Just Reviewed “The Great Partnership” at SBR
Folks, this morning I was pleased to be able to review a very different type of book by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, THE GREAT PARTNERSHIP: Science, Religion, and the Search for Meaning over at Shiny Book Review (SBR for short, as always). Sacks’ thought is clear, compelling, and extremely interesting . . . but some of what he says will almost certainly annoy you as well.
That’s the main reason I call this a very different type of book, because religious scholasticism very rarely is either this understandable or with as many points of contention. Sacks explains things so well that most readers should get the gist of what he’s saying, but of course this particular book will work best for scholars of comparative religion and/or people who believe science and religion are far from incompatible.
Mind you, as I said in my review, Sacks is not the first to make many of these arguments. The author of many of them as revised for 20th Century thought is Mircea Eliade, who died in 1986. But Sacks is the first to do these ideas justice in a way that many people will find comprehensible, as Eliade’s thought processes are sometimes so opaque that other religious scholars and philosophers (as Eliade was both, just as Sacks himself is both) are still arguing over it all these years after Eliade’s death.
But Sacks is the first to make the argument that some of the odd dichotomies in the Christian New Testament are due to one thing: that the thought behind the New Testament was obviously Hebraic in origin (from the Hebrew language, in short), but the New Testament was actually written and popularized in Greek. What that means in the shortest form possible is this: Anyone who reads the Christian Bible In English (or any other contemporary language) is reading a translation of a translation.
For that insight alone, you should read Sacks’ THE GREAT PARTNERSHIP.
But be warned: Sacks does not like many aspects of contemporary life, and he’s not shy about saying so. Sacks is against same-sex marriage. He’s against what he persists in calling “abortion on demand,” a highly inflammatory statement. And he’s against assisted suicide, even if done by doctors on terminally ill people, calling it “euthanasia.”
Still, this is an important book that allows people who believe in science and religion to feel good about their beliefs. And as such, I enjoyed it thoroughly.
Now, will you please go read my review? Then, if the book intrigues you, go to the library and get it. (Or better yet, buy a copy, as it’s now out in paperback.)
And do let me know what you think of it, once you’ve read it. (Either one.)
Jeff Passan Owes Baseball Fans an Apology
What is wrong with Yahoo Sports writer Jeff Passan?
Passan wrote yet another column condemning Ryan Braun this past Sunday, despite this new column being at least the fourth such column in the past month. This seems excessive under the circumstances, as a number of other baseball players, including Nelson Cruz of the Texas Rangers, Everth Cabrera of the San Diego Padres, and Jhonny Peralta of the Cleveland Indians are also suspended, while Alex Rodriguez of the New York Yankees continues to play pending his upcoming appeal of a lengthy, 211-game suspension.
Anyway, Passan’s newest column on Braun cited an ESPN report that said Braun had supposedly lobbied fellow MLB players prior to his successful appeal regarding the reportedly high level of testosterone in his urine sample. ESPN’s slant was that Braun was perhaps looking for support from his fellow players as Braun was prepared to lose his hearing. According to ESPN’s original report, Braun supposedly told several unnamed players that the urine specimen collector, Dino Laurenzi, Jr., was both a “Cubs fan” and an “anti-Semite.” But when Braun unexpectedly won, that lobbying wasn’t needed.
However, Passan’s column as initially reported said that Braun had told specific big-name players such as Troy Tulowitzki of the Colorado Rockies and Joey Votto these very same allegations. (The inference in both columns, of course, was that Braun had said that Laurenzi, Jr., had it in for Braun.) And because Passan’s column named these names, it made this particular report sound that much more compelling.
Then came the reports here and here that stated that neither Tulowitzki nor Votto had spoken with Braun about this particular matter. And that Braun had most emphatically not slandered the urine collector in any way as far as either one of them knew.
So, what should you do as a writer when something this big blows up in your face? Most people would print a retraction and an additional article saying, in effect, “Sorry. I/we screwed up, and it won’t happen again if we can help it.”
