Just reviewed Modesitt, Jr.’s “Empress of Eternity” — Excellent.
Folks, if you haven’t read EMPRESS OF ETERNITY yet, you should.
But in case you need a reason to read it, go read my review at Shiny Book Review right now:
Enjoy!
Just reviewed “Troubled Waters” at Shiny Book Review
Folks, I enjoy Sharon Shinn’s writing a great deal, so reading TROUBLED WATERS wasn’t a hardship. That said, it’s far from the best of her novels, and her magical universe — one which deals with five elements, but not the traditional five of air, fire, earth, water and spirit (instead, hers are water, air/spirit, earth, fire, and the Hunti or wood/bone element) — was not that unusual.
What was unusual, though, was a plot structure that required nearly a full half of the book before Zoe Ardelay (the main character) figures out who and what she is, and nearly a fourth of the book before Zoe makes much sense (as she starts off the book in the throes of grief as her father has just died; her mother died years before). That Zoe’s personality was more or less subsumed by her father, one of the Sweela element (or fire/mind), is a given; how she comes out of that is unusual and worth reading, yet is so slow-going that at times it was nearly torturous compared to other Sharon Shinn novelizations.
At any rate, here’s my latest review:
http://shinybookreview.wordpress.com/2011/01/22/sharon-shinns-troubled-waters-is-good-but-slow/
Hope y’all will enjoy it.
Keith Olbermann Ousted by MSNBC
Keith Olbermann is out at MSNBC, and many of my friends among the Hillary Clinton Democrats (and Independents) are cheering tonight because of some of the awful things KO said about Mrs. Clinton (one of the comments was something like, “Someone should take her into a room, then only one of ’em come back out,” which was indeed a terrible comment to make).
But I feel . . . strange, I guess is the best word. I don’t think this is a triumph at all, nor do I see it as a form of karmic comeuppance. I feel that Olbermann , while controversial, would nearly always backtrack when something he believed later turned out to be wrong. And in fact, earlier this year after the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), Olbermann apologized for any comments he might’ve made — including that awful one I alluded to above — that made violence seem at all an acceptable resort to combat any political candidate, or any politician. Olbermann has made it clear in recent weeks that the only two things people should do are these:
1) Educate yourself, and learn about the candidates.
2) Vote for the candidate who best represents you and your beliefs.
(For which I applaud him, as he’s been one of the very few commentators who’s been explicit about what should be done in the wake of what’s now being called the “Tucson Tragedy.”)
In other words, I think Olbermann has realized he made a few mistakes here and there, and had become a slightly better balanced commentator over recent weeks. I’d been heartened at this turn of events and hoped it would continue; that “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” is now off the air is, to my mind, a stunning disappointment because despite my objections to how Olbermann sometimes handled himself (especially over l’affaire Hillary Clinton in 2008), he was an entertaining host who made politics a little less complex and a lot more fun on his best nights.
Lawrence O’Donnell will be taking over Olbermann’s time slot, which isn’t an improvement by any means . . . while O’Donnell can have an interesting perspective, he doesn’t have much of a sense of humor, nor does he seem to know when to back off a little (his overwhelming personality, bigger than Olbermann’s in my opinion, does not help anything, either). Then Ed Schultz moves into O’Donnell’s late-night slot — and while I like Ed’s program a great deal, I’d rather see it at 5 PM CST where it’s always been than have it move to the 9 PM slot. And finally, Cenk Uyger, who’s called one of the “Young Turks,” is getting his own program at 5 PM for reasons that escape me . . . this, to my mind, does not bring MSNBC even close to being a balanced network, nor does it promote a balanced perspective in any way, shape or form.
Keith Olbermann has always been a lightning rod for criticism; he was one when he worked for ESPN as a sports announcer, and he’s been one at MSNBC as a news announcer. But one thing KO has never been is boring . . . so in that sense, unlike many of my HRC friends, I will miss Olbermann, especially as he really did seem to be getting a better, and more centrist, perspective lately.
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.
Barb Caffrey's Blog 