|
For previous posts regarding the health care reform debate, see here, here, and here.
I wanted to share an article from The American Prospect, arguing for the public option not as a cost saving measure (which it will be) but as a measure that increases security for individuals (which it will also be, and which relates directly to my previous post on the subject). Because of our employer-centric health insurance model (which is nothing more than a historical accident) and the absurdity of the individual insurance market, you and your family are, ever and always (unless real reform passes), a job loss combined with a severe or chronic health condition away from complete financial ruin. The article says it well:
If you live in Canada or Germany or France or Japan, there are some things you need never fear. You need never fear that your insurance company will tell you it won't cover treatment for your asthma because you had asthma before they signed you up. You need never fear that you will bankrupt your family because of expensive treatments for a serious illness. You need never fear that you will find yourself without coverage after your insurer dropped you or you lost your job. You might fear getting sick, but you won't fear that your life will be destroyed by not being able to pay for getting sick. In the United States, unless you're over 65, extremely poor, or a veteran -- thus, already covered by a government health insurance plan -- you do have to fear all that. That's because the central pathology of our deeply pathological health-care system is that most of us have no choice but to get health coverage from an entity whose sole reason for being is to take our money and then try to avoid paying for our care when we get sick (emphasis mine).
At this point, though single payer makes the most sense, a robust public option is a decent (and politically feasible) alternative.
Of interest, then, were Rahm Emmanuel's comments the other day, in which he seemed to signal that Obama considered the public option negotiable. Those comments ignited a firestorm among progressives and a walkback from the White House. At nearly the same time, Majority Leader Reid, under pressure from a progressive bloc of Senators, told HELP Committee Chairman Baucus to stop compromising good policy (e.g., the public option) in an effort to peel off one or two Republican votes.
What do I think happened? I may be giving too much credit here, but I think Emmanuel kicked the beehive on purpose. He knows quite well that Obama supports the public option. His comments were designed to fire up progressives and through them pressure Senators, all while feeding a narrative to the press that he had gone "rogue" (they love that kind of story), and thereby get discussion of the public option to dominate a news cycle at a time when final proposals are being hashed out.
|
|
Friend-of-the-blog, ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) matt_m_mcelroy has edited the anthology, Buried Tales of Pinebox, Texas . The anthology has twelve stories and you can read about them, and the authors (including Jess Hartley and Shane Hensley, among others), right here. |
|
I somehow missed this interview at Clarksworld -- Dirty Hands and Invisible Words: Speculative Fiction Book Editors Speak Out. The interview includes answers from many well-known editors, including two, Phil Athans and Jim Lowder, with whom I've had the privilege to work. It's really a fascinating read.
Also, let me point you to a post by Jeff Vandermeer in which he offers the following: But then, I reject the term “literary” fiction entirely as nonsensical and meaningless, just as I find “genre” meaningless. I have to use them sometimes because of common understandings of the terms, but that doesn’t make them any more meaningful.
I agree entirely as it relates to discussing the merits of a story. The "literary" label, and/or any genre tag, are words that do most of their work as marketing signals. |
|
Subtle it ain't.
 |
|
Got some great news today but nothing is done until it is done. I can say nothing more, which makes this one of those annoying, self-indulgent, sekrit project posts, but I had to write something to release the pressure, lest I explode and take the rest of you with me.
Meanwhile, on the shelves for July we have The Crystal Mountain from my friend Thomas Reid, book III of his Empyrean Odyssey trilogy. Check it out. There's hot alu-fiend action.
And we also have Gamer Fantastic, an anthology edited by Martin Greenberg (and including a short story by our own Steven Schend) that takes "role-playing games and universes to a whole new level." Sounds very cool.
|
| » We're number...one? |
|---|
Well, South Carolina, we Detroiter/Michiganians see your adulterous governor and raise you a perjury-committing former Mayor and a bribe-taking President Pro Temp of the City Council.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Gamecocks.
On a more serious note: Frakkin' ethically-challenged political hacks.