But that’s not exactly what Passan did here, though he did back off a few of the worst of the allegations against Braun:
ESPN.com first reported that Braun had reached out to fellow players. While Yahoo! Sports previously reported Braun had contacted Joey Votto and Troy Tulowitzki, on Monday they denied having any conversations with Braun about test collector Dino Laurenzi Jr. (emphasis mine — BC)
Note that this slight backing off seems to be blaming ESPN’s initial report, which is silly at best because it wasn’t ESPN who named Tulowitzki and Votto as being among the players Braun had supposedly reached out to for support — it was Jeff Passan himself.
Worse yet, other reports are still being written that are going off the original source material, including this one from UT-San Diego, which was written one short day ago.
Look. I understand why Passan felt the need to write his column, at least in part. ESPN had put out a report. Yahoo wanted to have its own story. Passan wrote it because, quite frankly, he cannot abide Ryan Braun (he’s previously called Braun a “cockroach”) and Passan, being a baseball writer who fully understands what’s going on with regards to the 2013 suspensions for performance-enhancing drug use, was probably the best person to write this particular column.
Where Passan erred was when he decided to name Tulowitzki and Votto without getting quotes from them on the record. Both players are among the biggest names in baseball; Tulowitzki came in second to Braun in the 2007 Rookie of the Year Award, while Votto won the Most Valuable Player award in 2010.
So when Passan named them without quotes, he had to know that fallout was possible. Yet for some strange reason, that didn’t seem to bother him at all.
Why?
What Passan did wasn’t a small error. Instead, this was a big, fat, huge error considering Passan’s name, his reputation, and the fact that he has thousands upon thousands of people reading his columns every single day. That’s why whatever Passan ends up reporting on any given day needs to be above reproach.
Passan screwed up by naming two players who apparently had absolutely no contact with Braun whatsoever regarding this issue without checking his sources and making sure they were unimpeachable. And thus far, Passan has failed to offer one shred of reasoning as to why he, Jeff Passan, did this at all, when Passan had to know they would both be asked about these allegations . . . especially considering that Passan obviously had no idea what these men were going to say.
If Jeff Passan didn’t realize that these two men were going to deny these allegations, much less in the heartfelt way both men picked to do so — Tulowitzki and Votto are known as straight shooters — why on Earth did he print such inflammatory allegations?
While the slight clarification currently in the Yahoo Sports article by Passan (referenced above) is better than nothing, it is extremely puzzling that Passan would not print an apology under these circumstances.
Because really and truly, Passan owes all baseball fans an apology. His report regarding Braun’s apparent slander was inflammatory. He couldn’t back it up — in fact, it was roundly denied by two of the people Passan sourced in his original column as supposedly being upset and offended by Braun’s reported remarks — and then, he only had the wit to partly backtrack and blame ESPN instead for ESPN’s initial report?
I’m sorry. That does not cut it.
Writers must have integrity. Honesty. Believability. And be able to tell a fair and accurate story, especially when it comes to nonfiction sports writing and current events . . . otherwise, the writer in question has nothing at all.
We all know this, as writers. Which is why most writers would’ve apologized for making a mistake of this magnitude immediately.
Otherwise, why would you want to trust us, or believe that we’re giving you the best information possible on any given day?
Whenever we fail, as writers, we must own up to it.
I don’t care if there are one thousand people in baseball who think exactly what Jeff Passan reported . . . if Passan hadn’t named names, he’d be in the clear. But he did, he was wrong, and he should apologize. Profusely.
And if he refuses to apologize, I have only one more question for you: Why on Earth should we believe anything else Jeff Passan ever says?
———–
**Note: Both the ESPN report and the column written by Jeff Passan at Yahoo Sports have been updated to reflect the record that both Tulowitzki and Votto have denied these specific allegations. ESPN’s report quite properly credits Passan’s Yahoo sports column for making those direct allegations.
How the World has Changed Since 1999
Folks, I don’t often write much about the changes I’ve seen during my lifetime . . . in fact, to the best of my knowledge, this is the first time I’ve ever written about this particular subject before. Yet it came to mind because yesterday would’ve been my Grandma’s 103rd birthday, had she lived . . . as she died in 1999, I thought I’d talk about what I’ve seen happen in the world since then, the good and the bad alike, and reflect on what my Grandma might’ve thought about it all.
