Archive for the ‘Writing’ Category
This Labor Day, We Know Fewer are “Laboring”
After a horrible August, where zero jobs were created whatsoever in the United States, we know that as of this Labor Day, fewer workers are working than ever before — thus, fewer are “laboring,” which is part of what is keeping the American economy down for the count.
I don’t know what the answers are, but I do know a few things could be instituted right now that would help.
For example, in Betty Jin’s recent article at BusinessInsider.com, she suggested the following:
1) Cut the corporate tax rate by 5%; this may stimulate jobs. (The risk in doing so is that it would probably increase the deficit in the short-term.)
2) Print more money, and start taxing corporate savings. This would force companies to invest, but could cause inflation. The hope here is that the American companies would invest in American workers, which would keep inflation down to a manageable level.
3) Increase “infrastructure” spending — in other words, start building roads, bridges, and other things like rail lines, as this definitely would create jobs. Also, everyone of every party wants safe roads and bridges — this one seems like a win/win, especially if President Obama stops calling it “infrastructure,” something very few people seem to realize means “roads and bridges,” and starts calling this exactly what it is — putting people back to work doing something that’s vital and necessary.
This last one, to my mind, is the strongest of the 10 things Jin says can be done right now to improve the economy (it’s third on her list; to see the other seven, click on her article) because Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican President, was the one who pushed for the Interstate highway system we all take for granted back in the 1950s. So it would be really hard for the current crop of radical Republicans to say that this is a bad idea, considering it was started by their own party.
Next, there’s the New Republic’s article, written by Jared Bernstein, that’s headline states “Obama’s Got Plenty of Options to Right the Economy — He’s Just Got to Fight for them.” This article is part of the New Republic’s “Symposium on the Economy” that’s sub-titled, “Is there Anything that can be Done?” Other articles in this series can be found here.
At any rate, here’s the first few paragraphs from Bernstein’s article:
Here’s the policy reality facing the president: The economy is stuck in the mud and the American people are losing faith that policy makers can do anything about it. As long as GDP growth is persistently below trend—trend being around 2.5 percent—the unemployment rate won’t be going anywhere good anytime soon. Paychecks, meanwhile, are declining in real terms, so we’re stuck in a cycle where the weak job market hurts household budgets, which trims consumption, which discourages investors.
The only games in town are fiscal or monetary stimulus—there, I said the ‘s’ word—but the president is boxed in, it is said, by three forces: First, he’s got no job-creation bullets left; second, even if he did, and American people don’t believe the government can help on the jobs front (a pathetic 26 percent have confidence in Washington’s ability to solve economic problems); and, third, Republicans in Congress will block any idea he proposes anyway. Thankfully, none of these challenges are as insurmountable as they might seem, and pushing relentlessly to overcome them is the president’s best, and only, chance to change the fundamental direction of the debate, find his footing, and create some momentum for the economy and for himself.
Mind you, all of this means one thing: President Obama must lead, and the country must follow wherever the President leads with regards to the economy. This means a comprehensible strategy must be created, and thus far, I really haven’t seen very much out of the current Administration that leads me to believe there’s much going on there except reactionary spending — that is, Timothy Geithner, current Secretary of the Treasury, and Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, have performed well in their jobs but they haven’t really seemed to set policy so much as react to it instead. This may be an error on my part; I’m no financial wizard by any stretch of the imagination. But it seems to me that if these two men have a grand, overarching vision, it surely hasn’t been well-explained to the “men (and women) on the street” like me. And it also seems that if these two men do have a way out of this mess, the President doesn’t seem to know what it is, either — or, perhaps, he’s just not saying because he knows the Republicans in Congress wouldn’t like it and would say so with great vigor and dispatch.
Note that at a Labor Day rally and speech that President Obama gave today in Detroit, Michigan, the President seemed to not only understand the high stakes of this “game” (if he loses public opinion on this issue, any chance he has of a second term will be gone), but understood the need to boldly counterattack the current crop of Republican Presidential candidates including Texas Governor Rick Perry and former Gov. of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney according to today’s AP article listed at Yahoo News. Obama said:
“I’m going to propose ways to put America back to work that both parties can agree to, because I still believe both parties can work together to solve our problems,” Obama said at an annual Labor Day rally sponsored by the Detroit-area AFL-CIO. “Given the urgency of this moment, given the hardship that many people are facing, folks have got to get together. But we’re not going to wait for them.”
