That's interesting...

World of Class Warfare - Warren Buffett vs. Wealthy Conservatives

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

"There is an ongoing argument in this very country about how best to close the enormous deficit that we have incurred. Republicans have proposed doing it entirely through spending cuts, whereas the Democrats have bravely fought back, insisting we do it... almost entirely through spending cuts."

Sadly, that's true. The Democratic position is almost as far right as the Republican position, just not as crazy.

But anyway,... so Warren Buffett is a "socialist" because he doesn't think he should pay a lower tax rate than his cleaning lady? If this is "class warfare," I guess Buffett must be a traitor, huh?

But really, returning tax rates for the wealthy to where they were in the 1990s is "class warfare"? You know, I remember the 1990s. But I don't remember a lot of billionaires in welfare lines back then. I don't remember soup kitchens clogged with millionaires and billionaires.

The rich were doing very, very well in the 1990s. Really, they were. Maybe they weren't quite as obscenely wealthy as today, after their enormous windfall from George W. Bush, but they sure as hell weren't hurting! And the rest of the country was doing a lot better.

World of Class Warfare - The Poor's Free Ride Is Over

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

I'm not going to comment much on the second half of this, because apparently my computer problems aren't over. It's been crashing regularly this morning.

Well, Jon Stewart does a great job all by himself, anyway. Yeah, we don't want to tax the wealthy, because it just isn't worth it (even though giving them those tax cuts got us into this mess in the first place). Instead, we want to tax the poor. Because that's where the money... isn't, I guess.

But there is a lot of them. Maybe we could sell their organs or something...

Thursday, August 18, 2011

"Ring of Fire III" by Eric Flint (editor)

Ring of Fire III, like the first two volumes, is a collection of short stories by different authors, plus a novella by Eric Flint himself, set in Flint's 1632 universe.

(If you're not already a fan of this series, you certainly don't want to start here. Check out my previous comments to get some idea of the storyline.)

As Flint explains in a preface, these three volumes differ from the Grantville Gazette books, which are also anthologies by different authors, in that, "with a few exceptions, every story... is either closely connected to existing story lines in the series or opens up new story lines for future development."

Indeed, the first Ring of Fire introduced Tom Stone ("Stoner") and his family, who star in one of the best threads in the series with their adventures in Italy. It also showed us the beginning of the new American navy, which is such an important part of 1633. Likewise, Ring of Fire II described the romance between Eddie Cantrell and the Danish king's daughter, which is a big part of 1634: The Baltic War.

But before I talk about future storylines in this one, how do these stories hold up as stories? I must admit that I was a bit disappointed, overall. Partly, that's probably because the series has gone on for a long time now, so these just seemed to be "more of the same." They weren't bad, but most of them didn't stand out.

Also, in this kind of series, I really need to care about the characters. Eric Flint usually does that very well, but other authors aren't always so talented. (Or maybe it's just not a priority for them.) In fact, there were only a few stories that really grabbed me in this collection.

And finally, in regards to those future storylines, it gets harder to interest me in those, too, as the series continues. There is a limit in any series, even one with multiple authors. How much more can you really say that's both new and significantly different from what's already been said?

Certainly, the future storylines look ambitious, since they're planning books about the New World and about East Asia, in addition to the clear threat we've been seeing from the Ottoman Empire. So who knows, really?

At any rate, of the short stories, I especially loved "All God's Children in the Burning East" by Garrett W. Vance, and I can't wait to see what happens when 400 Asians - mostly Japanese Christians - arrive in Grantville. In this story, I really did care about the characters. As far as I know, I haven't read anything else by Vance, but he did a great job here.

"Falser Messiah" by Tim Roesch was neat, too, showing us what happens to children who are mentioned in Grantville's history books. It was another one where I liked the characters (mostly kids - and good kids, at that).

I don't mean to imply that the other stories were poor, certainly not. Some were very good, indeed. And if you're a fan of the series, you'll probably want to read them all. The problem is - well, my problem is that I've read a lot of stories set in this world, and I'm having a harder time really being blown away by any of them these days. Certainly, there weren't many here that really blew me away.

Then there's Eric Flint's novella at the end of the book. Flint has a couple of advantages. The first is that his two main characters, Tom and Rita Simpson, are people we've known - and liked - since the very first book in the series (pretty much from the first page, in fact).

It's also part of the main storyline, a book that bridges 1636: The Saxon Uprising and the next novel in that sequence. So it's a story I wanted to read, even before I knew it existed.

