Are we _really_ supposed to want to work at Wal-Mart? A rant.
Folks, I have grown tired of these “people who work at Wal-Mart” commercials, and as I just saw (and heard) another of these, I need to discuss why I do not appreciate them in the slightest.
First off, I am really surprised by the tone of these commercials. The Hispanic woman who’s proud — very, very proud — of her work at Wal-Mart because it “got her off welfare” and now she’s even gotten her son a job there — far be it for me to say, but shouldn’t she have aspired to a bit more than this?
Look. I worked as a cashier for three-plus years and a grocery stocker for a few more. I do not look down on people who do these jobs; I know they’re valuable and that many very smart, capable people work in these jobs for a time, or maybe for their entire life.
But for someone who was basically lost, by her own admission, before she started working for Wal-Mart . . . either this is TMI (too much information) or she’s dissembling a little bit to be polite. Either way, I dislike it very much and wish she’d stop.
Where you work is only part of who you are; I realize that and respect it. And I recognize that this Hispanic lady, along with the others who are proud to work at Wal-Mart and have been trumpeting it to the skies for at least three months now, are smart people who would seem to have more than one option.
So why is it, then, that whenever I think about Wal-Mart, I have the Saturday Night Live skit in my head where Wal-Mart comes in and takes over everyone, so the folks who used to have independent thoughts or were independently opposing Wal-Mart are now subsumed into its inexhaustible matrix?
These “people who work for Wal-Mart” commercials, to my mind, are sad. Just sad. Because I don’t for one minute buy that Wal-Mart is a “hip and happening” place, or one where people often go and grow . . . that some do is undeniable, but that most do? Unlikely at best.
All I can do is shake my head and change the channel when I see the “people who work at Wal-Mart” commercials, because it just rings so hollow. And false.
I cannot believe I am the only one, either, which makes me wonder why these commercials are still on the air.
If this is an attempt at framing the narrative, Wal-Mart corporate board, it’s utterly failed, because I just don’t see how pointing out a bunch of people who happen to work for you who are uncommonly cheerful about it helps get people to spend money at your stores. (If the thought behind this narrative framing failure was that if we saw the people who work at Wal-Mart that we might realize they’re just like the rest of us, well, all I can say is, “I see your point but that doesn’t mean I’m going to spend any more money in your stores.” In other words, it’s a non sequitur of major proportions.)
So with all of that being said, all I can do is hope these “people of Wal-Mart” commercials will soon go off the air. Because all I can think of when I see these bright, amiable people talk about their Wal-Mart experiences is this: “Why? Why?”
Packers win; Rodgers being praised to the skies — and I don’t care.
The Packers won tonight, 48-21, against Atlanta. Aaron Rodgers had an excellent game, one of his best ever.
So, why don’t I care? A little background, first.
Folks, I have followed the Packers since I was very small — something like three or four years old. But I’ve grown tired of the need at every step by both state and national reporters to glorify Aaron Rodgers at the expense of former Packers QB (and sure-to-be Hall of Famer) Brett Favre.
Look at tonight’s story from Yahoo Sports; first, here’s the link:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/recap;_ylt=AnZs3MZQTLWirpX6pR06CFk5nYcB?gid=20110115001
Next, a relevant quote:
ATLANTA (AP)—Brett who? Aaron Rodgers(notes) has turned these NFL playoffs into his own showcase.
Moving down a few paragraphs, the article continues:
Rodgers completed 31 of 36 passes for 366 yards, more than Brett Favre(notes)—the guy he replaced in Green Bay—ever threw for in a playoff game. After knocking off Michael Vick(notes) and the Eagles in Philadelphia, then dominating Matt Ryan(notes) and the Falcons in Atlanta, Rodgers is creating his own legacy in Titletown USA.
That Rodgers surely is, but comparing him to Favre is unnecessary. Favre was a great quarterback who is now retired. Football’s rules have changed in the past few years allowing for more offense, and Rodgers — and the Packers’ offensive schemes — have taken advantage of that.