First, Grandma would’ve been utterly horrified by 9/11. She’d have been shocked that anyone had been able to do something like that on American soil. She’d have been livid that our various “alphabet agencies” (the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, etc.) all got caught with their pants down.
But she’d also have seen the Patriot Act as an overreaction. She’d have cheered our Wisconsin Senator, Russ Feingold (a D), for his principled opposition — the only Senator to oppose it, I might add — but she’d have wondered what the world was coming to when the United States had to start spying on its own citizens in a way that could no longer be hidden or swept under the rug as a “necessary evil,” instead being brought out into the sunlight as something that was “right and proper,” something that every right-thinking American should want in order to prevent more terrorism.
The lack of privacy would be something that deeply upset my Grandma, who was a very private person. That the government has admitted to spying on its own citizens (albeit supposedly in a limited way) through the Patriot Act and now through the revelations caused by NSA leaker Edward Snowden would be quite distasteful to her. But that there are so many cameras on street corners, at street lights, that everyone and his brother seems to have a cell phone complete with camera available to take pictures at a moment’s notice . . . that the police, in many states, now use computers to run license plates of everyone on the road, including those who’ve done nothing wrong whatsoever, or worse, tape people’s license plates as their cars are sitting in their own driveways, would weigh heavily on her heart, too.
I think she’d wonder, “What have we given up in order to use all this high-tech stuff? And can we ever get our privacy back after all this?”
One positive thing that’s changed that my Grandma would probably have appreciated is the rise of e-books (and the technology to read them), as putting type in bold face and larger fonts would’ve been something that greatly appealed to her. She’d have been pleased about people reading anything, as she believed fervently in the power of reading in order to help anyone educate him or herself in order to do whatever we want to do. And she’d probably think that this was one aspect where technology had greatly improved life for the better . . . or at least had the capacity to do so.
Grandma would’ve been quite bemused by the ascent of cellular phones, which were around in 1999 but in a much less usable fashion. She’d have wondered a whole lot about this phenomenon of “texting,” which wouldn’t have made any sense to her. (She understood e-mail as a type of telegraphy, which makes as much sense as anything else to someone born in 1910. And she saw computers as helpful to businesses, but something that had no practical value to herself or her family.) She’d have wondered even more about the people who get behind the wheel of a car but cannot keep themselves from texting while driving.
The way people go on and on when talking on their cell phones, as if their conversations were in a private room rather than, say, in the middle of a Wal-mart would be distressing to her also. She used to watch the Jerry Springer show, and she’d tell me all the time that people seemed to have lost their moorings — a different way to say that people didn’t seem to know where their boundaries should start, or end. Well, half the conversations I’ve unwittingly overheard in the grocery store, or in the pharmacy, or on the street corner make me blush . . . and though Grandma might not have blushed the same way I do when I hear such things, she’d definitely have wanted to give the person (or people) using the cell phone a piece of her mind.
Grandma would not have understood Twitter, Facebook, or much about instant messaging. (I tried to explain to her about IMs before she died.) She probably would’ve accepted something like Skype as video conferencing has been around for at least the past forty years (though it used to be far rarer and quite a bit more expensive than it is now), but she’d never have used it herself.
The plethora of people sending digital pictures to all and sundry would have made her shake her head, too. (I can hear her now. “Whatever happened to privacy? Don’t these people care that everyone else knows all their business?”)
And this phenomenon where people seem to have to record any event, whether it’s a wedding, a funeral, a baseball game, or the running of the bulls in Pamplona, from all angles and from every viewpoint possible . . . well, let’s just say she definitely wouldn’t have understand that, either.
In other words, most of what has changed since 1999 has to do with technology. But some of what’s changed has to do with mindset. And while technology will come and go, mindsets usually do not change very often, which is why the changes that I’ve described would be extremely distressing to her.
