Victor D. López's Blog: Victor D. Lopez, page 95

The Subway

I stand alone in the dark Fulton Street subway station,

Breathing in the urine-scented air,

Breathing out clouds of steam,

A subway train rushes along,

Not stopping,

Biting at my eardrums,

With the painful percussion,

Of thousands of people,

Silently screaming,

 

I don't want to see,

I don't want to see,

I don't want to see,

The air fanned by each subway car,

Rushes against me,

Pushes the ozone and the smell of burnt brake linings,

Into my nostrils,

Along with the air,

Sucked through the iron gratings,

Along miles of Brooklyn sidewalks,

Carrying the odor of a prostitute's festering sores,

And the cries of a hungry, fatherless child in dirty diapers,

And the hoarse moaning of a city councilman mentoring a young intern,

And the cheap perfume of a fourteen year-old runaway,

Turning $20 tricks in an alley,

Smelling of stale Chinese food and wet dogs,

And . . .

 

I don't want to see,

I don't want to see,

I don't want to see,

. . . the smell of spoiled cabbage soup,

And the rancid remains of a hotdog buried in sourkraut,

And putrid lilies lying in a gutter,

All assaulting me, forcing me backwards,

Until my back presses against,

The grimy once-white tiles,

That coldly burn their graffiti on my spine:

God is dead,

Bake a kike,

Whitey sucks,

Kill the niggers,

 

I don't want to see,

I don't want to see,

I don't want to see,

The train finally passes,

Its lights receding into the dank,

Dark tunnel beyond the platform,

The screeches and screams slowly die out,

Their echoes sucking behind them,

The smell,

Of my,

Warm

Vomit.

From Of Pain and Ecstasy: Collected Poems (C) 1978-2011 Victor D. Lopez

Central Park

Flowers bloom next to rusting Pepsi cans,

Watered by the spit of cocaine dealers,

And the semen and vaginal fluid,

Of hot lovers groping under blankets,

Under stars dimly blinking through thick smog.

 

Nightly haven for muggers, rapists, fiends,

Whose every breath profanes the species they,

So poorly represent, turning Plato's,

Featherless bipeds, to dead plucked chickens,

Soul-less, pointless wastes of protoplasm.

 

Abomination– not in itself but,

For the use it's put to: a bone for dogs,

Who've never tasted steak, and are gleeful,

To feast upon the scraps of fetid meat,

Clinging to well-gnawed bones that they are fed.

 

Central Park, the bone we are to chew while,

Smiling complacently at skyscrapers,

Daily rising where wild flowers might have grown,

Our humanity proportionally,

Shrinking inversely to their daily rise.

 

If I seem narrow minded and unkind,

Or blind to the beauty of Central Park,

It is because I've stood on virgin ground,

In summer, fall, winter and early spring,

And cannot bring myself to love a whore.

 

(From Of Pain and Ecstasy: Collected Poems (C) 1978, 2011 Victor D. Lopez)

Death of a Quiet Soldier

Behind enemy lines you gave your life,

The risks you knew and embraced willingly,

Red, black and green berets fought by your side,

And brought your body back to family.

 

Later in a ritual of their own,

They would name a field airport in your name,

And honor you, your brothers, far from home,

Their memory now your eternal flame.

 

I do not know your rank, your name, your face,

I only know that I am in your debt,

Who for your family can take your place?

Our debt to them we must never forget.

 

The freedom I enjoy comes thanks to you,

And all who serve with honor, proud and true.

A Time to Count Our Many Blessings

As Christmas approaches and the warm glow of Thanksgiving is still fresh in my mind, it is a good time to reflect on the many things for which I should be grateful but too often overlook.

Most of us have little difficulty weaving languid tales of woe at a moment's notice.  Indeed, we often revel in regaling any who will listen with our personal lists of all that is wrong with the world.  Unfortunately, we need not wander too far afield to find examples of real tragedy, injustice, or even downright evil to fan the flames of our negativism as these flow daily as freely and predictably as the ocean tides from our television sets, radios, and newspapers, while the far more prevalent everyday occurrences of acts of kindness, selflessness, and quiet heroism go largely unheard, unseen, and unnoticed.  Yet they are there, for all the world to see, if only we take the time to notice and to gratefully absorb their import.

