Just Reviewed Joan Slonczewski’s “The Highest Frontier” at SBR
Folks, I enjoyed the science, but not the characterization, of Joan Slonczewski’s newest novel, THE HIGHEST FRONTIER. Slonczewski’s novel is very strong, scientifically, as makes sense due to Slonczewski’s own scientific background. What I hadn’t expected is the dearth of characterization, as the main character, Jennifer Ramos Kennedy (scion of two Presidential families, one being those Kennedys), while likable, just wasn’t strong enough to hang a book around.
This made writing a review for THE HIGHEST FRONTIER more difficult than it might’ve otherwise been, as the “sense of wonder” feeling was definitely present, and in style. I admired the science, the world-building, the intense detailing, and everything that went up into making a near-future world (our Earth, set about 100 years in the future) both plausible and palpable.
Anyway, please go read my review at SBR and tell me what you think:
Enjoy!
Politics, Money, and Super Pacs — the Road to South Carolina
New Hampshire’s primary election results both confused and baffled me. How could the Republican Party electorate be so fragmented that not one, not two, but five Presidential candidates drew 10% or more of the vote?
And the putative winner, Willard “Mitt” Romney, didn’t exactly impress anyone even though he took 39% of the vote due to how close, geographically, New Hampshire is to Romney’s home state of Massachusetts. While he gained seven delegates, Ron Paul did quite well in gaining 23% of the vote and garnering three delegates, while Jon Huntsman came in a strong third with 17% of the vote and gained two delegates.
But I’d rather talk about something else aside from the bare results today; to wit, it’s time to talk money. Namely, Super PAC money.
Where is all this money coming from? Most of it is coming from a handful of individuals, supremely wealthy sorts who can spend millions like it’s going out of style, which allows the various candidate-affiliated Super PACs to run all sorts of negative ads. Some of which actually have some resemblance to the truth.
Now, are the candidates supposed to be affiliated with the Super PACs that are helping them? Of course not. But it’s hard to believe that Jon Huntsman’s father, Jon Huntsman, Sr., isn’t talking to his son about the ads he’s running on his son’s behalf; it’s really difficult to believe that the folks backing Romney haven’t talked with him about the ads they’ve aired on his behalf, either.
As most long-time political watchers are aware, the best-funded candidate often wins rather than the best-qualified candidate, mostly because he or she can take command of the narrative in a way that it can become tough to rebut if there’s enough money to throw at an election.
But if you read that as, “if there’s enough money to throw an election,” you might not be too far wrong, either.
So here’s the deal, folks; we have way, way too much money in politics, something MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan often discusses during his afternoon show. We have Super PACs who can raise unlimited amounts of money and who don’t, necessarily, have to disclose who’s funding what with whose money due to the controversial Supreme Court of the United States’ “Citizens United” decision. And we have a completely broken, fraudulent system that’s become more like an oligarchy than the putative democracy most of us grew up to know, study and love.
So the road to South Carolina is littered with all of that, which is why this is such a mess.
What I see is this: we have Romney, who a whole lot of Republicans and right-leaning Independents don’t like. We have Rick Santorum, who is a Christian conservative — he’s a kind-hearted and well-meaning man by all accounts, but some of his public statements (especially regarding GLBT Americans) are, to be charitable, questionable at best. There’s Newt Gingrich, who is a smart, wily politician — I don’t agree with many of his stances, but I’ll never deny that he has skills and smarts — but who has a great deal of ground to make up if he intends to win the Republican nomination for President. There’s Rick Perry, who can’t seem to get over his disastrous debate performances to gain any traction. There’s Ron Paul, who has become attractive to many people, mostly because he speaks his mind and isn’t anywhere near as “packaged” as the rest of the folks running for President. And there’s Jon Huntsman, who really looks like he’d be a great President down the road — but not this year, methinks.
All of these candidates, were there some semblance of a level financial playing field, would be far better served than they are right now. Gingrich has said so, and so has Perry to a degree; I applaud them both for their stances, even though what they’d do to fix this mess as conservative Republicans is to make every candidate have to fully and freely declare who’s funding whom and why. (To my mind, that’s a good start. But it’s only a start.)
As I see it, the road to South Carolina is filled with all sorts of potholes, unintended sinkholes, and way too much money to be borne. So the media will clean up, the populace of South Carolina will largely tune out, and it’ll be much harder for any candidate to gain any sort of legitimate traction than it would’ve been with a more level playing field.
Because of that, my best guess is that if there is an upset here, it’s going to come from Newt Gingrich. I think Paul will once again be a factor and gain delegates. I think Romney will draw at least 25%, and I think if Huntsman continues to represent himself well, he’ll get at least 9% or 10%, a respectable showing. But it’s also possible that Rick Santorum will do well in South Carolina; because Santorum and Gingrich both are trying to take Romney down, that might split the “anti-Romney” vote between them which allows Romney to eke out another narrow win.