How we get back to a mindset that says to the world, in essence, “Yes, I’m out here. Yes, I have a Web presence. But no, I’m not going to share everything with you. Sorry, my private life is none of your business” is something that I will continue to ponder.
Why? Well, I look at it this way . . . my Grandma was no fool. She believed strongly that a person had a right to keep her own counsel and that whatever you shared with her should go no further.
A life where everyone shared everything with everyone, all the time, would be looked at in horror by my Grandma as a specific type of Hell.
And as we get closer to such a society with every new technological gadget that comes down the pike (such as that Google “everywhere” headset, which made absolutely no sense to me whatsoever as people shouldn’t be walking and be on the Internet at the same time as it’s too dangerous to do both for 99.9% of the population), I can’t say that I disagree.
Just Reviewed Lackey and Edghill’s “Sacrifices” at SBR
Folks, if you don’t regularly read my book reviews, I’d be really astonished. (Well, those who aren’t following me simply for my insights, often trenchant, on the Milwaukee Brewers, that is.) That’s the main reason I try to post something here when I write a new one.
Anyway, I’m very short on time right now, but I did get up a book review this evening for the excellent young adult urban fantasy by Mercedes Lackey and Rosemary Edghill, SACRIFICES. This is book three in their Shadow Grail series, which deals with Arthurian myth (I called it “neo-Arthurian” as this series fuses the best of what’s great about urban fantasy and the best of historicity, in case anyone’s wondering how I came up with that) along with self-sacrifice and a whole lot of other interesting concepts.
If you love urban fantasy, mystery, Arthurian legend/history, or just admire the writing of Mercedes Lackey and Rosemary Edghill, you want to read this book, soonest. (Trust me.) Not your typical “middle series” book by any means, this book is a non-stop thrill-ride (unfortunately, as I’d already used that term for another of their books, DEAD RECKONING, I didn’t think I should use it in the review, variety being the spice of life and all that) that will keep you on the edge of your seat from beginning to end.
So I figured that before I went off to tonight’s rehearsal with the Racine Concert Band (for Sunday’s free concert at the Racine Zoo; I’m playing alto saxophone), I’d get something up for the review, then write a very quick blog post about it.
Anyway, go read my review, then go grab the book!
Quick Writing Update (and Other Stuff)
Folks, I’ve been working on a short story for an anthology this past week. Between that and editing, I just haven’t had time to do anything else — no books got reviewed over at Shiny Book Review (SBR), no blogs got written since early last week, and even though I’ve had much to say as there have been plenty of targets (Wisconsin’s R Governor Scott Walker actually had the nerve to compare himself to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, if you can believe that), I just haven’t had the time or energy to spare for blogging.
However, as I have sent off my story to a friend for a quick read-over, I have enough time to comment very quickly on a few things. So here goes:
I think it’s ridiculous that people are praising Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig for his “vision” and “good sense” in suspending a number of baseball players today, the most high profile player of the lot being Alex Rodriguez. (The others include OF Nelson Cruz, SS Jhonny Peralta — yes, that’s how he really spells his name, it’s no misprint, and SS Everth Cabrera.) As former Brewers pitcher (and current New York Met) LaTroy Hawkins said today on Twitter:
LaTroy Hawkins @LaTroyHawkins32 8h
PLEASE STOP PRAISING #BUD
And here’s my take on Bud Selig, again from Twitter:
Already tired of people praising #BUDSELIG. He looked the other way when steroids drove baseball; he’s a hypocrite. #IHateHypocrisy
Otherwise, I’m keeping an eye on the national political scene, as per usual, even though nothing’s getting done as the House of Reps (not to mention the Senate as well) are on a five-week paid vacation right now.
My take on that? Who the Hell else gets paid for doing absolutely nothing, then goes around telling people they’re “fighting Washington” as have the House Rs (or, if that doesn’t read well to you, the House GOP as led by Speaker John Boehner)?
I’m sorry. If you are an elected public official, as John Boehner is, you’re not fighting Washington — you are a part of Washington. Thus, you are a part of Washington’s dysfunctional culture. And you can either fix it, or not . . . but if you refuse, don’t be surprised when you’re thrown out the door next time around. (Or if your own seat is saved, your position may not be — which is why Boehner is likely to be the minority leader of the House next time if his inaction and lack of leadership keeps up.)
