Just reviewed George R.R. Martin’s “Game of Thrones” for SBR
Folks, reviewing a book that’s over 800 pages long is daunting, but I managed it tonight with my review of George R.R. Martin’s A GAME OF THRONES, which is here:
http://shinybookreview.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/george-r-r-martins-a-game-of-thrones-a-winning-hand/
Note my title. I can’t resist puns, and as Ned Stark is the Hand of the King — and I feel his character is a winner regardless of how his own personal circumstances play out — well . . . you see the result.
If you’ve somehow missed this book in the past and you love epic fantasy or even if you don’t but love stories that are based on medieval feudalism and nation-states, you’ll enjoy A GAME OF THRONES. So go read my review, then hasten to the bookstore or online emporium and grab this book forthwith. (It’s just that good.)
******* UPON FURTHER REVIEW **************
I figured I’d add a few more notes here that I unfortunately had to leave out of my giant-sized review. First, I know full well that the world the cycle of A Song of Ice and Fire resides on has really long summers (several years in duration) and extremely long winters (decades-long, at worst), but wasn’t able to say so. Please know that I do understand this.
Second, some of the characters in any of Martin’s novels are designed to make you hate them. It’s to his credit that these characters are so vile that you actively root for them to get killed off (Viserys is one of those, and there’s more to come in the upcoming novels).
Third and last — Tyrion is by far my most favorite character in the entire cycle, and the guy playing him in the HBO series, Peter Dinklage, got a deserved Emmy nomination.
WI Senate Passes EB Bill on Party-Line Vote; Debt Ceiling Crisis Ends
Folks, I have two quick updates, though if you’ve been paying attention to US politics at all, you know full well that the debt ceiling crisis is over (for now).
First, the Wisconsin Senate passed a bill, 19-14, to agree with the Wisconsin Assembly that new claimants for unemployment will have to wait a week to receive benefits. This passed on a party-line vote, meaning 19 Rs voted for it, while the 14 Ds voted “no” because they don’t like the idea of employers being able to lay someone off for a week, then call them back, without those employees getting paid.
Now it’s up to Gov. Scott Walker (R) to sign this bill so people can start to receive their Extended Benefits. Many people have been out of EB since 4/16/11, and may only receive another week or two — yet any money beats no money at all, and this is something everyone who worked for an employer has paid into.** (If you are an independent contractor and have lost your job through no fault of yours, there’s still no remedy for you. As I am now an independent contractor, I completely understand.)
So now, we’re just waiting on Scott Walker to do his job and sign this bill. Let’s hope he signs it soon, as there are real people hurting in Wisconsin who need this money. (If he doesn’t sign it quickly, well, that’s just another reason to recall the man come January 2012.)
As for the whole debt ceiling issue, I am appalled by the final solution. I know that getting something done was better than nothing at all, but the problem with the solution is that it allowed the most radical, right-wing extremists in the Republican Party to basically hold up everyone else until they got what they wanted. These people ended up winning the argument because they refused to give in; they refused to do their jobs as politicians, trying to figure out what the “art of the possible” is and made everyone else figure out that the only possible action was to give in to these extremists even though giving in was the wrong thing to do.
My biggest problem remains this one: once you pay the Danegeld, how do you get rid of the Dane?
So we have not defaulted, but the world as a whole has been exposed to the ridiculously petty nature of our politics. And the world, it appears, dislikes it as much as American citizens do.
Hard to see any “winners” here, including the radical, right-wing extremists, even though they obviously feel they have won. One would hope once they go back to their states or districts and get a taste of how people are feeling, they will be rudely disabused of that notion, as according to this poll, 77% of Americans feel our elected representatives have “behaved like spoiled children.”
In my opinion, there are no winners in this process; the national debt is still there, and still really isn’t being dealt with, while the lack of revenue in this deal (or, in plain terms, raising taxes or at least allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire) doesn’t help anything, either. Further, if there was more of a focus on jobs, promoting ways of keeping people employed in order to perhaps keep the tax cuts that the businesses and the wealthy like, maybe we wouldn’t be quite as bad off as we are right now.
