Jim, the spouse and I are debating a trip to I-Con this year. We've been to the last three Harlan I-Con weekends and they have been exceptional (especially the first time, when we checked into our room right across from Harlan's, and he knocked on our door shortly thereafter, and and and, ahhh, a fanboy story for another venue). Anyway, I love the I-Cons, but unfortunately getting there is now the difference between a 125 mile drive and a 2500 mile flight. It's one of three things I will miss most from my move out West: Walking around NYC, going to Yankee Stadium 20 times a season, and Unca Harlan in my back yard every other year for an entire weekend!
Rich, feel comfortable bringing books of your own for signing. Unlike those never-been-famous teevee actors from the 60's who haunt various SF and Comic shows pawning off their signature for twenty bucks a shot, you should not be embarrassed to present a treasured edition of your own to sign: though Susan and Harlan will certainly try to convince you to choose one of everything at his table.....and if you don't have anything there, what the hell, buy it from the best!
PS....Got my HERC today Got my HERC today! Whoo Hooooo! Something to read on Christmas Eve while my shiksa wife moans about my taking her out to this weird world of Christmas lights on saguaros and weather reports screaming out about a possible drip of rain falling on our unprotected heads!
-TODD
Jim Davis,
I will also be attending my very first science fiction convention when I go to I-Con in March. Just sent away for my ticket or pass or whatever they call 'admission'. Going up there with a friend and we're staying at his mother's house in Queens. I asked the wife if she wanted to go and she gave me a funny look that said, "I value my time and my life and I do not want to spend it with those...those types of people."
Anyway, we'll be there and I plan on making an ass of myself at least once, though I hope it won't be in the presence of Mr. E. 'cause I probably won't live to tell the tale. Hopefully, if I stay drunk enough, I won't remember anything and can maintain the family tradition of embarrassing myself at public gatherings.
By the way, a novice question: Is it impolite to bring books to these things for authors to sign? I mean, is there a rule that they only sign those that were bought for that particular event? I honestly don't know, but I was planning on bringing a couple of books of Ellison's and a book of Morrow's anyway, and just letting them yell at me if I was out of line.
Was that Heather?
And by the way, "Like jerking off to porno..." is much easier than jerking off to car manuals. Trust me on this one. And if you don't trust me on this one, try it at home and you'll see.
I WAS WRONG
1) Ty'iga is a reference from another book
I'm also reading, called The Knight of the Swords,
by Michael Moorcock, not the Roger Zelazny book,
Prince of Chaos. I got mixed up.
2) My goofy post about/to geeks was not written for the
people in this forum. I wrote it for the message board
people at Rotten Tomatoes and others of their ilk.I shouldn't
have put it in here. It was inappropriate. All I can say in my
defense is that I was bored.So I plopped it in here, just to see
what would happen, since I was busy pasting it in in other
places anyway. (And besides, I have a crush on H.E. I think
he's cute) That's all that was really going on.
I apologize. I shouldn't have been amusing myself at your
expense. You don't deserve it. (probably)
I suppose I should be ashamed of myself. But actually I think it's
funny. (The message, I mean, not the part about pestering you guys)
Those message board people get so CRAZED when someone pokes fun at them.
I've seen hornets with better senses of humor.
Maybe one of these days I'll come back and share an anecdote
about H.E. Just to make up for annoying everyone around here.
Until then, I hope everyone here has a joyful holiday season.
Bye.
Hello, everyone.
First off, I'd just like to apologize sincerely for taking a leave of absence with no warning (not that it seemed to irk anybody too much...). The sudden crush of end-term exams, not to mention a little last-minute Christmas shopping and a chaotic return to Bermuda, temporarily broke my Webderland addiction.
In the meantime, I've been happily reunited with my favourite basset hound on earth, Elvis, not to mention catching up with old friends and family. Managed to see TREASURE PLANET (usual routine Disney fodder, with the exception of Captain Amelia...yowza...) and LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS (Gollum was beyond incredible, good acting all around, but the pacing and narrative were screwed to heck...).
Also finished Thomas Harris' RED DRAGON, and freshened up on a little Ellison with QUICKTIME.
Well, that's it. All the updates you need to know. Now I can take Elvis for another walk and hope he doesn't run after any more diesel trucks...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, and speaking of the Sci-Fi Channel, the FARSCAPE marathon is being broadcast today. Tune in and hopefully, MAYBE we'll supply enough ratings to save this wonderful, wonderful show.
Just a diversion here: The Sci Fi Channel is giving away ten signed two-volume compendiums of Richard Matheson's Twilight Zone scripts. The sweepstakes is at http://www.scifi.com/twilightzone/sweepstakes/
You have to register with the horribly-named channel to enter, but them's the breaks ...
Decasia? I've heard great things about it, and I really wish I got the Sundance channel so I could see it.
But I really love silent films. It's not just the fun of seeing a new art form finding its directions. Watching silent films really is like peering into a different world; between the scenery, the costumes, the acting styles, the melodrama, and the music, it's like wandering into a fantasy world. And the really bizarre, expressionist films of the period, like _M_ and _Nosferatu_ and _Faust_ and _Les Vampires_, are even better in that regard.