“We’re going to see if we’ve got some straight shooters in Congress. We’re going to see if congressional Republicans will put country before party,” he said.
Now, this sort of rhetoric is exactly what most Democrats and Independents have been waiting for, but until voters see some action beyond the words, it’s unlikely to help overmuch. Still, this is the right message — people are hurting, and the President seems to “get” that — and one can only hope that the President’s advisors are reading the same articles I am that offer some real possibilities rather than just allowing the economy — and workers — to continue to be flushed down the drain.
What to do when a Publishing Relationship Ends
Why is it that most writers plan for the beginning of a publishing relationship, but never plan for the end?
I know, I know. The end of any relationship, in or out of publishing, is not what most people prefer to dwell upon because it’s depressing. The end of any relationship means the end of any current possibilities, and that’s sad and extremely difficult for most human beings to contemplate.
That being said, in the current world we live in, we need to plan how to deal with failure graciously. (Not that every end to every publishing relationship means you’ve failed, mind you; just that it’s going to feel like failure, especially when you know you’ve tried everything in your power to make a publishing enterprise work.) We need to learn how to come to terms with setbacks, be they minor or major, and learn to deal with them as graciously as possible.
See, I look at the publishing business as a long-term thing that, in its own way, is a microcosm of life. We’re going to have good days and bad. The good days are usually easy to handle; it’s the tough ones we must learn from as best we can.
What I do when a publishing relationship has ended is to acknowledge it, make some sort of announcement to those who need to know about it, and am otherwise as polite as humanly possible. My thoughts, which are greatly influenced by those of my late husband Michael in this regard, are these: who knows if I’ll be working with this person/these people in the future? So why be obnoxious now when there’s really no need for it?
Yes, we need to acknowledge when we’re upset or frustrated. I’ve never advocated “sitting on” any emotion, as in my experience that tends to fester and make things worse later on. But we don’t need to go out of our way burning bridges this way and that, either . . . in fact, if we can avoid burning bridges, that’s probably the best way to handle things.
All that being said, it’s sad when anything you’ve spent a great deal of time and effort on goes for naught; I’ve had this happen a few times this past year, and the only thing that can be done is this: chalk it up to experience, be as polite as possible, and move on.
This is very hard to do, granted. But if you can do it, others will notice and appreciate the professionalism of your attitude, which may lead you to further and better work in the future.
So, to sum up, here’s the three things you need to do when a publishing relationship of any sort ends:
1) Come to terms with it and write a brief, polite, professional note saying you’re sorry things have come to this pass (whatever it is), and that you’ve appreciated working with whomever. Also, if you can bring yourself to it, wish the person (or people) well in the future as this costs you nothing.
2) Acknowledge it to those who need to know in a brief, polite and professional note. (Keep your feelings about it, as much as possible, to yourself.)
3) Allow yourself to grieve the loss, because it is a loss — give yourself an hour, or even half a day if you must, to be upset over it. Then, do your best to pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and move on.
Most importantly, do your best not to bear a grudge. Remember that we’re all human, we’re all fallible, and there’s no need to spread nastiness. You don’t need to put up with bad treatment, mind you; far from it. Just try to rise above it if you can while knowing that it’s possible that someday you might work with this person (or these people) again. And if that opportunity arises, you want to be able to work with whomever without undue rancor if at all possible.
You need to think long-term at a time when your inner self is screaming, “No!” at the top of its lungs. This isn’t easy, but if you can do it, it’ll help you in the long run.**
——–
** Michael’s name for this was the “better in sorrow than in anger” method. Try it. It works.
Periodic State of the Elfyverse
Folks, it’s been a while, so it’s time for another “state of the Elfyverse” blog.