Jun. 26th, 2009 @ 01:40 pm
|
| » Brief Crosscurrent update |
|---|
I have received editorial feedback and revision requests for Crosscurrent. The former was very good and the latter was very minimal. I was especially pleased with the need for only minimal revisions because, well, it's Star Wars and that's some deep water. Too, I wanted to deliver something that required very little re-work (by both the editors and me).
Anyway, I will see neither hide nor hair of the novel again until I'm holding a print galley in my hands.
Meanwhile, let me just say this: Light sabers, baby. Light. Sabers.
Jun. 25th, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
|
| » Editors as vocal advocates for authors |
|---|
Of late I've noticed more and more editors visibly promoting the authors they edit. This makes sense, given the many hats editors must wear in the "run lean" publishing environment we have today. Still, it has taken me aback somewhat. I'm accustomed and expect authors to self promote, but, for whatever reason, I've long considered editors above the fray of marketing and promotion.
On the one hand, I think it's great that an editor is engaged and enthusiastic about the work of the writers he/she edits. On the other hand, it strikes me oddly, but I'm not sure I have a good reason why. There's an obvious conflict of interest, but because it's obvious, it's harmless. So I'm just not sure. Could be envy, I suppose. I've never had an editor who overtly promoted my work like that. Could also just be ambivalence to change (and a general discomfort with promotion generally). Or maybe I just need to re-think my conception of editors.
I asked around a bit on this and one editor (who does not do overt promotion) said: I do a lot of promotion behind the scenes with booksellers and buyers, but I want to stay invisible to the fans/readers. I want only the writer's name associated with the novel, not mine.
That makes sense, too, though having an editor's name associated with a novel (if that even happens) doesn't really bother me.
Anyway, on balance I think I'd prefer an editor who went that extra mile with some overt promotion, notwithstanding the odd feeling it gives me.
Any feelings about this either way? Thoughts?
Jun. 25th, 2009 @ 08:29 am
|
| » Alastair Reynolds' contract -- a new paradigm? |
|---|
Alastair Reynolds just signed a ten year, ten book deal with Gollancz worth about $1.6 million dollars. Even if a good chunk of the money is payable only as each book under contract is outlined, written, and released -- such that a discount factor would have to be applied to find the net present value of the contract -- that's still real money for a nice chunk of time. Congrats and kudos to Mr. Reynolds.
Setting aside the dollars, I'm wondering if Mr. Reynold's contract will have an "A-Rod effect" on other writers' contracts going forward, at least as it relates to time and the number of books under contract. That is, I'm wondering if his contract will become a benchmark/touchstone, if the length of his contract, and the number of books that it covers, together with the amount of press that it's getting in the blogosphere/twitterverse, will empower agents/authors to negotiate more aggressively with publishers for longer contracts covering more books. The ice has been broken, so maybe more of us can jump in that water.
My experience is limited. I've never signed a contract for more than three books at a time, to be released over a period of two-and-half to three years. Based on discussions with other authors I know, that seems to be fairly typical (I could be wrong, though; maybe there are already a bunch of mid-list but established writers running around with ten year deals).
Anyway, three years and three books under contract is better than one year and one book, but it still leaves room for a lot of uncertainty in the author's mind. And income uncertainty -- how much income and for how long one can count on it -- is one of the large issues that looms over the decision making of many authors. It can be problematic to make financial decisions when you are only under contract for two more books.
Of course, there is risk in locking yourself into a set of terms for a long period. If, say, book three of your ten year run took off, got made into a movie, and you were suddenly setting the world on fire, you would be obliged to write seven more books for the same publisher on the same terms you negotiated before you became huge. Presumably, were you negotiating a new deal after your breakout, you'd be able to negotiate better terms. That's the trade off.
At its most basic, this becomes a simple risk-reward calculation. Should an author take a longer term deal, trading the leverage he/she would have gained from better sales and/or a breakout, for certainty and security? Or does the author take the shorter deal, hoping that sales increase and that so, too, does their negotiating leverage? Different authors would make different calls, had they the option. But at this point, I'm not sure this has been an option. For most authors, you took a shorter term deal or you had no deal.
