, have become inured, of necessity, to that ridiculous question we all face from time to time from those who do not share our passion: “Have you read all these books?”

 We are the people who can spend hours browsing through the shelves of a bookstore, completely oblivious not only to the passage of time, but to everything else around us.

We are  the people for whom buying books is not a luxury but a necessity, those who can understand what Thomas Jefferson meant when he said, “I cannot live without books,” and how Desiderius Erasmus could write, “When I have a little money I buy books. And if any is left, I buy food and clothing.”