What’s going on with the Elfyverse right now is that I’m stalled in part 47 of AN ELFY ABROAD (the sequel to ELFY, which still hasn’t found a home). I have figured out an alternate beginning to ELFY which may help me find an agent who’ll understand it and help me find a publisher, but I haven’t yet managed to get it down in a way that makes any more sense than what I already have. (“May” being the operative word, of course.) And I managed to get a few thousand words into the ELFY prequel, KEISHA’S VOW . . . mind you, KEISHA’S is a big-time prequel as it’s set in 1954 and ELFY is present-day. (The dead characters in ELFY are alive and well in KEISHA’S, and it explains in part — or should, once completed — why one of the ELFY characters is such a mucked-up mess.)
Things get a bit more problematic when I start trying to fix an Elfyverse short story “Boys Night In,” as so far I’ve had comments like, “The dialogue makes no sense.” “They get into this way too easily.” “What’s the point of this again?” and so on. (I did get high marks for humor from one test reader. So I’m still doing something right.) So that story is in need of extensive revision, perhaps to the degree Carolyn See recommends in her book MAKING A LITERARY LIFE, complete with the wine, the red pen, and more wine.
The good news is that I’m still hard after it; the bad news is that when I get stalled in a chapter (as I am in part 47 of EA) I just sit there until I figure out whatever’s bothering me. This is a far different process than what I had while Michael was alive, as we were both writing the story then and talking things out with him — always an interested audience, even when I wasn’t writing an Elfyverse story of any kind — made big messes like this one get solved a little faster. Or in this case, a lot faster as I’ve been stuck in the same place for at least three weeks.
Some of my friends who are authors write different things — say, a romance instead of a Western, or a hard SF story instead of a mystery — to break a hard block like this one. I’ve tried that in the past and for whatever reason, unless I have a really good idea in a different genre that takes off, it just doesn’t work for me. Whatever it is in my backbrain has to take its own, sweet time toward resolving itself, and then and only then can I get on with the business of writing.
While I’m doing all that, I continue to edit. And, of course, I comment, I blog when the mood strikes me (or a really big story hits that I know I can’t pass on no matter how blocked I feel at the time), and I just let things play out as they will.
See, the best thing we can do when we’re stalled on a project is to continue to have faith in ourselves. We’ve already written X words (in my case, probably well over 600,000 in the past seven years, and who knows how many before then? Many, many, many.), and we’re going to write more, so why fret it?
Or, as Michael used to tell me, “If you can’t write today, you will write tomorrow. And if you’re too ill to write tomorrow, you’ll write three times as much the next day.” (He knew me very well, and he was always right about such things.)
The upshot is, it’s pointless to fret, even though it’s very human that we do so . . . and sometimes, the best “medicine” with a story is to completely get away from it (perhaps by what my other writer-friends have suggested by writing something completely different, or perhaps a change of scenery or a vacation away from the MSS) so you can come back at it afresh.
I’m doing my best to listen to Michael’s advice, as it was always good, and try to be patient with myself. I’ve got a better shot that way at breaking the block in part 47, and then, once that’s gone, working on part 48 and winding up the first draft of EA, however many more chapters that’s going to be. (I estimate seven. But who really knows?) Once I’ve done that — completely managed to get the whole EA story out of my head and onto the page — then I have a better shot at fixing “Boys Night In” and perhaps writing an alternate opening to ELFY that might increase its chances of finding an agent or publisher who’ll love it and can’t live without it.
Monday Morning Movie Break
After all that’s gone on in Wisconsin, and in the United States as a whole the past few weeks, I needed a break.
So I took one, and watched the most recent movie Sherlock Holmes, starring Robert Downey, Jr., as the title character and Jude Law as his trusty sidekick, Dr. Watson. I enjoyed it a great deal, as it’s a different take on a character I thought I knew all too well after devouring all of Arthur Conan Doyle’s stories and reading all the best science fiction and fantasy “knockoffs,” some of which are diverting in their own right.
See, in this last movie version, Sherlock Holmes is played as a guy who’s not merely cerebral and/or half-touched in the head, but also a prime physical specimen, which I didn’t expect to see at all even though it follows from the text. (How could Sherlock Holmes have done all the things he was said to do without being in excellent physical shape? Especially when you consider all the drugs Holmes sampled, partly for the sake of research and partly to get away from the tedium of daily life.) Downey, Jr., has always been among my favorite actors because he’s obviously not just a pretty face; he’s intelligent, has a sense of humor, and doesn’t take himself too seriously, which all served him well here.
