AlterNet: Hold the Applause for Amazon.com

So now unreasonable lefties are calling for a consumer boycott of Amazon. Sha! This kind of ignorant silliness is part of the reason the idealistic American left has a hard time getting taken seriously by so many different kinds of people (this from an ostensible communist–in Norway, at that!). The main points in the article are that Amazon kills independent bookstores, Amazon benefits from being on the stock market and so can be held afloat even when the company records major losses, this kind of media consolidation threatens the kind of ideas that can be disseminated, and that internet retailers should have to charge sales tax whenever they ship to a state that has a sales tax.

Now, I have to admit that I love Amazon. I’ve shopped at independent bookstores both brick-and-mortar and online, at places like Barnes and Noble, also both brick-and-mortar and online, at university bookstores, at mall bookstores, and at various online booksellers in Northern Europe. I buy a lot of books, and Amazon is best at selling books, period. I am a huge fan of Amazon. So I’m a little biased here.

However! I don’t think this guy’s article makes sense on any of its points. Take the idea that Amazon kills independent bookstores, for example. People used to make the same argument about big bookstore chains like Borders 10 years ago, and 15 years ago for places like Waldenbooks. I’m no free-market idealist, but big chain bookstores and mall bookstores aren’t that great. If the lauded independent bookstore cannot stand up to freakin’ Waldenbooks, what value is it to us? I think this argument is a little confusing, however, because what über-liberals from Berkeley and NYC talk about when they talk about “independent bookstores” is majorly different from what people like me, who grew up in Tulsa, Oklahoma, think about when we think about independent bookstores. My vision of an independent bookstore is a place about the size of Waldenbooks, with dreadlocked personnel, and a slightly-less-mainstream inventory and slightly-more-expensive prices. I understand that independent bookstores in more liberal ares of the country have a lot more to offer. This is no argument for a Tulsa denizen to forego Amazon (or Waldenbooks or Barnes and Noble), however. Über-liberals need to remember that not everyone has access to the same kinds of stores they have access to.

This argument also goes for the argument that independent stores of any kind offer more personalized service and better know-how than chain stores, the most commonly demonized of the lot being, of course, Wal-Mart. I’ve lived in the US with Wal-Mart, and I’ve lived in Oslo, Norway (pop. 529,846). Here in Oslo I have to shop at individual specialty stores because there is nothing like Wal-Mart. I can tell you that I end up doing a lot of my shopping at Wal-Mart anyway–because I cannot find what I need here in any of the specialty shops in Oslo! That, or more often, because what I can find is extremely overpriced and of shoddy quality. Imported ironing board covers and deodorant, anyone? I always have a hard time finding what I’m looking for in Norway (where there is virtually no online commerce to speak of nationally). In my experience, when a society decides to put its money on independent sellers, that’s what you get–poor selection, high prices, stores scattered all around hell and back (which results in more consumption of your time and/or fossil fuels), nonexistent return policies, haughty staff, and poorly-made merchandise. I am not a fan of the independent, local seller, not at all. I do a lot of shopping in the US for these reasons. Perhaps the situation is better in the rare place like Seattle or NYC, but for the majority of us, turning towards local sellers is not a feasible option. Not to mention that especially in a market filled with such specialized niches as bookselling, I cannot imagine the independent bookseller that could compete with Amazon’s reviewers, list-makers, and automated software recommendations in the arena of specialized knowledge about the products being sold. This feature of Amazon alone is enough to make me favor them over the independent bookseller.

The article’s author seems to think that requiring Amazon to charge sales tax would go a ways towards remedying the problem of the culling of the independent bookstore herd. This I seriously doubt. One of the posters who commented on the article mentioned that such a change in legislation would likely not hamper Amazon while at the same time present a major burden to small bookstores who sell online, due to majorly increased bookkeeping demands. For another thing, Amazon’s prices are so low that even charging sales tax will likely not make people shop elsewhere–or even raise prices above independent bookstore levels. People shop at Amazon primarily because it’s convenient; the prices are just another plus.

As for the argument that Amazon was unnaturally kept afloat by the stock market–thank god for that! Many people saw the merit in the idea of selling books online and chose to put their money behind Amazon. It did take a while, but the idea finally proved successful. Since when do über-liberals advocate leaving good ideas to languish and die in the short-term-oriented world of market competition?

The argument about Amazon representing a major force in the media consolidation that’s endangering the diversity of ideas that can be espoused–that’s just bunk, pure and simple. Part of the very reason that consumers such as myself have migrated away from independent booksellers is that we were able to find more of what we were looking for at Amazon! When it comes to selection, Amazon simply rules. As one poster said in the comments following the article, I’ve never failed to find a book I’ve looked for on Amazon. I will concede that having only one major actor in the filed potentially endangers the diversity of ideas. Should Amazon decide to change its business model, yeah, we’re probably all screwed. However, the book-buying public has demonstrated that they’re most interested in patronizing those sellers who provide them with the greatest amount of convenience and selection. When Amazon fails to provide those things, we’ll see a resurgence in the market of booksellers who are willing to fulfill those needs.