Since I'm burned out on matters of race ('cause I'm a typical Caucasoid who's in denial, don't you know), I'll just wish all the Xtians here a very happy holiday. And tell everyone to check out DECASIA on the Sundance Channel later this week--it's a hour-long piece painstakingly assembled from reels of decaying celluloid, all of them shot in the silent era of film. It looks ineffably beautiful, and you can find out more here: www.decasia.com
Oh, and I've decided to attend I-Con in March. That will be a trippy week, full of firsts: my first SF convention, my first visit to NYC since 9/11, and my first time seeing Harlan in the flesh. Should be an interesting time. Anyone else planning to go?
"Most of you, in real life are very sweaty, lardy, smelly disgusting people. You have gray grimey skin, and you a have a cheese-like mold growing in the folds of your fatty flesh. You have gummy yellow teeth. You have greasey hair. You have bad breath. There are crap stains on your shorts... (if you're even wearing pants that is. I know many of you don't even bother with that kind of thing anymore)"
And who says Oscar Wilde is dead?
Todd;
Good to hear from you, and that you're rolling in it. Ain't being successful grand?
The same to ya, Lynn!
Now, we shut down comp for a couple of moons. Enjoy! Whatever your religious or lack of religious instruction.
And Mr. Ellison, don't chuckle so loud when your guests complain that the yule log is so small, has both corn and peanuts and sure as hell doesn't taste like chocolate...
BOS
For my fellow Webderlanders, your holiday card is here:
http://tinyurl.com/3spl
And for the rest of you:
http://tinyurl.com/3spj
Have a happy holiday,
L.
(*sigh*)
I have an hour to kill, so...
rant
VERB: Inflected forms: rant·ed, rant·ing, rants
INTRANSITIVE VERB: To speak or write in a angry or violent manner; rave.
TRANSITIVE VERB: To utter or express with violence or extravagance: a dictator who ranted his vitriol onto a captive audience.
NOUN: 1. Violent or extravagant speech or writing.
2. A speech or piece of writing that incites anger or violence: “The vast majority [of teenagers logged onto the Internet] did not encounter recipes for pipe bombs or deranged rants about white supremacy” (Daniel Okrent, Time May 10, 1999).
3. Chiefly British Wild or uproarious merriment.
ETYMOLOGY: Probably from obsolete Dutch ranten.
OTHER FORMS: ranter —NOUN
Let's not exaggerate, 'kay? I don't ever rant... Occasionlly I whine, I often nag, sometimes I coo...but I never rant..
But really, my philosophy on this whole internet debating practice you "brainy" folks go in for is summed up nicely here:
http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.php/00b9a680/463c5922
So would you just give it up, already? No way you could be all THAT bored. And I don't care much anyway. Trust me, it really isn't worthy of all your greatnesses who post here anyway. I'm not deep, like all you guys.I just posted here to begin with because I think Harlan Ellison is cute...
Loves to all,
Diana (maybe)
I have GOT to get that damn NJ address out of my head!!!! I'm a desert dweller now!
-TODD
To all the regulars (only you non-geeks, of course), this Jew wishes you a wonderful holiday season whether it's passed or whether it's just around the bend (though I still can't my mind over this fake Kwanzaa holiday that was invented by an American yet is full of African glory).
Anyway, my holiday gift came a few weeks late....I've closed on my NJ home and they are breaking ground on my new AZ home! Whooo hooooo, I actually have $100K in the bank.....95K more than I ever had in my life....then again, I only get to roll around in my bed with my account statement (and my wife, if she allows it....rrrroll rrrroll rrrroll in zee hayyyyyy) for about 5 months and then I have to give it up to my down payment, but what they hell...I'm rich, I'm rich, I'm a happy miser!!!!!!
Merry Christmas! Happy Post-Chanukah! Whatever Kwanzaa!
-TODD
Did someone claiming an email address, real or not, of Cosmictribe just call us all geeks? Cosmictribe? Can't thing of a 'normal', 'sane' lover of living life and not typing away all day on a pc naming himself Cosmictribe.
Sounds kinda geeky to me.
-TODD
Ty'iga/Anais/Whomever,
Whether you name yourself after Chaos demons from a Roger Zelazny series or after an exceedingly minor 20th century novelist, your rants are palid. Work up a better one and come back later. Hope your date goes well.
Regards,
Joseph
To All The People Geeky Enough To Even Bothering To
Respond AT ALL To My Last (Goofy) Message:
I don't think I spelled anything wrong in my last post,
so I'm not sure why you called me sub-literate.
Actually my screen name, (that's spelled Ty'iga..not Ty'ga)
is a reference to some beings mentioned in a Roger Zelazny
novel I just started reading.(Prince of Chaos)
My post wasn't a "rant", ya pompous a*s ya...
Harlan Elison rants. (brilliantly, of course)
I was just messing around.
