More bouncing
Over at http://www.billingsnews.blogspot.com/, David Crisp picked up on the bad-check-writer signs I noted on November 18 (see "Bounced," below). And it's led to some interesting discussions on his comments board. When somebody asked about profitability, one commenter said, "Having worked at a smallish bank, I know that overdraft fees typically brought in as much as $40,000/month."
But another took me to task over this quote: "A check, after all, represents a bank's promised substitute for cash". He wrote: "This is balderdash. The only time a bank stands behind a check is when it is a certified check (where they withdraw the funds at the time the certified check is written), otherwise they are solely a "financial intermediary" between two parties. (If it were otherwise, commercial commerce would come to a screetchin' halt.)"
I must say I disagree: Of course a bank is "solely a financial intermediary." So are credit cards. So is cash. My point is that when banks pass the risks of that intermediation on to innocent parties, people are going to eventually choose other intermediaries. That's why the government cracks down so hard on counterfeiters (not tacking on extra charges to those who RECEIVE counterfeit) -- because counterfeit erodes the promise inherent in cash.
And that leads me to two questions. 1) Is some bank going to try to do better, or do these huge profits come from monopolistic practices? 2) When we talk about economic development in Montana, are we willing to make hard choices between supporting Montana small businesses and the politically connected nationwide businesses that can cut into their profitability? You can make good philosophical arguments for either choice, but I personally would rather not have my tax dollars go to prop up the Wells Fargo bank.
What do YOU think? Drop a line to info@johnclaytonbooks.com. To receive these posts via email, write to johnclaytonoutreach-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. (You need not put any text in the message.)
But another took me to task over this quote: "A check, after all, represents a bank's promised substitute for cash". He wrote: "This is balderdash. The only time a bank stands behind a check is when it is a certified check (where they withdraw the funds at the time the certified check is written), otherwise they are solely a "financial intermediary" between two parties. (If it were otherwise, commercial commerce would come to a screetchin' halt.)"
I must say I disagree: Of course a bank is "solely a financial intermediary." So are credit cards. So is cash. My point is that when banks pass the risks of that intermediation on to innocent parties, people are going to eventually choose other intermediaries. That's why the government cracks down so hard on counterfeiters (not tacking on extra charges to those who RECEIVE counterfeit) -- because counterfeit erodes the promise inherent in cash.
And that leads me to two questions. 1) Is some bank going to try to do better, or do these huge profits come from monopolistic practices? 2) When we talk about economic development in Montana, are we willing to make hard choices between supporting Montana small businesses and the politically connected nationwide businesses that can cut into their profitability? You can make good philosophical arguments for either choice, but I personally would rather not have my tax dollars go to prop up the Wells Fargo bank.
What do YOU think? Drop a line to info@johnclaytonbooks.com. To receive these posts via email, write to johnclaytonoutreach-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. (You need not put any text in the message.)
Bill McKibben's widening world
You have to admire writer Bill McKibben's depth of feeling for the environment and local communities. But often I find his work a little bit much: a little TOO earnest, a little too eager to see the world's end in a day's worth of TV, and a little too desperate to see its salvation in a single butterfly or entrepreneurial peasant. The funniest example was when he wrote a 96-page pamphlet about how one should spend just $100 every Christmas -- and then marketed it for $11.99.
But I'm thoroughly impressed by his article "Small World" in December's Harper's Magazine. He provides not only inspirational stories, but also persuasive explanations as to why idealists seem to be flocking to alternative radio and food. I found his analyses of industry and popular culture level-headed, and his understanding of real-world tradeoffs justified. These solid foundations make his cautiously optimistic predictions feel right.
McKibben hopes that locally-programmed radio, and restaurants featuring locally-grown food, will be the standard-bearers for a wave of anti-globalization that enriches all of our lives. I'd love to see it happen too, though I don't know if I would have any more stomach for actually following through on those wishes than anyone else. The best part of the piece is that McKibben seems happy now to acknowledge that the process itself -- asking the questions, pursuing the dream -- may be enough. That sort of optimism is what we all need more of.
What do YOU think? Drop a line to info@johnclaytonbooks.com. To receive these posts via email, write to johnclaytonoutreach-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. (You need not put any text in the message.)
But I'm thoroughly impressed by his article "Small World" in December's Harper's Magazine. He provides not only inspirational stories, but also persuasive explanations as to why idealists seem to be flocking to alternative radio and food. I found his analyses of industry and popular culture level-headed, and his understanding of real-world tradeoffs justified. These solid foundations make his cautiously optimistic predictions feel right.
McKibben hopes that locally-programmed radio, and restaurants featuring locally-grown food, will be the standard-bearers for a wave of anti-globalization that enriches all of our lives. I'd love to see it happen too, though I don't know if I would have any more stomach for actually following through on those wishes than anyone else. The best part of the piece is that McKibben seems happy now to acknowledge that the process itself -- asking the questions, pursuing the dream -- may be enough. That sort of optimism is what we all need more of.
What do YOU think? Drop a line to info@johnclaytonbooks.com. To receive these posts via email, write to johnclaytonoutreach-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. (You need not put any text in the message.)
Ahma fixin to call it a crick
I just love this story on the evolution of Texas twang. But what most impresses me is how little talk there is of its disappearance.
For decades now folks have been lamenting that thanks to TV and other leveling winds, regional accents are disappearing. But it never quite seems to happen.
I suspect it's part of the acclimatizing process, especially in rural areas. For example, after moving to Montana many years ago from Boston, I noticed that lots of old-timers called a small river a "crick." So I made a conscious effort to do the same. Even though my fiancee, who grew up in Montana, has no problem calling it a "creek." The accents will self-perpetuate, I believe, because people who choose to abandon the fast-food monoculture of suburbia want to wear badges showing their honor.
