Alameda Daily News posted a press release from Action Alameda about the organization donating books to the library at 10:00 a.m. today. The two books by author Stacy Mitchell are Big-Box Swindle: The True Cost of Mega-Retailers and the Fight for America’s Independent Business and Hometown Advantage: How to Defend Your Main Street Against Chain Stores and Why it Matters.
This quote struck me in the article:
“Folks that want to read these books will have to find them in their library or buy them from an independent bookstore, as we did, because the big-box book stores won’t carry them.”
I checked to see if the big-box bookstores actually didn’t carry the Stacy Mitchell books. When we talk about big box bookstores I assume we are talking about the big two: Borders and Barnes & Noble. Both retailers allow a customer to purchase both of the books from their on-line stores. Check for yourself if you don’t believe me.
One neat thing about Borders is that they allow you to search their store inventory on-line. So, I checked to see if the five nearest Borders (Emeryville, San Francisco - Mission Bay, San Francisco - Union Square, Union City, and Pleasant Hill) had one of the books in stock. Turns out…all five did. Here is a screenshot of my search this morning:
Click to enlarge. However, none of the stores carried the Hometown Advantage book, but you could order it and pick it up at the store. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find the inventory search for Barnes & Noble, but I guess one could always call the nearest ones in Emeryville and Jack London Square to check their inventory. Most likely if Borders is carrying it, Barnes & Noble is going to carry it as well.
Tangent…the newest Harry Potter book has a title…oh the agony of waiting for the last book in the series.
My initial reaction to this was OMG, are you ****** me! How is this news? Lets see, I’ll donate a couple copies of a couple of books to the Library that no one, or at least me wants to read and call a press release! This is nothing more than a publicity event by Action Alameda. The fact of the matter is that you can, if so inclined, get these books from your Barnes, Borders, or any bookstore.
How about donating some money to the Library Action Alameda!
Comment by Ben Kruger — January 9, 2007 @ 7:26 am
Ben, I think we have a new category. It’s not news, it’s alamedadailynews. Look for the book hand over to be featured on the next Don Robert’s show.
Having had my fun, I think the one item that was newsworthy in all that, is that the library, recognizing that this is an issue people need to inform themselves about had alreday ordered one of the books - good for them!
Comment by notadave — January 9, 2007 @ 8:40 am
You may want to check the webcast of last night’s planning board meeting. The same actionalameda representative who complains about bookstores not carrying books, and thus supposedly depriving us of our right to become informed, spoke out against holding a forum to talk, just talk about the impact meausare A has on development. Soo I guess it is ok to read about something, but not talk about it?
Comment by notadave — January 9, 2007 @ 11:48 am
The press release from David Howard invites us to join Aaction Alameda. What say we infiltrate and take over.
Comment by ticheek — January 9, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
Dangit, ticheek — save those one liners for the times when I’m NOT drinking water and reading at the same time!
Comment by Dave S. — January 9, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
Perhaps Action Alameda meant that the big box book stores are not going to carry the books in-store on the shelf. And if they are mistaken, so what?
I’m glad they brought those books to my attention. Maybe Target is a town-wrecker for Alameda.
Your posts are only to demonize Action Alameda and like-minded citizens, people who actually care about the community they live in and appreciate Alameda for what it is today, a perfect (without flaw) urban/suburban environment.
Comment by Zone — January 9, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
Zone, re: “people who actually care about the community”
Here’s a news flash:
A few months ago we had a big event in Alameda where folks had the option of choosing between the policies of the current administration or believing the doomsday scenarios of the Slate (aka Action Alameda).
Guess which side won by a 2-1 margin?
Comment by bayporter — January 9, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
Even so, Action Alameda has shown itself to have deep concerns about the future of Alameda. At least someone cares.
Comment by Zone — January 9, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
Zone is not the first to suggest (in comments #6 and #8) that Action Alameda and its supporters are the only ones who “actually care about the community they live in.” The not-so-subtle implication is that those who disagree with Action Alameda’s politics don’t care about the community. This sounds a lot like the local version of the poisonous “you’re either with us you’re with the terrorists” talk that’s used to squelch discussions of foreign policy.