If you weren't geeks you wouldn't have taken
anything I said in there seriously, or even bothered
to respond, for that matter. With a sense of humor
(a real indication of intelligence) it would have been
obvious that all that post was just silliness.
Jeez, you bunch o' geezers (young and old) think about
maybe lightening up a little. Really.
I have to go get ready for my date now...or I'd consider
pestering y'all some more. Maybe later.
AG
I don't know which is more accurate about this Ty'ga person. If he or she simply cut-and-pasted that material for our benefit, it kind of fell flat. I mean, most of us can work up better rants without even half-trying.
But, if he or she actually sat down and _typed_ that in, or even _wrote it personally_, well, that's worse, isn't it? I mean, geek jokes are so 1986...
A geek is one thing but a sub-literate is quite another. The internet breeds these people folks! Now back to Buffy chat where you belong.
DTS,
"when someone suggests something that isn't politically correct"
I went after you in the beginning not because you said something that wasn't politically correct - and I think you understood MY point because I concurred with your "gist" (incidentally, I raised a similar argument here earlier in the year, citing the same incident I related to you; but I didn't highlight it as though it were the bigger problem - regardless of whether that was your intention and I'm sure it wasn't - and I sure as hell didn't misconstrue someone's words to make the case, which is what squeezed my jock strap to begin with) - but because your frameworking wasn't correct at ALL. While I know you withdrew the NPR example, to my mind the fact you could connect his comments with this particular problem to begin with suggested to me massive oversights on your own part. I wasn't hitting my own brain pan, I was hitting YOURS. Your GIST was clear from the beginning; but your argument was muddled. Thus, I decided to organize a lynch mob in the name of civilization.
Note:
If you're disabled? Like all paralyzed or something?
Just ignore the following message.
Dear Loser-y Message Board People....
GET LIVES...That's an order. You are losers...you are geeks...
It isn't cool to post your lives away at message boards.
No one cool does it. (except for some of those geeky
gaming RPG people. (There are cool exceptions amongst them)
(You know who you are) (but never mind that)
It's okay to post at message boards on occasion,
when necessary, like I'm doing now.
But this is to help you people..so like I said it's okay.
Noble even.
It's not cool to post loser-y message board person questions,
(like: "Do You Think I'm An A**SHOLE?) (That really was a topic
at one very busy message board)
Or: "Do We Really Have To Brush EVERY Day?")
just to get to say "With this post here
I have 1000 posts exactly!" or some
other losery-geek message board person "milestone" like that..
It's bad enough to be such a GEEK that you've
actually MADE =>1000<=
(or 666, or some other geekily signifigant number like that)
posts at the same board!!!!
You want to CELEBRATE this?
Listen, it could be okay, maybe, to go on line
to show off your new baby's
pictures, but then only if the kid isn't really ugly or anything.
It's not cool to post pictures of good-looking people and
claim it's you. Or to post pictures of twinkly fairies,
(unless it's a picture of your brother Tommy
dressed as a twinkly fairy)
(but that's a whole other situation)
or unicorns, or angels, or your pet cats...that's just sad & wierd.
(Posting pictures of your dog is okay, for some reason..
but only if you just do it occasionally, and only if the dog's
doing a trick, or wearing a funny hat,
or being rescued by a pig from a raging flood,
or something else cool like that.)
(I know you probably think this point of view is unfair
to cats, some kind of species bashing thing or something..
but that's just the way you geeks think.
This is funny to cool people like me, by the way.
That freak-a*s way you geeks have of looking at stuff.
(But SAD funny .People laugh at you, but it's like a bad kind of
laughing, like when you laugh at a really really fat person
who falls down, and can't get back up because they're
really really fat? Like you know you shouldn't laugh,
you don't even want to?
You really want to cry?
But you laugh anyway?)
It isn't cool to imagine you're all part of some actual
community either, just because you all post to the
same board all the time. You are not really each other's
friends. You don't really know each other.
You are never going to meet.
You're never going to Paris together.
You smell bad! You're never going to have sex
with each other. (Or anyone else for that matter
if you don't stop being geeks)
Virtual flirting is gross. Like jerking off to porno...
only geeky.
Most of you, in real life are very sweaty, lardy,
smelly disgusting people. You have gray grimey
skin, and you a have a cheese-like mold growing
in the folds of your fatty flesh. You have gummy
yellow teeth. You have greasey hair. You have bad breath.
There are crap stains on your shorts...
(if you're even wearing pants that is. I know many of
you don't even bother with that kind of thing anymore)
It isn't cool to know by heart what all those creepy
abbreviations stand for (you know like ROTFL...and BRB..and stuff?)
(do you know what GEEK stands for? It stands for GEEK..you geeks! GET LIVES!)
I'm ordering you to QUIT BEING GEEKS. RIGHT NOW!
Cut it out!
There's no excuse for most of you to be so geeky.
It's only okay in like homeless,
mentally unbalanced people, and such
They can't help being smelly and wierd.
(so you shouldn't be mean to them)
(but don't sit too near them on the bus,
they have gross insects on them)
You're making all us cool people sick.
