I'm working on posts about my book reading in 2008 and 2009, and it got me thinking about bookstores. Specifically, Borders. The company's stock price has plummetted, and rumors have been swirling that Borders will declare bankruptcy or even go out of business altogether. As readers will recall, I got a Borders gift card for Christmas, and then I read this item in the Times about how gift card sales are down at stores where consumers think the store won't be around long enough to use the card.

I like going to Borders (and its somewhat healthier sister, Barnes & Noble) for the same reason I enjoying going to any bookstore -- the chance to browse around, people watch, read some cover flaps and back covers, and discover something I wasn't looking for. But I find myself going less and less unless they rope me in with a huge coupon offer, in the range of thirty to forty percent off. Even then, I have to do some homework to find books I can't find at an even better price on Amazon.

Sometimes, I prefer having the book right away, and it's worth paying a little more for that. But that margin is shrinking. I'm sure I'll always continue going to bookstores, especially funky used book stores. But when I go to Borders or B&N, I take a notepad to jot down books that look interesting, so I can go home and check the Amazon price. It's probably not a sustainable business model to slash prices forty percent across the board. Maybe they should start charging a two-coffee minimum.

I took this expression to mean that I couldn't come in unless I was bearing presents.

Prof. Desai at the Co-Op has a perfectly ranty post about the cell phone business model. You know, the notion that you can't buy a new phone without starting a whole new contract and all. This kind of thing has kept me from giving lots of money to the phone companies over the years.

I know the theory is supposedly that they sell the phones at big discounts in order to rack up big profits from the service contracts. The old razors and blades model. But in my case, I would have bought a more advanced phone, and upgraded to the high-dollar service contract with internets and everything, if they had made this less annoying.

To me, this is like wanting to buy a new tv, but having to go to the cable company and get a new HBO subscription first. Surely someday they'll run out of truly "new" customers -- babies will be issued cell phones at birth; look for that iPhone app that will let you take your baby's footprint on the phone -- and they'll change this dumb business model.

We had our office holiday party the other day. We do one of those gift exchanges where everyone contributes a gift, then they draw numbers, and we go around with the option of taking an unwrapped gift or stealing someone else's already-opened gift. We call it a Yankee Swap, but it goes by other names. I'm sure you're familiar. A note, though -- we do generally try to get useful or wanted gifts, not the humorous or useless gifts one sometimes sees in these events. There are usually a few funny ones, but rarely a pure "white elephant."

Anyway, my turn came about a third of the way in, and amazingly, there had not been a single steal by then. I decided to steal my neighbor's gift, a nice housewares product. It was stolen from me pretty quickly thereafter. I decided to take my chances on something still on the table, and ended up with a decent gift -- a gift card to a store I don't go to very often. But it was at least something I could use. Naturally, it too was stolen, and I faced a dilemma. I wasn't particularly thrilled with any of the unwrapped gifts, and there were still a lot unopened. So I once again rolled the dice and opened one up.

I peeled back the paper and it started to dawn on me. Short, stout, handle, spout -- check, check, check, check. Yes, it was a little teapot. With a little teacup! Just to rule out the faint possibility that someone had just used the box to wrap a better gift, I even opened the box. Nope, still a teapot. I heard a couple of "Oh, that's cute" mumbles from the older ladies among us, but mostly I noticed stifled laughter. And sure enough, we finished the game without anyone taking so much as a second glance at my white elephant.

The kookiest thing about it was the instructions, including these: "1. Boil good water. 2. Give yourself the pleasure of using one of the many high quality teas available today. 5. Sit down with a lovely cup of tea. Take a moment to admire what a pretty scene you've created." Yeah, I'll get right on that. And to top it off, the box had a Barnes & Noble label on it, meaning that someone went in a Barnes & Noble, looked around at all the useful, noncraptacular gifts available today, and picked this gem. (The idea is so unlikely that I'm convinced someone just regifted.)

I don't want to disparage whoever brought this thing. I'm sure it would be a fine gift for someone who drinks tea. I don't (at least not hot tea). Of course, someone who drinks hot tea would already have plenty of teapots and teacups. So the box sat on the edge of my desk for a few days, with me occasionally pondering just what the hell to do with it. I knew I would never use it. I didn't know anyone to give it to. I figured it would sit on a shelf or in my attic until I could take it to Goodwill to give it away.

And then, a Christmas miracle! One of my co-workers came in my office and asked, "Are you extremely enamored of your teapot?" I answered, "I don't think that's the phrase I would use." But she volunteered to switch her gift with me so she could give my teapot to some family member. I don't want to know about that family dynamic, but that's her business. I was rid of my little teapot! And even better, my co-worker's gift was a gift card to a store I actually frequent!

