Book 33
Rescue Missions - Frederick Busch

This is a must-read, only in the sense that I am often incapable of putting down a book once I've begun, no matter how bad it is. And this is pretty bad. You wouldn't expect a collection of short stories about death and disappointment and depression to be uplifting, of course. But Busch feels like a show-off and manipulator in his bleak stories, allowing for no variation of dark emotion and thought. Read in succession, the stories become more tedious and plodding and so predictable, it was hardly worth the effort.

Book 34
I Feel Bad About My Neck - Nora Ephron

Humor is a skill best shown with emotion. Ephron knows this with precision, having written everything from screenplays to essays to a book about the collapse of her marriage, complete with recipes.
So it is no surprise to see the melancholy that accompanies this collection of essays on getting older. Laughter is often a way to mask or boost other feelings. A tinge of regret, in Ephron's capable hands, can be truly a hoot.
It is always a treasure to find a funny book - that made me laugh out loud several times, despite our 30-some year age gap - that is rich with emotion and clarity. Being able to laugh about loss is truly a treasure, as is Ephron.

I would have enjoyed economics far more in college if I had a guy like Krugman as my professor. if nothing else, he explains things in a way that I can understand...

www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/opinion/17krugman.html

But this was some good stuff.

ArtBoy was understandably offended recently when someone asked him if he read. Worse, the actual question was:

"Do you read? Books?"

Being a writer, ArtBoy simply couldn't stomach the idea that a) he might not read or b) the questioner felt the need to clarify that the query was beyond basic literacy.

I get this. It is a strange question.

But, having made my living with words for 16 or so years now (not to mention helping to pay my way through undergrad), I also must acknowledge that there are a shocking number of writers, would-be-writers, think-they're-writers and wordsmiths who do not, in fact, read.

Some do not read in the strictest sense. They will not pick up a book, period. Most often, they say it is because they are busy. Occasionally, they will say simply prefer magazines, which usually means Forbes or Maxim, not the Economist.

Others lack the ability to read and synthesize. Long-time Scoopgirl friends will know of an ex who became an ex for this lack of critical thinking.

(Said ex was teaching Shakespeare to a classroom of teens who - to be polite - were clearly not college-bound and likely not trade school bound either. One student who had actually read Hamlet in its entirety and suggests that the poor Danish king is suffering in part because no one believes him or in him. Pretty good, really. And hey, isn't interpretation a key part of understanding literature? But no. Ex berates said student in class, proudly reporting later that, "Duh, everyone knows it's because he is a philosopher.")

I have even heard some say they don't buy into the notion that reading makes you a better writer. As if studying language, structure, plot and ideas have no value.

Like Chris Rock says, "'I don't read. I'm keepin' it real.' Yeah. Real stupid."

It's sad, because it's true. And it's funny, because it's true.

Having just finished Toobin's "The Nine," I am looking at the Sotomayor hearings in a different light today.

Observers have long known that confirmations are no longer about experience but about ideology. And whoever is president gets to determine ideology (ie, Roberts and Alito in the last go'round, who differ slightly in experience but are known to be reliable conservatives who follow the ideology of the Constitution in Exile).

It's intriguing, though, to see the likes of Jeff Sessions and John Cornyn making noise about Sotomayor's qualifications. She is most certainly qualified for the job, both with education and experience.

But it seems the more conservative senators and Obama have something in common in their push for and against Sotomayor: a look at her record indicates she will most likely be a surprise along the lines of Souter or O'Connor than a reliable vote along the lines of Scalia or Alito. She is far more law-and-order than most liberals realize, and not nearly as socially liberal as most conservatives realize.

We know this, if we read up, because unlike the bulk of recent Supreme Court nominees in my lifetime, she has extensive trial experience and a lengthy record of rulings. What I find intriguing is that while she cannot in any way alter the balance of the court in the way that O'Connor did, she can definitely offer a few surprises. The liberals and conservatives can swat at each other all they like, but I think Sotomayor may turn out to be the Latina O'Connor: a thoughtful moderate who is probably more like mainstream folks than we care to admit.