You are not fooling anyone.
Everyone knows about you.
We know what you're up to.
We know you're out there right now,
being smelly and wierd, eating chips
with grease in your nose hairs,
your butts sticking to
the cracked nauga-hide seat covers
of your sagging recliners
(that smell like your butts
from you sitting there
for so long without pants),
reading this message in the sickly
glowings of your monitor screens.
Being geeks while you do it.
Is THAT how you want the
para-medics to find you?
Dead in your smelly. smelly seat?
In THAT condition?
It's not too late. You can have a real life.
Just start DOING it.
Get dressed. Go outside.
Ride the bus.
Do something real.
It's not so bad once you get used to it.
Please, follow my orders.
Cut. It. Out.
Stop being geeks.
Do it now.
Thank you.
Signed,
A Concerned Friend
Thank you.
Alex K: Glad to learn that someone got the gist of my spur-of-the-moment post from a day or so ago. And it's nice to see that not _all_ caucasians automatically jerk their knees and hit themselves in the brainpan (a tip o' the hat to Rob) when someone suggests something that isn't politically correct (even when that someone goes out of the way to explain, at length, why he feels that way).
--DTS
When Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, he had to do it kicking and screaming. At first he didn't want to free all the slaves, but decided to in the end. Of course, no one mentions that America should not have had slavery in the first place; but you know, you must first learn to crawl before you can swim.
And some would argue that blacks actually suffered worse after slavery. Jim Crow and wage slavery was in many ways more severe. But that is for another day.
And here I'd always heard things go better with Coke. Sorry, Rob, but I don't intend to sink to your level. Life is too short, and so is your temper.
Kisses,
Alex
Alex K.,
"I'm feeling unfriendly, too."
I've concluded you're not INTELLIGENT enough to be unfriendly, you ignorant twit.
Signed,
The Coke Bottle
"Alex Krislov, are you denying that blacks have it worse than other ethnic groups?"
Frank, are you saying you can't understand English? Well, I'm sure your command of the language will improve with practice. I'm not interested in discussing whether I still beat my wife. Geez, Frank. Yours is what's known as a "false dilemma argument." It's also a silly accusation, meant to put the other party on the defensive, and force him to justify statements he never made. And this is what was wrong with your argument from the start. You sound like someone who responds to a complaint about a Jew being obnoxious with, "Oh, so you're saying there was no holocaust?"
Yiddishly yours,
Alex
I think of the murderous bass riff on London Calling and mourn in darkened silence. Joe Strummer, RIP.
--------------------
Alex Krislov, are you denying that blacks have it worse than other ethnic groups? To quote Chris Rock, "No white man would ever trade places with me--AND I'M RICH!!"
I saw Trek 10 with my son yesterday. He liked it slightly better than I did, and gave it a C+. I'll give it a C-, better than the wretched Salieri in Space ("I've written 40 operas, Picard!), but still miles behind anything the old crew could throw together, including Sybok's journey to the Wizard of Oz.
This one draws comparisons with Trek 2 (Khan) and Trek 6 (Undiscovered Country), two Kirk movies that culminate in a space battle with a renegade ship. Both of those movies were superior: the motivation of the villians was more believable, and the actual space battling was done with better staging and less noise.
It's not a spoiler to tell you that the villain here is some Picard-clone raised on Romulan's south side, who has managed to get his hands on technology no-one else has (a ship that fires cloaked and some nasty radiation-bomb that can't be shielded) and has, for reasons never fully made clear, decided to trash Earth. The reason he (Shinzon) is a Picard-clone is sketchily-explained, and finally doesn't matter...it doesn't make the character or his motivations any more believable, nor are there any interesting plot twists that such a revelation might have inspired. I don't know why they bothered at all with this.
Data has also found a brother, some prototype left in pieces on a planet. The reasons for it (B-4) being in pieces are never clearly explained (although it's possible Shinzon did it as bait), nor is an suggestin offered for where the hell B-4 has been hanging around the past 20+ years, since he was presumedly created before Data (get it...B-4? Yet who names their first creation B-4, anticipating the second...never mind). B-4 is a moron, a baby, but gets a download of everything Data knows. It doesn't matter....he can't process it, at least for now.
The first half of the flick is slow going, with a cutesy marriage (guess who) and later Picard agonizing over the fact that there's this clone of him running around looking to be a bad-ass. The second half is all space battle, not very well story-boarded, with a hell of a lot of phaser fire from a cloaked ship that after all these years the Federation STILL can't track. Even Spock and McCoy managed to doctor a torpedo to find the exhaust pipe, a Uhura suggestion. Picard's crew has no such suggestions, just the usual cries of failing shields (Roger Ebert said he's REALLY sick of failing shields). The ship gets trashed again, but it's happened too many times before. I found myself wishing Q would show up, wave his hands, and send them all to another galaxy to ward off giant sponges, or lock philosophies with really horny women in tennis shorts.