But it also demonstrates why I tend to like Eric Flint's books. There are three young women in the story who are trying to escape a city that's being sacked, along with their boss, a "fat asshole" that none of them actually like. If they're caught, they'll almost certainly be raped and murdered by enemy soldiers.

And yet, when their boss is badly injured and knocked unconscious, not one of them even considers leaving him behind, even though they've got the good excuse that he's just too big to carry. They don't even discuss it. They just find a way to manage it, even though it slows them down even further and makes their escape even more difficult than it already was.

My point is that Flint doesn't tell us what their personalities are like, he shows us. They don't make a big deal about it. They just do what they have to do. And another character in the story, a man, does the same thing. These are people we like, because we can see what kind of people they are, just in their actions during a dangerous situation.

I was very happy with the previous book in the 1632 series, and I'm looking forward to the next in the same thread (there are multiple threads going on, since this event has had worldwide implications). This anthology is not a necessary read in the series, not at all. If you're a big fan, you'll probably want to read it. If not, you could easily give it a miss.

I'm glad I read it, but then, I'm a big fan. :)

Christine O'Donnell walks off interview

Funny, isn't it? There's a real connection here to my last post. The myth of the Tea Party is that it's all about economic issues, about smaller government, less spending, and lower taxes. But the reality is quite different.

These are basically the same right-wing Christian evangelicals who gave us George W. Bush. He was their candidate, and they supported him enthusiastically. These are the same religious fanatics who've been fighting a "culture war," the same people who want to tear down the separation of church and state in America.

And Christine O'Donnell - who you can bet hasn't given up on her political aspirations, even though she might not be running for office right this minute - is trying to minimize that "culture war" stuff only because it's unpopular among the majority of Americans. She's just trying to position herself to best political advantage (since the Republican base already knows she's one of them).

Obviously, most people won't ever read her book. And of those who do, most will be true believers, just like her. But a TV interview is a completely different matter. So she won't talk about her real beliefs there, even walking off the set to avoid it.

Now, is Christine O'Donnell smart enough to think of all this on her own? I suspect not. I suspect that she - and other Tea Party favorites - have been taking instruction from people who do know what works best politically. I think they're deliberately pushing that myth of the Tea Party, while avoiding the loony social and religious issues, as much as possible - at least when they're not among supporters alone.

The loony social and religious issues are what they're really all about. But that's not going to fly among most of the American electorate. So they promote that myth of the Tea Party and plan to ride it all the way to electoral success.

Tea Party less popular than atheists?

That's what David E. Campbell and Robert D. Putnam claim in this column in The New York Times, that the Tea Party is even less popular than much maligned groups like “atheists” and “Muslims.”

Here's an excerpt:

Polls show that disapproval of the Tea Party is climbing. In April 2010, a New York Times/CBS News survey found that 18 percent of Americans had an unfavorable opinion of it, 21 percent had a favorable opinion and 46 percent had not heard enough. Now, 14 months later, Tea Party supporters have slipped to 20 percent, while their opponents have more than doubled, to 40 percent.

Of course, politicians of all stripes are not faring well among the public these days. But in data we have recently collected, the Tea Party ranks lower than any of the 23 other groups we asked about — lower than both Republicans and Democrats. It is even less popular than much maligned groups like “atheists” and “Muslims.” Interestingly, one group that approaches it in unpopularity is the Christian Right.

That link leads to this article about the latest New York Times and CBS News poll. And the full results from that are here. That backs up the 20% favorable to 40% unfavorable response to the Tea Party (with the rest undecided or, basically, "don't know"), but it doesn't appear to have asked about atheists. (Of course, these two authors don't claim that it did. They just say "in data we have recently collected.")

However, the NY Times/CBS poll did ask about religion, and a whopping 19% answered "none." That's encouraging, don't you think? Indeed, although that's considerably less than "Protestant" at 50%, it's the same percentage as answered "Catholic." And it's far above "Jewish" (1%), "Muslim" (1%), and "Other" (6%). Another 4% replied with "don't know" or "not applicable," apparently. (I don't know what that's about.)

But let's go back to the original column:

Beginning in 2006 we interviewed a representative sample of 3,000 Americans as part of our continuing research into national political attitudes, and we returned to interview many of the same people again this summer. As a result, we can look at what people told us, long before there was a Tea Party, to predict who would become a Tea Party supporter five years later. We can also account for multiple influences simultaneously — isolating the impact of one factor while holding others constant.