How did I miss this movie when it came out in 2009? I’m not sure. But I’m glad I caught it now, because it’s well worth watching — the only thing that I’m sure was not period was the cleanliness of the London city streets as depicted. (No streets could be as clean as that; not our modern ones with all our technology and lack of horses, certainly not the ones back then without the tech and with the horses.)
Watching this movie helped me to remember that there’s still some things I haven’t experienced in this world that might be worth the time, as I’d really been fretting over the state of the world (and my place within it) again, partly due to whatever cold or flu bug I’ve picked up this time.
There’s a lot of things that are completely out of my control. I’ve known that since I was small, and that lesson was reinforced considerably after two of the most important people to me in the world died (my Grandma in 1999, and my beloved husband Michael in 2004). Watching the political world going wild, not being able to get away from it, and not being able to do very much about it gets to me.
I’m glad, and grateful, when anything can transport me away for a few hours — and this movie did. I highly recommend it to anyone who loves intelligent action movies or appreciates Sherlock Holmes and believes that a really attractive guy like Downey, Jr., can play him as credibly as anyone — or maybe even a bit better.
1996 Petak-Plache Recall Race Holds the Key to 2011 Recalls
Folks, I live in Racine, Wisconsin, so I know full well what happened on June 4, 1996. But for the rest of you, here’s a quick primer.
In October of 1995, George Petak (R-Racine), Wisconsin state Senator from district 21, cast the decisive vote in order to fund the construction of Miller Park in Milwaukee (and keep the Milwaukee Brewers in Wisconsin) by allowing a five county “sales tax” of .01% to go into effect. (In case you’re wondering, the other four counties being taxed on behalf of the Brewers are Ozaukee, Milwaukee, Waukesha and Washington; the sales tax is expected to end sometime between 2015 and 2018.)
Now, Petak had said until the very last minute that he’d vote “no” on this. But then-Governor Tommy Thompson twisted his arm, Petak voted “yes,” and many in Racine County (including Brewers fans) were incensed because Petak hadn’t done what he said he was going to do. (In fact, the Racine Journal-Times’ headline the day after the vote was something like “Petak votes no,” giving us our very own “Dewey beats Truman” moment.)
This palpable anger over Petak’s “bait-and-switch” tactics was the main reason he was recalled, and the palpable anger over Scott Walker’s “bait-and-switch” tactics with regards to the state budget and most especially the fight over collective bargaining for public employee unions is the main reason why the six Republican state Senators have been forced to run in recall elections.
Experts, including political scientists, said in late 1995-early 1996 that Petak would never be recalled, because the two previous recall elections in WI history had retained the incumbents, but they were wrong. While experts, once again including political scientists, didn’t think that nine Senators (six Rs, 3 Ds) would end up having to defend their seats in recall elections — but again, they were wrong.
The reasons why Petak’s decision was controversial were:
1) Racine County had no county sales tax mechanism at the time whatsoever, and getting the mechanism in place in the short run cost more than any collecting of tax.
2) Racine County, while next to Milwaukee County, doesn’t get a lot of business visitors or tourist business from there, so any economic “help” coming from this would be negligible.
3) As previously stated, Petak had said he was opposed until the 11th hour, then switched his vote. This turned the anger over the idea of a county-wide sales tax into white-hot rage and led to Petak’s recall
4) And last but certainly not least, as the Wisconsin state Senate was comprised of 17 Rs and 16 Ds at the time Petak cast his vote, you can see why the big money came out in order to change the composition of the state Senate. Not to mention all the requisite highly-negative ads. (Why do they run those ads, anyway? They only rarely change an informed voter’s mind, and trust me — in Wisconsin, we are informed about these issues or we don’t bother voting.)