Granted, the House Ds aren’t doing much of anything, either, save bloviating and grandstanding — but they have no power, as there are far too many Rs to make anything the Ds do worth the time. Which is why I, personally, blame the Rs far more than I do the Ds.
Finally, I’m very glad that the current Wisconsin law as signed by Gov. Walker that restricts abortions has been placed in abeyance — that is, an injunction has been filed that blocks the law — by a federal court judge. I think that law needs to be studied in depth before it’s implemented, if it ever is. Because on its face, it’s yet another biased law by a bunch of people who, to be charitable, don’t seem to know what the Hell they’re talking about.
More blog updates when I have ’em . . . and thanks for reading, as always.
Milwaukee Brewers 2013 Woes Continue — Ryan Braun Accepts 65-Game Suspension, Out for the Year
Folks, when it rains, it pours.
While I was working on my previous update, I had written this about my favorite team, which are of course the Milwaukee Brewers. They are currently on a four-game winning streak, and I thought it worthy of celebration. So here’s what I said, moments before the news about Ryan Braun broke in Milwaukee:
The Milwaukee Brewers are on a post All-Star break roll, sweeping the Florida Marlins out of Milwaukee yesterday and winning all three low-scoring games due to excellent pitching (Friday’s starting pitcher was Kyle Lohse, Saturday’s was Yovani Gallardo, and Sunday’s was the rapidly improving Wily Peralta) by both starters and bullpen.
Let’s see how well they do against San Diego tonight, though I do think they should have an excellent chance as the Padres have won only two more games than the Brewers and are exactly the same in the loss column.
(Granted, it seems odd to quote myself.)
I wrote this prior to the knowledge that Braun had accepted a 65-game suspension and will consequently be out the rest of the 2013 season, forfeiting over $3 million of his 2013 salary. (Please see this link from Yahoo Sports for further details.) Which is why I pulled it out of the previous post, quoted it here, and now will have to discard all of that as the much bigger story is Braun’s upcoming absence for the remainder of the 2013 season.
Oh, brother.
Look. I’m someone who fully believed that Braun was innocent of using any performance-enhancing drug (or PED, for short). Mistakes can happen when it comes to drug testing; they’re rare, sure, but they still can happen, and it seemed plausible to me that a man whose physique had never changed, whose lifetime numbers (batting average, on-base-percentage, slugging percentage, etc.) had never changed, either, and who vehemently declared his innocence was worthy of defending.
It has also seemed to me, for quite some time, that Major League Baseball has a grudge against Ryan Braun. They are annoyed that he managed to win his arbitration case in 2012, and that he was never suspended at that time for PEDs. And they have continued to go after him since then, doing their best to vilify his reputation in the process.
So, what am I to think of this statement from Braun, then?
As quoted from the Yahoo Sports article by Jeff Passan:
“As I have acknowledged in the past, I am not perfect,” Braun said. “I realize now that I have made some mistakes. I am willing to accept the consequences of those actions. This situation has taken a toll on me and my entire family, and it has been a distraction to my teammates and the Brewers organization. I am very grateful for the support I have received from players, ownership and the fans in Milwaukee and around the country. Finally, I wish to apologize to anyone I may have disappointed – all of the baseball fans especially those in Milwaukee, the great Brewers organization, and my teammates. I am glad to have this matter behind me once and for all, and I cannot wait to get back to the game I love.”
This statement doesn’t really say anything, does it? Other than that Braun accepted punishment for unnamed “mistakes,” apologized for the “distraction” afterward, and wants to play baseball again, there’s nothing here for a fan of the Brewers to really hang her hat on.
This article by Milwaukee Journal Sentinel baseball beat writer Tom Haudricourt clearly states this about the Ryan Braun suspension:
Major League Baseball has suspended Brewers left fielder Ryan Braun without pay for the remainder of the 2013 season and he has accepted the penalty, meaning he was caught red-handed either buying and/or using performance-enhancing drugs.