Either Rodgers is a good quarterback on his own — I believe he is — or he isn’t, but in any event a comparison to Brett Favre is unhelpful unless you want to go back to Favre’s second or third playoff game. (This is Rodgers’ third playoff game, the second of this year, and before this year he’d played in one and lost in one, the 48-47 shootout in Arizona last year.)
Comparing Rodgers, who is a young man with only one significant injury this year (a concussion that kept him out of a game or two), with Favre, who is over 40 and was hobbled by at least five significant injuries (foot, ankle, elbow, throwing shoulder, and a nasty concussion that kept him out of his last two games and shortened a third), is not just an “apples to oranges” comparison — it is kicking a legend, Brett Favre, while he’s down.
I blame headlines like this on those who are angry because of Favre’s off-the-field issues or his inability to give up playing football on someone else’s timetable other than his own. I see them as childish, mean-spirited, unnecessary, and extremely rude.
Aaron Rodgers is a good quarterback who played a very fine game. But he is not a certain Hall of Famer just yet, and as far as his personality goes, there’s no comparison between the engaging, “aw shucks, ma’am” persona of Favre and the driven, competitive, smart but rather taciturn Rodgers.
In ten years, perhaps we’ll know if Rodgers is another Steve Young — a legend following in the footsteps of another, greater legend (in Young’s case, he followed Joe Montana in San Francisco, as all football fans know) — or if he’s another guy who’ll have a few, brief years in the sun, then start to fade as injuries take their toll.
Until then, the folks writing stories such as these really should shut the Hell up.
New review up at SBR for Sinclair’s “Hope’s Folly” and “Rebels and Lovers”
Folks, more of you should be reading Linnea Sinclair’s work. She writes excellent science fiction/romance, and has now branched out into military science fiction as well (milSF), though with some romance.
I truly enjoyed HOPE’S FOLLY and appreciated it on all levels; an excellent, worthy book that celebrates femininity and independence, along with a relationship of equals. Couldn’t say anything better about this book except I wanted more of it.
As for what I think about REBELS AND LOVERS — go read my review. Please! (You’ll also get a better review of HOPE’S FOLLY, in case you need a bit more, um, persuasion.)
http://shinybookreview.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/linnea-sinclairs-milsf-is-very-very-good/
Lobbyist Jimmy Williams says “It’s Hate” that causes shootings, not guns.
This, friends, is the best thing I’ve heard from the pundits since the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, D-AZ, last Saturday afternoon.
To be brief, Jimmy Williams, who is a Democratic lobbyist, said on today’s ‘Dylan Ratigan Show” on MSNBC that it is not guns alone that kill people. He noted that on 9/11, the terrorists did not use guns. In Oklahoma City, the terrorists did not use guns. And while some terrorists have used guns like Sirhan Sirhan and Lee Harvey Oswald, they undoubtedly would’ve found another way if they hadn’t had guns because they were drunk on hatred.
So to be even more brief: “It’s hate,” said Jimmy Williams.
Williams elaborated that people learn hatred at home but can learn differently; he used his own experience growing up in the South, mentioning that his father had far different views about black people than he did, and that he’s told his father many, many times he’s wrong. And that focusing only on the fact this guy Jared Lee Loughner, 22, is severely mentally ill is missing the point.
Amen, brother!
Listen. I get really upset when someone blames all mentally ill people for something like this. The term “mental illness” has broadened to the point to include people who are grieving the loss of a loved one (transitory depression), those who suffer from panic attacks (the most high-profile one being football Hall of Fame running back Earl Campbell), and those suffering from situationally-based depression. None of these types of people are likely to go on a killing spree, though some are responsible hunters and take their responsibility as gun owners seriously.
So just saying, as one gal did here on the Dylan Ratigan show (I forgot her name already, sorry), that “all crazy people should not have guns” is really beside the point.
Also, what, exactly, is your definition of a “crazy person?” Is it, like the famed definition of pornography by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, something you’ll “know . . . when you see it?”
Jimmy Williams is right to say that it is hate, pure and simple, which makes someone — crazy or not — go out on a rampage like this one. And he’s right to say that hate — not being crazy — is what led to the deaths of six innocent people and the wounding of fourteen more (some of whom, like Congresswoman Giffords, remain in critical condition at this time).