And I do think, for whatever it’s worth, that South Carolina is Rick Perry’s final stop on the 2012 Presidential merry-go-round.
One final thought: I’d really love to find out how much money Romney’s five sons are earning as “campaign aides.” I believe the only person, by law, a Presidential candidate can “shield,” financially, is his spouse — that’s because a married couple is counted as one, legally. And I’m fine with that; I don’t really need to know how much money Ann Romney needs at this point, nor Callista Gingrich, nor any of the other candidates’ wives, either.
But Romney’s five strapping adult sons are another matter. They are all listed as “campaign aides,” which means they’re drawing a salary. I think it’s time we know how much Romney’s paying his five sons to do a bunch of make-work on the campaign trail, don’t you?
Just reviewed Lee and Miller’s “Ghost Ship” at SBR
Folks, if you want an interesting, mind-blowing adventure that capably continues the journey of pilot Theo Waitley, half-Liaden through her father’s side and related to the current Delm of Korval (an extremely powerful personage), seek no further.
Hie thee hence to my latest review of the inestimable Sharon Lee and Steve Miller’s Liaden Universe (TM) epics, GHOST SHIP, at Shiny Book Review. Go here, if you’re like the folks of Clan Korval and believe “I Dare” to be your calling card (as well you should):
Because if you haven’t read any of Lee and Miller’s novels yet, what’s stopping you?
Enjoy!
Rep. Robin Vos (R) Calls Recalls “Frivolous” Because “They Cost Too Much”
Representative Robin Vos (R-Rochester) is at it again.
Vos doesn’t like recall elections, even though his own party, the Wisconsin GOP, went after three Democratic state Senators last year — Bob Wirch of Kenosha, Jim Holperin of Conover, and Dave Hansen of Green Bay. All three easily withstood their recall elections and were retained. (Maybe Vos only dislikes them because his own party lost when they attempted to unseat these three Democratic Senators. But I digress.) He believes they are too expensive, and asked Wisconsin’s Government Accountability Board how much it’s going to cost for the election to recall Governor Scott Walker and Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch — as that’s a statewide election — mostly because he seems to believe that widely publicizing the estimated cost of the statewide recall election will somehow stop the recall process in its tracks. Note that the gubernatorial/Lt. Gov. recall election is estimated to cost $9 million according to Wisconsin’s county clerks and the GAB; this cost covers only one election, not with the sure-to-come primary beforehand. Supposedly, having Kleefisch on the ballot as is usually the case in any gubernatorial/Lt. Gov. election will cost more, something I highly doubt.
Please see this link for further details:
Worse yet, in this article, Vos calls the recalls “frivolous,” saying:
“People cannot say this is somehow worth the cost to have these frivolous recalls. It’s a shame we’ve come to this.”
I have news for Rep. Vos. He is misusing the word frivolous, which is defined by the Free Dictionary as:
friv·o·lous (fr
v
-l
adj.
1. Unworthy of serious attention; trivial: a frivolous novel.2. Inappropriately silly: a frivolous purchase.
Note that these recall elections, while they are expensive, have not been undertaken lightly. It takes a lot of effort to gather 540,000 signatures statewide in two months, which is what is required to recall both Walker and Kleefisch, as that’s 1/4 of the total votes cast for Governor in the 2010 election. And that effort, by its very definition, is the epitome of seriousness — in other words, Rep. Vos, no one would ever undertake such a grueling effort unless they were quite serious
So the first definition, that of being “unworthy of serious attention,” fails.
But what about the second definition, “inappropriately silly?” Do these recalls qualify for that definition, either?
No, they do not. Once again, the recalls may well be wrong in certain lights; certainly, they are in the eyes of Robin Vos. But one thing they are not is “inappropriately silly,” especially considering Vos’s own party, the GOP, supported the recalls of Holperin, Hansen, and Wirch last summer. (I guess we’re supposed to have short memories about that, huh?)
The main reason I see for Vos to do this is because it’s the only play the Wisconsin GOP has left, to wit: stall. Obfuscate. Cast aspersions on the people recalling Walker, Kleefisch, state Senator Van Wanggaard (R-Racine), and more — because it’s the only thing the Rs can do, as they’re very well aware that Walker and Kleefisch will be recalled. They’re also very well aware that Wanggaard will be recalled, and that other senators who are in danger of recall (including Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald and Senator Pam Galloway, R-Wausau) may have to defend their seats as well.
So the way I see it, the only reason Vos is saying and doing all this is because he knows his party will lose these recall elections. He’s the co-chairman of the Legislature’s finance committee — a very powerful leadership position — yet Vos has to know which way the winds are blowing in Wisconsin. The GOP’s days are numbered; it’s quite possible that the Wisconsin Assembly (lower house) will go solid blue next year due to the GOP’s overreach. And Vos’s own seat, which has been a safe Republican haven for at least twenty years, may even be in jeopardy because people are that angry over what the GOP has done.