Maybe Mr. Reynolds' situation was so idiosyncratic that it is entirely distinguishable from the situation of most authors. But I hope not. Instead, I hope the notoriety of Mr. Reynolds' contract expands the universe of acceptable and accepted contractual terms, opening the door (for those author who want to walk through) to a longer term relationship between author and publisher.
I suppose we'll start to see soon enough.
Jun. 23rd, 2009 @ 02:23 pm
|
| » Twitter |
|---|
I have joined as paulskemp. Yes, I have been assimilated.
I'm still trying to figure things out but why not join/follow along? Who should I be following?
Jun. 22nd, 2009 @ 01:13 pm
|
| » More on health care reform |
|---|
I've discussed healthcare reform here and here. Today I thought I'd share two articles with you that touch on the issue of recission, which is an antiseptic legal term that means the revocation of your insurance by your insurance provider. You can read a bit about it at Time and Mother Jones. Pleasant, yes?
Again, health insurance companies add no value to the delivery of health care. They exist to segment risk and to do so with such granularity that they are left insuring the healthy and not the chronically or catastrophically ill. If we want this to change we must have a strong public option included in the health care reform package.
This will be an epic legislative confrontation, because the insurance companies are going to throw major money around to convince Senators that a "compromise" (like Conrad's "health co-ops" or Nelson's "trigger") are sufficient. They aren't. Public pressure can move Senators, and contacting them is easy. Consider doing so if you feel strongly about this issue.
Jun. 17th, 2009 @ 01:13 pm
|
| » Iranian protests and a small way you can help |
|---|
I just read (though the site is now down) that Iranian government officials are searching for and shutting down protesters' Twitter feeds (the means by which lots of news is getting out of Iran in the face of a state clampdown on media) by searching for feeds with the time zone set as "GMT +3:30 (Tehran)" and the location set as "Tehran, Iran."
So, if you're interested in making that search more difficult and providing digital "cover" to the protesters, you can temporarily set your own Twitter settings to those. The more the merrier.
EDIT: Americablog mentions it (at the bottom of the entry).
Jun. 16th, 2009 @ 03:12 pm
|
| » Feeling stimulated? |
|---|
Yglesias notes the ways in which the U.S. recovery is expected to differ from that of Europe. The reason for Europe's lagging recovery can be summed up in a single word: Keynes. The United States attempted to fill the demand gap first with aggressive monetary policy, then with aggressive fiscal policy in the form of Keynesian deficit spending (including the stimulus and the budget). Europe did almost nothing and is suffering for it. The danger now, given the interconnectedness of the global economy, is that Europe's slower recovery will drag on our own.
Now that the economy is showing green shoots, you will begin to hear ever louder voices demanding that we curb spending. Krugman addresses that issue. As he notes, the same kind of chorus started a similar round of deficit-hawking during the period when the New Deal was busy saving the economy. Unfortunately, FDR heeded that chorus for a time, cut spending, and the New Deal sputtered for two years before WWII came along (and Amity Schlaes has made an entire so-called career on a willful misinterpretation of those events).
None of this is to say that concern over the deficit and/or debt is unwarranted. It's to say that right now concern over the deficit/debt must give way before concern over the sputtering economy. Besides, growing GDP, which will happen as the economy recovers, will reduce the impact of the deficit/debt.
Jun. 15th, 2009 @ 11:43 am
|
| » How my son became a Sith Lord |
|---|
My son turned to the Dark Side today. Ah, but this is not a simple tale of losing oneself to darkness. This is a tale of family strife, fratricide, and a hate filled quest for power.
Episode One -- A Sith Lord revealed
Today Roarke made manifest what we had long suspected as he donned his ad hoc Darth Vader costume -- sunglasses as Darth's eyes; Lions ballcap as helmet; pillowcase as cape; winter gloves as gauntlets; and, of course, light saber. His flirtation with the Dark Side had turned into full fledged veneration, and a new Sith Lord was born -- Darth Roarke. Note, in the second picture, the cool facade he presents in his role as evildoer, the careless grin, the smug curl of the lip.