Petak, who was primaried by another Republican but fended him off, eventually lost to Democrat Kim Plache and was the first government official to be recalled in Wisconsin history.**
What I saw in 1996 is what I’m seeing right now with the recall efforts against the six Republicans who will face an election on August 9, 2011 (three days and a few hours from now). It’s an election being held at an odd time, where passions must be high to get voters to the polls. There’s lots of money coming in from out of the state and inordinate negative ads on television and radio, some of which bear little resemblance to reality. The control of the Senate is in question, as the Dems need only three of the six seats to “flip” to Democratic control (then to retain the two Democrats who were recalled and need to run on August 16, 2011). And the vitriol on both sides is so deafening it’s nearly impossible to tell who’s going to do what to whom at this point, as it’s now become an endurance contest.
However, there are some differences as well, those being:
1) We’ve never had nine Senators recalled in the same year before (3 Ds, one of whom has already retained his seat, Dave Hansen of Green Bay, and 6 Rs).
2) We’ve never had a Governor who’s this unpopular before. Walker’s been tied to all six Senators (for good or ill) due to all of these votes being taken on Walker’s behalf and due to Walker’s agenda. So these races are as much about Scott Walker as they are about the individual Senators.
3) And finally, the national Democratic and Republican parties have taken a far larger role in 2011 than I remember them doing in 1996. Both major parties seem to believe that if their side wins these six recall races, they’ll gain traction for the 2012 House, Senate, and Presidential races.
As to the tactics of what’s going on in order to get out the vote — well, quite frankly, some of it is highly disturbing. There are allegations that PACs favoring Sandy Pasch (a Democratic Assemblywoman from Sheboygan) gave out free food in exchange for a quick ride to the polls, which is wrong no matter who does it. (I’m all for giving out free food. And I’m all for voting. But the two shouldn’t go together.) Then, there are the allegations (noted in the same article) that the sitting Senator from district 8, Alberta Darling (R-River Hills), Pasch’s opponent, has colluded with outside PACs to send out fake absentee ballots with the wrong dates on them. Under Wisconsin law, doing anything like that — the collusion by itself, mind you — is against the law. While putting the wrong dates on the absentee ballots is just stupid. (Note that in the case of alleged wrongdoing with the “free food for votes” scam, Pasch herself had nothing to do with it.)
Next, in one of the recall races being held on August 16, 2011, the Republican challenger, Kim Simac, refused to debate incumbent Senator Jim Holperin (D-Conover) and didn’t tell anyone she wasn’t going to show up. Not a good move there, no matter how her handlers try to spin it (supposedly Simac “never committed” to this debate; I can’t imagine that excuse is going to go over well with the voters).
Back to the Rs — there’s Luther Olsen (R-Ripon), who said publicly that he was against the “fake Democrats” who entered the Democratic primary in order to give the Republicans more time to fundraise, yet then praised Rol Church, a long-time Republican Party activist, at one of his GOTV rallies. Not to mention that Olsen is the first R known to have Gov. Walker at one of his rallies (even if Walker may have come in via the back door) — most are keeping Walker away like the plague, knowing he’s “box office poison” due to Walker’s unpopularity (Walker is booed wherever he goes, including a recent appearance at the Wisconsin State Fair) — after saying that Scott Walker’s policies are “too extreme” for Wisconsin and saying he wishes he’d have voted differently back in February.
Vacillate much, Senator Olsen?
And let’s not forget state Sen. Dan Kapanke (R-LaCrosse), who said back in May of this year:
“We’ve got tons of government workers in my district – tons,” Kapanke said May 25 at the Cedar Creek Golf Club in Onalaska. “From La Crosse to Prairie du Chien and to Viroqua and to Ontario and to Hillsboro, you can go on and on and on. We have to overcome that. We’ve got to hope that they, kind of, are sleeping on July 12th – or whenever the (election) date is.”
During the candid chat, Kapanke said he was one of three Republicans in serious jeopardy of losing in a recall election.
The other two, he said, are Sen. Alberta Darling of River Hills and Sen. Randy Hopper of Fond du Lac.
“We could lose me. We could lose Randy Hopper in the 18th or Alberta Darling over in – wherever she is – the 8th, I believe,” Kapanke said.
Note this was before Luther Olsen’s recent nonsense, as I’d add Olsen to the list of seriously endangered R Senators.