You need to see this video from Dylan Ratigan’s MSNBC show; I can’t seem to get it to properly upload, so please go to this link where you should be able to see it:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/#41026206
Cut and paste this link if Word Press does something odd again . . . it should work and bring you to Dylan Ratigan’s home page, where this video (about ten minutes in length) will play, and you’ll see Jimmy Williams extraordinary “cut through the bull” moment, along with a few others who didn’t understand, plus host Dylan Ratigan, who did.
US Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) Shot at Town Meeting; 6 dead, 12 wounded
While driving today, I heard the distressing, horrifying news that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) had been shot at a town meeting this morning at 10 AM local Arizona time; she was shot in the head at point-blank range. Six others, including federal judge John Roll, a child, a baby, and one of Ms. Giffords’ aides, are dead according to various wire reports, while Ms. Giffords has already undergone successful neurosurgery. Her condition is considered critical, but stable, at this time; no one knows whether she will fully recover, but all hopes are high.
Here’s a link to the most recent wire report I could find:
Notice this is a UK newspaper, but their information is accurate as far as I can tell from monitoring CNN and Fox News this afternoon.
As Speaker of the House John Boehner said:
“An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve. Acts and threats of violence against public officials have no place in our society.
“Our prayers are with Congresswoman Giffords, her staff, all who were injured, and their families. This is a sad day for our country.”
I agree; this is truly awful. Horrifying. Disgusting. Distressing. And insane.
The gunman, whoever he is — all we know is he’s 22 or 23 years old, though this article identifies him as Jared Laughner — needs to be seriously questioned at to what, exactly, he thought he was doing. Because no matter how much you hate your elected representative — though Ms. Giffords was said to be well-liked by colleagues and voters — the only thing to do is this: VOTE THEM OUT. DO NOT SHOOT THEM. (OR ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING WITH THEM.)
** CNN just identified the shooter (I want to use much stronger verbiage, believe you me) as Jared Lee Loughner, 22. Note the variation in spellings. This still may not be the right identification.
Pitcher Chris Capuano signs with New York Mets
Just a short observation today, folks . . . a few days ago, left-handed pitcher Chris Capuano signed a one-year contract with the New York Mets for what’s been reported as $1.3 million dollars. He’s expected to be given a chance to make the starting rotation, which is the main reason Capuano didn’t re-sign with the Milwaukee Brewers.
I’ve written a few blogs about Capuano in the past; I admire him greatly. He has an outstanding work ethic. He is a very smart man, having a degree from Duke University and being his high school valedictorian before that, and he’s used his combination of intelligence, athleticism and toughness to come back from not one, but two “Tommy John” ligament replacement surgeries.
It’ll be difficult to see Capuano in a different uniform, but I understand his position. He’s best off as a starter; that’s what he’s good at. And the Brewers would not even give him the opportunity to make the team as a starter — I guess they feel Chris Narveson (also a left-hander) was a better bet, though I’d highly disagree — which would upset me if I were Capuano, too.
I plan on continuing to follow along with Capuano’s career; as I have said here many times, he is a study in perseverance. In faith in yourself, in your own abilities, even when life itself seems against you. And he has “the goods” to be an outstanding pitcher, still. Even at age 32. Even after two “Tommy Johns.”
Good luck, Chris Capuano. I’ll be rooting for you.
Reading “The Predator State” by James K. Galbraith.
I’m not quite done with this book yet, folks, but I have to say the ideas in this book bear much closer scrutiny.
In “The Predator State,” James K. Galbraith shows that even most of the hard-line conservatives (almost always Republicans) in the United States of America have given up on the old Reagan-era “supply-side economics” that they, unfortunately, campaigned on during the 2010 election. These ideas have been proven to be unworkable and perhaps unattainable, including the idea that tax cuts for the extremely wealthy will stimulate economic growth. (It doesn’t. Instead, all it tends to do is give the incredibly wealthy person more money to put in a Swiss bank account, or invest — usually overseas — and even investing here in the United States is problematic because of how companies are now run to maximize “shareholder value” rather than actually create good products and get them out before the marketplace and thus do some good for society.)
The American electorate was volatile and angry in 2010; I get that.