Troi gets mind-fucked at one point, in a scene that went too fast and again had no motivation. Later she gets to do a little mind-fucking back. Shinzon's crew are all Remans, who look like Orcs, and they're all faceless and stupid. No loyal adjutant saying "yours is the superior" as he dies. Instead there's this viceroy played by the old Beauty and the Beast guy, under a lot of latex, whom Riker fights in the murk of some catwalks, a really pointless action sequence that was designed strictly to give the bloated Jonathan Frakes something to do. Indeed, most of the crew is superfluous, far more so than the classic crew ever was, even Worf, who usually gets some action. There's no time for interesting dialogue anyway, since everyone is always getting thrown around by phaser blasts.
SPOILER: At the end, a crewman does the ultimate sacrifice, a la Spock, and I will say that this was handled fairly well. Unlike Trek II, where there was a death speech from Spock and some big scene-chewing by Kirk, here there was no time: the radiation bomb was about to go off, and things happened very fast, but Picard did manage to convey, without words, his anguish at the loss very effectively. It was the best part of the movie. He even used the same toast Kirk used, later on when they were drinking wine together: "to absent friends."
It's a sorry end for the franchise (and yeah, it's over, for the box office is not good). Instead of a thoughtful, philosophical movie to counter-act all the CGI fighting of Lord of the Rings and noise of the Bond franchise, they went out with a poor retread of older Trek films. Wait for the DVD.
P.S. The soundtrack sucked. I remember the music for II and VI being practically another character--not here. Another phone-in by Jerry Goldsmith.
If anyone is interested, I've posted a review in Amazon of 'Paingod and other delusions.' Naturally, I gushed over the book and gave it five stars. Seemed only fair as I loved it. I thought that since this is where the fans of Ellison hang out, a few more could contribute a review or two. The more positive reviews there are, the more the book is likely to attract attention. How 'bout it?
It's odd, really. George Harrison passing really didn't hit me that much, but I was 10 when "London Calling" came out, and the news that a member of the Clash is dead is just a little more...close for me. Man, that sucks.
Well, I was one of those who stayed in line for three days to get tickets to see the Clash their first time through Montreal, and loved the show. Strummer was bemused at us Quebecquois, screaming out the lyrics we'd translated into French (at one point stopping the band from singing to listen to us). Never met him, but based on his music and what I'd read in interviews, seemed like a good bloke. Dommage, quelle dommage...
BTW, read Ellison in the francais, if you ever learn the language. I think he reads better in my mother tongue; a bit of Hugo in the mix, I think...
BOS
FUCKINGAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This hurts.
Gee, Rob, does that mean if I don't kowtow, you'll start praying to St. Kubrick again? Careful, me boyo--I just spend three endless hours watching the second LOTR film. I'm feeling unfriendly, too. Grr.
Alex K.,
" I would counter that you seemed to be getting pissed when that aspect of the issue is mentioned at all."
Take a LOOK at my original response to DTS and you'll see why that was a lame and inaccurate diminishing of my point. Give some thought to THAT.
I let you off easy this time. Next time it's a Coke bottle to the head. Never fuck with me this early in the morning.
Rob, you say, "I get pissed when we place so much weight on one aspect of the issue." I would counter that you seemed to be getting pissed when that aspect of the issue is mentioned at all. And that, sir, is as pig-headed as putting too much weight on that aspect of it. A valid point shouldn't be rejected out of hand, and that's what I see happening here. Give some thought to it, Rob; that sould hint at an open mind.
--alex
Alex K.,
"What DTS is talking about is the reduction of everything to a complaint about white racism, and the simultaneous acceptance of black racism."
Putting it more precisely, DTS was TRYING to say that. But DTS overshot the more complex realities and mislabeled one case for another, thereby failing to make much of a case. Some blacks make that case; most don't. I get pissed when we place so much weight on one aspect of the issue; in effect, DTS had done what he/she was accusing those blacks in question of doing. One thing that seems clear to me is that we - meaning whites - are still willing to "explain" why blacks (in a GENERAL context) misperceive the issue more readily than we are to concede our own oversights. What the fuck do you or DTS or I understand about the daily experience living as a black person? Even today, in spite of much progress, blacks are handicapped at every step in their attempts at occupational success and these cumulative disadvantages are what keep them in their inferior economic position. Even with the same social origins and education of a white male, a black still has lesser chances of upward mobility, largely as a result of discrimination. To use the closing line from ANDROMEDA STRAIN: WHAT do we do about it?
So don't start taking the same trip down that one narrow thorny path as DTS did (who at least acknowledged some misfires in the original post; that hints, possibly, an open mind). Because if you do you're looking at everything through a prism and talking out of your ass. I detailed my case in the previous post so I needn't rehash it.
Alex: You're not pouting about being jipped on gifts because of Hanukkah are you?
As to us Goy, we're trying to make the season ecumenical by passing off dreidel as Beyblades...
There's some very attractive dreidel at www.MallaAndRaphael.com
Best to all, festively.
BOS
Just heard on the radio that Joe Strummer died of a heart attack at age fifty.
Damn.
Damn! Beginning to look a lot like Christmas around here, huh?
