Category: Literary (Page 17 of 17)

Be My Editor

September 17, 2005 / Neil Kramer / 47 Comments

I’d like to thank Sophia for all the help she gives me with this blog. Besides being my ex, Sophia also is my editor, spell-checker, and grammar-checker (and watches over those posts where I mention her like a hawk — uh, Sophia, I mean a caring, beautiful woman). This week, she’s taken on the role of my public relations manager.

It all started a few days ago. I had just written a post where I tried to hypnotize fellow blogger Brooke into sending me compromising photos of herself. Very few of you saw this post because after I published it, I immediately received a phone call from Sophia.

"What kind of idiotic post is that?"

"I see. A little jealous of my "special relationship" with Brooke?"

"Yeah, right."

"So, what’s the problem?"

"Neilochka, you’re not an eighteen year old keeping a blog to impress four friends. You already have a couple of gray hairs coming out of your ears. You need to think of it as a "calling card" for your writing. You need to be a little more professional."

"And what does that mean?"

"Don’t be too in-groupie.   What if some big-shot editor comes by today? He’s not going to know who Brooke is. He’s just going to leave your site."

"I thought everyone knew Brooke."

"Sorry. I know she’s popular, but…"

"OK, I see your point."

"And a few other things…"

"Uh-oh…"

"I know you love it… but stop flirting so much.   And don’t write every week about your penis."

"Not write about my penis? That’s like asking me to never mention my best friend again!"

"In the real world, if you wanted to write for a magazine — you can’t just write about anything you want. You’d have to pitch a whole bunch of ideas and the EDITOR would decide what you should write. Sometimes, they might assign you a stupid topic that you have absolutely NO INTEREST in."

"Oy."

"That’s right.   It could be an article on the history of paper clips and you would have to write it to get paid."

"You want me to write about things I have NO INTEREST in?"

"Of course not.  Though, come to think of it, maybe it’s not such a bad idea after all. For practice."

As usual, Sophia is right. Did you know that "Sophia" means wisdom in Greek? I spent the next few days thinking about what Sophia said. Maybe it is time to think of myself as more of a professional. Maybe I should use this blog NOT for writing nonsense, but as a "calling card."

But, how can I prove to the BIG SHOT editors of New York that I can pitch story ideas and listen to the decision of my superiors?

Hey, I got it! Why not EXPLOIT my readers again? They have nothing better to do.

OK, here’s the deal. YOU ARE MY EDITORS. I will now pitch you SIX story ideas. You will pick one (the most votes win). Sometime next week, I will write this story. You can pick it apart. After I re-write it, you can hire me or fire me. Sort of like "The Apprentice."

Sophia will then be proud of me and make me dinner.

MY PITCH IDEAS

1) I will go to the Scientology Center HQ in Hollywood and go on a "tour" of their L. Ron Hubbard museum.

2) I will visit a psychic and palm reader for the first time in my life and see what she has to say.

3) I will eat in Burger King all three meals for one day and report back.

4) I will go to the racetrack and bet $20 on the #3 horse in the third race.

5) I will try some ointment on myself that I see advertised in Maxim magazine that says makes your penis feel "fuller." (had to throw this one in)

6) I will write about the history of paper clips.

YOUR CHOICE.

Anonymous Sources

September 15, 2005 / Neil Kramer / 28 Comments

Like everyone else, I get most of my reading done in the bathroom.

First up was Psychology Today. I was half-way through reading a cliched article about how cohabitation is bad, when I read this sentence:

"Charles, a 44-year old New Yorker (who asked that his name be changed) admits that in his 30s, he almost married a live-in girlfriend of three years for reasons having little to do with love."

Bored, I started thinking about Charles himself. Why didn’t he give his real name? Who is this guy? How did the writer find this guy? Did he just happen to perfectly exemplify the point the writer wanted to make? Is this "Charles" her personal friend or did she meet him on the street? Or does he even exist?

Let’s make believe I want to branch out into writing articles for magazines or newspapers. Let’s say I want to write an article on adults who love… say… Curious George books (I’m looking at one on my bookshelf). Where am I going to find people to quote? How do I find someone who will tell me "I love Curious George."

Well, I do know this guy from college who used to have a Curious George keychain. I guess I could call him up and ask him if I can quote him. What if he doesn’t want me to use his name? I guess I could change it to "Roger."

Or, to make it really easy on me — I can just make up a person:

Roger (his name changed), a stockbroker in New York, admits that he loves Curious George to this day, even carrying a Curious George keychain.

But that would get me fired, right? Maybe that’s why I’m not writing articles.