But to now have a bunch of Republicans in there saying stuff they don’t even mean — at least, I hope they don’t because if they do, that means they know less about the economy than I do (perilous thought, that) — really bothers me. And that one of those who should know better is now the new Governor of the state of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, is incredibly upsetting.
In addition, the recent “tax cut” bill that was passed actually raises taxes on those making under $20,000 a year. What sense does this make?
So, taxes have been lowered for the incredibly wealthy — or in this case, the low taxes for the very wealthy have been extended. And taxes have been raised for the poorest of the poor, those below the poverty level.
And this is supposed to be the “best country in the world?”
How can this happen in a country that’s supposed to represent fairness (i.e., “liberty and justice for all”) for all, including economic fairness?
How is this right? How is this just? How is this understandable, or make any sort of economic sense?
I mean, the old phrase “you can’t get blood from a stone” comes to mind, here; those of us who make under $20,000 a year don’t have anything extra to give the government, and those who make over a million a year obviously do except in rare cases. So if you up their percentage, say, by 2%, you’re not hurting them very much, where you’re really hurting someone who’s at the poverty level or below. (Poverty level, right now, is around $21,000 United States dollars for one person if I recall correctly.)
Unless the real strategy to keep illegal aliens out is to persuade the rest of us poor people to leave, too . . . and I think Germany, in the 1940s, proved that the strategy of kicking people out for any reason (in that case, it was due to racism/genocide) is an unproductive, losing strategy indeed.
And since that makes no sense, either, all I can conclude is that this is yet again another exercise in “framing the narrative,” trying to make what’s really going on in this country — many good people being unemployed through no fault of theirs, all of those unemployed people being unable to pay all their bills through no fault of theirs, and very little being done about actual job creation — seem the problem solely of the Democrats, rather than what it really is: a failure of leadership from both political parties.
Just reviewed “The Dragon Variation” and “Mouse and Dragon” at SBR; Comments.
Folks, here’s the link before I forget:
Now, a few comments from me (otherwise known as the peanut gallery):
These books are excellent. Truly outstanding. Magical, even . . . they get all the emotions right. All the mores right. All the cultural issues right. The language is impressive, the descriptions are just right, and the romances are conflicted, realistic, sometimes amusing and touching, all at once.
I wish I could write this like this pair of authors, Sharon Lee and Steve Miller; I truly do.
The end of my review talked about the emotional, powerful impact MOUSE AND DRAGON had on me. MOUSE AND DRAGON is about the too-brief marriage of Aelliana Caylon and Daav yos’Phelium, and is realistic in so many ways about what happens to a widower when his spouse dies that I can’t even tote them up on a toteboard. That Aelliana’s presence sticks around (more or less in ghost form) is not the most amazing part of this achievement; it’s that Sharon Lee and Steve Miller — neither of whom have been widowed as far as I know — got it right that our deceased spouses do live on. In us.
One of the issues I’ve had with widowhood from the beginning is that I didn’t know how to express my feelings over the loss of my husband beyond rage, despair, extreme frustration and loss. It’s really hard to lose a spouse when you’re only thirty-nine years old, and you’ve only had a few, short years together. Blissful years, sure. But still — far too short.
The entire story of Daav’s marriage — how he met Aelliana, in SCOUT’S PROGRESS. How he married her, then lost her, in MOUSE AND DRAGON. How he dealt with her continued presence in FLEDGLING and SALTATION — has now been sketched out. It is a stunning achievement, one that I can’t praise highly enough; it shows two extremely intelligent people who are constrained by circumstances that manage to forge a life together, then manage to keep on loving each other in a meaningful way after one of the pair’s physical death.
Daav’s solution — which I will discuss here, but I warn you it is a spoiler if you haven’t read the end of MOUSE AND DRAGON, or any of FLEDGLING or SALTATION — is to immerse himself in an alternate identity, Jen Sar Kiladi, and thus take a lover. He has a child, Theo Waitley, by his lover, who is a half-sibling of his son Val Con yos’Phelium by his wife, Aelliana Caylon. And Aelliana has stuck around; she still views herself as Daav’s wife, and despite him taking a lover (at her insistence, I might add), nothing has changed for them as far as their feelings go. It’s just that because she no longer has a physical body, she can’t meet all his physical needs.