The suspension takes place immediately, so Braun will be suspended for the final 65 games of the season, beginning with the Brewers’ game Monday night at Miller Park against San Diego. The sanction came as a result of MLB’s investigation into the infamous Biogenesis clinic, which was exposed as having sold PEDs to players after documents were released to various news agencies earlier this year.
The suspension also exposed Braun as a liar because he has stated many times that he never used PEDs and never wavered from that stance.
So it appears that Tom Haudricourt isn’t too thrilled with what happened here, either.
Again — as a writer, I am trained to spot inconsistencies. Braun’s story, as Tom H. clearly said, never wavered. Braun loudly proclaimed his innocence at every turn. Braun blamed the guy who collected the urine test for the reason it came up positive, and was able to make that stick, and doing so made it appear to me that Braun really was telling the truth. Especially as Braun hadn’t failed any other drug tests before, or since.
But there are other ways to cheat the system. Baseball itself knows that better than anyone, and fans — even good ones, like myself, who are aware of steroids and other PEDs and know something of their effects on the body — aren’t really able to fully grasp why someone like Ryan Braun, who seemingly has the world at his feet and has no reason to skirt the rules whatsoever, has now admitted to doing so.
Even if his admission has all the oomph of a non-admission, mostly because he hasn’t said exactly what he’s been accused of doing.
Baseball fans will forgive almost any player if he tells the truth about what he’s done. Andy Pettitte said he used HGH — human growth hormone — in an effort to heal from injury faster, and wasn’t suspended. Alex Rodriguez admitted to using unspecified PEDs a few years ago, and wasn’t suspended (though he may be now due to apparently using them again via Biogenesis). Fernando Vina admitted to using steroids when he was with the Brewers long after the fact — he was a broadcaster, by then — and no one has ever vilified him.
But when someone doesn’t admit it and apparently did use them — whether it’s Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire, or Rafael Palmeiro — fans get upset. And then the player in question faces consequences, including shunning, booing, boorish behavior by the fans, or worst of all, exclusion from the Baseball Hall of Fame.
My attitude regarding PED use remains much the same as it’s always been. I think if you’re trying to stay healthy to play baseball, that’s a lot different than trying to cheat the system, which is why McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and Bonds (if he really did use them) should be given a pass, as all of them had well-known health problems that steroids/PEDs may have alleviated. And if you’re willing to accept all sorts of adverse effects on your body, as seen by Lyle Alzado’s tragic death after his brilliant NFL career not so long ago, have at.
My particular problem with Braun isn’t that he used (or maybe didn’t use) PEDs. It’s that he still hasn’t come clean regarding that use.
I believe very strongly in redemption and second chances. But one of the things most people need to do before they can fully proceed with either is to be honest. With themselves. With the other important people in their lives.
So far, Ryan Braun hasn’t done this.
Like it or not, Braun is a public figure by the dint of his baseball stardom. That’s why whatever happened must be explained to those who’ve supported him from the beginning — some specific explanations, not today’s weasel-worded non-denial denial — the fans of the Milwaukee Brewers.
Until he does, he’ll probably face all sorts of unintended consequences of today’s admission. And he’ll keep on facing them until he’s finally, fully and freely explained just what happened here that’s bad enough for him to accept an unpaid suspension for the rest of the 2013 season.
An All-Around, Generalized Update
Folks, I’ve been hip-deep in editing this past week — I’ve been doing a last-ditch edit of my novel, ELFY, and have decided to re-do some chapter lengths. I also edited a short project for a friend, and have consulted on two other projects . . . and as if that’s not enough, I prepared for a concert with the Racine Concert Band that was unfortunately rained out last evening, too. (I was to play my alto saxophone.)
So I’ve had plenty going on, which is why I haven’t written a blog in over a week, why I haven’t reviewed any books, either, and quite frankly, haven’t really had much time to even turn around. (Ask my friends, as they barely see me, online or off.)