At any rate, here’s how I handicap the upcoming races:
Sure to lose: Randy Hopper and Dan Kapanke may as well pack their bags and go home right now. They will lose, and they will lose big — Kapanke may lose by double-digits to Assembly Rep. Jennifer Shilling, while Hopper will lose by at least six or eight points to Oshkosh’s Jessica King.
Will most likely lose: Luther Olsen has done himself no favors, and is the third-most likely Senator to be packing his bags.
Will probably lose: Sheila Harsdorf has name recognition and has been better than the rest of the six Rs at answering questions and talking to her constituents. Still, she’s parroted the party-line at every turn and refuses to believe any of her votes were wrong for Wisconsin, while her opponent, teacher Shelley Moore, is the person who led the recall effort against Harsdorf. Providing Moore beats Harsdorf, it won’t be by much.
I sincerely hope this Senator will lose: Alberta Darling has big, big money behind her, and the ads in her favor far outweigh the ads against her. However, most voters in her district know that it was Darling who led the committee that first “vetted” Scott Walker’s budget-repair bill that eliminated collective bargaining for public employee unions. Darling, therefore, had all the power in the world to stop this mess before it started, but didn’t. She definitely deserves to lose, but if she does lose to Sandy Pasch, once again it won’t be by very much.
The wild card: I honestly do not know what’ll happen in the Robert Cowles-Nancy Nussbaum race. Cowles has kept his head down and has said very little about his controversial votes; the only reason I think Nussbaum has a chance, aside from the large amount of people who signed to get Cowles recalled, is because she’s a particularly strong candidate (the only stronger one among the six Ds is Shilling) and has articulated a clear vision about what she’ll do once she gets in there. (I think Nussbaum’s done the best job of this of all six Ds, though props go to King and Pasch for their clear and decisive answers in candidate forums and debates over the past several months.)
So there you have it; my gut says that four, possibly five of the Rs will be joining the unemployment line after the August 9, 2011 elections are over.
————
** I called it right away that Petak would be recalled; I was working as a cashier at the time, and I knew how angry people were over Petak’s last-minute vote switch. Even Brewers fans — I’m one — were livid due to the lack of a Racine County sales tax prior to that vote. Further, people were outraged that Petak would refuse to listen to his district, who were adamantly opposed in big numbers. This reason — refusing to listen to his district — is why Petak was recalled and Plache went to Madison in his place. It’s also why at least four of these Republicans will lose on August 9, 2011.
God’s Poll Numbers Slipping — Really!
Folks, now I’ve heard and seen it all. Even God has poll numbers.
According to this Web site, God’s approval numbers stand at 52%, with 9% disapproving. (I’m not sure where all the other people are on this issue. Perhaps the pollsters talked with a lot of atheists?)
Note I’ve seen other polls, rarely, such as the Gallup Poll, with numbers on God. They’re usually much higher than this. I would venture a guess that the reason for that is because of our overtly pessimistic American culture and political situation more so than anything else — we’re unhappy about our politics, we’re unhappy about our financial situation (personal and governmental), and we’re unhappy about the overall prospects for anything better because it sure doesn’t look like anything’s really improving out there.
Anyway, the reason we have new poll numbers for God is that the PPP polling firm wanted to use them in order to contrast those numbers against the poll numbers for Congress. And while God’s poll numbers were lower than you might expect for a Deity, they were considerably higher than any member of Congress.
From the article:
Questions about God were asked as part of a larger survey assessing American opinions of congressional leaders in the midst of the ongoing debt ceiling debate in Washington.
God’s approval rating exceeded that of House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, as well as both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, with each party receiving only a 33 percent approval rating.
God also polled significantly higher than the scandal-ridden media baron Rupert Murdoch: only 12 percent of those polled viewed him favorably, compared to 49 percent who viewed him unfavorably.
“Though not the most popular figure PPP has polled, if God exists, voters are prepared to give it (sic) good marks,” PPP said in a July 21 press release.
I would sincerely hope so!