I’m most unimpressed with Vos on these issues, and believe his logic chain, at best, is suspect. His understanding of the adjective “frivolous” is flawed. And he’s crying sour grapes because of how expensive the recalls are, when as Wisconsin Democratic Party chairman Mike Tate said here:
“The $9 million cost of a statewide recall election is great, but the cost of doing nothing is far greater. This undertaking is the biggest investment in the future of our state and families we can make.
It would take more than 7 recall elections to equal the cost of Walker’s tax increase on seniors and working families. It would take more than 11 recalls to equal the tuition hike Walker foisted on University of Wisconsin-System students and their families. And Walker’s $2.3 billion in tax giveaways to out-of-state corporations and the super-rich would pay for more than 255 recall elections. Wisconsin simply cannot afford Scott Walker any longer.
At the end of the day, no matter how Scott Walker and his Republican Party try to spin it, the people of Wisconsin called for this election. There is no price tag on democracy.” (emphasis mine — BC)
Agreed, though they way I’d put it is that Vos’s complaints about how expensive the recall elections will be are an attempted framing of the narrative that should not stand, as it is fundamentally flawed both on its merits and its ethics.
So let’s bring on the recalls already. Because whether Vos or the Wisconsin GOP likes it or not, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander; if the GOP can undertake recall efforts as they did last summer, they have absolutely no right to complain now. (Or as I said the other day with regards to Wanggaard’s impending recall election: “Them’s the breaks.”)
Just Reviewed “The Crystal Variation” at SBR
Folks, if you’re looking for three great books at a very nice value, look no further than Sharon Lee and Steve Miller’s latest Liaden Universe (TM) omnibus, THE CRYSTAL VARIATION. In this compilation of three earlier-published novels (including CRYSTAL SOLDIER, CRYSTAL DRAGON, and BALANCE OF TRADE), Lee and Miller do something extremely difficult: they have a nice balance in the two prequels (CRYSTAL SOLDIER and CRYSTAL DRAGON) between information long-time readers such as myself want and need and the action-adventure that’ll help draw in new readers without confusing them. This is a very neat trick that very few authors can pull off.
Now, the third novel, BALANCE OF TRADE, is a stand-alone novel set two hundred years or so before the bulk of the Liaden Universe novels but over one thousand years after the prequels CRYSTAL SOLDIER and CRYSTAL DRAGON; thus, we see Liadens and Terrans who distrust each other far more than they do during the time of LOCAL CUSTOM, SCOUT’S PROGRESS, etc. The clash of cultures narrative is striking, but what’s even more striking is that this is one of the few young adult novels Lee and Miller have written — it has no sex, little violence, little if any swearing, and yet it’s as riveting as if it had all those things, which is another neat trick to pull off.
Excellent stories at an excellent value. How could you want anything more? (Except for a sequel to BALANCE OF TRADE, that is. I definitely want that, m’self.)
Here’s the link to my review:
Enjoy!
For the 3rd Time, Federal Judges Rule that WI Legislature Cannot Keep Redistricting Info from Dems
For the third time since December 8, 2011, a three-judge panel comprised of federal judges has ruled that the Republican-dominated Wisconsin Legislature cannot keep information regarding the redistricting process away from the Democrats who filed suit over it. The judges were obviously exasperated, saying that the GOP lawmakers are actually trying to hide the information from the public regarding the redistricting process and basically said that they will not stand for it.
Please see this link from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel’s January 3, 2012, edition for further details:
As for a relevant quote, how’s this for you?
“Quite frankly, the Legislature and the actions of its counsel give every appearance of flailing wildly in a desperate attempt to hide from both the court and the public the true nature of exactly what transpired in the redistricting process,” the ruling reads.
You don’t read language like this from federal judges every day, folks.
So here’s the deal. On December 8, 2011, and again on December 20, 2011, the three federal judges ruled against the Republicans. Yet the Legislature has refused again and again to turn over the documentation explaining why the redistricting was done so radically — instead, they just obfuscate while they dilly-dally, perhaps hoping that by sitting on their hands that the judges will just get bored and go away.
But that hasn’t happened.
Lest you think these are liberal appointees, think again. Judge J.P. Stadtmueller was appointed by Ronald Reagan. Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr., was appointed by George W. Bush. Only Judge Diane P. Wood was appointed by a Democratic President, Bill Clinton.
So we have two conservative judges who are most unamused by the Republicans; as another quote from the recent Journal-Sentinel article puts it:
In essence, the judges again found there was little the Republicans can keep from the plaintiffs, a Democratic group.
The panel of judges – two of whom are Republican appointees – gave a rhetorical smack to the GOP lawmakers and their attorneys.
The court “will not suffer the sort of disinformation, foot-dragging, and obfuscation now being engaged in by Wisconsin’s elected officials and/or their attorneys,” the ruling reads.
Once again, judges rarely are this angry, and even more rarely do they show their anger in this fashion.
