My good friend, Rita Vetere, had cause to celebrate yesterday: her second e-book, Born of Darkness, was released through Lyrical Press.
Here's the blurb:
"There's no escaping black karma, even for immortals.
Meet Jasmine Fairchild, outrageously gorgeous and extremely persuasive -- unnaturally so. Jasmine is a Cambion, part mortal, part succubus.
Enter Ahriman, an ancient and evil incubus. For centuries, he has exploited the secrets of reincarnation to reach his goal of immortality and the eradication of humanity. All he needs now is a portal, an opportunity...and Jasmine.
She stands alone as the only force powerful enough to immortalize or destroy him, and her dual nature makes Ahriman's task a little tougher than he thought..."
Rita is a great writer and, more importantly, just a wonderful person. Here's a link to an excerpt from Born of Darkness. Check it out if you get a chance.
5 years ago
Posts
10 comments:
Wow, Brian! What a lovely surprise to see this post today. And your comments touched me. Truth be told, when I'm gone from this earth, I'd much rather be remembered as a wonderful person than a great writer. And you are very kind. :-)
Best,
Rita.
Rita - Just calling it like I see it. I wish you nothing but success with BoD!
OT but I've been meaning to ask your opinion of PGA v Martin.
Adrian,
It's an interesting case. I've never read the Court's opinion, but I am happy with the outcome.
Just read the hilarious dissent by Scalia on wiki.
Your thoughts?
Brian
Wasnt aware of that. Sarcasm is his strong suit. I suppose if you follow Scalia's logic though the SC cant legislate anything relating to planes, automobiles, the internet etc. etc. because none of those things could possibly have been in the framers minds. Its funny but its not a good argument.
Brian
actually if you're looking for a blog posting as you were saying last week, law and golf should be right up your alley.
Adrian,
Yeah, if you extend Scalia's logic in this instance, you get some strange results. Though reading more of the opinion, it does seem a bit odd that Title III would apply to these circumstances. But maybe that's why I'm not arguing in front of the Supreme Court on a regular basis.
The wife would probably be better able to explain this than me. She specializes in employment discrimination.
Adrian,
Good point re: law and golf. Though, I'm not Clarence Darrow, nor am I Jack Nicklaus.
I actually think I agree with Jack Nicklaus who testified for the PGA. Walking the course is part of the game, he said. It fatigues you. Ali used to train by running golf courses and if you have to play four rounds thats a lot of walking esp on a links course.
In life but not always law there's usually a compromise. Why didnt he offer to "walk the course" in a wheel chair. No one could have complained that he wasnt getting fatigued then. I think that would have been a more elegant solution.
I wonder what Clarence Thomas's powerful dissent was in that case?
Adrian,
It is a long walk for sure, and very tiring, but I don't think it's quite the equivalent of movement in other sports.
On the basketball court, if you can run faster and longer than your opponent, assuming similar skill levels, you WILL fare better. On the golf course, if you can "outwalk" your opponent, it doesn't necessarily factor into your score.
Though, with how much professional golfers train nowadays, that thinking is probably in error. I heard Tiger maxes out 350 pounds on the bench, which is very impressive. The fact that he's a specimen no doubt intimidates his opponents and helps elevate his game even further, probably. Stronger the body, stronger the mind sort of thing.
Post a Comment