I’ve been pondering this. I think there’s something here that might help me, psychologically, deal with something I’ve really not wanted to have to think about — possibly being with another man.
You see, Michael was the ultimate in my experience. The best husband (as I had two previous ones, believe you me, I know how good a husband he was). The best, and most supportive person, I have ever had the privilege to know, yet he was not sycophantic and would tell me off if he felt the need (which, fortunately for me, was rarely).
How do you go beyond “the ultimate?” How do you find any meaning with anyone else?
I don’t know, but I’m finally willing to at least consider the possibility that someone extraordinary — someone like Kamele Waitley was for Daav/Jen Sar — might exist out there.
I’d best end this now, or I’ll get maudlin — and trust me, none of us need that.
State of the Elfyverse: End of the Year Edition
Folks, since we’re two days away from the New Year, it’s about time I updated the state of the Elfyverse. (I think it’s been two months, maybe three, since I last did this. How time does fly.)
We start off with the in-progress short story, tentatively titled “Boys Night In.” I estimate this as about 60% complete; I have the framework for this story, and some of the jokes, but there’s something just not right as of yet. (I shall, of course, keep working on it.) Story will be, approximately, 10K words in length.
AN ELFY ABROAD — part 45 is in progress. Part 44 has been revised. Part 46 has been tentatively sketched out, in prose only . . . no detailing or jokes. (This means I’ve probably written five, maybe six thousand words since the last check-in.) Story stands at an unwieldy and perhaps excessive 255,000 words . . . very good possibility this book is going to end up being split as it’s at least fifteen chapters from the end.
ELFY — I tried twenty agents this year; two bit on sample pages. Both passed after I sent the sample pages. Two small-press publishers have shown interest; one believes ELFY, which stands at 240,000 words, needs to be split in thirds. (I’m still mulling this over.) The other believes ELFY should stand as-is, but there are other things (not of my making) that are perhaps an impediment to its release at the second small-press publisher.
Needless to say, I am not giving up on ELFY.
KEISHA’S VOW — This is an ELFY prequel, set in 1954 . . . I’ve done some editing here, and perhaps have added 1500 words since October. I’m still working out part 23, and have realized a few possible problems, but haven’t had much time for this work in particular due to working on the collaborative effort with Piotr Mierzejewski. KEISHA’S VOW continues to stand at just over 35,000 words; this novel should finish somewhere between 95K and 115K if all goes well.
Now, the state of the non-Elfyverse stuff . . . .
CHANGING FACES, a spiritual, paranormal romance set in the present day, has been re-started, and about 2500 words have been added. This work now stands at 105,000 words, and should finish by 130K.
THE GIFT, a spiritual, paranormal romance novella set in the present day, has been re-started, and about 1500 words have been added. This work now stands at 24,000 words, and I hope will finish at 40K.
Novella in progress with Piotr Mierzejewski — currently untitled, formerly titled IRON FALLS — we have about 20K words of an unformed story. A very rough first draft, IMO . . . some chapters are more finished than others, which I suppose is a saving grace. This novella is near-future military suspense, set in 2047 in Russia.
10K word story sent to Writers of the Future in September (can’t give out the title), which is fantasy/adventure. Can’t imagine this story will do well if my/Michael’s collaboration “Joey Maverick: On Westmount Station” didn’t even get an honorable mention, but I suppose it counts.
Word count for the year stands at 235,000. Not including this blog, various book reviews, writing e-mails, or anything save actual writing on projects.
I have no idea how to count all the editing of projects I’ve done for ComicsBulletin.com and for various friends, so I won’t . . . I’ll just say, “a lot,” and be done with it.
Happy New Year, everyone. (Oh, and my New Year’s resolutions? Finish CHANGING FACES at long last. Figure out why AN ELFY ABROAD is going so long and get a plan as to how to split it up. Finish THE GIFT at long last. And finish KEISHA’S VOW at long last, too. Plus find ELFY a publisher! Please?)
Barb Caffrey's Blog 