So here’s the deal; the GOP redistricting plan appears likely to go down in flames. The Democrats who challenged it (none of whom are in office right now) did so on the basis that the new districts’ boundaries violate the Federal Voting Rights Act and the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution because of the way these new proposed boundaries would treat minorities and by how many people (well over 300,000) are shifted arbitrarily for what seems like little or no reason except for blatant political advantage.
The reason this is of interest to me, and to anyone in Southeastern Wisconsin, is simple: Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) is my current state Senator. He voted for Senate Bill 10 — that is, to get rid of collective bargaining for public employee unions, with the sole exceptions of police and fire personnel. And in exchange, he appears to have received a really nice benefit from the redistricting in that his new district 21 would include most of rural Kenosha County and most of rural Racine County — while the urban areas of Racine and Kenosha would become district 22.
District 22 is Bob Wirch’s district; he’s a Democrat. While I greatly admire Sen. Wirch and worked on his behalf last summer to help him withstand recall and be retained, I would prefer the boundaries to stay as they’ve traditionally been; district 22 is most of Kenosha County, including the City of Kenosha, while district 21 is mostly made up of Racine County, including the City of Racine. This arrangement means that both district 22 and district 21 are “in play,” so that a good legislator of either party can potentially win the seat of either district; it also means that the legislator who’s in office had better listen to the will of the people, or he or she will end up getting recalled and replaced.
This, currently, is the case with regards to Van Wanggaard in district 21. Signatures have been gathered, and there are more than enough to get Wanggaard recalled, I’m reliably informed — which means that the Racine office has, bare minimum, over 16,000 people who’ve signed to force Wanggaard to a recall election. (Signatures will be filed on January 15, 2012.) Wanggaard went against the will of his district in casting his vote for Senate Bill 10 — the stripped-down bones of Scott Walker’s “budget repair bill” minus any obvious financial verbiage — despite being a past member of the police union; worse yet for him, Wanggaard was a union representative way back when, something he probably hopes most people in Racine have forgotten. This was extremely hypocritical and is not something Racine voters are likely to forgive, which is why I firmly expect Wanggaard to be replaced as soon as the recall election is called.
Note that Wanggaard was very well aware that a Republican legislator had been recalled in district 21 before; this was George Petak, and I wrote about him and his recall race here. Which is why he probably had to be promised something in exchange for his vote; elsewise, why would he do it? And promising him a more favorable district 21 — one where he’d have a tougher time getting recalled, as the rural areas of both Kenosha and Racine Counties tend to be more conservative — was probably the likely thing that changed Wanggaard’s mind to vote in favor of SB 10.
So Wanggaard, the former union member, the former union representative, voted against collective bargaining. Then he voted in favor of the new redistricting plan later on; this passed on a party-line vote in the Senate, meaning all 14 Dems voted no, while all 19 Rs voted yes. (In the Assembly, a few Rs voted against it, along with almost all the Dems. But it was still a largely party-line vote.) And Wanggaard had to think he’d be less likely to be recalled this way.
But I have news; the people who voted Wanggaard in, including those voters in the City of Racine, are the ones who get the privilege of voting him right back out again (or possibly retaining him, though that doesn’t seem too likely an outcome). And that’s the way it should be.
So bring on the recall election for Senator Wanggaard, right along with the recalls of Governor Scott Walker and Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch. All three will be gone within months. Then watch as the new, gerrymandered districts get tossed out via the federal court panel . . . so ultimately, Wanggaard will have ended up squandering his own seat for nothing. (Them’s the breaks, Van.)
Quick Iowa Caucus Observation
Folks, I’m watching the coverage of the Iowa Caucuses right now, and it’s pretty much going the way I’d expected. Paul, Santorum and Romney all have around 23% of the vote, while Gingrich has fluctuated at 14-15%, sometimes dropping a bit, sometimes rising.
Here’s my observation, though; in politics, 5% of the vote can often determine the outcome of a close election. We know this from history; there have been many races that had more than two candidates, and every time, if one of those “extra” candidates garnered 5% or more, that definitely affected the outcome.
But the pundits aren’t mentioning it on any of the channels I’ve monitored this far — Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. Instead, they’re concentrating on the “sexier” three-way race between Romney, Paul, and Santorum.
But the fractured electorate in Iowa is the real story (make no mistake about it). Consider that Rick Perry, a candidate basically left for dead, has a solid 10% of the vote — this is actually a story, folks, because if you get over 10% in an election you’re expected to lose, that shows you do have some traction even in “unfriendly territory.”
Even Michele Bachmann has a very solid 6% — this means she has considerable support, and yet the pundits have written her off in the same way they’ve written off Gingrich and Perry.
Look. It’s obvious that the Iowa electorate isn’t impressed, at all, with Mitt Romney, as overall he’s getting fewer votes this time around than when he last ran in 2008. It’s also obvious that the Iowa electorate likes many of the other candidates — and if there was an “anyone but Romney” option on the ballot, I bet that option would win in a landslide.