It seems to me that the folks in Washington, DC, have a very narrow view of the world. Perhaps they can’t help it; they meet up with wealthy lobbyists and wealthy business owners and mostly wealthy people day by day, right? (In order to fund their campaigns, they need these people to help them, because it’s become too expensive to stay in Congress once you’re there without the help of very wealthy people.)
But pegging the tax cuts to the amount of people these businesses employ seems like a very good idea — that way, people would be employed, thus more tax revenue overall would be flowing into the system. And that way, there’s an impetus for businesses that may be sitting on a lot of money (and many are; don’t kid yourself) to hire, in order to keep the tax breaks they love so much.
That, to my mind, would be a “win-win.”
————
** Note: A person I respect read me the riot act over Extended Benefits. All I know is what the folks at Unemployment told me; these are programs people have paid into, and their employers alike . . . I agree that no one ever expected people to have to stay on unemployment over a year. Nor that we’d still have over 9% reportable unemployment in the US of A, either, which makes it much more difficult to find work.
Just Reviewed Susan Donovan’s romance “Not that Kind of Girl” at SBR
Folks, here’s the link to my new review:
As always, I had more thoughts than I could cram into any one review — some being irrelevant from a reviewing standpoint — so I’m going to elaborate on them here.
I really liked Susan Donovan’s writing style; it’s perky, blunt, and gets the job done without interfering with the narrative, which is a lot harder to do than it sounds. I also liked her take on the whole soulmate concept, with a matchmaker with a gift (that may be Divinely inspired) to bring two people together who normally wouldn’t give each other a second glance; this being the third in a series and me not having read the other two didn’t stop me from understanding what was going on at all.
All that being said, the way the two at the heart of this story, Roxie and Eli, make love just made me feel sad. Or want to throw things. (Or maybe both.) Because here you have two people who fall in love quickly and are right for one another, but the guy has to always prove he’s dominant at all times, never letting his guard down at all, never being playful, never enjoying the moment for what it is. And that does not ring true to me. Not at all.
Look. I’ve made no secret of it that I found my soulmate in my late husband Michael. The two of us, on the surface, would’ve been much like Roxie and Eli in that Roxie’s passions are all on the surface (me) and Eli’s calm, cool, collected and seems to hold all of himself in reserve unless it’s needed (Michael). Granted, this is at best a rough approximation — I’m leaving out Michael’s delightfully rude sense of humor here, or the fact that I’ve taught a lot of young kids music lessons so if I hadn’t learned a bit of patience now and again I’d have done them no good whatsoever — but I can see enough parallels here to want to discuss why the way these two in NOT THAT KIND OF GIRL don’t behave right in bed.
Simply put, I don’t think a guy who’s always that calm and controlled externally is going to be that way in bed. So I don’t see why someone would insist on behaving the “alpha male” at all times — there’s no need for that between two lovers who wear no masks and understand each other intimately in all senses — nor do I see how a love affair can proceed without some humor in the bedroom, especially as there’s plenty of humorous moments going on outside of it to make me believe the couple at hand does understand when something is funny. (And trust me; down deep, where it matters, the way we make love as human beings has to be about the most inefficient process there is. We may as well make fun of it, and ourselves, as we abandon ourselves to it. Otherwise, why bother with it at all?)
So Ms. Donovan did her job — the couple is realistic enough that I wanted to scream at Eli to knock it the Hell off, thank you — but the way that all happened just did not sit well. I realize some people have relationships like this — psychosexual behavior being what it is, some people must need that, right? — but Eli the dog whisperer had none of the other markers for this personality type. And Roxie — well, I can see why she’d want to get “permission” to be abandoned in bed (this is fairly common), but why would she put up with a guy who’s so damned humorless in the bedroom when she obviously has enough smarts to make a living at her man-hating Web site “I-Vomit-On-All-Men?”
So there you have it; a pleasant, funny beach read that has this one sour note in it. As a musician, I guess I can’t help it that this one sour note keeps drowning out the rest of the harmony and the melody, and as a writer/editor, I wonder why it is that someone didn’t ask Ms. Donovan to please put something in there that showed that to Eli, this was all a game, not to be taken seriously, rather than the dead serious “I am Mr. Macho Man at all times” Caveman nonsense.
Debt Ceiling Action — Write your Senators and Reps Today
Folks, it is obviously up to us to tell our elected representatives what we want, because they need some guidance up there in Washington, DC. (What is it about the air of that place that makes people lose their minds?)