My Personal List of Things for Which I am Most Grateful:

A God who loves me despite the many faults that make me unworthy of His love;
A wife who has been my best friend for three fourths of my life, even when I have been so much less of a friend to her than she deserves;
Parents who have given up everything that I may have a life better than they enjoyed and never made me feel the weight of their sacrifice;
Grandparents who imparted through their example values that include: prize your good name above all other things; there is no shame in poverty but for poverty of spirit; hard work will see us through any adversity; and there are many things far more precious than our own lives;
Friends who have helped me get through the most difficult times of my life;
The opportunity to serve others through meaningful work;
Exceptional colleagues with whose help anything is possible;
Teachers in public and private institutions that instilled in me a love of learning through high school and beyond;
The men and women who put on a uniform every day and voluntarily undertake the dangerous work of policing our streets, putting out our fires, rescuing us from harm and ensuring our freedom through their selfless sacrifice in places far, far from home;
The privilege to live in an adopted country that has welcomed, accepted and nurtured me, bestowed upon me the honor of its citizenship and to which I am most proud to pledge my allegiance above all others, grateful beyond words for the opportunity to live in the greatest country that the world has ever known.

Happy Holidays to one and all!

State Seat Belt Laws Should be Repealed

State Seat Belt Laws Should be Repealed

New York was the first state to mandate the wearing of seat belts in passenger automobiles in 1984. At present, front passengers and drivers over the age of 16 must buckle up or face a fine of $50. A fine of up to $100 and 3 points on the driver's license can also be levied for failing to properly secure a child under 16; children under 10 must be secured by a seat belt whether they ride in a front or rear seat, and children under 4 must be restrained in a child safety seat.

To date, every state except New Hampshire has enacted some form of seat belt law. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the use of seat belts decreases the chance of traffic death by 50 percent, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) credits seat belts with saving some 13,000 lives per year. These are impressive numbers that certainly provide more than a rational basis for states to require seat belt use under their broad police powers as a means of protecting public safety. Notwithstanding these statistics, however, there are a number of valid reasons why individuals may rationally choose not to wear seat belts. For example, seat belts offer the greatest protection for drivers and front passengers in front-impact collisions, especially at highway speeds, when drivers not wearing seat belts may be ejected from their vehicles through the windshield. But seat belts may offer less protection or become an outright liability in side-impact collisions, especially when a car is struck directly on the driver's or passenger's side.

The NHTSA does not compile statistics on injuries caused or exacerbated by seat belt use; yet such injuries undeniably occur. I can offer two quick examples from my own experience. Some 35 years ago, I was a passenger in the rear of an automobile hit on the driver's side by a car traveling at approximately 35 mph. The impact caused the side of the car to buckle inward by some 18 inches into the passenger compartment where I had been sitting. My injuries were very minor and required no medical attention; had I been buckled in, however, I would have been crushed by the impact and quite possibly killed. More recently, an eerily similar accident occurred to my parents in which their Lincoln Continental was struck on the side by a car traveling at a high rate of speed; despite that vehicle's exceptional side-impact protection, the rear passenger compartment where my mom had been sitting was crushed inward into the spot my mom had been occupying. Although she suffered serious injuries, she would almost certainly have died had she been wearing her seat belt.

Seat belts may also prove counterproductive when automobiles burst into flames or fall into water as a result of an accident, where the precious moments it takes to unbuckle a belt while fighting the shock and disorientation that results from a serious accident may mean the difference between life and death. Likewise, seat belts may prove harmful in cases involving rollover accidents; a good friend and colleague rolled his pickup truck in a weather-related accident that resulted in the roof of the truck being completely crushed. He walked away from the accident unscathed by throwing himself onto the empty passenger's seat at the time of the impact; had he been wearing his seat belt, it would have locked on impact and he would have been restrained in an upright sitting position and crushed when the car roof collapsed. the year of my friend's accident, NHTSA statistics on passenger vehicle occupant deaths in New York published in December 1997 show a total of 989 deaths by occupants 5 years of age or older; of these, 426 victims were wearing seat belts, while 563 were not. The statistics don't tell us how many of the 426 accident victims who perished while wearing their seat belts might have lived had they not been restrained. Even if we assume such deaths are relatively rare, should drivers–including my friend whose lack of obeying the law may have saved his life–not be free to decide for themselves which risk they would rather bear?