DTS--I agree with much of what you said. I grew up here in Shaker Heights, a community that's been integrated for so long I don't remember ever having white next-door neighbors on both sides. Part of the reason we stayed in Shaker when we moved to a new house is that we wanted an integrated environment for the kids. But now the schools are resegregating, and my kids are in a small minority of whites. My daughter was threatened and picked on for being white, and the racism was justified because blacks have been so set upon in their time. She was coming home with black-and-blue marks where desk-tops and locker doors were "accidently" bashed into her. Who nees this? We pulled her out of the public schools.
Frank, your answer to DTS is so wrong-headed, it's exactly equivalent to Jim Hess' apologia for Trent Lott. We're not competing over who has suffered the most; this ain't a contest. My kids don't have to suffer as much as 300 years of blacks before they're allowed to resent being treated poorly for their color. Screw that.
What DTS is talking about is the reduction of everything to a complaint about white racism, and the simultaneous acceptance of black racism. It's a double standard that is doing considerable harm to liberalism and race relations and playing right into the hands of the right wing.
Jim, yes, DTS' example was extreme. But let's not pretend that using race and racism as an excuse for bad behavior hasn't hobbled the black community. I still remember when my best man showed up late for our wedding. "It's a black thang, Kris," he said, and tried the old guilt-trip the white boy routine. I told him that was bullshit, and I still say it was bullshit. I know there's still racism out there. My wife's step-father is black. But one racism doesn't excuse another, and racism shouldn't become a crutch.
By the way, Frank, you have been waaaay out of the loop during the 2000 campaign to have never heard of that Hillary Clinton quote. It was damn big news. She claims she never said it, and maybe she didn't but I don't know how you can say you've never heard the accusation and simultanteously say you've been keeping up with politics. Here's a piece on the denial: http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/07/16/hillary.book.response.02/
(By the way, Merry Christmas to all you goys out there.)
--Alex
"There are people in Washington who have been trying to nail me for a long time," Lott said. "When you're from Mississippi and you're a conservative and you're a Christian, there are a lot of people that don't like that. I fell into their trap and so I have only myself to blame." - Trent Lott
What a typical, back-handed, chicken-shit way to apologise for his Thurmond speech. Not just typical of him, but of anyone in politics who's been caught humping his neighbor's ewe. As if he has just discovered, to his horror that there are people in Washington who oppose him and now he's shocked, shocked to find out they'd use it against him.
As for his "unfortunate choice of words", Lott has made similar speeches before, as late as the 80's. He wasn't called on them, not ONCE. NOW, all of a sudden the Great Liberal Conspiracy has jumped on him for one widdle off-color statement. Sounds like they've been sleeping on the job.
What a load of crap. Lott got caught this time. Someone actually mentioned it. Now he's in trouble and singing, "Nobody knows the trouble I seen...." Anyone who says or does something comtempible and then wimps out like that, regardless of their political affiliations, should be at least subjected to a maximum of scorn and ridicule. Make 'em cry themselves to sleep.
And Jim Hess, it makes no difference to me what party the person belongs to or who's class tie they wear.
Give you an example.
Robert Byrd. Oh, yeah. Mr. Pork Barrel himself. When the righties introduced the Defence of Marriage Act, they knew that it was a toothless law, that it was unenforcable. Everyone in Congress knew it would have a snowball's chance in hell in court, especially in the Supreme Court. It was a grandstanding slap in the face of people like me. Many Dems signed on to that pernicious bill, including Mr. Byrd.
I'll never forget the spectacle of him standing there, holding the ol' family bible, telling the Senate he was gonna protect the sanctity of the sacred institution of marriage. This from a guy who would drop to his knees the instant someone waved a campaign contribution under his nose. Who could be found on any street corner yelling, "HEY, BIG SPENDER!"
And who signed this bill into law? Why, it was President Clinton. Good 'ol Willie the Weasel. He was a constitutional scholar who KNEW what he was signing was unconstitutional.
Both were Dems.
Both were contemptible.
Lott was a boil on the ass of the GOP. They lanced it. He belongs with all the old nerve gas bombs we threw away. With all the decrepit, toxic, obsolete junk.
Chuck
Ah, the joy of listening to a NEW Bill Hicks album.
I have heard the Word of Bill, and now I am cleansed in the Blood of the Damned.
(Made it a Texas night with the two "Fuck Christmas" gifts I bought myself--the Stevie Ray Vaughan and Double Trouble Live at the El Mocambo DVD was on sale at the record store.)
CINDY: Oh, you must be happy as a clam in casino. See, it wasn't the fact that Trent showed his true colors that got him ousted, oh no: It was the fact that he is "conservative and Christian," and because of that, people have wanted to "nail" him for some time.
(Geez. What IS it with you Christians and your carpentry fetish? People who want to fob off their own downfalls on their being Christian and because of this somehow disliked have been nailed more than Brandy St. Claire ...)