Add a corollary of sorts from this article, which discusses a church in Washington, DC, that’s praying for a “just and compassionate budget.” From the article, which has a video attached:
‘There’s nothing in the Bible about whether there should be revenues in the budget package of 2011,” said Rev. David Beckmann, president of Bread for the World, a nonpartisan Christian movement working to end hunger in the U.S. and abroad. “But there’s nothing in the Bible that says you can’t tax rich people. There’s a lot in the Bible that says you ought to protect poor people.”
Later in the article, the interfaith leaders who’ve been helping to hold this daily vigil said:
Besides praying, the group of interfaith leaders are urging their followers to contact members of Congress. Earlier this month, they sent a letter to President Obama, writing that “people who are served by government program – those who are poor, sick, and hungry, older adults, children, and people with disabilities – should not bear the brunt of the budget-cutting burden.”
Can I get an “Amen” from the peanut gallery? (Please?)
Back Issues, and a Few Thoughts on Politics
Folks, my back is really acting up at the moment. Which is not conducive to blogging or any form of writing — nor to a lot of editing, either, truth be told, though it is good for planning. But I can’t let the nonsense going on right now go by without a few comments, either . . . so here we go.
First, last night’s “face-off” between President Barack Obama and Speaker John Boehner was, to my mind, rather underwhelming. These two people obviously don’t like each other, don’t trust each other, would rather not have anything to do with one another, but have to work together to try to do the country’s business — and are failing miserably. I place more of the blame on Boehner than on the POTUS, partly because Boehner has been a Representative for a lot longer than Obama has been President, and partly because when the Republicans gained control of the House after the 2010 elections, they promised to create jobs — not do all this screwing around.
I keep wanting to ask Boehner, “Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs?” Because that’s what he, and by extension his whole party, kept saying, and that’s why they got elected — on a job creating platform. But once they got in there, they decided “job creation” really meant “protect the wealthy at all costs from any form of tax increase, no matter how benign.” And they’ve acted on the latter belief, insisting even though they should know better that this is what the American public wants them to do — then have pushed the real cost of lowering the deficit onto the middle classes and below, who can’t afford it and are already paying too much, proportionately, as it is.
Now, the Republican argument is that the lower 50% of income earners “pay no income tax at all.” That is, to an extent, true. However, we do pay FICA, where many high earners don’t, meaning we’re helping to sustain Social Security; we pay sales tax, and cannot tap into loopholes that get part of those taxes back as can the wealthiest Americans when they buy a new yacht or a second or third home in order to use it for two weeks a year on vacation. So proportionately, the lowest earners are paying more than the high earners, which in effect gets blood from a stone as low earners have very little to work with in the first place.
Then, with all the picayune nonsense going on in Washington, DC, I’m still having to put up with the Wisconsin Republicans in the state Senate screwing around. These guys have decided they will pass a bill that agrees with the state’s Assembly bill — that will hold one week of benefits from new unemployment claimants, starting on January 1, 2012 — on August 1, 2011, because that’s just one short week away from the recall elections for state Senators Darling, Cowles, Harsdorf, Kapanke, Hopper, and Olsen. The Rs have decided to do this because they think that’ll make their Senators look more compassionate, of all things . . . they like the timing, and don’t care that they’re making people who’ve not had any extended benefits since April 16, 2011, wait even more for their money.
Me, I find this behavior terrible. Shallow. Rude. Obnoxious. And reprehensible, too, because these Senators should know better.
The whole bit of difference between the two bills was there because the Senate Rs wanted to look more compassionate (the Senate voted 30-3 against withholding the first week of unemployment from people, knowing full well the Assembly would pass a different version of the bill so they’d be able to “have their cake and eat it, too.”), yet how compassionate is it to make people wait another week for their money?
Because, remember, this is a Federal program. The money is already there. The WI Rs are just sitting on it, perhaps collecting interest on it, rather than paying it out — so there’s no excuse for this whatsoever.
At any rate, this is why every single last R Senator in Wisconsin (with the possible exception of Dale Schultz) should be recalled — they’ve lost touch with the real people in our state, who are suffering. And only seem to care about the wealthiest people in the state, protecting wealthy corporations and their tax loopholes . . . then wonder why they’re all in danger of being recalled on the first available date (which for eleven other Rs is January 3, 2012; two are recallable now, Grothman and Lazich, and may yet end up recalled by the end of the year for all I know).