Finally, the most compelling reason of all for overturning the mandatory seat belt law is that it represents a governmental intrusion into purely private conduct. Not wearing a seat belt in many circumstances may be foolish and perhaps even irresponsible. But a free society must protect the rights of citizens to make purely personal, private choices that do not pose a danger to others, even when these may be foolish or irresponsible. When we allow government to regulate private conduct on public policy grounds, we shove our civil liberties down a precipitous slippery slope. If we can regulate the wearing of seat belts based on health and safety concerns, can we not also prescribe the use of condoms for all non-procreative sexual activity? (Is the threat of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases or the economic disruption and drain on our medical resources any less serious a public health issue than the wearing of seat belts?) Should we criminalize participation in unnecessary dangerous activities such as skydiving, skiing, auto racing, football and swimming because of the safety risks they pose? Should we fine people who consume too many fatty foods or fail to eat enough leafy green vegetables for the collective drain their poor eating habits cause our medical care system? And what punishment should we impose on those irresponsible members of society that choose to drink moderate amounts of alcohol or smoke cigarettes? Is it not true that far more people require medical treatment every year from smoking-related illness alone than from failing to use seat belts?The government has a right to persuade people to buckle up, eat right and quit smoking, but ought not paternalistically place its judgment above that of the adult citizens it seeks to protect.

Governmental intrusion into purely private conduct may, indeed, save lives; but it does so at the cost of something far more precious: our civil liberty.

________________________________________________

Note: The above article appears with very minor updates as I wrote in more than a decade ago when it first appeared in The Daily Star (Oneonta, NY). Since then, seat belt laws have doubtless saved many lives. And they have most certainly brought large sums of revenue to the states through the countless number of tickets issued every year to violators. I still wear my seat belt every time I drive, and support the requirement that children be buckled up for their personal safety. But I find the requirement that adults buckle up an offensive intrusion by the state in what ought be a matter of choice. As I write this, some are agitating for laws to outlaw eating and drinking while driving, New York City has recently floated the idea of taxing sugary beverages for the express purpose of discouraging their consumption (and the implied purpose of raising revenue), and people in Washington DC with apparently little else to do have weighed in on the appropriate number of potato servings to school children. Surely there are more pressing public safety issues for police and elected officials to concentrate on than limiting the civil liberty of law-abiding citizens whose actions affect no one but themselves. If the concern is dollars spent on health care costs, I respectfully submit that catching and keeping in jail violent criminals, illegal drug dealers, and securing our borders would all yield greater bottom-line benefits than ensuring that I wear my seat belt or stay away from soda pop.

[image error] [image error]

Remembering 9/11

My heart aches today. The memory of 9/11/2001 is indelibly marked on my psyche. I had vowed to avoid watching the coverage today because it is simply too painful. Nonetheless, I watched the reading of the names for awhile after a silent prayer as in past anniversaries of this tragic day. And then I made the mistake of reading some online posts and commentaries for today, amazed and angered at the number attempts to explain, mitigate or otherwise justify that which is unjustifiable.

My emotions are too raw today to give the subject the attention it deserves. I will return to it in the future. For today, I would just like to leave it at this: Evil reigns freely in this world when people of conscience refuse to confront it and tolerate mendacious justifications for its barbarous acts out of a misguided sense of political correctness. We dishonor the memory of the men and women who paid for our freedom with their lives on 9/11 and thereafter when we fail to loudly proclaim terror in the service of any cause as an affront to humanity.

In a World Where Anyone Can Publish a Book Inexpensively, Why Does Your College Textbook Still Cost $200?

Despite legislation at the federal level and in a growing number of states aimed at lowering the high cost of college textbooks, costs remain largely unaffected and students are still paying about $1,000 per year on average for their textbooks. Before continuing, I need to note that the reasons for the high cost of textbooks are numerous and fixing the problem is complicated for reasons that I will not delve into here. (For a thorough discussion of the issue, see my article "Legislating Relief for the High Cost of College Textbooks: a Brief Analysis of the Current Law and its Implication for Students, Faculty and the Publishing Industry" Journal of Legal Studies in Business, Vol. 15 (2009)). Rather, I will concentrate on what I consider to be the main factor: the marketing-driven push-model  of textbook distribution that dominates the industry today.