Episode Two -- Darth Roarke takes an apprentice
Not content merely to embrace the Dark Side himself, Darth Roarke felt compelled to corrupt another, the onetime Jedi Padawan, Riordan, whose trusting nature rendered him vulnerable to Darth Roarke's promises of power. See them together here for the first time as Master and Apprentice.
Episode Three -- The Apprentice is trained
Intense training began for the Apprentice, including the advanced light saber exercises you see here. The cold touch of the Dark Side filled the Apprentice with each evil revelation taught him by his new Master. His power grew rapidly.
Episode Four -- Betrayal
As the Apprentice's power grew, so too did his hate, his anger, his ambition. He lay in wait until the time was right, then took his onetime Master unawares.
The battle was intense, but at last the Apprentice drove his Master into his sanctuary, where he dispatched him.
Episode Five -- The New Lord of the Sith
And so the student surpassed the teacher, and a new Dark Lord was born.
Jun. 13th, 2009 @ 06:46 pm
|
| » Earworm for you (now with added 70s cop show action) |
|---|
This Beastie Boys video has always cracked me up, with its riffs on 70s cop shows (and Sir Stewart Wallace, as himself). Only the best Foo Fighter videos amuse me more. Anyway, for your viewing and listening entertainment, I give you Sabotage.
Jun. 12th, 2009 @ 10:48 am
|
| » There is peace in creating |
|---|
This is so, at least for me, which is good, since I'm otherwise a hyper-competitive, inherently restless dude. The peace of mind that comes from creating is what allowed God (also a restless dude) to rest on the seventh day.
Of course, he's probably ready to move on to a new project by now.
Anyway, create something today -- write, garden, sculpt, paint, compose, something. Just create.
Jun. 11th, 2009 @ 08:46 am
|
| » Klein on the public option in healthcare reform |
|---|
I've written before on the importance of a public option as part of healthcare reform, but Ezra Klein lays it out in a must-read piece in the Wapo. Please have a read as you consider your position on this issue. And if you come down in favor of a public option, contact your senators. They will be getting enormous pressure against the public option from the insurance industry lobby. They need to hear from their constituents on the other side of this issue.
This is arguably the domestic policy issue facing the country. Make sure you're heard.
Jun. 9th, 2009 @ 09:12 am
|
| » New website is live at Paulskemp.com |
|---|
I am moving my homepage from its old location to a new one at paulskemp.com. The old page will be coming down fairly soon, so please update your links.
I'm not skilled with html so, while the important content from the old site has been migrated to the new, the look and feel is still a work in progress.
Please update your links and spread the word to anyone you think might be interested. Much obliged. :-)
Jun. 8th, 2009 @ 02:42 pm
|
| » Interview at Tor.com |
|---|
My interview with Jay Tomio appears at Tor.com. Have a read, if you please. It's a pretty darn long interview, wherein I get to mention Plato, Nietzsche, Star Wars, the Great Man Theory of History, and use the adjective "Vandermeerian."
I hope you enjoy.
Jun. 3rd, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
|
| » Technical help (web-related) |
|---|
Earthlink provides it subscribers with free webspace and the use of a content manager/site builder called Sitebuilder. You don't need to know html to use it; it's pretty much just point and click with all the behind the scenes coding done by the program sight unseen.
I used Sitebuilder and the free Earthlink webspace to build my website, but I'm considering dropping Earthlink (for a variety of reasons) and using that as an excuse to transfer my website to a new domain (that I would purchase).
Is there a way to copy and transfer my current website to the new domain? I really don't want to rebuild it all from scratch. I don't even know how to do that in the absence of an easy to use site builder like Sitebuilder.
Thoughts? Advice?
Jun. 3rd, 2009 @ 09:56 am
|
|
|