At any rate, here’s what I think about this, that, and the other, July 2013 style:
The George Zimmerman trial stirred up a lot of bad feelings. The African-American community is outraged, as is completely understandable, that Zimmerman wasn’t held accountable for his actions by the Florida court system. The Hispanic community is upset because they mostly seem to believe that Zimmerman is a poor reflection on them. And many white Americans seem to believe that Zimmerman is a martyr and should be embraced at all costs.
While I completely understand how the public at large could have conflicting feelings — and these three segments of the American “melting pot” could feel in completely different ways — the fact remains that as Zimmerman was not initially charged with anything for over a month, many bits of evidence were completely lost. The prosecution didn’t have much to work with, which may be partly why they seemed to do such a terrible job in going after Zimmerman. And the laws of Florida are such that there was absolutely no way with the evidence the prosecution had left to work with that the prosecution could have ever gotten a jury to sign off on the charge of second degree murder, either, no matter how competent the prosecution had been.
I said on my Facebook page that I thought Zimmerman would not be convicted of second degree murder or the high degree of manslaughter, which came into play only in the final days of the trial and was ill-defined to boot, not because I think Zimmerman is an innocent — he’s not — but because the prosecution hadn’t proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Had the prosecution gone after something much more likely to have been understood by the jury, albeit with much less high of a profile than second degree murder, they would’ve charged Zimmerman with whatever Florida calls “reckless endangerment of human life” coupled with “unlawful use of a firearm.” Zimmerman most likely would’ve been acquitted of the last due to the way Florida’s laws are written, but at least the prosecution would’ve had a snowball’s chance in Hell of making the charges stick.
A sentence for something like that in Wisconsin to a first-time offender is usually anywhere between two to five years in jail coupled with the loss of the firearm in question. I think if the jury had been looking at something like that for Zimmerman rather than the lengthy stints in jail required for second degree murder or the high degree of manslaughter the Florida authorities were going after, they may have been able to consider the actual evidence in a different light.
All I know is, I’m glad there weren’t nationwide riots after the verdict was read, and that the jury’s verdict has been respected (even if not appreciated by vast segments of the population). Because truly, there are better ways to continue the conversation Trayvon Martin’s untimely death has prompted than to cause permanent damage to people and objects — like actually talking.
Edited to add:
A very interesting column by Milwaukee Journal Sentinel columnist Eugene Kane has this to say about the Zimmerman trial:
After Zimmerman’s acquittal, widespread dissatisfaction was expressed by black and white supporters alike who didn’t understand how an African-American teenager’s life could have so little value in the criminal justice system.
Without a video, the Zimmerman jury felt compelled to buy the defense portrayal of Zimmerman as someone just defending himself from attack, even though testimony showed he sought the confrontation by stalking the teenager in the dark of night. Zimmerman’s self-defense argument (not technically “stand your ground”) angered many black parents, who wondered how someone could be considered not guilty after initiating contact with a black teenager who ended up dead.
I agree wholeheartedly with Kane’s assessment, and think this is the main reason why the jury wasn’t able to do any more than acquit Zimmerman of what he’d been accused of — particularly because the evidence was definitely not there (something the prosecution must have known) for second degree murder due to the 45-day delay between the death of Martin and the arrest of Zimmerman.
(Now back to my original post.)
I’m also reading a really interesting book right now by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks called THE GREAT PARTNERSHIP: Science, Religion, and the Search for Meaning. I have found it most enlightening thus far, and may post some quotes from it soon.
So that, and watching baseball (thoughts about the 2013 Milwaukee Brewers and Ryan Braun accepting a 65-game suspension will be forthcoming, honest), and working are what I’ve mostly been doing this past week.
And because of all I’ve been doing in July, I didn’t get a chance to mention that I’d passed my third year of bloggery (is that even a word? ‘Tis now.) here at WordPress earlier this month. (Hip, hip . . . something?) But I hope things will have calmed down so much by this time next year that I will be able to write a much more proper celebratory blog — or at least an informative one — discussing what I’ve learned from blogging, my fellow authors, and you all . . . because I’m sure that post is inside me somewhere.
At any rate, thanks for continuing to read my blog despite the infrequency of my recent postings. I truly appreciate it.