As the author of five law-related college textbooks who has been an academic for almost all of his professional career, this is an industry I have grown to know well. Common misconceptions to the contrary notwithstanding, neither publishers nor textbook authors are profiteering at the expense of students as most of the revenue from textbooks goes to expenses for their creation and distribution (including retailers' profits). The care and feeding of the masses of marketing reps required to push textbooks on faculty through constant contact that includes periodic office visits to college faculty to keep them abreast of new features, upcoming revisions, and new textbooks in their fields of interest is massively expensive. (And frankly more than a little annoying to those of us who do not welcome those frequent, uninvited intrusions into our office hours.)

The textbook marketing model is very similar to the way life insurance is marketed–especially the really profitable type–whole life and universal life–where one-on-one, in-person marketing is the rule. (Although I sincerely doubt the sales reps rake in the 55% commissions on first-year premiums that insurance salespeople have traditionally made on the sale of whole-life life insurance from the major companies.)

Sales reps have become incredibly adept at the care and feeding of the university faculty that they depend upon to adopt their books. As a faculty member, you need only ask and you shall receive large numbers of expensive textbooks for review and as desk copies once a title is adopted. This is just part of the cost of doing business. Some publishers go out of their way to involve faculty members at schools with large prospective or current adoptions in ongoing reviews of their current or upcoming titles for which faculty receive normally a small honorarium of $100 or so. Others are more aggressive and sponsor junkets to popular destinations like Las Vegas for "training sessions" on the use of their products to faculty members at institutions with large textbook adoptions. This particular practice was targeted by recent federal legislation as well as legislation in some states aimed at reducing the cost of textbooks, but it has not yet been completely eradicated. And faculty who are busy with their class preparation duties, their research agendas and their university and departmental service loads are usually only too happy to look only at the titles suggested/pushed by the sales representatives of the handful remaining major textbook publishers.

The result is that most college faculty–including those who are truly interested in lowering the burden of the high cost of textbooks for their students–most often find themselves choosing among very expensive textbooks from at most two or three publishers happily provided for them by sales representatives who highlight the competing features and demonstrate the latest and greatest software, web-based features and video ancillaries intended to entice faculty to adopt their titles–and sometimes specifically intended to lock them in to the titles by offering proprietary software for homework management, grade keeping, and online classroom supplementation that is available only as long as the faculty member keeps adopting the publisher's titles. Other viable options exist, but the vast  majority of faculty are not aware of them as there are no armies of solicitous salespeople pushing these on them on a constant basis.

Lest I be misunderstood, I genuinely like the publishers' representatives with whom I deal on a regular basis (like it or not). They are helpful, competent, and they make my life easier when I am actually looking to change textbooks in the classes I teach. They are very good at doing their job. Unfortunately, doing their job requires the cost of textbooks to remain as high as it is in no small part because of the inherent expense of marketing textbooks under the traditional model.

Alternatives do exist today, but they cannot thrive under the shadow of the massive marketing forces marshaled by the traditional publishers. I'll offer my own textbooks as a limited case study because I think they help prove my point. My first textbook, Business Law: an Introduction, was published in 1992 (with a 1993 copyright) by Irwin/Mirror Press. When Irwin was acquired by McGraw-Hill, the book was published by the new imprint for a number of years, even though it directly competed with one of its well-established titles, no doubt in part because of  loyal adopters who simply refused to switch to the new titles pushed by the new sales reps. The book was adopted by more than 100 colleges in 37 states in the three years that it was actively marketed by Irwin/Mirror Press. It did relatively well and developed a loyal following. This year, a new updated and expanded version of the book was released by my new publisher, Textbook Media (http://www.textbookmedia.com). My new publisher markets its textbooks in a very different manner through direct mail and perhaps some email marketing. Despite the fact that the book is better than the original and its soft-cover version sells for about one-fourth the price of the original hard cover retail price in today's dollars (and is also available for as little as $9.95 in iPhone, online versions eBook versions), adopters are not beating a path to my publisher's door for one very simple reason: the vast majority of past adopters and prospective new adopters have no idea that the book is once again available in print. The exact same thing is true of my "Business Law and the Legal Environment of Business 2e" released last year which is very slowly finding its market. A $200 business law book can support armies of sales people to push it; a $35 book simply cannot. That price point is dependent upon word of mouth and a limited direct mail campaign that cannot compete with the constant, direct, one-on-one marketing that the few remaining textbook publishing houses continue to employ to market their very expensive titles.