I was planning on writing this post before this welcome development, and it would have been a lot more ranty. But I will trade a better post for a better gift. Someone should write a short story about this: The Gift of the Magunk.

Let's say (hypothetically speaking) I were interested in buying a home, and let's also say (not hypothetically speaking), I have no idea how to go about doing that. Can anyone recommend a good guide (a book is fine; a website preferable) to buying a home? Here's a few hints as to the level of sophistication I need:

Example A: I have no idea how to figure out how much home I can afford.

Example B: I have heard of "points," but I'm not sure I can define them.

Example C: When I think about "closing," this scene comes to mind, and I am not reassured.

I spent a lot of time today reading the amazing news of the arrest of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. The blockbuster allegation is that Blagojevich sought political and financial favors in exchange for an appointment to the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama. The Governor has the authority to make that appointment, and according to the feds, he was trying to auction it to the highest bidder. So, the G-men arrested Blagojevich today, and he will probably be indicted soon. If he doesn't resign, he'll almost certainly be impeached in short order.

But what of that still-vacant Senate seat? Part of the reason Blagojevich allegedly thought he could extract such a high price for the appointment was that so many people wanted the job. The Governor still retains the power to make the appointment, as long as he's still the Governor. But an appointment from Blagojevich would be irreparably tainted. Senate leaders have said they might not even allow a Blagojevich-appointed Senator to be seated. Even if Blagojevich resigns (his lawyer says he won't) and Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn makes the appointment, it would be hard for anyone to shake off this scandal, especially if the choice is one of the hopefuls mentioned in the criminal complaint. And that's especially true if the appointed Senator tries to run for a full term in 2010.

Illinois lawmakers are thus talking about passing quickie legislation stripping the Governor of the appointment power and mandating a special election for the seat. While this would have the salutary effect of insulating the new Senator from the Blagojevich heat, to a degree, the plan has its downsides. For one thing, it will be costly -- I can't find a link now, but I saw a figure of $45 million tossed around. That might be a tough one for cash-strapped Illinois to handle. Plus, I think what Illinois might need right now is less politicking, not more. Also, it seems a little like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Now, one might argue that Illinois governors have enough of a record of corruption* that this is a sound move for the future. But laws passed in haste and panic often have unintended consequences. Finally, note that one of the office-seekers mentioned in the federal complaint (although pseudonymously) is probably the Illinois Senate President, Emil Jones. So the legislature might just want to stay away from this hot potato for now.

(* -- An aside: You know how city and state leaders will sometimes have wagers when their sports teams play an important game? Given that Northern Illinois and Louisiana Tech are playing in the Independence Bowl this year, and given the legacies of political corruption in both states, one wonders what the bet should be. Perhaps a carton of smokes, or some other prison currency?)

Anyway, I think that the wisest move is for the legislature to hold off on its quick fix and for Quinn to appoint someone who has absolutely no connection to this mess. Someone who wasn't even in a million years going to grub for favors from Blagojevich. Someone who has a long connection to Illinois and a record of cleaning up corruption in Chicago. Someone with unimpeachable credentials, and a lifetime of public service, but who owes no favors and won't be in anyone's pocket. Someone who won't be angling to run for a full term in 2010, but would be an ideal caretaker. Readers, that person is...Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens:I'm (sort of) serious! Stevens is eighty-eight years old, and while he seems vigorous and shows no signs of slowing down, he can't stay on the Supreme Court forever. His resignation would spare the Court and the President the possibility of a double vacancy, like we almost has with Justice O'Connor and Chief Justice Rehnquist. While it's not ideal to have a Justice resign mid-term, it's not unusual, and under the circumstances and given the large Democratic majority in the Senate, I wouldn't expect a lengthy confirmation battle.

For Stevens, the move would be a capstone to a remarkable and accomplished career. He would provide a measure of stability and confidence for his home state in its hour of need. Even as a junior and temporary Senator, he would command great respect from his colleagues in the Capitol. He was a practicing bankruptcy and antitrust lawyer, and would be an asset in dealing with the financial crisis. I'm sure he would see it as an interesting new challenge, and it would give him a chance to speak much more freely about the issues of the day than he can from his judicial chambers. Plus, there's a vacancy on the Judiciary Committee -- wouldn't it be neat to watch Senator John Paul Stevens questioning the nominee to succeed Justice John Paul Stevens?

So what would happen in 2010, assuming Stevens doesn't want to run for a full Senate term and isn't ready to retire at age ninety? Well, President Obama could always appoint him to a judicial opening then -- surely there will be a seat somewhere, either on the Seventh or D.C. Circuit, or even a district court. Stevens might decide to take senior status immediately, freeing him to sit by designation around the country, and opening that judgeship right back up.

