Book Review -- One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez

One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez is considered a masterpiece. It won the Nobel prize for literature after being published in 1967. It is the one of the best selling Spanish books of all time.

With all that being said, I did not enjoy the book. To me, the title seemed appropriate because it felt like I needed 100 years of solitude to get through the 450 pages.

The book chronicles the history of several generations of the Buendia family during the rise and fall of the fictional town of Macondo. The Buendia family is the founding and most prominent family in the town.

I can appreciate the unique writing style that Garcia Marquez invented with this book. I can also appreciate the great creativity required to create an intricate and colorful fictional town. However, I just did not find the book that entertaining. There is no real plot, in the traditional sense. The book reads more like a diary of a crazy old aunt recounting family history --filled with exaggerations, superstitions, and folk legend -- rather than an actual novel. The book also combines fantasy with reality. There were descriptions of day-to-day life in the Buendia family, when suddenly some supernatural miracle would occur. For example, one character suddenly floats off to heaven while folding laundry. Other characters live to be 150 years old. In that respect, One Hundred Years of Solitude reminded me of the Old Testament of The Holy Bible.

One other criticism was that the names of the characters were too similar. Several of the characters had the same first and/or last names (as children were born and named after previous generations). This made it often difficult to keep track of the characters. When I looked up the novel on Wikipedia, there was a family tree. I wish I had such a family tree available to me while reading the novel to help keep all the characters straight.

One Hundred Years of Solitude is highly acclaimed. It has been translated into 27 different languages, and won numerous international awards. It is taught in schools as a classic and propelled the author (Gabriel Garcia Marquez) into the highest echelon of modern authors. So what do I know? Perhaps I just don't "get it" when it comes to this novel, but the bottom line is that I was not entertained by the book. Isn't the point of reading a work of fiction to be entertained (or educated) at some level?

Why Are the Red Sox Not Making Any Moves?

The Mets have signed 2 top quality back-of-the-bullpen pitchers. The Yankees have signed 2 big free agent starting pitchers, and are in discussions for another pitcher. They continue to be in the mix for top free agent sluggers. Even if they make no additional signings, the Yankess have clearly gotten better. Yet the biggest move the Red Sox have made thus far is to announce new uniforms.

The Red Sox were beat out by a divisional rival (Tampa Bay Rays) last year in the playoffs. Yet the Red Sox have done nothing to get better this winter.

In baseball, if you're standing still, you're going backwards.

Red Sox Nation is starting to get restless. The Sawx need to fire up the hot stove! Rumor has it that the Blue Jays are dangling Vernon Wells and BJ Ryan. Wells would certainly be a nice upgrade offensively in center field without sacrificing defense. BJ Ryan would finally give the Red Sox that 8th inning guy they've been struggling to find for two seasons. Oh, and let's not forget Mark Texeria. The Red Sox need to get that deal done to legitimize their Manny-less lineup. Pedroria, Ortiz, Texeria, Wells, Youkilis, Bay, Drew would be a formidable offense, especially if the bullpen were improved. The Rockies have bullpen help available. The Red Sox could still use an upgrade at shortstop, and need to deal with their catcher situation.

There are lots of moves that could be done, should be done, and need to be done. I could go on and on. The point is, Theo and the gang need to get going to bring a merry Christmas to Red Sox Nation.

There Otta Be A Law...

I spend a lot of time on this blog complaining about silly government laws, and the "nanny-state" encroaching on our personal freedoms. Smokers are a huge target of over reaching government. Whenever there's a whiff of cigarette smoke in any venue that might be detected by a non-smoker, the government tries to pass a law. The general premise is that smokers do not have the right to smoke if it inhibits someone's right to breath smoke-free air.
Today I had an experience that made me question my personal rights versus the rights of someone else. A smoker did not usurp my personal rights, but my personal space was certainly violated! Yes, I had the displeasure of spending 4.5 hours in the middle coach seat of an airplane alongside an obese woman. This woman needed a seatbelt extension because the regular seat belt would not fit around her waist. She could not enter and exit her seat without moving the armrest out of the way. She could not even think about lowering the tray table. There I was, stuck next to her. Typical of my luck. People talk about the rudeness of smokers, but I would have rather sat next to Joe Camel than this woman. She had no respect for my personal space. Her arms, legs, elbows, etc. crowded my already small coach seat. And she did not care.
I don't have a problem with this woman being whatever size she wants. That's her prerogative. However, why is she allowed to fly in coach? If smokers are not allowed to smoke because it infringes on the comfort of others, why is this woman allowed to cause me discomfort? Here's my proposal for a useful rule that someone needs to institute: If the standard seatbelt does not fit, you can't fly in a single coach seat. Here are the alternatives:
1) Don't fly.
2) Buy the bigger first class seat.
3) Buy 2 coach seats.
4) Lose some weight.