Anyway, while I was still in the bathroom, I tossed aside the Psychology Today (does anyone remember when it used to be an legitimate magazine?) and opened up the New York Observer. I love to keep up with the latest trends in New York. I started reading this article about how blue-eyed men were the flavor of the day in Manhattan, and tons of men were getting blue-colored contact lenses. "How intriguing!" I thought. But, then I reached this quote:

"I think blue eyes, on an unconscious level, create an impression of being sincere and trustworthy," said one 32-year-old female writer who pleaded anonymity, still nursing wounds inflicted by one blue-eyed bastard.

What’s this? Another anonymous person who just happens to prove the writer’s point? Is this luck or coincidence?

Looking to learn more, I asked Jill (not her real name), the 34-year-old editor-in-chief of a popular New York magazine, who told me that part of the writer’s job is finding people to quote.

"Interesting," I answered. "And do you think I would be suitable for writing a freelance article for some big magazine."

"Absolutely," said Jill (not her real name). "I’ve been reading your amazing blog and think you would be perfect for many assignments. Hell, if there was an opening in my magazine, I would make you editor right now. I would recommend you to any EMPLOYER out there. Have you thought of working in TV again? There’s more money in that."

Jill (not her real name) had a point.

I decided to ask Trevor (fake name also), a 41-year-old TV producer of three top rated shows. Trevor (fake name) was extemely excited to talk with me:

"Neil, you would perfect for so many shows. You have such a creative mind. I love that weird relationship you made up with that Sophia character."

"Well, she’s not exactly a character. I mean she is a character. But she is real. We did get married seven years ago. She does exist."

"And all that stuff about you being separated and still being friends. That is so funny… sitcom stuff. That’s all made up, right?"

"Actually, it’s true.

"Oh. Well, then it’s pretty sad. That’s too bad."

"Uh… what about the job you were going to give me?"

"Forget it. You’re too much of a downer for sitcoms. And I’m sure Jill (not her real name) agrees that you’re not right for magazines, either."

"You can’t do that or say that. I made you both up. You’re fake characters in a stupid blog. You aren’t even a real editor-in-chief or a producer."

"Sorry. Didn’t you ever hear of characters taking on a life of their own? Now, please leave the office. We have a lunch appointment with Brooke Shields at the Polo Lounge."

Dr. Philâ€™s Son Engaged to Playboy Triplet

September 1, 2005 / Neil Kramer / 40 Comments

The son of TV psychologist Dr. Phil has proposed to former Playboy playmate Erica Dahm, one of the triplet Dahm sisters. McGraw is a best-selling author of self-help books himself.

Dahm exclaimed, "Oh gosh, is this real?" after the Aug. 26 proposal, Hayes said.

The couple will wed in Los Angeles but the date was not revealed.

Jay McGraw designed the 5-carat diamond, emerald and platinum engagement ring.

Jay McGraw is best known for writing the best-selling Life Strategies for Teens, which was positioned as an youthful offshoot of Dr. Phillip McGraw’s popular "Life Strategies."

The book’s back cover explains Jay Mcgraw’s aim in speaking directly to today’s teens:

Are you as tired as I am of books constantly telling you about doing your best to understand your parents, doing your homework, making curfew, getting a haircut, dropping that hemline, and blah, blah, blah?

Well, you don’t have to be anymore. Life Strategies for Teens is the first guide to teenage life that won’t tell you what to do, or what to be, but rather how to live life best. Employing the techniques from Dr. Phillip C. McGraw’s Life Strategies, his son Jay provides teens with the Ten Laws of Life, which make the journey to adulthood an easier and more fulfilling trip.

I think it is great when a self-help author helps today’s youth. Dr. Phil should be proud.

I especially respect Jay McGraw for practicing what he preaches, using his own "techniques" in his own life to inspire others.

In fact, here are the top four "Laws of Life," as outlined in this well-received best-seller (not really):

Rule # 1) Kids, if you want an excellent life, this is very important because everything flows from this, so listen carefully. Make sure your father gets to go on Oprah, because that will make him famous and give him the opportunity to have his own TV show.

Rule #2) Once your father has his own TV show, have him put his name and face on some unhealthy candy bars to sell to "fat people" even if your father is a bit on the hefty side himself. Make even more money.

Rule #3) Use your father’s connections to write you own book on the same subject — but for teens — (even though you don’t really have the qualifications) and take a job hosting some dumb reality show like "Renovate My Family." Don’t let it bother you that everyone just calls you Mr. Your Father’s Name’s son.

Rule #4) At a certain point, you’re going to want to share your love with someone special. Look for a soulmate that will complete you, someone that brings respect and dignity to your relationship — someone like one of the Playboy magazine "triplets." This way, when you fantasize about your wife’s hot sisters, it’s not really "cheating."