So keep this in mind as you listen to the after-action reports from the pundits, folks: 5% of the vote is a significant slice of the electorate. And know that every serious Republican candidate who went to Iowa (remember, Jon Huntsman didn’t, which is why he’s sitting at 1%; in some ways to have even that much is a shock) did accomplish something, because getting 5% or more of the vote is significant and every single last one of them — even Bachmann — accomplished this goal.
Whither Iowa? Thoughts on the 2012 Iowa Caucuses
If you watch politics on television as much as I do, you probably have seen a great deal of hoopla surrounding the 2012 Iowa Caucuses. This is the first test of several Republican candidates** who’ve had their moments in the sun — including Michele Bachmann (who won the Ames Straw Poll last year), Newt Gingrich (ahead in the polls in Iowa in early December), Rick Perry (ahead in the polls in mid-September), Ron Paul (ahead in some Iowa polls as little as two weeks ago), the hard-charging Rick Santorum (who could actually win tonight) and, of course, well-heeled frontrunner Mitt Romney, who ran in 2008 and whose support seems to run a steady 25% whether he campaigns hard — or doesn’t — in Iowa.
But the question remains, “Why does what the people in Iowa think of these candidates matter so much year after year?”
There’s an easy answer that goes like this: “Well, c’mon, Barb! These Iowans see the candidates every four years. They’re less likely to glom onto a candidate who’s all talk and no action — that goes without saying!”
But that’s a facetious answer. The real reason Iowans matter so much is because most of ’em are middle-income folks and below. These are as close to “real people” as the candidates on both sides are likely to see; between Iowa and New Hampshire, ordinary citizens get to have more dialogues with candidates than anywhere else. And this may give campaigns like Romney’s a better idea of what middle-income people want out of their government, especially as the words “Romney” and “middle-income” go together about as well as a bullwhip and iced tea.
As a long-time political watcher, I’ve seen candidates do well in Iowa but flash-and-fade otherwise (2008 Republican winner Mike Huckabee comes to mind, here; so does 1980 Presidential candidate George H.W. Bush). I’ve seen some candidates, like Barack Obama, do very well — surprisingly so — in Iowa, which helps them overall, yet others who’ve done well in Iowa, like Howard Dean and/or John Edwards, aren’t able to maximize their opportunities down the road and end up with that flash-and-fade effect, which looks the same regardless of party.
See, some of the candidates just peak too soon, that’s all. Newt Gingrich seems to be one example of this, though he may well rally as he’s an intelligent, highly-seasoned political operative and if anyone can do it, he can. Rick Perry is yet another one, though in Perry’s case he’s been his own worst enemy in the debates and that has definitely hurt him.
Over time, what the Iowa caucuses have shown is this: if a politician is smart, and can rally from this experience (whatever it may be), he or she will do well. But you must learn from whatever it is the Iowans are telling you; if they’re saying, as I believe they are to Rick Perry, “Rick, we really like you, but you don’t have the gravitas. You need to go work on your public speaking, develop a foreign policy, and come back in four to eight years,” the best thing Perry could do going forward is give himself a crash course in foreign policy, do his best to look like a statesman, and study up before he goes into another debate lest he have another one of those “oops!” moments.
Or if they say to Ron Paul, “Ron, we really like your energy. You’re a breath of fresh air and we wish that more Republicans were like you in speaking their minds,” Paul needs to realize that what they’re saying, while gratifying personally, may not translate to electoral success in other states. I’ll be interested to see if Paul can indeed follow up what I’m sure will be a very strong showing tonight — top four, easily, and he could possibly win the state as Romney isn’t beloved in Iowa — with a good showing in New Hampshire and a halfway decent one in South Carolina. If he can do that, then he has real potential nationally.
And the guy with the most to gain — or lose — is obviously Rick Santorum. The pundits have claimed for the past several days that Santorum will win, or come in second or maybe a close third, but that Santorum will definitely be a major factor.
As I see it, Santorum could gain much if he wins Iowa; he’ll have instant national attention, a bigger flow of money toward him (as many people back a winner, but fewer flock to those who are seen to lose unless they’re super-committed — and those, in this crowd, mostly go for Paul or Gingrich, not Santorum), and more media types reporting on what he does every day, thus an easier way to get on free TV and make a bigger difference nationally.
But what he loses if he doesn’t come in the top four (assuming the top four will be nearly evenly split) is breathtaking, considering how far the expectations for his campaign have been ratcheted up.
My prediction, for what it’s worth, is that Romney, Paul, Santorum and Gingrich will all have around 15% of the vote (or a bit more). I think it’s more likely than not that Paul will win Iowa because his voters are passionate, committed, will caucus, will stay as long as is necessary and are vocal about their support. But I have a sneaky suspicion that Gingrich will do better than he’s polled, too, because the folks who are backing Gingrich do it for these reasons: he’s smart. He has good answers in the debates. He’s a wily, resilient old pol in the best sense of that word; he knows how to roll with the punches. And best of all for Gingrich’s supporters, Gingrich is the only one of the lot who seems to understand that to become President someday, you must turn your liabilities into strengths. (I’m not totally sold on whether or not Gingrich has actually done this. But I can see that he’s really tried to do so and that attempt matters.)