Here it is, halfway through the 2009 baseball season and the Indians are struggling to play .400 ball.

The team some experts hailed as the likely winners of the AL Central have instead the worst record in the American League.

The front office had to say publicly, and repeatedly, that they don't intend to fire manager Eric Wedge. Intend is the key word, and remember that Shakespearean nugget of protesting too much.

One-time rising stars like Jhonny Peralta are acting like they've joined the Tribe circa 1988, playing dismally and clearly not wanting to be part of the team.

Yep, this is the Tribe from my youth. Except for one thing: The new owners decided very gradually to begin retiring Chief Wahoo. I blame the loss of the happiest mascot in all of sports for the punishment now inflicted on this team and its fans.

Sure, that makes me superstitious. You know of many fans who aren't?

But the owners, and now even Major League Baseball, have decided against the will of the fans and people who grew up on this team that they surely know best. Look at the special cap that all teams wear on major holidays. Last year, it was Chief Wahoo amid the Stars and Stripes. This year, it's just a C. You know, because that clearly sets apart a team from say, Chicago. Or Cincinnati. Sure.

The fact is, what was once an odd racial caricature has become a true symbol of a team. Let's face it. The Indians are the labrador retrievers of baseball: happy idiots who are just enjoying their time here. The big smile rather reflects the fact that Clevelanders embrace their teams despite, and often in spite of, their lousy seasons and false hopes.

Besides, random trivia: Cleveland is the only city home to two major sports teams named after people. The Browns are not named after Jim Brown as everyone thinks, but rather the coach, Paul Brown. The dolts in the NFL marketing department found out just how much that meant when, during the reincarnation of the team, they tried to switch the colors to orange and teal. Seriously. Look it up. The Browns were going to be orange and teal, because those were seen as eye-popping colors. Thank God the rather beefy men of Northeast Ohio imagined themselves wearing those jerseys, revolted and reminded folks of just where that team name came from and why it mattered.

And the Indians became the Indians in 1915, two years after Louis "Chief" Sockalexis died. Sockalexis played for what was then the Cleveland Spiders and is the first Native American ... ahem, Indian ... to have played in the major leagues. The official media guide is fuzzy on whether the team changed names solely to honor Sockalexis, but it's worth noting, he played his entire professional career in Cleveland.

I absolutely refuse to buy any Cleveland merchandise without Chief Wahoo. Hell, I even get grumpy if I see the team playing with just a giant script I on their uniforms or that lousy stylized C.

So while I'll admit that I'd like to see Rafael Perez, Kelly Shoppach and Ben Francisco set their heads and make the second half worthy of their abilities, I also think there needs to be a bit more Wahoo out there.

Book 31
The Nine - Jeffrey Toobin

This book, a look at the personalities and politics of the Supreme Court, had been on my list for a while. I could never get to it in time, since someone at the library always had it checked out.
And with good reason. Toobin offers great insight into what is surely the most secretive of government institutions. He acknowledges that much of his information comes from conversations with law clerks, attorneys and some of the justices now and most recently serving. His goal is clear: to make a case that people should be informed about the inner workings of this for-life job. His narrative arc is the most court's gradual tilt to the right, a cause advanced with great care, planning and precision by the conservative elite.
Toobin's narrative and vignettes amount to a clear portrait of each justice, their influence or lack thereof and the overall idea that these justices are not umpires in a political game but very important political players in their own rights.