Brewers Play Giants; My Thoughts
My late husband Michael was a San Francisco Giants fan.
Of course, this isn’t surprising, considering he was a long-time San Francisco resident. That his father and mother both supported the Giants, as did his brother and sister . . . well, that probably helped a little, though Michael wasn’t the type to join in just for the sake of joining.
Nope. He loved baseball because it was — and is — a game that can be measured. Baseball statistics make sense, to the degree that different eras can be compared and contrasted, as are various players, their situations and their teams.
Michael loved his Giants. Which is why me watching my Milwaukee Brewers team play them is ever so slightly bittersweet.
I keep thinking about how Michael would enjoy this year’s Giants team as much as he would’ve enjoyed last year’s — the 2011 Giants once again have stellar pitching, defense, and play well as a team, all things Michael appreciated as a long-time baseball fan. But, of course, it’s my Brewers playing the Giants — the Brewers, who mostly live and die by the long ball. By the big inning. Who aren’t exactly known for their skills at base-stealing, small ball, or for any of their starting pitchers.
I mean, think about it. Who do you know on the Giants pitching staff that’s a big name? Tim Lincecum. Matt Cain, who’s pitching tonight. Barry Zito, though he’s not done well this year and hasn’t justified the huge amount of money the Giants spent on him a few years ago. Jonathan Sanchez, perhaps the best #5 pitcher in baseball. And previously-unknown Ryan Vogelsong, perhaps the best story in baseball this year as he went from getting his outright release in 2010 to having the best ERA in baseball — 2.02 — in 2011, with a 7-1 record in fifteen starts.
Whereas the Brewers have two pitchers who’ve pitched reasonably well throughout — Shaun Marcum, who’s pitching tonight, and Randy Wolf. Then, we have two wildly inconsistent pitchers who can be either really good or really bad — Zack Greinke and Yovani Gallardo. And, finally, we have Chris Narveson, a guy who is better known for his bat than his pitching, though he’s had a decent year thus far. And let’s not even start about the Brewers defense, as I could go all day about how many ways the infield in particular needs improvement (only Rickie Weeks is relatively solid at second, though he does not have great range; Casey McGehee has had some good moments but mostly isn’t known for his glove; Prince Fielder’s fielding has regressed this season, so he’s once again a well below average first baseman who holds his position due to his fearsome bat; and, of course, Yuniesky Betancourt, who hits better than he fields, but doesn’t exactly hit a ton considering his overall .250 batting average coming into tonight’s game).
I have mixed feelings here, because I see how the Giants are by far the superior team. The Giants have pitching, defense, and overall team chemistry, even if they don’t hit particularly well . . . their pitching makes up for a great deal, which is how they win games. While the Brewers have hitting, hitting, and more hitting, with some good outfield defense (Corey Hart in RF is good, Ryan Braun has really improved in LF but hasn’t been healthy recently, while Nyjer Morgan plays a decent center field and has speed — mind, losing Carlos Gomez due to a broken collarbone hasn’t helped), some good to better pitching amidst massive inconsistency, and more hitting.
So it’s a battle of two different styles of baseball being played out tonight in this Brewers-Giants game (currently, as I write this, the Brewers lead 3-1 in the top of the sixth). Good to excellent hitting versus good to excellent pitching and outstanding defense. A worthy game, one which I’ll enjoy as best I can, wishing all the while that my wonderful husband were still alive to share it with me.
Still. I am here, and I see at least some of what Michael would’ve seen in the Giants, as I’m also a long-time baseball fan who appreciates excellent pitching and defense. I can’t recreate a conversation which didn’t have a chance to happen, though I know what sorts of comments Michael made when he and I watched his Giants play in 2002, 2003 and 2004 . . . I suppose because I’m thinking so much about what he would’ve seen had he been here to observe it, at least a small part of Michael has survived.
And that, at least, is a good thing. As is the enjoyment I get from watching my Brewers and Michael’s Giants.
Barb Caffrey's Blog 