And I believe that Santorum, at the end of tonight, will either be ecstatic — in that he’s greatly exceeded expectations — or crushed. I’m unwilling to say at this time which is more likely.
———–
Note: As President Obama is running unopposed in the Democratic caucuses, those are expected to be far more quiet — and far less well attended — than the Republican caucuses. (As you might expect.)**
Time to throw the confetti — Johnny Weir Gets Married
Folks, figure skater Johnny Weir, 27, got married on New Year’s Eve to Victor Voronov, an aspiring lawyer. He announced this via his Twitter feed and with an interview to Ice Network; Yahoo Sports picked it up as Weir is one of the most popular figure skaters in the world today even though he hasn’t competed since the 2010 Olympics (where he undeservedly finished sixth when he deserved, bare minimum, the bronze medal after his excellent free skate).
While I’m unsure of Weir’s husband’s age, as he’s preparing for his 2012 bar exam, he sounds like he’s reasonably close in age to Weir. This should be a plus, as will the fact that Mr. Voronov (who’s now going by Weir-Voronov) is from Russia and Weir is a well-known Russophile.
The happy couple plans to live in New York City according to this report.
Congratulations to the newlyweds! (Confetti all around!)
2011: My Year in Review (the Good, the Bad, and the Incredibly Sad)
Everyone’s doing a “2011 Year in Review” column; at some places, like Shiny Book Review, this makes more sense (there, we did a “best of 2011” piece; check it out here). So I thought I’d do one, too, incorporating most of what went on that’s fit to print that made any sort of impact on my life whatsoever.
Note that as Shiny Book Review has already been covered, I’m not going to say much about it here; I enjoyed posting reviews in 2011, and I will continue to do the same in 2012.
As far as fiction writing goes, I estimate that I wrote about 150,000 words on various projects. I completed a new chapter and a half of CHANGING FACES; this will be finished in 2012. I wrote a new chapter and revised five chapters of KEISHA’S VOW, an ELFY prequel set in 1954. I wrote a new chapter and a half and revised six chapters of AN ELFY ABROAD, the direct sequel to ELFY. I did my best to find an agent, but found no takers.
As far as editing goes, I was pleased to edit six different books — one on conventions and careers, four medical books (including one anthology), and one science fiction novel. More editing is planned for the New Year.
Now, let’s get to the month-by-month breakdown of other events.
January 2011:
New Republican Governor Scott Walker takes office, turns down federal railroad funds (following through on his election promise to do so), vows to work with everyone, etc. (Too bad that last was all talk.)
“Joey Maverick: On Westmount Station” published at e-Quill Publishing (with Michael B. Caffrey). This is the first piece of writing in Michael’s universe sold in over five years; I wrote over half of this story, but it continues to go under Michael’s name as an editorial decision by e-Quill’s publisher as it’s a continuing series. (I’m sure Michael wouldn’t have approved, but there’s nothing to be done. My name is on it as the secondary writer and there’s a permanent link to this story on this blog’s sidebar.)
Green Bay Packers blow through post-season, winning the National Football Conference championship. Will represent NFC in the Super Bowl.
January 8: United States Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) shot in the head by crazed gunman; she miraculously survives and recovers. Several staff-members and innocent bystanders killed, including U.S. District Judge John Roll. Gunman in police custody.
February 2011:
February 6: Packers win Super Bowl XLV.
February 11: Scott Walker vows to eliminate collective bargaining for all public employee unions (including teachers, nurses, and snowplow drivers, among others) except for fire and police personnel. A firestorm of protest follows; the fourteen Democratic state Senators (“Wisconsin 14”) flee the state in order to deny the Legislature a quorum to keep the Republican-dominated Senate from passing a companion bill to the quickly-passed bill from the Republican-dominated Assembly. The “WI 14” state their reason for doing this as the only way to educate the public as to what this bill will do to the state; more protests ensue.
March 2011:
Gov. Walker and his allies, including Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch, Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) and Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald (R-Horicon, brother of Scott F.), take to the airwaves urging the WI 14 to return to Wisconsin so Senate Bill 10 (eliminating collective bargaining for all public employee unions, even though the teachers, nurses, etc., have all vowed publicly to take paycuts and give back vacation days and pay more for their health and life insurance providing collective bargaining is left in place) can be passed.
March 9: Senate strips all financial provisions out of the bill, allowing it to be passed without a quorum. Only Dale Schultz (R-Richland Center) opposes this bill, saying it goes too far; the Senate passes this motion 18-1.
March 12: WI 14 returns to state to loud acclaim from most; some vow to recall their sitting state Senators from both parties.
April 2011:
Milwaukee Brewers start their season.