I Wanna Be Taken SERIOUSLY

August 28, 2005 / Neil Kramer / 47 Comments

"That last post was so funny," he said to me.

"Oh, yeah!" I said annoyed, "Wait until until you read my next post. It’s going to be a SERIOUS analysis of Ecuador’s economy!"

I was having a "Woody Allen" moment. You know, the one he had right after "Annie Hall" when he said to himself, "No more silly films. Now I’m going to be taken SERIOUSLY."

One of my favorite movies is Preston Sturges’ "Sullivan’s Travels." In it, a film director of escapist movies decides to become a serious director and goes to learn about "life" by living with the Depression-era hobos on the trains.

Today, every "artist" wants to be taken seriously. Maybe that’s why supermodels never smile in their photos. Even television people want critics to view their work as high art. They show "retrospectives" of sitcoms like "My Two Dads" at the Museum of Television and Radio. Porn stars now have their own award show. Stuntmen are fighting for their own category in the Oscars. Maybe because more of us are familiar with Desi Arnaz and "I Love Lucy" than Donizetti and "Lucia di Lammemoor," we need to make believe our low-brow tastes are as important as high-culture. There was even a popular best-selling book by Steven Johnson titled "Everything Bad is Good For You: How Today’s Pop Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter." According to Johnson, we should let our children stay up to watch "Survivor" and "Fear Factor."

Go ahead and let them watch more television, too, since even reality shows can function as "elaborately staged group psychology experiments" to stimulate rather than pacify the brain.

Even the intellectually astute Michael Blowhard has taken literary snobs to task for not appreciating the writing skills of sensationalist shlock-writer Jackie Collins, author of such books as "The Bitch" and "The Stud."

Why are many people’s attitudes towards popular fiction different than their attitudes towards the popular arts in other fields? By now, most sophisticated and educated people can see virtues in rock and roll; in sitcoms; in action-adventure movies; and in barbecued ribs, ice cream, and corn on the cob. Yet where fiction-books are concerned … Well, if these people are caught reading a blockbuster, they laugh, they apologize. They want you to know they’re slumming; they really do know better. Really what they care about is the serious and good stuff.

I’m not a snob about these things and I like this reinterpretation of what’s high art and what’s low art. Still, without sounding like a fuddy-duddy, there should be some standards, and there’s nothing as annoying as hearing a popular artist kvetch about their own popularity. It’s one of the reasons so many Hollywood actors want to speak about politics. They don’t want to just be a lowly actor and make millions of dollars for play-acting. They want to be a force for good.

Sitcom writers don’t just want to be sitcom writers. It’s not enough to be making tons of money and getting your work on television. You want to be taken seriously as a writer. You may be a "writer," but the reason you’re not as esteemed as Dostoyevsky is because you wrote your first draft while drinking a ice-blended mocha at the Coffee Bean. Dostoyevsky spent four years in the Siberian maximum security prison in Omsk, with ten-pound iron chains around his ankles and wrists in a lice-infested, filth-ridden “cemetery-of-the-living” which he later described in "The House of the Dead." Now, even the Disney cafeteria isn’t that bad.

It seems ironic that so many artists are so concerned with being taken seriously when our culture seems only to care about what is popular. The entertainment section of the paper is filled with stories about the top box-office movies and top-ten network shows. Hollywood envies successful producers like Jerry Bruckheimer. Who knows… maybe even he’s unhappy with his popular successes. Is it possible that Jerry Bruckheimer is secretly writing a low-budget script about his loving relationship with his offbeat "grandpa" — a project without one car blowing up?

In the blogging world, you have popular sites like Gawker and Defamer that feed their audience snarky gossip. They get large amounts of readers. I have a friend who writes a fantastic blog on the topic of Earth Science. He has three readers. I would give you the link, but I think he would have a heart attack if too many of you actually showed up.

Let’s hope that the producers of Gawker and Defamer don’t complain about not being taken seriously.

A popular artist who is overly concerned about being taken seriously is like the prom queen complaining that she wasn’t asked to be on the math team. What are you complaining about? We all want to be like YOU.

Recently, there’s even been some fighting among the usually mutually-supportive women writers as some tried to separate themselves from the popular chick-lit label. When Curtis Sittenfeld reviewed Melissa Bank’s "The Wonder Spot" in the New York Times Book Review, many saw it as an attack on the genre — and an excuse for Ms. Sittenfeld to re-create her own image as a "serious" writer. Popular chick-lit writer Jennnifer Weiner then responded to the review, mocking Ms. Sittenfeld:

"The more I think about the increasingly angry divide between ladies who write literature and chicks who write chick lit, the more it seems like a grown-up version of the smart versus pretty games of years ago; like so much jockeying for position in the cafeteria and mocking the girls who are nerdier/sluttier/stupider than you, to make yourself feel more secure about your own place in the pecking order."