In the entire bookselling marketplace, the real losers are the mall-based bookstores like Waldenbooks. It seems to me that all of the actors in the field, excepting mall-based bookstores, have a safe place in the market. Independent bookstores that truly provide extra service (perhaps a great place to meet like-minded hipsters) will not be endangered by Amazon’s shop-from-your-home convenience. Non-net-savvy people will still prefer shopping at Barnes and Noble or their local independent bookstore. And for people like myself who love shopping online and appreciate a great selection, Amazon does the job better than anyone else.

So, I’m back from my vacation in the North of Norway. I’ve learned a lot about Norway, Norwegian culture, and Norwegians. I’m pretty much Norway’d out. I will probably write about some of my insights later. Now, a few news tidbits and insights:

• I got published in the evening paper! More or less anonymously, just with my initials, but still it’s cool. There was an article yesterday about skin bleaching amongst those with dark skin, and reader comments were solicited. I replied with the following: “Folk ser vakrest ut med sin naturlige hudfarge, enten det er det mørkeste ibenholt eller det blekeste hvit. Vær stolt av det du er!” Translated, this means something like “People look most beautiful with their natural skin tone, whether that be the darkest ebony or the palest while. Be proud of what you are!”. This is a point I’d discussed on a thread on Big Fat Blog not too long ago with relation to tans: I think they’re ugly. I don’t tan, I just get sort of reddish. Johannes has a tan now, and it’s not attractive. People definitely do look best with their natural skin tone. Anyway, cool to get published!
• I ordered some pants today from Ellos, and they’re several inches too large in the waist. For those of you who don’t know me in person, this is particularly weird because usually off-the-rack pants are several inches too tight in the waist for me. I have noticed that women here tend to put on weight in an android pattern, but this is just ridiculous! The pants at least fit beautifully in the hips and thighs, which almost never happens with off-the-rack clothes, plus the legs are just the right length. I guess I’ll be getting the waist tailored to fit.
• My bloodwork came back, and I have a B12 deficiency plus hypothyroidism, both problems I’ve had before. This could certainly explain the weight gain, plus a number of other problems I’ve been having. I’ve already started on thyroid hormone, but am reluctant to start on the B12 ’cause of the hideous acne I got last time I got shots. I’m also starting on Lamictal, a mood stabilizer which seems to be a godsend to lots of people who take it, but which is also known for causing a potentially fatal syndrome characterized by a skin-eating rash. Fun!
• I just bought three original paintings by Sisir Bhattacharya from his nephew, Soumitra. I plan on doing up the living room in an eclectic Indian style, so these will work very nicely.
• I’ve joined a cognitive science reading group. Our first book for discussion is Michael Tomasello’s The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. I look at this as a good way of easing back into academics.

That’s all for now. Later I hope to write more about my trip.

If you read any blogs that discuss feminism or body work, you’re surely aware of the controversy around Dove’s Campaign for Real Beauty. Just to summarize what this controversy is about, for those of you not in the know, this ad campaign (for products intended to minimize the appearance of “cellulite”) features “real” sized women who are not professional models. There is controversy surrounding the question of whether or not the women are fat; there is controversy surrounding the question of whether or not an advertising campaign using images of “real” women is a step in the right direction for feminism.

I’m not going to address the controversy surrounding the campaign. I think the discussion surrounding the campaign, while interesting, is a distraction. The question shouldn’t be whether the women are beautiful or whether “real” women used in advertising advances the feminist agenda by sanctioning a more “realistic” notion of beauty. The question should be whether or not beauty is something to strive for in the first place. I say it’s not.

Although I’m not a Buddhist, one idea from Buddhism that I’ve incorporated into my personal philosophy is that desire is the root of unhappiness. If you can extinguish desire, you can extinguish suffering (I haven’t quite figured out how to do that yet, unfortunately!). Just like getting a new, coveted Jaguar isn’t going to make a rich person happy, achieving beauty isn’t going to make a woman happy. Just like there’s always going to be some new, expensive trinket to be bought, there’ll always be some new physical imperfection to be dealt with. The only way to win at the beauty game is not to play. A woman isn’t going to be happy until it no longer matters to her whether or not she’s considered beautiful–by others or herself.

Or herself: this last part is particularly important. I previously thought that I’d made a lot of progress in my life, that I’d achieved something, because I generally found myself attractive, despite my “flaws”. I felt really good for a while–I did truly find myself beautiful, a lot of the time. Now that I’ve gained weight from this newest antidepressant, however, I find myself beautiful a lot less often. Even my own sense of my beauty is contingent upon external factors! How could it not be? That’s the definition of beauty as we’re talking about it here: pleasure in external appearance.

Women will suffer as long as they desire beauty, regardless of what the current beauty standard may be. And given that beauty is usually defined by what is rare, a lot of women will suffer. Even women who have deprogrammed themselves from desiring the current beauty standard and seek only to please themselves with their appearance will suffer. The secret is to quash the desire. I wish I knew how to do so. It’s at least a consolation that I now realize what my goal should be.

What does this mean in practice? Wear clothes because you like the fabric and color, and because they’re physically comfortable. Wear jewelry because it pleases you to look at it. Paint your nails because the color draws you. Pull your hair back to keep it from getting in your face, or let it down because you like the way it feels when it blows in the wind. Take pleasure in things, including your body, for their inherent qualities, not not because of how they measure up to any standard, external or internal.

What do you think? Am I totally off my rocker?