I paid for a full airline seat, not 3/4 of a seat. I'm sorry, but every person cannot be accommodated in every situation. Smoking sections in restaurants went the way of the dodo because everyone realized how ridiculous it was to think that the cigarette smoke would only stay in one area. Well, allowing obese people on coach airplanes, or any other public venue with "regular" seats needs, to follow the path of the restaurant smoking section.

I fly this airline frequently. I am going to be complaining on my return trip. Stay tuned for the results of my complaint.

Link to Book Review -- Historic Photos of Connecticut

Below is a link to a book review I published on my other blog, Connecticut Outdoors:

http://connecticutoutdoors.blogspot.com/2008/12/book-review-historic-photos-of.html

Goodwin Hotel Closing a Bad Sign for Hartford

The Goodwin Hotel is an excellent hotel in the heart of downtown Hartford. It is directly across the street from Hartford’s biggest attraction, the XL center (formerly the Civic Center). The hotel is privately run, unique, and luxurious. The Goodwin hotel has hosted celebrities such as Neil Diamond, Bruce Springsteen, and Tina Turner while they were performing in Hartford. The Goodwin Hotel offers a good value with rooms available for less than $100 per night. The Goodwin Hotel is closing at the end of the year.
I had the occasion this past weekend to spend a night at the Goodwin Hotel. It felt like a stay in an old-time luxury hotel – the kind of hotel that existed before the big chains took over.

Hartford is a city that has long struggled with its image. It does not speak well to the health and vibrancy of the city that it cannot support a hotel like the Goodwin. The state of Connecticut has pumped a lot of money into Hartford in the past decade with the funding of the Adrian’s Landing project and the Connecticut Science Center. I fear that the closing of the Goodwin is a sign that the state taxpayer investment in Hartford may not have been a wise one at this time. Let’s hope I’m wrong.

2nd Amendment Protects Citizens From Incompetence As Well As Tyranny

The recent shooting in Mumbai, India could have been controlled. The bloodshed could have been significantly reduced, and maybe eliminated. The Islamic terrorists in Mumbai walked though the crowded city unimpeded by anyone. Due to laws making it close to impossible to get a firearm in India, the security guards in the various hotels and buildings were unarmed. The few police that were not fleeing only had bamboo sticks in which to fight back. Citizens only had stones in which to hurl at the attackers.

You can search the blogosphere and find several sites pointing out how if the Indian citizenry had the right to own guns, this disaster could have been largely abated. Putting that fact aside, regardless of what the citizens could have done had their rights not been impeded, the Indian government had absolutely no police or security force equipped to handle such an incident. Mumbai had no SWAT teams. No special forces units. They did not even have armed police officers! This goes beyond gun control. This is plain incompetence.

Imagine what the police response would have been to a similar incident in an American city. The terrorists my have been able to attack one place, but they would never get out. Even if the citizens did not defend themselves, police and SWAT teams would have surrounded the attackers in minutes. Streets would have been cordoned off. Snipers would have been on rooftops. Tear gas canisters would have been at the ready. A serious police force did not even arrive in Mumbai until the next day. Can you imagine gunmen running around Manhattan without any police resistance for an entire 24 hours?! It would never happen because the governments (local, state, and national) have some level of competence when it comes to fighting crime. It is hardly perfect, but comparatively, it is excellent.

Previous to this tragic incident, I had only thought of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution as a tool against government tyranny. However, after this incident I have come to realize that the Second Amendment is indeed protection against government incompetence as well as tyranny. It's now evident that the Indian government cannot be trusted to competently protect their citizenry. Therefore, the Indian people, and all people, should have a right to keep and bear arms similar to the rights spelled out in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. Episodes such as the Mumbai shooting, and 9-11, prove the danger of putting too much blind trust in government to provide protection for you and your family. A person needs the right to protect themselves in situations in which the government cannot.

Governmental Erosion of Personal Liberty -- Connecticut Town Institutes Smoking Ban on Public Street

As Reported in the Hartford Courant: Bristol, CT -- Bristol Considers Smoking Ban On Public Streets

-

I'm not a smoker. I never have been and I never will be, so as far smoking goes, I have no horse in this race. However, I am a citizen that is concerned with governmental intrusion into our lives. Smoking is generally unpopular, so it's an easy target. When government over reaches it's bounds in any direction, it's dangerous for all of us. An attack on the freedoms of one group encroaches on the freedoms of all.

The town of Bristol, Connecticut has banned smoking on a small town road (Newell Road), and is considering implementing a smoking ban on all city streets that boarder parks, schools, libraries, and hospitals. Outside. A total ban. OUTSIDE folks!