Our analysis casts doubt on the Tea Party’s “origin story.” Early on, Tea Partiers were often described as nonpartisan political neophytes. Actually, the Tea Party’s supporters today were highly partisan Republicans long before the Tea Party was born, and were more likely than others to have contacted government officials. In fact, past Republican affiliation is the single strongest predictor of Tea Party support today. [my emphasis] ...

So what do Tea Partiers have in common? They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do.

More important, they were disproportionately social conservatives in 2006 — opposing abortion, for example — and still are today. Next to being a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics. And Tea Partiers continue to hold these views: they seek “deeply religious” elected officials, approve of religious leaders’ engaging in politics and want religion brought into political debates. The Tea Party’s generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government. [again, my emphasis, since it's clear these are the same people who gave us George W. Bush]

This inclination among the Tea Party faithful to mix religion and politics explains their support for Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Gov. Rick Perry of Texas. Their appeal to Tea Partiers lies less in what they say about the budget or taxes, and more in their overt use of religious language and imagery, including Mrs. Bachmann’s lengthy prayers at campaign stops and Mr. Perry’s prayer rally in Houston.

Yet it is precisely this infusion of religion into politics that most Americans increasingly oppose. While over the last five years Americans have become slightly more conservative economically, they have swung even further in opposition to mingling religion and politics. It thus makes sense that the Tea Party ranks alongside the Christian Right in unpopularity.

Encouraging, isn't it? Oh, not that Americans have become "slightly more conservative economically," of course. In fact, considering the disaster the right-wing has made of things in recent years, that we're actually more conservative now is hard to imagine. I mean, what would it take to discredit right-wing economic policy, if that hasn't?

But if we've moved even further in opposition to "mingling religion and politics," I guess I'll take that tradeoff and be quite pleased about it. I mean, if the Tea Party and the Christian Right are really that unpopular? You bet!

However, this is so very close to what I really want to believe that I'm going to remain a bit skeptical. No, I don't want to be depressed. But I'm not going to believe what two guys write in a newspaper just because I'd really, really like to believe it, either. I need more evidence than this.

So let's just view this as interesting and, yes, encouraging. The fact is, we need some encouragement. If we're discouraged and hopeless, we're all too likely to be apathetic. And in a democracy, that's disastrous. So if you can work up a little enthusiasm about this, that's not a bad thing at all.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled

Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Rick Perry Announces His Candidacy

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Wow, have we forgotten George W. Bush already?

And Perry is already claiming that Ben Bernanke's economic policies are "almost treasonous" (note that Bernanke was first appointed by Bush). Why? Well, if the economy improves, Perry will have a harder time getting elected.

Crazy, isn't it? Well, how about this:

Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Ron Paul & the Top Tier

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Colbert Super PAC - Rick Parry with an "A" for America

Best line? "These other folk? They're just Moral Majorities in a tri-cornered hat."

Now personally, I think that Ron Paul is almost as crazy as the rest of the Republicans. Not quite, of course (not nearly as crazy as his son). And crazy in different ways, perhaps. But still pretty crazy.

Nevertheless, it's remarkable how the establishment types just ignore him. Paul is too much of a populist for them, I guess. (It's certainly not that he's too crazy, not with Bachmann and Perry in there.)

"7th Sigma" by Steven Gould

At the start of this book, I was pleased to see a quote from Kim by Rudyard Kipling, since that's one of my all-time favorite novels. But I was really surprised to turn the page and find that 7th Sigma starts exactly the same way, with a boy named Kim ("Kimball" in the earlier book, "Kimble" here) playing King of the Hill with other boys.

The similarities don't stop there. Steven Gould has crafted a story that's strongly reminiscent of Kipling's tale. And obviously, that's no accident. (Maybe Gould loves Kim as much as I do.)

Of course, the setting of 7th Sigma is completely different. Set in a near-future American Southwest, it actually feels more like the past. That's the result of a plague of self-replicating mechanical insects which have eliminated the use of metal - and electronics of any kind - throughout the region.

No one knows where the robotic "bugs" came from. But they eat all kinds of metal, and use it to create still more bugs. They're powered by sunlight (photovoltaic wings). And although they avoid water, they'll go through anything else to get to metal, so you don't want to be wearing metal filings in your teeth, an artificial hip, or a pacemaker. In fact, you don't want to be anywhere near metal.

Electromagnetic radiation will attract them even faster than metal will. But nothing causes them to swarm as abundantly as destroying one of them. Even accidentally crushing one is usually a death sentence, with bugs drilling through anything and everything in the area.