Here’s my letter to my Republican Senator, Ron Johnson, as an example:
Dear Senator Johnson,
When you ran for office, you promised to work on behalf of all Wisconsinites, not just those who voted for you. I write to you now as one who didn’t vote for you but needs your help, as do all Americans.
Refusing to raise the debt ceiling now is wrong. All the debt ceiling does is say to our creditors, “We will pay you what is owed.” There is no reason whatsoever not to do so, so I do not understand your opposition in this matter.
While there is an argument that we as a country shouldn’t be spending so much — something I fully agree with — the fight for a Balanced Budget Amendment shouldn’t be hitched to this particular wagon.
At this point, we are on the brink of utter disaster. If the debt ceiling is not raised, consequences could be catastrophic. I really doubt you wish to do something that is so harmful to every single aspect of our economy, from the highest to the lowest, so please reconsider your opposition to raising the debt ceiling.
Sincerely,
Barb Caffrey
To find your Senators, go here:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Here’s an example of how to write to your elected Representative, my letter to my duly elected Rep, Paul Ryan:
Dear Representative Ryan,
I know you are philosophically opposed to raising the debt ceiling without massive spending cuts as you are what’s known as a “deficit hawk.” Still, you are sworn to do the people’s business, and right now, raising the debt ceiling is the right thing to do.
You have been in Congress for many years now, and you know full well that most of the time, raising the debt ceiling is a bloodless move that no one frets about. I don’t understand why it’s different this time for you or for the Republican Reps. in the House, but I do know that if you don’t do it, the consequences will likely be catastrophic.
I am much more concerned about the economy, why we still have over 14% reportable unemployment in Racine, WI, and why no one’s talking about the jobs issue. If more people were working, the deficit wouldn’t be as bad as it is because more tax revenue would be coming in.
Further, I am disgusted and incensed that the Republicans in the House refused to even consider closing tax loopholes that enrich big business and the wealthy while talking about cuts to “entitlement programs” that the middle class and below need every day — Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. It seems to me that a disproportionate amount of the burden has been placed on the middle class and below; why is it that the wealthy are exempt from sacrifice? And why on Earth do we still need to subsidize oil companies, the wealthiest corporations in the history of the world?
I applaud you for being willing to at least discuss the issue, Rep. Ryan, but I do not appreciate that there is no “sharing” in this sacrifice.
Please vote to raise the debt ceiling forthwith, without any such nonsense as “Cut, Cap and Balance,” as you know that will never pass the Senate. Stop this nonsense, and let’s get on with the people’s business, all right?
Sincerely,
Barb Caffrey
To find your Representatives, go here:
http://www.house.gov/representatives/
And to write to President Obama, go here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact
Good luck in talking sense to these people; I pray that they will listen to us before it’s too late. (Why they insist on playing petty partisan games until the last possible second, I will never know. Perhaps that’s why I’m not a politician.)
Brewers Update
Today’s update is mostly about Rickie Weeks’ injury situation. It’s been reported by both Adam McCalvy (of MLB.com) and Tom Haudricourt (of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) that Rickie Weeks has both a severely sprained left ankle and some ligament damage that will not require surgery. The estimated time for Weeks’ return is anywhere from three to six weeks; as Weeks has been injured before — both wrists and one of his knees — he’s aware of what he needs to do to rehab, so the Brewers are hoping Weeks will only be gone about a month.
For the moment, the Brewers have re-acquired infielder Felipe Lopez, who’s played with the Brewers before. Lopez is an iffy defender with a good bat — similar to Weeks in that way, though Weeks is a bit better in the field and works really hard at it while Lopez, to be charitable, is mostly known to be a guy who’s been a bit of a loudmouth (which is why he doesn’t stick around very long at any team he’s ever played for). Lopez, who had been in the Tampa Bay Rays organization, batting over .300 at AAA ball, will start tonight at second base and bat fifth, which is where Weeks had been batting before the injury due to the Brewers’ woes at that batting position . . . here’s hoping Lopez can put his money where his mouth is, as the saying goes.