I may disagree with the positions of Action Alameda and its supporters, but I do not doubt that they care about Alameda. I would hope that Zone and others would at least have the decency to admit that those with whom they disagree also care deeply about the community, though they may have reached dramatically different conclusions about how our city should be run.
I also question Zone’s assertion that Alameda is “a perfect (without flaw) urban/suburban environment.” Yes, Alameda is a great place (that’s why I chose to live here, after all), but perfect . . . without flaw? That sounds a lot like utopia, and as great as Alameda is, I don’t think we’ve quite reached that level.
But seriously, I don’t see how it’s possible to govern a city if your starting point is that it is already perfect and without flaw. This approach is no better than assuming that everything is hopelessly broken and needs to be fixed; both are intellectually lazy cop-outs. The honest approach is to feel our way forward as a community, hashing out our differences, and ultimately (we hope) keeping what works and fixing what doesn’t.
Comment by Michael Krueger — January 9, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
Funny. Last time I donated books to the library, they made me leave them outside the Friends of the Library office in that church on Oak Street. Jane Chisaki didn’t come out to accept them, or comment on them. In fact, it seems that Friends of the Library sells the books, whether new or old, and donates the money to the library. So what makes this donation so special?
Comment by A. Kiwi Courters — January 10, 2007 @ 9:34 am
Four words: carefully choreographed media event!
(Sorry, I couldn’t resist the “Simpsons” reference.)
Comment by Michael Krueger — January 10, 2007 @ 10:12 am
Michael K,
Alameda’s General Plan, 1.2, refers to Alameda as “an ideal urban/suburban community”
The definition of ideal is “a conception of something in its absoulute perfection or excellence” and “one that is regarded as a standard or model of perfection or exellence”
The General Plan also says that “the Bay Area has no other similar communities and none will be built.”
A good starting point for deciding on what is best for Alameda is to have a clear understanding what Alameda is today.
But then, maybe the people who wrote the General Plan were, as in your words, “intellectually lazy.”
Comment by Zone — January 10, 2007 @ 10:45 am
“Perfect” is a silly term, but “unique” is very accurate and appropraite when discussing Alameda.
Comment by dave — January 10, 2007 @ 10:50 am
I guess the people who wrote the General Plan thought more of Alameda than just being “unique.”
Silly people.
Comment by Zone — January 10, 2007 @ 11:28 am
Zone, I am not trying to say that the people who wrote the General Plan are silly or intellectually lazy. Although one might quibble with some of the details, the document contains a generally honest assessment of Alameda’s strengths as well as the problems that need to be addressed.
I think you’re reading too much into the phrase “an ideal urban/suburban community.” I agree that Alameda certainly represents a standard or model of excellence (I would stop short of using the word “perfection”) when it comes to mixing the best qualities of urban and suburban living. However, I don’t think the authors of the General Plan are saying that Alameda is “perfect” and “without flaw,” as you suggested in comment #6.
The only approaches that I called out as intellectually lazy are the two extremes of (1) claiming that Alameda has no flaws whatsoever and (2) claiming that everything about Alameda is flawed and needs to be fixed.
Comment by Michael Krueger — January 10, 2007 @ 11:36 am
Hi,
I ran across this blog post because I’m the author of the book, Big-Box Swindle. I wanted to tell you that, when my agent sent the proposal out, we had more than one publisher write back and say, point blank: this looks like a great and important book, but we can’t touch it becuase it is critical of our two biggest customers. Fortunately, I found Beacon Press, a small independent that was willing to take the risk because they knew that they could still find outlets among independent bookstores. You can order it from the big guys, as you can order any book. But if you are browsing and see it, changes are you are in an independent bookstore (or a library). So this is truly a book that would not exist if it were not for independent bookstores, which have shrunk to just 10 percent of the market.
Stacy Mitchell
Comment by Stacy Mitchell — January 10, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
Thank you for posting, Stacy. I don’t doubt that it was because of independent booksellers that your book got published in the first place. I’m curious as to how it makes you feel that the “big Boxes” are carrying your book.
Comment by notadave — January 10, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
The discussion between Zone and Michael K. reminds me of the debate on the second amendment.