At first, the American military tried to fight back, but their high-tech weapons just fed the bugs. So now, the American Southwest is a territory with its own special lifestyle. People still live there, but without metal, without computers, without even radio. In many ways, they've returned to an earlier time.

Like his namesake in Kipling's novel, Kimble offers to guide a stranger and finds a friend and mentor. But rather than an innocent Tibetan monk, she's a martial arts instructor. Young Kimble isn't an orphan, but he might as well be, so she takes him under her wing.

Later, though he's still a child, Kimble starts working undercover for the Territorial Rangers. That, too, is strongly reminiscent of Kipling's tale. But Kimble's adventures are his own. And throughout the book, there's a deeper puzzle, the question of where the bugs came from. And perhaps,... where they're going.

7th Sigma caught my attention immediately, and kept it. I really couldn't put it down. I started it early last night and didn't stop reading until after midnight, when I finally read the last page. It's a quick, easy, entertaining adventure with a very sympathetic hero. But as I say, there's a deeper puzzle here.

The bugs aren't just an excuse for a unique setting. There's clearly something else going on. There's some reason why they appeared, though we don't know what that might be. And it's obvious that we haven't seen the end result.

So I'm sure we haven't seen the last of Kimble, either. No doubt this is just the introduction. Yes, it's a complete book in itself, but I do expect to see Kimble again.

PS. This is the first book I've read by Steven Gould since I started this blog, so it's the first one I've reviewed here. But I've read almost everything he's written, and I haven't been disappointed even once. Admittedly, he's not very prolific. I really wish he'd write faster. But I certainly can't complain about how well he writes.

I would especially recommend Jumper (forget about the movie - seriously, just forget it) and Wildside. But all of his books are great fun, and that definitely includes 7th Sigma.

And, er, if you haven't read Rudyard Kipling's Kim, do yourself a favor and give that a try, too. True, it's not science fiction. But the cultures it depicts are so exotic and so alien to my own experience that it might as well be.

Monday, August 15, 2011

"Life of Pi" by Yann Martel

Pi is an Indian boy, the son of a zookeeper, who really loves God. He sees the world through Hindu eyes. He says the world makes sense to him as a Hindu. But when he encounters other religions, he becomes a Christian and a Muslim, too. And we're told that his story will make us believe in God.

Most of that story occurs after a shipwreck, when the 16-year-old Pi finds himself drifting in a lifeboat across the Pacific Ocean with a 450 lb. Bengal tiger. Yes, it's quite a remarkable idea for a book.

Since its initial publication in 2001, Life of Pi has become a huge sensation, and this month, we've been reading it in the ClassicScienceFiction discussion group on Yahoo, despite the fact that it's not science fiction or even fantasy. It's certainly giving us a lot to talk about.

But I must admit that I'm not crazy about the book. It was pretty slow to catch my interest, not for nearly a hundred pages, when the shipwreck finally occurs. And I didn't get especially interested for another fifty pages or more after that.

Of course, this isn't my usual kind of book, either. I might have liked it better when I was younger and had more patience. Indeed, I might have liked it a great deal, then. But these days, I generally want a straightforward story with no bullshit. And this story is anything but straightforward.

In fact, we're having a big debate in our reading group about the meaning of the book. As I noted, the story, we're told, is supposed to make us believe in God. But I think it should do just the reverse.

Unfortunately, I can't discuss anything further without huge spoilers. If you think you might read the book, I urge you to stop here. Otherwise, I'll continue below the fold:

Saturday, August 13, 2011

See? I told you!

(Deep Cover)

Click to embiggen.

Friday, August 12, 2011

Sarah Palin's version of the bat signal

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Video Archive

"Apparently, Sarah Palin's version of the bat signal is anyone else's spotlight." Heh, heh.

It's pretty clear that this is all about money for Palin, don't you think? She's not going to run for political office again. Heck, she only made it half-way through her first term as Alaska's governor. She just wants the spotlight, because that's how celebrities make the big bucks.

That's why I posted this, just for the first minute or so of this video clip. I'm not sure what I think of the rest of it, urging Iowans to vote for "Rick Parry with an A."

I suppose these Colbert Super PAC ads are kind of funny - though not as funny as I was expecting, frankly. And urging a write-in vote for "Rick Parry"? Yeah, that fits with Stephen Colbert's on-air persona, I guess. But,... well, maybe my expectations were just too high.

Entitlements

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Lactate Intolerance