If we really want less expensive college textbooks, we all have to be more open to looking at non traditional sources, be they open textbooks where available, or textbooks from non-traditional publishers. The advent of inexpensive sources for self-publishing textbooks should also be explored, and universities and accrediting agencies need to be more open to the value that these sources can represent not only in terms of cheaper, more accessible textbooks for students but just as importantly a less restricted and more open avenue for content experts to share their expertise unbridled from the constraints of what will meet the norms of the traditional publishers (read: must not compete with current leading titles by that publisher and must provide the potential for very significant new sales to justify the development costs and risk of a new textbook launch). A faculty member may not be willing to spend three to five years to research, write, and revise a 45 chapter textbook, but 45 content experts from various universities would be much more likely to sign on to write one or more chapters in a collaborative venture. No publisher will coordinate this; it is up to us, the faculty, to do so. But universities and the government (both state and federal) could help by providing seed money, research grants or resources to both facilitate and promote such projects.

And students should also get involved in the process. Faculty select books, but that does not mean that students cannot make their concerns known about their cost known to their professors and the administrations of the colleges and universities they attend.

Finally, we need to recognize that low price alone is never a good measure of good value, let alone of quality. But neither is high price. As a faculty member, administrator or student, you can help lower the overall costs of college textbooks by focusing on the issue and making sure that your voice is heard. And as a faculty member or student, if you find a good product at a low-cost, make sure that others know about it. Publicize sites that offer new and used textbooks at the lowest cost; let others know if you find a good textbook exchange program for used books at your university so that it can be duplicated elsewhere; insist that your university provide you with a complete list of textbooks for all of your classes with enough lead time so that you can find the lowest cost options, new and used, on your own. And ask your professors when a new edition of a book comes out whether you can still use the old edition. Sometimes new editions contain only cosmetic changes–your professor will know if that is the case, and being able to use a prior edition of a book can save you a lot of money. But be careful: old editions are useless if a professor won't allow you to use it–or if it contains dated, incorrect information. With textbooks as will all products, be a good consumer. You will be happier–and wealthier (or at least less poor)–for it, and it is a lesson that translates well to life and work in general.

In a World Where Anyone Can Publish a Book Inexpensively, Why are You Still Paying $200 for a College Textbook?

Despite legislation at the federal level and in a growing number of states aimed at lowering the high cost of college textbooks, costs remain largely unaffected and students are still paying about $1,000 per year on average for their textbooks. Before continuing, I need to note that the reasons for the high cost of textbooks are numerous and fixing the problem is complicated for reasons that I will not delve into here. (For a thorough discussion of the issue, see my article "Legislating Relief for the High Cost of College Textbooks: a Brief Analysis of the Current Law and its Implication for Students, Faculty and the Publishing Industry" Journal of Legal Studies in Business, Vol. 15 (2009)). Rather, I will concentrate on what I consider to be the main factor: the marketing-driven push-model  of textbook distribution that dominates the industry today.

As the author of five law-related college textbooks who has been an academic for almost all of his professional career, this is an industry I have grown to know well. Common misconceptions to the contrary notwithstanding, neither publishers nor textbook authors are profiteering at the expense of students as most of the revenue from textbooks goes to expenses for their creation and distribution (including retailers' profits). The care and feeding of the masses of marketing reps required to push textbooks on faculty through constant contact that includes periodic office visits to college faculty to keep them abreast of new features, upcoming revisions, and new textbooks in their fields of interest is massively expensive. (And frankly more than a little annoying to those of us who do not welcome those frequent, uninvited intrusions into our office hours.)

The textbook marketing model is very similar to the way life insurance is marketed–especially the really profitable type–whole life and universal life–where one-on-one, in-person marketing is the rule. (Although I sincerely doubt the sales reps rake in the 55% commissions on first-year premiums that insurance salespeople have traditionally made on the sale of whole-life life insurance from the major companies.)