Vinny Rottino starts season with New Orleans Zephyrs of the Pacific Coast League (affiliated with the Florida Marlins, prior to the Marlins’ name change).
JoAnne Kloppenburg loses state Supreme Court race to incumbent David Prosser by less than 1/2 of 1% of the vote. Recount commences.
April 21: Recall petitions filed for nine Senators, six Republicans and three Democrats. Elections scheduled for three different days; the first is held in mid-July.
May 2011:
Rottino has a fantastic month for the Zephyrs.
Brewers are still rounding into form.
Looking forward to recall elections.
Receive praise but no sales for three separate pieces of writing.
May 1: Osama bin Laden killed, at long last.
May 23: Recount confirms David Prosser as winner of state Supreme Court seat. JoAnne Kloppenburg decides not to sue; eventually seeks seat on state’s Appellate Court.
June 2011:
Observe my ninth wedding anniversary, the seventh spent alone since Michael’s untimely death in 2004.
Waiting avidly for recall elections.
July 2011:
Ryan Braun, Prince Fielder, and Rickie Weeks elected to represent the Brewers at the All-Star Game. Braun is on the disabled list; does not play. Minor controversy ensues as closer John Axford, having an excellent season, is not named to the All-Star team, nor is Brewers ace Yovani Gallardo.
Observe my late husband’s birthday even though, were he alive, he’d have taken no notice of the event. (Michael counted unBirthdays instead, as there were a whole lot more of them, thus more to celebrate.)
Vinny Rottino makes the AAA All-Star team for the first time since 2008.
July 19: Dave Hansen (D-Green Bay) is easily retained in his recall election.
July 31: Debt-ceiling crisis legislation is signed by President Obama. Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) claims victory. Most people unimpressed; Congress’s approval rating falls to new lows, and the President’s approval rating takes a hit, too.
August 2011:
Observe my birthday, though my best friend Jeff is many states away and my husband is long dead, so I wonder what the point is.
August 9: Two Republican state Senators, Dan Kapanke (La Crosse) and Randy Hopper (Fond du Lac) are ousted in recall elections. Another four Republican state Senators, Alberta Darling (River Hills), Robert Cowles (Green Bay), Sheila Harsdorf (River Falls) and Luther Olsen (Ripon) are retained.
August 16: Both Democratic Senators up for recall, Bob Wirch of Kenosha and Jim Holperin of Conover, are easily retained. Status of nine recalls: Two Rs lost their seats, while four Rs were retained. All three Ds were retained. Wisconsin state Senate stands at 17 Rs and 16 Ds.
September 2011:
Vinny Rottino’s fine AAA season is rewarded by a September call-up from the Florida Marlins. He plays in several games, mostly as a pinch hitter or in the outfield. Gets a few hits.
Occupy Wall Street (soon to be Occupy Everywhere) movement starts.
Tenth anniversary of 9/11/01.
Observed the seventh anniversary of Michael’s last day of life on 9/21/11.
Late September: Jeff falls ill but does not go to the doctor.
September 28: Milwaukee Brewers win first National League Central division title in history, make post-season play for first time since 2008. Hopes are high. John Axford sets single-season saves record with 46 and most saves successfully converted in a row with 42.
October 2011:
October 7: Brewers win first post-season series against Arizona Diamondbacks (3-2).
mid-October: Jeff is taken to the hospital and is quickly transferred to the best specialty hospital in Northern Colorado. Bacterial endocarditis is the diagnosis. I don’t find out about it until he’s been in the hospital seven days (fortunately he told a good friend there how to get a hold of me). He nearly dies on the table due to open-heart surgery, something I don’t find out until nearly two days afterward. He’s unable to talk for nearly two weeks and is mostly unresponsive to stimuli. Death seems near.
October 16: Brewers lose National League Championship series to eventual World Series champs St. Louis Cardinals; I’m more obsessed with Jeff’s condition and say so.
October 20: Moammar Qaddafi, dictator of Libya, killed. This, too, barely registers.
November 2011:
Jeff slowly starts to get better, regaining his powers of speech and mobility. Cannot read well, which vexes him as a longtime, avid reader — and cannot write or create, which vexes him as a writer. He improves so much he’s transferred to a long-term rehabiliation place (I talk with him every night he’s able, which basically is every single night).
However, Jeff only lives for four days after he’s transferred to rehab; in our last conversation on November 11, he tells me he’s exhausted and wondering when he’s going to get better, though he’s mostly upbeat. Inwardly, I cheer that he has enough energy to mildly complain; I look forward to our next phone call, which was to be on November 12 at 7:45 p.m MST.
November 12: At 7 p.m. MST, Jeff has a massive stroke and is taken back to the specialty hospital. I don’t find out about this until November 13; all I know at the time is that Jeff hasn’t answered his phone, and I’m not able to get anyone at the rehab place to find out why.
November 13: Get call from Jeff’s brother, Randy; Jeff is dead. The stroke killed him. His parents were with him when he died.