Book 32
Buying Dad - Harlyn Aizley

This memoir looks at what a lesbian nearing her 40th birthday goes through when she decides to become a mother.
In this case, Aizley and her partner - using the term loosely, because although they are 7 years into a relationship and own a home together, there isn't much of a bond shown here - have the family, social and economic resources to buy sperm and begin trying for a family.
Some of these details, such as the struggle to time exactly right when ovulation is occurring and the callous nature of some doctors, are rendered true to life and with feeling.
But much of it is a homage to Aizley and all she believes. Yes, it's a memoir, but I'd like the occasional reaction of other characters, not just her reaction to their reaction. And don't even get me started on her incessant and annoying need for constant dream sequences.
A parallel narrative of Aizley's mother and her medical battle creates some human emotion for Aizley, even if the end hardly a surprise. But there isn't enough of Aizley here to decide if she is really this self absorbed or just trying to create some distance as she talks about an intensely personal journey.

People have asked, so I reckon I'll answer.

1. No, I didn't watch the Michael Jackson memorial. I don't care. Yes, when I was a little girl, I loved the Thriller album. Yes, he was an amazing performer. No, he was not a decent human being. No, dying young does not make you a decent human being. Yes, he was raised by insane parents. No, that is not a lifelong excuse for behavior. But yes, I do feel bad for his kids. I also felt bad for them when he was alive.

2. Yes, I've been following the Sarah Palin rambles. No, I don't believe she is presidential material. No, I don't believe she is particularly bright or savvy. Yes, I believe she stepped down for reasons beyond being with her family. Yes, I believe her state, like many others, is in a position where taxes will have to be raised or major cuts will have to done. Yes, I believe she didn't want the hard job of doing that, either because she doesn't want the stain on a future presidential bid or because she lacks the ability. No, suggesting that she might be pregnant is not appropriate political theory (I'm talking to you, CNN). Yes, it appears she is crazy like a fox. Yes, leaving behind a questionable legacy is far better than a truly dreadful one. And as Kevin pointed out, Yes, I have property in Florida to rent to her, should she desire a Southern base.

3. Yes, the New York Times editorial page remains a daily bright spot. To wit:
The latest David Brooks: www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/opinion/07brooks.html
The latest Kristoff: www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/opinion/05kristof.html

And now, in search of dignity ... or books.

Lots going on in ScoopgirlWorld, but not much time to update.

So the quickie:

1. Crohn's and the South Beach diet's first phase may or may no peacefully co-exist. Some symptoms worsened, while others improved. But, on the plus side, the blood sugar has leveled off nicely. No weight lost, but that wasn't the idea. And I got to eat lots of salad, which I had desperately missed.

2. The job remains, though the Powers That Be have closed my office. I am now "in the field," which means at random coffeehouses and diners, until I can get my doctor to write an ADA memo about certain Scoopgirl needs being found in offices. I have not spoken to anyone but CuteGirl today and am feeling rather isolated. Still, I have resisted drawing a face on a volleyball. For now.

WILSON!

Sorry, had to be done.

3. FL tenant has re-signed for 7-month lease, which is good news on the Why-Did-I-Buy-In-Florida front. Lawsuit against previous tenant, who broke her lease without notice and figured no consequences despite the fact she is a newly minted lawyer, has left mediation and is now in a flurry of legal motions.

4. Talk with Mom - an RN who annoyingly is always right on Mom as well as medical issues - makes me wonder if surgery is on the radar for later this year. Probably time to keep another annoying medical journal.

5. Examinations of bank accounts reveals no Scoopgirl trips to Canada this year for conventions, nor airplane rides to NYC for refresher in enjoying life. ScoopGirl maps, however, reveal that Savannah and Charleston are indeed close enough for car rides.

Do ethics in journalism play a role in whether a journalist can remain in the industry?

Let's assume two beliefs: We are speaking only of print and online journalism and also, online journalism - done with the same rigors of traditional print journalism but with a faster cycle - will be akin to print.

Good in theory. But it seems that print journalism is unclear on direction. Many mixed signals are sent to employees as well as readers, as to items such as quality and news judgment.

The business model, we know, is unsustainable. Yet online news does not pay for itself in any capacity, either from an original news site such or from a news aggregator.

In the meantime, print subscribers are in fact subsidizing online readers. Yet they may actually get less news, in the form of updates, than their counterparts who capture information for free.