Otherwise, I was remiss not to mention John Axford during my last Brewers-centered post, as Axford has set a new Brewers record for 27 saves in a row (his 26th save, which broke the previous record, was on Wednesday; his 27th save was yesterday afternoon). Axford is nearly certain to be the Brewers player of the week, as this was a tough record to surpass; Axford has been consistently good (not always great, but good) as a closer, and has been a big part of the Brewers success this year.
One reason I like Axford so much, though, is that he has a blue collar sensibility to him. He just goes out to the mound and gets the job done. No histrionics. No drama. Just goes out every day and does his job.
I wish we had more people in this world who were like Axford.
Brewers Win Game, but Lose Weeks to DL
The Milwaukee Brewers won tonight’s game against the Chicago Cubs, 2-0. Zack Greinke pitched very well for 6 2/3 innings, then the bullpen (Saito, F. Rodriguez, and Axford in that order) did their part to shut the Cubs right down.
But the Brewers win afterglow had to be somewhat dimmed by the loss of Rickie Weeks; early in the game, Weeks was busting down the line trying to beat out a ground ball for an infield hit. He threw his front leg out to its widest extension, hit first base before the throw came in (meaning he did get that IF hit), but landed funny on the bag. Making matters worse, he then “rolled over” the ankle as he fell face-first onto the ground. He did not get up until the trainers, and Brewers manager Ron Roenicke, came out to get him; at that point, he put a little weight on his right (uninjured) foot but none on his left, and was basically carried off that field by a trainer and Roenicke.
Now, Weeks’ replacement, Craig Counsell, played sparkling defense after being inserted as a pinch runner for Weeks. Counsell didn’t get any hits in three plate appearances, but that defense saved the Brewers quite a few headaches. (Counsell is not only a better fielder than Weeks, but a much better fielder.) So for tonight, losing Weeks wasn’t the world’s worst thing to happen.
However, Ron Roenicke said after tonight’s game that Weeks is headed straight to the disabled list (DL) and will have a MRI on Thursday to pinpoint what damage might be there. (All they know right now is that Weeks did not break his ankle. He may still have tendon damage of some sort, though I’m hoping it’s a strain rather than a tear.)
This is not good news for the Brewers. Despite Weeks’ inconsistent play in the field, he’s been one of the Brewers best hitters this year and has 19 HR, 43 RBI, and 71 runs scored (that last is probably his most important stat, as for most of the year Weeks was batting leadoff). Weeks was named the starting second baseman for the 2011 All-Star game and looked to have a banner season after signing a four-year contract extension earlier this year ($32 million with a signing bonus; it averages to $8 mil a year but the Brewers usually write such contracts with escalator clauses, meaning this year might be $5 mil, next year $10 mil, etc.); this injury definitely will not help the Brewers overall chances to win their division and go to the playoffs for the first time since 2008.
More will be known about Weeks injury tomorrow, so check in with me then as I’ll be sure to update y’all as to what’s going on in that quarter.
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).
Just Reviewed Mario Livio’s “Is God a Mathematician?” for SBR
Folks, my headline for my review at Shiny Book Review tonight is simple:
That refers to Livio’s main argument, which is about whether or not math was designed by humans in order to reflect what humans see — a modern thought, that — or the view of the “Platonists” (mathematicians since Plato who agree with Plato’s point of view) that math was always present in the universe, but human beings may not have had the skill-set in order to be able to understand what they saw around them. This “nature or nurture” type of argument is intriguing enough by itself, but in order to make it, Livio also had to sketch out a history of math and mathematicians or it wouldn’t have made any sense to a non-mathematician like myself.
That Livio did a phenomenal job in explaining what this philosophical argument is all about is intriguing enough, but the historical overview adds depth and breadth to it all, making the point that philosophy doesn’t have to be “dry as dust” stuff as it refers to things we all take for granted every day. In that sense, Livio’s book reminds me of THE TAO OF PHYSICS in that there’s a great deal more to life than what’s been observed and measured up to now — but isn’t it interesting what’s around us that we can observe and measure?
Anyway, go read my review, then grab this book! It’s something that will help you whether or not you’re a SF&F author; it’s something that will interest you if you’ve ever given thought as to how these mathematicians have managed to improve the world (and what we know of it) through the millenia of recorded history.
Barb Caffrey's Blog 