None of this comforts me at all, as I’d been hoping somehow to get out to him to visit and cheer him up.
His death, which a few weeks ago had seemed imminent, now seems like an extremely bad joke made by an unloving, uncaring Deity; Jeff had worked so hard to regain his speech and mobility, and could reason and think. His personality and most of his memories were intact. He deserved a lot more time, to fully recover, and for him and I to be able to see each other, bare minimum. To say that I find this monstrously unfair is a severe understatement.
November 15: Wrote a poem for Jeff, in memoriam. I hope he’d have enjoyed it (poem is below).
November 21: Jeff would’ve turned 48 today, had he lived. Instead, his memorial service is called in Fort Collins, Colorado, and I’m unable to go due to financial considerations (I will regret this to the end of my life, and probably afterward).
I start to slowly come to terms with the fact that the best friend I’ve ever had, save only my late husband Michael, is dead. (Jeff was my staunchest supporter as a writer and poet who gave well-thought out, helpful criticism.) I find out that Jeff was writing a novel, which he’d never shown me (though he had shown me six in-progress short stories, various pieces of non-fiction, and other writing, all of it excellent), at the time of his passing. Now, none of his writing will ever be completed.
I reflect upon Jeff’s compassion, which was probably his strongest and best quality besides his high intelligence and creativity. I reflect upon the fact that six years ago, I had no idea our friendship would grow to the point that he was my acknowledged best friend . . . who knows where it would’ve gone, had he lived? (Now, I will never know, and that’s a sadness I can’t even begin to express, were I to write from now until the end of time.) I’m grateful for the time I had with him, but I really wish there had been more of it because if anyone deserved more, it was Jeff.
I wonder, again, what the point is, when I can’t even get to see my best friend before he dies, then can’t get to his funeral, either, when I dearly wanted to do both things. (Financial considerations be damned.)
Other stuff:
November 15: Recall petitions to oust Gov. Scott Walker, Lt. Gov. Kleefisch, and Racine’s state Senator Van Wanggaard (all Rs) are filed. I’d been looking forward to this for months, but due to Jeff’s death, it barely registers. Did sign the recall forms and get a few signatures, as Jeff was very strongly in favor of all of these people being recalled (we talked of this on November 11, and he’s the one who brought it up — as I said, his mind was intact and it was sharp); I tell myself that he’d be happy I was doing something I’d looked forward to, and try to be content with that even though I know I’ll never hear his voice again.
Ryan Braun wins NL Most Valuable Player award. Prince Fielder departs in free agency (is currently unsigned).
Vinny Rottino signs a minor league free-agent contract with the New York Mets; he will be invited to Spring Training.
December 2011:
December 13: Play first concert in thirteen years as a member of the University of Wisconsin-Parkside Community Band; I play a lengthy, extended solo in Valerie Coleman’s composition, “Roma.” My sister is in the audience, and says I haven’t lost a thing. (I like to think that both Michael and Jeff were listening, too, from wherever they are in the positive afterlife. I hope they were pleased.)
mid-December: Ryan Braun accused of taking performance-enhancing drugs; he appeals this decision and proclaims his innocence. (For the record, I believe him.)
December 17: North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il dies.
Just before Christmas: Federal government plunges into yet another crisis when House of Representatives initially refuses to extend the payroll tax cut. Speaker Boehner adamantly defends his party, which includes many hard-right Rs self-identifying as “Tea Party” members, but is eventually talked around due to public statements made by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), former George W. Bush advisor Karl Rove, and a strongly-worded Wall Street Journal editorial advising him to just give in already. Congress adjourns and goes home for the holidays.
Winter holidays commence; once again, I wonder what the point is. The present I’d bought for my friend Jeff gathers dust as I can’t bear to put it away, nor can I part with it; the musical composition I’m working on to commemorate Jeff’s life and death is, at best, half-finished at 64 bars. I’m told by a couple of poets I respect that my poem for Jeff won’t stand alone, thus has no chance of independent publication — which is why it’s here, so you all can read it and think about it, instead.
Note that this is a very formal way of writing, which is quite different from my usual, free-form style. I wanted to impose some sort of structure on my shock, which is why I came up with this particular poem. And while I believe this is among the most important pieces of writing I’ve ever created, it’s something I profoundly wish I’d not have had to do — much less this soon.
Here goes . . . but before I forget, Happy New Year, everyone.
*********** POETRY SEPARATOR ***********
“A Poem for Jeff Wilson — in Memoriam”
by Barb Caffrey
One who seeks is
one who asks
the questions that
no one else dares.
One who seeks is
one who finds
the answers, which are
unknowable.
One who waits is
one who looks
for love, creeping
in unawares . . . .
One who waits is
one who hopes
for light, which breaks
the dark forever.
One who waits is
one who seeks
out answers, or
merely himself.
——– written November 15, 2011
Barb Caffrey's Blog 