Reading Peter Baker's Days of Fire:  Bush and Cheney in the White House has prompted some thoughts on reading books that bridge journalism and history.  I confess that I rarely read such ambitious "contemporary history" books.  I figure I lived through it, so why re-hash what I remember well enough anyway?  I read the Wall Street Journal every day; I read dozens of magazines from Foreign Affairs to Science News; I skim many more, from the New Yorker and the Nation to Esquire and Vanity Fair.  There are advantages to owning a book store, yes.  When you think you keep up, then, and when there is so much to read in so many other fields, why read what you already know?