Some would have us believe the drafters of the constitution got the documents on stone think the constitution was drafted by individuals who were perhaps visonary but also imperfect like the rest of us. I don’t believe that they thought each individual should be able to own automatic weapons or WMD. I don’t care if the people who wrote the general plan thought Alameda “perfect”, which I highly doubt. We are left to interpret and apply the GP ourselves.
I’m happy for the book donation. Some books I’ve donated have ended up on the shelves. I look forward to reading the book and was a little bothered by Ben’s sarcasm that nobody wants to read them. Even if I disagreed with their content, which I bet I don’t, I like to understand other people’s thinking so I can grill them.
I am a Thom Hartmann fan and listen to his radio show when possible. He has been touting “protectionism”, as in protecting our own jobs and labor laws with tarrifs.
Globalism is a hard nut to crack. I don’t abide by Thomas Friedman’s flat earth theory, but I do think people in third world countries, and the world over, deserve a reasonable standard of living, at least shelter and security from hunger and disease.
The world environment can’t endure all the people in China driving SUVs, so it would seem that we should abide by the lowest common denominator, which in turn means we should be giving a hard look at softening our own impact. I’m pretty sure this includes eschewing Wallmart and Target, but God forbid we should curtail people’s right to shop til they drop. After 9/11 Bush said it was the patriotic thing to do, right?
DK, did Target drug test employees?
Comment by Mark — January 10, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
**correction: line two above should end “…documents on stone tablets.” next line “I think the constitution…” etc.
Comment by Mark — January 10, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
Mark - Yes Target drug tests tests as a condition of employment(before a potential employee starts), and also can test with any on the job injury or accident.
Why do you ask?
Comment by D.Kirwin — January 11, 2007 @ 2:07 am
I believe Alameda is perfect (ideal) urban/suburban environment.
You may not agree with that. Still, a good starting point for deciding on what changes are best for Alameda is to have a clear understanding of what Alameda is today.
By the way, other cities want to be like Alameda.
Comment by Zone — January 11, 2007 @ 11:31 am
Zone,
What is Alameda today? Please define the features that make Alameda perfect.
Comment by NIMBY — January 11, 2007 @ 11:44 am
DK,
The drug testing is something I remember hearing about them. On the one hand it’s reasonable to want sober employees, though a person who is alcoholic can easily test for example, the liabilities are obvious. I can’t remember the first big company to enforce drug tests.
It’s sort of an invasion of privacy and civil rights. I think making kids in public school test for drugs before they can go out for sports is as unfair.
To me the target policy is an indicator of their attitude, a tightly controlled outfit, etc.. Not too Big Brother-ish.
Comment by Mark — January 11, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
Sorry, I proof read my post, but some text got dropped..
An “alcholic can test clean”. Libailities for jobs like fork lift operator are obvious.
Comment by Mark — January 11, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
I have heard of a few companies that give a pass to occasional marijuana use, but fail heavy use. Doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.
Comment by dave — January 11, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
Target indeed tries to be very tightly controlled. Even the work environment - the heat and lights for all stores are controlled from HQ (in Minnesota if I recall correctly) All night workers must work with the lights dimmed to 25%. Local over-ride is possible but questioned. Likewise with the thermostat setting. Don’t get warm and fuzzy for Target because the commercials are better than Wal-Marts.
I used to feel sorry for the retired ‘greeter’ in the Wal-Mart commercial. Perhaps just an actor, I always saw him as a worker who was so shortchanged in his career he had to work thru his retirement.
Here’s a question no longer often asked – are the license plates on our auto an invasion of privacy? Were they when instituted?
Comment by D.Kirwin — January 11, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
Ever think that greeter wants to be there? Many retirees enjoy part time work.
Ever think he shortchanged himself by failing to save?
Comment by dave — January 11, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
Dave - the commercial is fiction - you’re of course welcome to your own interpretation.
Comment by D.Kirwin — January 11, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
DK,
Is there a deeper implication to the license plate question you would like to elaborate on?
I think vehicle registration and smog control, etc. are pretty pragmatic and considering stuff like Amber alerts, I think you’ll find little complaint except from the most extreme libertarian. I think we should have left the car tax were it was, maybe increase it for cars as the number of cylinders goes up and mileage goes down.
Comment by Mark — January 12, 2007 @ 9:01 am