What do YOU think? Drop a line to info@johnclaytonbooks.com. To receive these posts via email, write to johnclaytonoutreach-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. (You need not put any text in the message.)
For decades now folks have been lamenting that thanks to TV and other leveling winds, regional accents are disappearing. But it never quite seems to happen.
I suspect it's part of the acclimatizing process, especially in rural areas. For example, after moving to Montana many years ago from Boston, I noticed that lots of old-timers called a small river a "crick." So I made a conscious effort to do the same. Even though my fiancee, who grew up in Montana, has no problem calling it a "creek." The accents will self-perpetuate, I believe, because people who choose to abandon the fast-food monoculture of suburbia want to wear badges showing their honor.
What do YOU think? Drop a line to info@johnclaytonbooks.com. To receive these posts via email, write to johnclaytonoutreach-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. (You need not put any text in the message.)
But is it eco-plagiarism?
OK, OK, I'll admit to one other problem with Tom Bissell's book Chasing the Sea: for a book marketed as eco-travel, it contains remarkably little ecology. Bissell is supposedly writing about the Aral Sea, but that dismayingly-vanishing body of water doesn't make a real appearance until about 80 percent through the book. I wish he'd either done a lot more environmental research, or just marketed the book he actually wrote, which was a lot of fun but might have been better titled "Travels in Uzbekistan."
But boy, that's nothing compared to the grief he's catching on amazon.com! Like most customer reviewers, these either love or hate the book…. but they're so passionate they start generating their own little world. One is titled, "This man has NOTHING to say," while another begins, "It seems pretty obvious that the negative reviewers of this book are either idiots or jealous as hell." Simmer down! It's only a book!
Although one wonders… Does the fact that Bissell regularly trashes books make people want to trash his? My heart goes out to any author subjected to such heated invective, but at the same time a nagging voice suggests that for this author it might be karmically appropriate.
A truly devastating critique, however, makes line-by-line comparisons between "Chasing the Sea" and Ecocide in the USSR by Murray Feshbach. If this reviewer is correct, Bissell has danced awfully close to plagiarism. That -- despite any talent or karma -- would be an unforgivable sin.
What do YOU think? Drop a line to info@johnclaytonbooks.com. To receive these posts via email, write to johnclaytonoutreach-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. (You need not put any text in the message.)
But boy, that's nothing compared to the grief he's catching on amazon.com! Like most customer reviewers, these either love or hate the book…. but they're so passionate they start generating their own little world. One is titled, "This man has NOTHING to say," while another begins, "It seems pretty obvious that the negative reviewers of this book are either idiots or jealous as hell." Simmer down! It's only a book!
Although one wonders… Does the fact that Bissell regularly trashes books make people want to trash his? My heart goes out to any author subjected to such heated invective, but at the same time a nagging voice suggests that for this author it might be karmically appropriate.
A truly devastating critique, however, makes line-by-line comparisons between "Chasing the Sea" and Ecocide in the USSR by Murray Feshbach. If this reviewer is correct, Bissell has danced awfully close to plagiarism. That -- despite any talent or karma -- would be an unforgivable sin.
What do YOU think? Drop a line to info@johnclaytonbooks.com. To receive these posts via email, write to johnclaytonoutreach-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. (You need not put any text in the message.)
Uzbekistan in da Moonlight
Three years ago Tom Bissell wrote an article for Harper's Magazine on the filming of the movie "Escanaba in da Moonlight." He'd grown up in Escanaba, and contrasted differing views of the small town: the filmmakers', the residents', and his own (having once lived there and left).
In the middle of his well-written piece, oddly, he took a large detour to trash my book "Small Town Bound." (When I wrote to him, he admitted that he actually liked my book, but he wanted a straw man to tear down at that point, and only I was comprehensive enough to fill that role.)
This month Bissell has published his own book, "Chasing the Sea," a narrative of his travels in Uzbekistan. And so turnabout is fair play, right Tom? Unfortunately I thoroughly enjoyed "Chasing the Sea." I find Uzbekistan a remarkably interesting place, one he captures with great style. There's history, humor, some personal stories, lots of new vocabulary words, and some adventures with threatening cops. His depiction of Uzbekistan reminded me of Montana, with two gigantic exceptions: major difficulties with radical terrorists and the legacy of Soviet rule.
But the best part of the book? Bissell takes a large detour to totally trash the work of eminent travel writer Robert D. Kaplan. I'm in great company!
What do YOU think? Drop a line to info@johnclaytonbooks.com. To receive these posts via email, write to johnclaytonoutreach-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. (You need not put any text in the message.)
In the middle of his well-written piece, oddly, he took a large detour to trash my book "Small Town Bound." (When I wrote to him, he admitted that he actually liked my book, but he wanted a straw man to tear down at that point, and only I was comprehensive enough to fill that role.)
This month Bissell has published his own book, "Chasing the Sea," a narrative of his travels in Uzbekistan. And so turnabout is fair play, right Tom? Unfortunately I thoroughly enjoyed "Chasing the Sea." I find Uzbekistan a remarkably interesting place, one he captures with great style. There's history, humor, some personal stories, lots of new vocabulary words, and some adventures with threatening cops. His depiction of Uzbekistan reminded me of Montana, with two gigantic exceptions: major difficulties with radical terrorists and the legacy of Soviet rule.
But the best part of the book? Bissell takes a large detour to totally trash the work of eminent travel writer Robert D. Kaplan. I'm in great company!
What do YOU think? Drop a line to info@johnclaytonbooks.com. To receive these posts via email, write to johnclaytonoutreach-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. (You need not put any text in the message.)