Sales reps have become incredibly adept at the care and feeding of the university faculty that they depend upon to adopt their books. As a faculty member, you need only ask and you shall receive large numbers of expensive textbooks for review and as desk copies once a title is adopted. This is just part of the cost of doing business. Some publishers go out of their way to involve faculty members at schools with large prospective or current adoptions in ongoing reviews of their current or upcoming titles for which faculty receive normally a small honorarium of $100 or so. Others are more aggressive and sponsor junkets to popular destinations like Las Vegas for "training sessions" on the use of their products to faculty members at institutions with large textbook adoptions. This particular practice was targeted by recent federal legislation as well as legislation in some states aimed at reducing the cost of textbooks, but it has not yet been completely eradicated. And faculty who are busy with their class preparation duties, their research agendas and their university and departmental service loads are usually only too happy to look only at the titles suggested/pushed by the sales representatives of the handful remaining major textbook publishers.

The result is that most college faculty–including those who are truly interested in lowering the burden of the high cost of textbooks for their students–most often find themselves choosing among very expensive textbooks from at most two or three publishers happily provided for them by sales representatives who highlight the competing features and demonstrate the latest and greatest software, web-based features and video ancillaries intended to entice faculty to adopt their titles–and sometimes specifically intended to lock them in to the titles by offering proprietary software for homework management, grade keeping, and online classroom supplementation that is available only as long as the faculty member keeps adopting the publisher's titles. Other viable options exist, but the vast  majority of faculty are not aware of them as there are no armies of solicitous salespeople pushing these on them on a constant basis.

Lest I be misunderstood, I genuinely like the publishers' representatives with whom I deal on a regular basis (like it or not). They are helpful, competent, and they make my life easier when I am actually looking to change textbooks in the classes I teach. They are very good at doing their job. Unfortunately, doing their job requires the cost of textbooks to remain as high as it is in no small part because of the inherent expense of marketing textbooks under the traditional model.

Alternatives do exist today, but they cannot thrive under the shadow of the massive marketing forces marshaled by the traditional publishers. I'll offer my own textbooks as a limited case study because I think they help prove my point. My first textbook, Business Law: an Introduction, was published in 1992 (with a 1993 copyright) by Irwin/Mirror Press. When Irwin was acquired by McGraw-Hill, the book was published by the new imprint for a number of years, even though it directly competed with one of its well-established titles, no doubt in part because of  loyal adopters who simply refused to switch to the new titles pushed by the new sales reps. The book was adopted by more than 100 colleges in 37 states in the three years that it was actively marketed by Irwin/Mirror Press. It did relatively well and developed a loyal following. This year, a new updated and expanded version of the book was released by my new publisher, Textbook Media (http://www.textbookmedia.com). My new publisher markets its textbooks in a very different manner through direct mail and perhaps some email marketing. Despite the fact that the book is better than the original and its soft-cover version sells for about one-fourth the price of the original hard cover retail price in today's dollars (and is also available for as little as $9.95 in iPhone, online versions eBook versions), adopters are not beating a path to my publisher's door for one very simple reason: the vast majority of past adopters and prospective new adopters have no idea that the book is once again available in print. The exact same thing is true of my "Business Law and the Legal Environment of Business 2e" released last year which is very slowly finding its market. A $200 business law book can support armies of sales people to push it; a $35 book simply cannot. That price point is dependent upon word of mouth and a limited direct mail campaign that cannot compete with the constant, direct, one-on-one marketing that the few remaining textbook publishing houses continue to employ to market their very expensive titles.

If we really want less expensive college textbooks, we all have to be more open to looking at non traditional sources, be they open textbooks where available, or textbooks from non-traditional publishers. The advent of inexpensive sources for self-publishing textbooks should also be explored, and universities and accrediting agencies need to be more open to the value that these sources can represent not only in terms of cheaper, more accessible textbooks for students but just as importantly a less restricted and more open avenue for content experts to share their expertise unbridled from the constraints of what will meet the norms of the traditional publishers (read: must not compete with current leading titles by that publisher and must provide the potential for very significant new sales to justify the development costs and risk of a new textbook launch). A faculty member may not be willing to spend three to five years to research, write, and revise a 45 chapter textbook, but 45 content experts from various universities would be much more likely to sign on to write one or more chapters in a collaborative venture. No publisher will coordinate this; it is up to us, the faculty, to do so. But universities and the government (both state and federal) could help by providing seed money, research grants or resources to both facilitate and promote such projects.

And students should also get involved in the process. Faculty select books, but that does not mean that students cannot make their concerns known about their cost known to their professors and the administrations of the colleges and universities they attend.

