Letters to the Editor
Picko
Published Letters: 265 Editor's Choice: 11
-
The Kyl-Lieberman amendment
[Read the article: The Swift Boating of Hillary Clinton?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let me ask just one question about the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. Is anyone under the misapprehension that if congress had NOT passed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, the Bush-Cheney regime would really find themselves constrained against invading Iran if they wanted to? I really can't imagine the people in the Vice President's office sitting around and saying impotently "we could have gotten away with it, if only congress had passed Kyl-Lieberman!" Anyone who seriously thinks that the passage or non-passage of a non-binding resolution by Congress will make much of a difference to the Bush cabal really needs to read up on the White House's theories of executive power. The purpose of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment was to divide the Democratic party - it is a purely political weapon to be used against the Democrats. If a Democrat in congress votes against it, the Republicans will use it with the fifty two percent who would support an attack on Iran to stop it from getting nuclear weapon. If a Democrat votes for it, the anti-war base revolts. I know it's exhilarating to feel the daily rush of outrage against the Democrats, but could we please keep our eyes on the ball for just a moment?
-
The dirty secret of conservative publishing
[Read the article: Conservative authors: "Help, we're being oppressed!"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Within the publishing world, it has often been observed that conservative books that hit the bestseller list often do so because of so called "bulk sales." The New York Times bestseller list states in its fine print: "A dagger (†) indicates that some bookstores report receiving bulk orders." The general belief is that these bulk sales are a way that conservative activists artificially pump up sales of right-wing books in order to make the radical conservative viewpoint seem far more mainstream than it is. However, the downside for the author is that a lower royalty is paid on bulk sales than is paid for normal sales in the retail market. The rationale is that since the profit margin for each book is lower, the author needs to accept a lower royalty to make this practice profitable for the publisher; the argument is that what the author is losing in per-copy royalty he is making up in sheer quantity of copies sold. This is simple economics. The irony is that it's likely that these authors wouldn't even be bestselling authors if the bulk sales that they are suing over had never happened.
-
@ djansing
[Read the article: Conservative authors: "Help, we're being oppressed!"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Actually, most authors don't get paid anything for remaindered books, for the simple reason that remaindered books are often sold to the remainder house below the cost of manufacture. The purpose of remaindering is to liquidate inventory - basically it's the publisher cutting their losses and trying to recoup part of the manufacturing cost. It's not profitable for the publisher and if a royalty were paid, the whole purpose would be defeated.
Yes, there's often a nominal royalty rate in the contract for remainders, but that's sort of a joke, because you're talking about a percentage of nothing.
-
On polls and polarization
[Read the article: A Democrat in '08? In theory, yes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One can discuss polls AND substantive issues. They're not mutually exclusive things. It's good to know every once in a while the current state of public opinion, as long you realize that polls need to be taken with a huge grain of salt.
On Hillary and the polarization issue: if Hillary is running substantially ahead of Obama and Edwards nationally and in New Hampshire, and is basically in a dead heat with them in Iowa; and if she, Obama, and Edwards all poll equally well against Giuliani in a general election scenario, I'm wondering how one can make the claim that Hillary is so devastatingly polarizing. Wouldn't we see that in the numbers?
Also, as I've said before, most people think they already know everything they need to know about Hillary. So these numbers include whatever negatives she already has - and it's hard to imagine how her negatives could go up. On the other hand, Giuliani and Romney are only vaguely defined (if at all) in most people's minds. The question is, are people going to like them more, or less, as they get to know them?
Now I know by making this post I'm going to get "flamed" by lot of people who will accuse me of everything from supporting Hillary to selling the Maginot Line. I'm finding that on Salon one cannot even suggest that Hillary is not the Great Whore of Babylon without drawing down all sorts of accusations on one's head. How this promotes a reasoned political discourse still eludes me.
I think it bears keeping in mind that Salon readers are not representative of the public at large. Not only are they probably a bit better informed, they are also more passionate and ideological in their politics.
PLEASE NOTE THAT I AM NOT SAYING THAT HILLARY SHOULD BE THE NOMINEE BECAUSE SHE IS POLLING AHEAD OF THE OTHERS. I THINK POLLS ARE HIGHLY UNRELIABLE THINGS AND THAT WE SHOULD MAKE OUR DETERMINATIONS OF WHOM TO VOTE FOR BASED ON THE ISSUES. ON THE OTHER HAND, I THINK THAT YOU SHOULDN'T JUST ASSUME THAT HILLARY IS POLARIZING SIMPLY BECAUSE SHE POLARIZES YOU OR THE SALON.COM COMMUNITY.
It's like the claim someone made last week that picking bland DLC candidates like Gore and Kerry depressed voter turnout and lost the elections for the Democrats. The fact is, Kerry had the second largest voter turnout in American history, and Gore received more votes than either Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton ever did. No doubt the person who made the claim was basing his/her statement on his/her own feeling that Kerry did not make him or her particularly excited. Sometimes, however, it's good to check subjective impressions against data, and sometimes you'll be surprised by what you find.