Just Reviewed Lee and Miller’s “Dragon Ship” at SBR
Folks, it’s really tough for me to write a negative review, especially when I truly enjoy the writers in question. Yet when a book comes in that I find lacking, regardless of who writes it, I have to give my honest assessment.
Such is the case with my review for Sharon Lee and Steve Miller’s DRAGON SHIP over at Shiny Book Review tonight. I praised the writers, said I enjoyed the way they told the story for the most part — but I just didn’t get behind two conscious author’s decisions that the pair of authors made. And because of that, I just couldn’t like or recommend this book even though I have liked and/or appreciated what Lee and Miller have written in every other case. (Yes, even the dark fantasy duology comprised by DUIANFEY and LONGEYE. There I knew going in that there would be some aspects of the story that would disturb me due to the genre, and was not put off.)
The two plot twists that really bothered me were these — making Captain Theo Waitley irresistible to anyone of either sex (including AIs) really wasn’t necessary. And putting a male lover, a female lover, and a male AI lover on the same ship with Theo being basically oblivious to all of them, much less the trouble they could get into if they ever fully realize that Theo’s not truly in love with any of them, doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense.
************
Warning — major spoilers ahead. You have been warned.
Now, back to our original post.
************
The whole idea of Bechimo the ship wanting to fully unite with a human (or in this case, half-Liaden) captain, to the point that Theo ends up being nearly forced to submit to a procedure that will give Bechimo full access to her thoughts, her soul, and her very being, also is deeply disturbing. That Bechimo, the person, wants to unite with someone on a deep level is not disturbing, of course — most people of any types want this, if they’re honest. But that he’d actually want his lover the captain to submit to such an invasive procedure and not realize that it’s akin to mental and soul-rape is also incredibly disturbing.
And Bechimo the person being obviously naïve despite his many centuries of life and roaming the galaxy does not even begin to excuse this.
So, we’re left with a young woman, Theo, who’s basically married in all the ways that count to Bechimo the person at the end of DRAGON SHIP. But she still has both her male lover and her female lover serving aboard the ship. Theo’s not worried about them, or anything else, and seems to be floating in the way most newlyweds do — excepting one thing: she never, ever consented to this level of invasion in her personal life, because she couldn’t have possibly understood this is what Bechimo (the ship) meant by “needing to be served by a full Captain.”
All of that really bothers me, to the point that I could not in good conscience recommend DRAGON SHIP even though the writing is as stellar as ever.
As to the other problematic plot point, bringing a long-dead character back to life — or even attempting to do so — is really difficult for any author or authors to pull off. It can be done, sure. (Stephen R. Donaldson has done just that with his character Thomas Covenant, and of course the original Star Trek brought back Spock.) But it has to be done carefully, and with planning.
Otherwise, it just doesn’t work.
That’s why even the thought of bringing back Aelliana Caylon, by far my most favorite of all the wonderful characters Lee and Miller have ever written, bothers me so much. (Even though she’s been around as a ghost for years, and even though she obviously takes an interest in what’s going on all around her, bringing her back in a new shell — a new body — does not seem right.)
Those two conscious author’s decisions are why I don’t like DRAGON SHIP and am most unlikely to ever re-read it. And it’s why I delayed writing my review until I had a full handle on exactly why I didn’t like this book despite my admiration for the writing pair of Lee and Miller and for their creation the Liaden Universe in particular.
Hopefully, I’ve done a good job in conveying the pluses of this book (the writing, the writers, the skill they take in their craft, etc.) and the minuses — the plot and the two author’s decisions that completely perplex — in a way that show I didn’t intend to bash the writer or their creation.
I just didn’t like it, that’s all.
And before anyone else says it — yes, I realize that someday, someone’s going to dislike my books, too. (Maybe many someones, though I hope more of these “someones” will like my writing and my books than not.) I just hope that they’ll be polite about it when they criticize, as I can handle that.
Whereas outright rudeness is much tougher to swallow, which is why I tried hard to avoid that in tonight’s review.
Barb Caffrey's Blog 