Bad enough that he, seeming Southern hospitable, concealed a viper in your bosom (and isn't THAT a downright Biblical phrase verging on the "Overfiend"-ish), but now, he's saying that it all came about, "inappropriate remark" or no, because people in this country don't like Christians ... you must REALLY hate his ass now.
Makes me want to ask the little fucker when he thinks the first Hindu or Muslim president of the United States will be elected ...
Jim Hess wrote:
"Here's a fact on the matter of civil rights and the likes in the United States of America: It was a Republican president named Lincoln who signed into effect the Emancipation Proclimation (I know there may be a misspelling there, but I don't want to stop writing and spell check elsewhere for concern I will get disconnected while doing so. Don't ask. Gremlins in the web, I suspect.) And what did this document basically do? It was suppose to free slaves. Did it? Sadly, no. But it did start much of the work that came in later years that DID provide slaves freedom."
I see. And the fact that figures such as Trent Lott look wistfully upon the people who tried to _fight_ that effort doesn't enter into the equation? The fact that Lott's long been a mouther of 'states rights' nonsense as well as a supporter of American-style aprtheid, both legacies of the traitorous South, doesn't affect your judgement on the matter? The very real fact that the man who planted a bullet into Lincoln's skull was a supporter of the same pro-slavery, anti-progress, racist, separatist South that fuckheads like Lott consider their "heritage?"
Barney:
"I won't be happy until we can shoot these clowns out of a cannon. No, seriously."
Christ, Barney, you don't think the Capitol building isn't enough of a three-ring circus already?
Watching the budget becoming a trip through the Hall of Smoke and Mirrors, and the Oversight Committee all rolling out of that teeny little car is one quite unamused BOS.
No pithy mots re racism, except to say, as I'd said prior: "Wrong is wrong, irrespective of political stripe. Punish it."
Alex Jay: Correct. That'll learn me not to wrap presents and watch news at the same time. I can, however walk and chew gum simultanteously, with only the occasional minor injury.
A bit more about a Lott: It turns out there were actually folks who wanted Trent to fall, and had the temerity to use his "poor choice of words" to bring about their heinous act:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021222/ap_on_go_co/lott_interview_5
No, he wasn't hanging that poor child in the photograph facing the article off a balcony, but word has it that he felt the infant would be a perfect shield against further actions taken by the evil cabal who'd smeared his self-perceived good and righteous name by putting forth their ugly and feral truths.
CINDY: Thanks for your warm thoughts -- I REALLY didn't feel threatened by the guy -- irritated, yes. As for white women (remember I was speaking of ALL women) not having to put up with ignomity of being judged by their skin, you've got a point -- but I have noticed that in the white collar world even black men make more money (in certain positions) for doing the same job as their female counterparts.
Happy Holidays to one and all.
--DTS
As a sideways follow-on to Harlan's rather restrained refutation of Hess's self-serving drivel, try reading Orwell's HOMAGE TO CATALONIA some time and see if then you can say with a straight face that "liberals/leftists attack only conservatives/rightists." Then follow up with his long essay "My Country Right or Left."
[rhetorical question]
Or are you unwilling to hear what Orwell has to say because he's a gol-durned furriner?
[/rhetorical question]
Typed in a hurry before I see THE TWO TOWERS on an IMax screen . . .
DTS: Okay, MAYBE the guy wasn't a nutjob. But I'd humbly submit that anyone who advocates the killing of animals as a solution to mass-transit problems is in good need of a liedown and a Xanax. I still think you're giving his words more significance than they deserve, though, but it's no biggie.
JIM HESS: Who cares if one party slanders the other? That's what they do, and I say to Hell with them all. Maybe they served a purpose at one time, but now they're more of a liability than anything else. Call me a radical, but I think a politician should stand behind his words and deeds, and not a party platform.
Also, I can't agree that Lott's downfall has much to do with his party affiliation, or that it can be compared to anything else. This was a man with a less-than-sterling record towards race, who was VIDEOTAPED making an outrageous statement. Call me naive, but I believe if Sen. Byrd, say, had been in Lott's place, the outcry would've been the same. Also, the Clintons were ALLEGED to have made racist slurs, which is hardly definitive proof. Hey, maybe they did say those things, but it still boils down to one person's word against another; unlike Lott, who can't claim that his words were misquoted or taken out of context.
Hey dorman,
I think women get short shrift on occassion, but too a far lesser degree than black men. When I think about our Darryl and the fucking store security following him around I think we women have it pretty damn good most of the time.
Even when I was a single mother and things WERE tough while I didn't have the pervasive suspicion in my life that Darryl has described...I can't imagine that. Even the idea that someone might THINK I've done something wrong makes me feel guilty and uneasy--I can't imagine what it must be to endure what Darryl described.
One of the worst things that happened to me-- pales by comparison to Darryl's... but I won't ever forget it.The local Baptist minister (while I was still in Colorado) came around to tell me that not only was he NOT going to be buying my home- as he had promised - but he had learned from someone at my bank that they were just about to forclose and he was planning to wait until the forclosure went through so he could " get it for a song."