Why is Ms. Sittenfeld ashamed of the term chick lit? It is very popular and has helped hundreds of other female writers to get published. If you write a light book about a young woman in Manhattan juggling men while working as an assistant editor at a fabulous women’s magazine, chances are the book is Chick Lit. If the book is about a poor female mine worker dealing with her mother dying of an inoperable tumor, chances are it isn’t Chick Lit.

Soon, sitcom writers are going to complain about their work being called "sitcoms." Will sitcoms soon be called Short Televised Humorous Novellas?

As some woman might suggest in a chick lit book, "Do you really need to have it all?" Do you need to have popularity and be taken seriously?

As for myself, I’ll hold off on that article about Ecuador. I still want as many readers as possible.

Full of Emoticons

August 18, 2005 / Neil Kramer / 24 Comments

A couple of days ago I got into a little trouble with one of my readers because the person misinterpreted something I wrote as true. This is not the first time this has happened. Sometimes, I stretch the point, such as when I wrote that I "slept with Tom Cruise." Still, there are times when I want to express something personal, and I don’t want you to dismiss it by saying, "Oh, he’s just joking around." Why am I the only one having this problem? And then I realized why. Most of you use those smilies (emoticons) when making an ironic or sarcastic point. How many times have I seen a comment written to me that reads something like this:

"Neil, you suck. Your blog sucks. Your mother is a moron. Your penis is smaller than Jude Law’s. I hate your guts."

Oh, look — she used a smilie. She is joking. Ha ha ha. I love my readers.

I’m not sure exactly why I never use smilies. I have nothing against them. It could be because when I was a young student, I actually used a typewriter rather than a computer (so there were no smilies yet). (Does anyone out there remember typewriters? Has anything become as outdated as quickly as the typewriter? Does anyone else feel bad for the Smith-Corona company? Will I one day tell my grandchild about using "Wite-out" and they will laugh in disbelief? But that’s something for another post.)

Today, I have smilies on my mind. That, and religion. What has caused more problems in the world than religion? Why are the three big Western religion — Judaism, Islam, and Christianity — always at each others throats? Even within the religions, there are divisions, usually between between the ultra-religious and the moderates.

And why?

I think the reason is similar to the one I had with one of my readers — interpretation. For thousands of years, men have been fighting over God’s word. What did He mean? Which is the true religion? Each religion is always fighting over the interpretation of the Bible. Thousands of years of tsuris (trouble in Yiddish), and for what?

If only God had waited a little bit — only had been a little more patient before he released his Word — at least until the arrival of the Mac in 1984. Then, he could have used smilies to clarify things for all of us —

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.   And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.

And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven.

And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. And God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth." And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens." So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.   And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."

And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.   And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.   And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.

My Entry to the Vanity Fair Essay Competition

August 12, 2005 / Neil Kramer / 34 Comments

Vanity Fair magazine is concerned that the youth of today is apathetic, especially compared to the baby-boomer editors who lived during the 1960’s.

"More than 30 years ago, young people across the country staged sit-ins for civil rights, got up and protested against a misguided, undeclared war, and actually gave a damn if a president lied to them. Today it seems as if the younger generation of Americans are content to watch their MTV, fiddle with their game players, [and] follow the love lives of Brad, Jen, Jessica and Paris. What has changed? What is going on inside the minds of American youth today?"

To rectify the problem, Vanity Fair (in association with Montblanc fountain pens) is running an essay competition titled, "What’s on the minds of America’s youth today?" The prize: $15,000, a trip to the the Santa Maddalena writers’ colony, and a Montblanc fountain pen.

So, I figured — hell, if I can write erotica, I can certainly write a short essay on this topic.

My Essay for Vanity Fair:

What’s the Matter with Kids Today?

In the 1960’s young people had meaning in their lives. They were politically aware and cared about what happened in this country and in the world. Young people today are more technologically sophisticated, but have lost much of their "soul." How did this happen? What made America’s youth go off track? I’d like to thank Vanity Fair for the opportunity to address this important issue.