Finally, we need to recognize that low price alone is never a good measure of good value, let alone of quality. But neither is high price. As a faculty member, administrator or student, you can help lower the overall costs of college textbooks by focusing on the issue and making sure that your voice is heard. And as a faculty member or student, if you find a good product at a low-cost, make sure that others know about it. Publicize sites that offer new and used textbooks at the lowest cost; let others know if you find a good textbook exchange program for used books at your university so that it can be duplicated elsewhere; insist that your university provide you with a complete list of textbooks for all of your classes with enough lead time so that you can find the lowest cost options, new and used, on your own. And ask your professors when a new edition of a book comes out whether you can still use the old edition. Sometimes new editions contain only cosmetic changes–your professor will know if that is the case, and being able to use a prior edition of a book can save you a lot of money. But be careful: old editions are useless if a professor won't allow you to use it–or if it contains dated, incorrect information. With textbooks as will all products, be a good consumer. You will be happier–and wealthier (or at least less poor)–for it, and it is a lesson that translates well to life and work in general.

My Summer Vacation: No Rest for the Weary, But Three New Books Published

Early in my career as a newly minted lawyer who did not wish to practice law, I interviewed with an HR firm whose president told me immediately that he did not have a position for me, but that he simply wanted to meet me because my cover letter and résumé intrigued him–because, he said,  I seemed to be a true Renaissance man. After spending a generous amount of time delving into my background and my career aspirations, he told me that he would contact me if he could find a place for me in his organization. Not long thereafter, I took a position as an academic dean at a small post secondary school and began my life as a full-fledged academic from which I never looked back, I am very happy to say. But that corporate president who paid me a compliment and provided a rare opportunity that I was too green to appreciate at the time has always stayed on my mind. I mention him here because he came to mind as I review the fruits of my Summer 2011 publications: a book of poems, a book of speculative fiction short stories, and an intellectual property book much more in keeping with my past publications (to say nothing of my research agenda). My two-page resume has grown to a nine-page curriculum vitae since the time of my unorthodox interview, but I think the president who wanted to meet the unusual young lawyer and who is now no doubt long retired would have approved.

These are my first forays into self-publishing. I'll have something to say about my experience with the process–including an honest assessment of the benefits and liabilities of going it alone–in future blogs. My prior seven books are all from traditional publishers; this summer, however, I decided to try a different tack after an amicable difference of opinion with  a major scholarly book publisher on the length and price point for my law-related book. My intellectual property book is intended as a reference guide to the law of copyrights, patents, trademarks and trade secrets of primary interest to authors, artists, librarians and others interested in a quick, accurate guide to both the law and process for obtaining copyright, trademark and patent protection. But it is also aimed at a general audience and I wanted it to be both relatively brief and inexpensive. I may yet decide to write a more detailed, critical book that examines recent case-law and delves into the subject with greater depth so as to make it of greater interest to scholars, and I would not mind such a book being sold at a price approaching $100 as it would be primarily purchased by libraries. That is not the purpose of this edition of the book, as I wanted the general public as well as libraries to be  able to buy it and use it as a one-stop resource for under $20. I also wanted the book to be available in eBook format for substantially less than $10. That left me only one option: self publishing.

Since I was going to spend the summer preparing the book for final publication, including porting it to different eBook formats and doing all of the editing and indexing myself–a taller order than most people realize, even for a seasoned author–I decided to do two additional trial runs with collections of some of my fiction and poetry to test the waters. I have written poetry and fiction for as long as I can remember. Much of it was lost over the years, but more than enough remained for several books. I selected some of my favorites after some very light editing and released them as inexpensive eBooks. I also released them as paperbacks primarily to test the process prior to publishing my intellectual property book. They represent 37 years of writing and it felt very good indeed to reconnect with my original roots and with the type of writing that has always been as natural and vital to me as breathing.

As usual, I spent all summer at my computer. But I am pleased with the result. Reviews are not in yet, but I am hopeful that my readers will  not be disappointed.  Please click on the book covers below for additional information or visit my web page at http://www.victordlopez.com.

Do You Want a Government You Can Believe in Again? Look Beyond the Party Label!

Do You Want a Government You Can Believe in Again? Look Beyond the Party Label!