Smoking generally does not bother me (as a non-smoker) as much as it tends to bother other non-smokers. I tend to agree that smoking bans in indoor public venues are generally a good idea. However, when is enough enough?! The nanny-state already "protects" us from ourselves with seat belt laws, transfat bans, indoor smoking bans, "unhealthy" snack bans in schools, and various blue laws. Now they are moving to smoking bans outside in public places?! We're not talking about an outdoor concert or the like where people are gathered outdoors in close proximity. We're talking about a general ban.

I've written about bans before on this blog. I don't like them. Bans are dangerous. My frustration is that the general public seems to willingly give up their personal liberties with nary a peep.

This smoking ban may be unconstitutional. What's worse is that it just makes no sense. Who is the mayor of Bristol trying to protect? With huge budget deficits facing the state of Connecticut, and perhaps the town of Bristol, perhaps the mayor should be concerned with real issues rather than attacking personal freedoms for political showmanship.

Why Newspapers Are Failing -- The Closing of The Bristol Press, New Britain Herald, and the Steady Decline of The Hartford Courant

It was announced last week that unless a buyer can be found, two local central Connecticut newspapers, The Bristol Press and New Britain Herald, will close within the month. This comes on the tail of a 25% newsroom reduction at the largest paper in Connecticut, The Hartford Courant. The Hartford Courant revamped (read: cut content) from their paper following this staff reduction. The paper is noticeably thinner. Despite this most recent big cut, the down slide of content and quality at the Hartford Courant is not a new trend. For years the paper has been going downhill. As a long time subscriber, I've witnessed the decline first hand. I can remember when the Sunday Courant used to be so think and so full of interesting information that I could hardly finish it in one day. Now I finish the Sunday paper before my first cup of coffee is done. Papers across the country are having a difficult time adjusting to the "new media" of 24 hour cable news and the internet. They are floundering to find a strategy in today's reality. Perhaps the most troubling trend for the newspaper business is an apathetic younger generation that seems to have no interest in serious news in any format.

This story is certainly not unique to Connecticut. All around, the newspaper business is in a bad place.

I am a dedicated newspaper reader. It's part of my routine and part of my life. I start every day with the Hartford Courant. However, these days even I'm having second thoughts. The content of the paper has never been thinner. Of the remaining content, much of it has fallen into a heavy bias. Perhaps the Hartford Cournat is simply playing to their market with Connecticut being one of the bluest of the blue states, but if that's the case it's not good journalism. Good journalism is supposed to be non-biased. I am not naive enough to believe that anything can be truly unbiased, but I do believe that a paper can at least strive to be impartial. The Hartford Courant has lost it's way. Out of the 5 significant regular columnists (Stan Simpson, Jim Shea, Susan Campbell, Helen Ubinas, Colin McEnroe) to the Courant, all 5 are unapologetic liberals. The paper has absolutely no conservative counterpoint to balance out the opinions. I wonder if I'm the only reader who's noticed this. Does the editorial staff notice? Do they care? They've sold their journalistic soul and become a shell of themselves. Intelligent readers, regardless of their political leanings, can tell the difference.

The Hartford Courant and the newspaper business in general needs to do what any business needs to do when they are losing out to competition. They need to improve the quality of their product. They can start by getting back to doing some real reporting and dropping the political agenda.

A Quick Truth About Corporate Taxes

President-Elect Obama has grand ideas to siphon tax revenue from the "greedy" corporations in the form of higher corporate tax rates, as well as a "windfall profits" tax. He has especially gone after the oil companies.

Remember and understand one thing: Corporations do not really pay taxes. Consumers pay taxes. Like any business, large or small, expenses such as taxes simply get passed onto the consumer.

Therefore, a "windfall profits" tax on the oil companies is nothing less than a tax on every single man and woman in this country that uses gasoline or home heating oil.
Not to be overlooked is that it's an extra tax on American oil companies that puts them at a competitive disadvantage against international companies, thereby threatening jobs.

Perhaps President-Elect Obama does not see a problem with higher gasoline prices. After all, he was quoted during his campaign to not be alarmed by this summer's gasoline prices. He was only concerned with the speed at which they got to the record high prices. I guess when you're busy chartering separate MD-80 airliners for you and your wife to separately fly to Washington DC from the same location on the same day for a 1 day trip you don't worry too much about how gasoline and heating oil prices (never mind the dreaded greenhouse gases!) might impact the "little guy" you claim to care so much about.

Temporary Hiatus

As the election season has come to an end, and the fall hunting season picks up, you can expect a slowdown (slowdown, not a full halt) to posts on Liberty Alert as I concentrate more on my other blog: connecticutoutdoors.blogspot.com.

I'm still stockpiling post ideas, so there should be plenty of material stored up once winter hits.

If you have any post suggestions, or interesting stories, leave a note. If someone manages to get me riled up enough, I'll surely leave a reply.