At what point is this an unethical application of journalism? Or has an unethical business model combined with lackluster visioning become what the public accepts as journalism?

If so, what are the options? Some niche online sites have popped up, mostly subsidized by purists or simply just breaking even, by adhering to the principles of journalistic integrity and investigative/watchdog work: first, but accurate and exclusive.

Might the only ethical option be to let corporate owners squeeze the last pennies from print, and seek true journalistic excellence elsewhere?

 

But I have two observations about today's new:

1. Very proud of NPR, which gave time to a lovely profile of a soldier just killed in Afghanistan, long before bothering with Farrah or speculating about Michael. Kudos.
You can find the piece here:
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php

2. News still matters. TMZ was first with MIchael Jackson's death, but no one believe, even on Twitter, until LA Times confirmed. My take: TMZ offered information, but not journalism. They did not confirm with a single source, just said it was true. Perhaps people believe it when it can cited. Speed matters, but not as much as accuracy. TMZ would have had to cite an actual source to earn credibility,

 

Exit Ghost - Philip Roth

Roth is a poetic writer with a vivid imagination and keen ability to tell stories within stories.
And yet ... This coda to (something of) a series about Nathan Zuckerman is lacking.
Zuckerman is now in his 70s, and the center of his power - right in the center of his body - has failed following necessary prostate cancer surgery. He has been hiding in the Berskshires for 11 years, until the most mundane of reasons to return to NYC. Here is faced with the same people he encountered in his 20s, in the first novel, as well as young reminders of all he has lost.
Again, there are moments of elegant language and clear narrative. But Roth has started to wander a bit too much in his prose and description, creating meandering sentences that rarely sound as lovely as he intends.
One bit of cleverness balances that out, somewhat. He uses the creation of scenes in a play - exit ghost would be a stage dircection - to explore his imagination and at least write what he can no longer do. Even this device, though, is weakend by exchanges like,

Him: Do your breasts give you confidence?
Her: Yes.
Him: Tell me about that.

I've read only a bit of Roth previously, but I recall it being far superior to this disappointing effort. He may remain a living legend in literature, but that doesn't mean he always shines.

He is doing far too little, says Frank Rich.

www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/opinion/21rich.html

It's kinda self-explanatory...

frugaltraveler.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/more-links-in-the-research-chain/

This made my day.

And, if you're wondering, I won that bowling tournament last year in large part just like the 86-year-old did. I have a relatively low average, around 140. But in the tournament, I bowled my first 200 game (a 212), then a 190 and 180. For a good bowler, that's not all that impressive. But for a recreational nerd like me, it was enough to win. Ditto Mrs. Dausman.

Go granny, go!

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090619/ap_on_fe_st/us_odd_bowling_great_grandmothers






P.S. They look kinda like serious bowlers, what with their own shirts and such shiny balls. They have me on the clothes ... I bowl in whatever ... but I totally win on the ball. My first ball: a yellow Homer Simpson. My second: Pinky, the fluorescent spare-maker.

Yay for the Indians on Sunday night, when Cliff Lee commanded the game and beat Pujols and the Cardinals.

Boo for Raffy Perez on Monday night, who gave up the game-losing grand slam to Prince Fielder - on his first pitch! - of the Brewers.

True, they remain only 6.5 games out of first. But only one team in the AL Central is playing .500 ball.

I may ... watch ... the Dodgers more this year ....

An article points out that the talk of moderate drinking being healthy might be bad science.

That is, healthy people might just drink in moderate levels. Drinking moderately may not actually make you a healthy person.

Read more here: www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/health/16alco.html

This got me to thinking about other random facts that may or may not be linked.

For instance, what sort of conclusion might you draw knowing:

The first testicular sports guard (aka, a cup) was used in a baseball game in 1874.

Helmets were first used in the game in 1934.

So?

Does that mean it took men 60 years to realize the brain is also important?