Rather than caring about war and poverty, today’s young people only care about celebrity culture (Jennifer Aniston, Vanity Fair cover, September 2005; Scarlett Johansson photoshoot, Vanity Fair, August 2005) and scandal (Martha Stewart, Vanity Fair cover, August 2005). In the 1960’s, young people looked up to heroes like Dr. King and Bobby Kennedy. Who do they look up to today? (Tom Cruise story, Vanity Fair, August 2005; Porn Star Memoirs, Vanity Fair, September 2005). In the 1960’s, women were at the forefront of a political movement, pushing for equal rights for all women. Why have today’s women lost interest in politics? (Jimmy Choo shoes article, August 2005; Elle Macpherson’s lingerie debut article, August 2005). In the 1960’s, young people were fighting the establishment. Today’s youth are complacent, caring more about consumerism and material objects than changing the world. (Adrienne Vittadini ad, Polo ad, Ralph Lauren ad, Movado ad, Calvin Klein ad, Bacardi ad, DKNY ad, Audi ad, countless other ads, in all Vanity Fair issues).

So, who is the culprit in the dreadful attitudes of our misguided youth? The answer is clear.

The editors of Vanity Fair.

Michael Eisner’s Camp Experience

July 5, 2005 / Neil Kramer / 0 Comments

(Ida Mae Astute / ABC)

Michael Eisner, the outgoing head of Disney, has just published a memoir titled "Camp."

The book is "a 182-page, all-kumbaya-all-the-time ode to Keewaydin, the idyllic Vermont getaway where he spent the summers of his youth on the shores of Lake Dunmore. It was at Keewaydin, Eisner writes, that he learned the value of mutual respect, teamwork and leadership, along with such enduring life lessons as "Help the other fellow" and "Be a fair winner and a good loser." (via LA Times)

I haven’t read the book, but this is what I imagine Chapter 3 to be like, subtitled "The CEO of Bunk 15":

It was another beautiful morning in Camp Keewaydin. I could hear the Vermont birds.   I took a deep breath of the fresh air and remembered all the fun I had the day before while boating on Lake Dunsmore. I looked for Stu’s latest comic book collection at the foot of the bed, but it wasn’t there, like he promised.

That was not acceptable.

I called out to my bunkmates and they promptly gave Stu a wedgie and hung him from the rafters. Stu said that he just wanted to finish his Archie comic book before he turned it in to me. I told him that when I say something is due Saturday and it isn’t — don’t bother coming to the lake on Sunday.   He cried "Uncle" and said that his mother was sending him a care package with Hostess cupcakes — and I could keep the whole box.

"And you’re going to make my bed for the entire month?"

"Yes! Yes!"

Now, that was more like it!

"And no whistling while you work!" I added.

What good times I had at Camp Keewaydin. Everything I learned about being a leader and CEO began during that perfect Vermont summer.

Outrage at Penguin Books

July 4, 2005 / Neil Kramer / 3 Comments

Gay author Bennett Madison is furious at his publisher, Penguin Books, because they have published the controversial and best-selling "The Truth about Hillary." He’s practically asking for a boycott of his own publisher. (via Lusty Lady)

The fact that Penguin has chosen to publish THE TRUTH ABOUT HILLARY makes me very uneasy about being a Penguin author for several reasons. First of all, the fact that Penguin is (in theory at least) making money off of my work, and is now choosing to turn around and use the fruits of my faggoty labor to exacerbate the frightening homophobic tenor of today’s political discourse is, naturally, sickening. Furthermore, unlike Kitty Kelley’s brilliantly reported Bush biography, Walter Scott/Ed Klein’s book is full of lazy errors and straight-up falsehoods. It is damaging to the reputation of all Penguin authors to be part of the same shameful, disreputable group as someone who is clearly a hack, a liar and a poopslice. Finally, if there is a boycott of Penguin books, as has been suggested by some, my sales will be hurt. WAH! As well they should be. The fact is, I feel conflicted about asking people to buy my book when by doing so, I am asking people to support the current national pastime of using gay people as a punching bag.

The Truth About Hilary sounds like a lousy book, but a boycott? Is the book really "using gay people as a punching bag?" I’m sorry, but all the gays here in West Hollywood go to the gym so often that could easily beat the crap out of me.

Penguin also publishes the Mad Libs series, which has caused countless children to use obscenities in new and interesting ways. Where’s the outrage there, Mr. Madison?

The World is Flat

May 18, 2005 / Neil Kramer / 2 Comments

Tonight, I read the first few chapters of The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century by Thomas L. Friedman. So far, it’s extremely interesting. In it, Friedman explains how the world has been "flattened" by new technology. Workers in India and China can compete with our workers. Companies have truly become international New software makes it easier to communicate across borders.

I say it’s great that we in the United States can communicate with others around the world!

Thank you, sanjay at bangalore.it_guy dot com, for the pirated Friedman e-book and hooking me up with the NY Times’ bestsellers’ torrent site.