Okay, I know none of this is going to happen. But Illinois could do (and has done) a lot worse than Stevens. And my guess is it would be more interesting than seeing whatever actually comes from this mess. So my vote is Stevens for Senate!

I have written quite a few times (here and here and here and here and here) about the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act to stadium-style movie theaters. (One of those posts discusses the same legal principles with respect to racetracks.) In short, there's been a great deal of litigation over how the ADA applies to these theaters; that is, where the theaters have to put wheelchair-accessible seats in order to provide comparable lines of sight for wheelchair-bound patrons and able-bodied moviegoers.

Over the weekend, Howard at How Appealing alerted me to the latest in this ongoing saga. A new decision from the Ninth Circuit discusses at length the differing approaches of the circuits to the issue, and what remedy is available against theaters found to be in violation of the ADA.

I haven't taken the time to digest the opinion completely, but the upshot appears to be holdings that (a) the district court couldn't order the theater chain to retrofit theaters for ADA compliance if they were built before the applicable regulations were promulgated; and (b) the district court couldn't order a nationwide injunction when the law in some circuits is more favorable to the theater chain than the Ninth Circuit's position.

I have been predicting a cert grant on this issue for years. I'm not sure this case is the right vehicle. Perhaps if the en banc Ninth Circuit revisits the scope of the right, rather than just the contours of the remedy. But sooner or later, the circuit split will become untenable and the Supreme Court will have to step in.

While I'm on the subject, you may have missed the news that President Bush recently signed into law the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (that's right -- the ADAAA). Here's a primer on the ADAAA, and here's some more coverage (both of those from the defense perspective, but good overviews). The ADAAA clarifies some of the original Act's definitions and is expressly designed to ensure that the ADA applies more broadly than some courts have interpreted it. Since it's mainly focussed on what constitutes a "disability" under the Act, I don't think the ADAAA will affect the movie theater cases. But of course, the Obama administration could decide to revise the governing regs or push for even stronger legislation. And let's not forget the kudos to both Presidents Bush for signing the ADA and the ADAAA, even if the latter wasn't highly publicized.

A couple of weeks ago there was a very thought-provoking article in Sports Illustrated about the decline of hunting in America. The premise of the piece is that the fall-off in hunting has led to a explosion in various wild animal populations. This isn't always good. For example, the booming numbers of deer, especially in the northeast, have led to a rise in car accidents and Lyme disease. The article details some even more harrowing encounters between humans and wolves.

The SI piece reminded me of a very good Washington Post Magazine story about coyotes in the D.C. suburbs. The catalyst there seems to be sprawl, and I think the combination of sprawl and the demise of hunting explains this trend better than either piece does by looking at just one aspect.

But in any event, both articles are good and raise a lot of intriguing issues.

The hunting thing reminds me of when I was a kid. I grew up in a pretty rural area (although it was a veritable Metropolis compared to where Sebastian grew up). I never hunted -- I did some fishing, which suited my personality better -- but I knew a lot of people who did and I ate the occasional venison. The first day of hunting season wasn't a holiday in my schools, but licensed hunters did get an excused absence that day. So many boys were gone that day that they might as well have not had class at all. Maybe if Sarah Palin ever becomes president, the opening of hunting season will become a federal holiday.

Coincidentally, this week I saw this article in the Minneapolis paper about hunters who save money by butchering their own deer (link via Deadspin). There's even some video! Sensitive viewers can console themselves by imagining that the deer is just sleeping...upside down...and inside out.

Anyway, watch the video for more on the way hunting used to be:

Sorry for the lack of posting recently. I've had some work issues and some family issues. And nothing-to-blog-about issues. But I'm still here. In fact, it almost slipped by me again, but it's BTQ's anniversary. This blog is five years old! And I'm still excited about doing it...most of the time. I'll be back with new stuff after the Thanksgiving weekend. Enjoy yours, and thanks for reading!

(Oh, and I know this post is a little dull. I was going to liven it up with a picture, but trust me that you want the filter on when you do a Google Image search for "Give me 5!")

A few months ago, I posted about a story from Atlanta in which a woman had received a temporary restraining order against basketball star Shaquille O'Neal. I noted that if the order became a permanent restraining order after a hearing, then federal law would prohibit O'Neal from possessing a gun. Given O'Neal's longstanding interest in police work (he's an honorary member of several law enforcement agencies, has participated in SWAT raids, and often speaks about his desire to become a full-time officer upon retirement), a ban on possessing a gun would be a big deal for him.

Having noted the story and mused on this possibility, I thought it was appropriate to mention the news that the woman has now dropped her request for a permanent restraining order. So Shaquille O'Neal's right to have a gun doesn't appear to be in any danger. No word on whether a monetary settlement was involved.