We have long been a house divided by our party affiliations. For too many voters, the (D), (R) and, to a lesser extent, the (I) after a candidate's name is often the deciding factor in the decision making that takes place in the privacy of the voting booth. We vote not for the most qualified, competent, or honest candidate, but rather for the candidate that sports our approved party label. And we re-elect candidates we know to be inept, self-serving, misguided and even corrupt time and again because "they are one of us." And then we shake our heads and bemoan the fact that that only approximately 40 percent of Americans think the President is doing a good job (true of both D and R presidents in recent memory) and a whopping 14 percent of Americans think Congress is just swell.

To make matters worse, after voting-in the latest disappointment, rather than holding the person to account and vowing to be more careful when next we cast our vote, we make excuses for their bad behavior/incompetence/corruptness/general cluelessness/lack of leadership (need I go on?) and blame the "other side," the "enemy," you know, the guys or gals who sport a letter other than that of our candidate after their name.  Or we blame the media–or at least that segment of the media we dislike for not genuflecting on cue in the general direction of "our party label."

We ought to be ashamed of ourselves far more than the incompetent/self-serving/corrupt/clueless ninnies we keep (repeatedly) electing to high office all over this land. We participate in political campaigns that seem like outtakes from a demented montage of Fellini and Monty Python Films intended to amuse, disturb and ultimately motivate a country of lemmings into doing what they do naturally: march behind their appropriate (R) or (D) banner-carrying leader over the nearest chasm.

So what's the answer? It's simple, really. We need to stop identifying with a party that pushes a particular brand of quasi-extremism (the Democratic left wing vs. the Republican right-wing) and look at candidates as individuals. We need to hold everyone–including those we support who carry the "right" letter after their names–to account for what they say and do rather than giving them a pass based on their political affiliation. And we need to stop rewarding politicians and their handlers for engaging in the politics of personal attacks and polarization while failing to answer the relevant questions repeatedly asked of them with impunity. We deserve better than that.

I am a life-long Republican. My politics on most issues are right-of-center. My best friend is a life-long Democrat whose politics on most issues are left of center. He was a delegate for the People's Party when we were in college together, and I was–am–a Reagan republican. Our friendship runs far deeper than politics, political philosophies or such silly things as party affiliations. We both care deeply about politics and are strong advocates for our very different points of view. But in the hundreds upon hundreds of hours that we have spent discussing politics from the start of our unique friendship in high school to this day, there has never been a single time–not once–when we could not reach a mutually acceptable agreement on fixing the very real problems of the world (on paper, at least) through compromise. Name a controversial issue and we have almost certainly touched on it more than once through the years, debated it at length and reached a mutually satisfactory compromise on what ought to be done to resolve it. Every time. From our teens through our early fifties. On every issue from abortion to the welfare state to socialized medicine and beyond. Why the hell can't our politicians do that?

So what's our secret beyond our obvious willingness to compromise? Simple: mutual trust, mutual respect, an unwavering belief in each others' integrity, and the fundamental understanding that we both want the same things–a better, more just, more equitable society. Our approaches are different, our political philosophies likewise, but our ends are the same. And neither of us is arrogant enough to think we have all the right answers.  If Ken were to run for any office, I would be proud to vote for him and would probably go around handing out leaflets on his behalf. I know he would do the same for me. It is not friendship that would motivate me to support him, but the knowledge that he would do his level best to bring about goals we both believe in–and that he would be open to alternate means of reaching those goals, even if they go against party dogma. I trust him implicitly. His principles are not for sale. He stands for something. He wants the same things I do and is willing to compromise to achieve them. When did that particular quality become a liability in a politician or in a human being outside of Washington D.C., the local state houses and talk radio?

In a word, I would support my liberal democratic best friend because he has the only letter that matters after his name: an I for Integrity. Unlike experience, intelligence, and even competence which can be borrowed, bought or rented by the hour in the form of advisers, employees, aides, and consultants, integrity is that rarest, most precious of assets that any politician can possess and the only one that cannot be bought or borrowed. As long as we continue to accept the politics of polarization and vote for unqualified, untrustworthy, unproven or unknown candidates based on their party affiliation, their ability to make nice speeches, and their penchant for emphatically espousing empty slogans, we will continue to have a government that perpetually and predictably disappoints and dismays us. In short, we will continue to have precisely the kind of government we deserve.