Of course I took that as my cue to point out that he was the sorriest excuse for a Christian that I believed I had ever encountered.. I also reminded him that in knowing that I was the sole parent of four small children he was offending them as well... " AAaaaaaaaaand, " I went on.." If you've REALLY read your Bible then you know that Jesus said for people like you- who offend small children-- it would be BETTER for a millstone to be tied about your neck and cast into the depths of the ocean." I then said , " I hope you can swim."
You never saw such a short, fat man scurry so quickly down a flight of stairs. I guess he thought I was possessed, speaking to HIM that way.
That incident was bad enough for me. I felt helpless and destitute and without the protection of a man....vulnerable. People don't mess with men the way they'll mess with women who are alone with children. But it was good for me. The satisfaction of putting that pious little hypocrit in his place was pleasant in the extreme. I learned that day that I could dish it out.
Still, even though I learned what it's like to be dealt a bad hand I have no idea what it's like to be treated as though I might steal something for no reason... or despised for the color of my skin.
The things that people do to other people...
Dorman, I'm sorry that you were subjected to that man's tirade. You of all people didn't deserve that. You are a gentle and kind soul who would harm no one who didn't have it coming.
I'm glad you're okay though,
:)
your friend,
Cindy
Jim (Hess),
"Here's a fact on the matter of civil rights and the likes in the United States of America: It was a Republican president named Lincoln who signed into effect the Emancipation Proclimation"
I knew it...I KNEW you were going to head that way just after reading your first few sentences. I'm out the door NOW, I just wanted to lurk for a second.
I'll elaborate later but leave you with this: apart from MISSING Harlan's point - in all your reassurances you're for equal rights - you're leaving out some pertinent history. The Republican party of Lincoln's time was the liberal party (and they were a new party); the Democrats (right up to FDR's time, actually) were the conservatives who resisted change in the South and in the constitution. Andrew Johnson and the Democrats were the sympathizers and because of them Reconstruction failed.
Apparently the point of my previous post was missed by a mile, owing to whatever (probably me), and perhaps the stab at bad humor at the end, so once more: The remarks made by Trent Lott are not nor should not be acceptable, especially of someone in his position, as elected official, as high poobah, as whatever position he holds, held, or may hold. Nor should remarks be made by the aforementioned Clintons(s), Byrd, Kerry, etc. be acceptable. (if I missed any specific names). However, it seems to me, reading carefully between the lines of the teleprompter read by whichever news reader is ON at the moment IF one were to stand up and wave a grubby paw in the air and admit to being a registred Republican said person could expect a tar and feathering the likes of which has not been seen since, oh, my, I don't know when simply because they choose that political affilliation.
Further, the double standard allowed presently allowed because a person chooses to register Democrat scares the crap and then some out of me.
Bluntly, racism and segregation are WRONG. I don't care how it is presented, by word or action. THEY.ARE.WRONG.
But. . .
they are being allowed simply because of how a person chooses their political stance.
Is it me or is that beyond f***ed up? So f***ed up, in fact, the only way to wrap reason and logic around it is to suggest it is balanced out in the cosmos by the missing sock in the dryer, the misplaced car keys, the extra ten spot in the wallet.
Now. On the matter of civil rights and provision of same to all, which, for whatever it may be worth, I support: I wish to hell people would use a little common sense and reason and logic when it came to being considerate toward each other (beyond, ironically, the holidays of present), but apparently, no. So legislation of same is required. We have to have laws and rules and other legal hubris to assure a person, regardless of skin color, sex, religious belief, etc., can drink from a given water fountain or piddle in a given facility or choose a seat on a bus to a better life.
Which brings me to a certain point I should have expounded on previously but didn't. (Maybe that's why this post is needed.) In the past forty-hours I have heard Hillary Clinton say, bluntly, THE REPUBLICANS are single-handedly responsible for racism and segregation in the United States of America.
Maybe it's because I graduated from public education in America that I know certain facts, but THIS, even superficially, ranks right up there with justifying racism and segregation and other remarks simply because of how a person votes in America.
Here's a fact on the matter of civil rights and the likes in the United States of America: It was a Republican president named Lincoln who signed into effect the Emancipation Proclimation (I know there may be a misspelling there, but I don't want to stop writing and spell check elsewhere for concern I will get disconnected while doing so. Don't ask. Gremlins in the web, I suspect.) And what did this document basically do? It was suppose to free slaves. Did it? Sadly, no. But it did start much of the work that came in later years that DID provide slaves freedom.
Then there was President Eisenhower, who sent federal troops to Little Rock in 1957 to integrate the schools and lobbied for passage of the first federal civil rights act since Reconstruction. Did that work as desired? No. But, again, some were helped and more foundation was laid for equal rights, civil rights.
Then there were Republicans who broke the filibuster led by Thurmond (THAT Thurmond, he of Hooters of late) against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the quiet yet indispensable direction of Senate Republican leader Everett Dirksen of Illinois.
What am I getting at here? For Hillary Clinton to suggest Republicans have a monopoly on the perpetuation of racism and segregation in the United States of America is wrong, wrong, WRONG.
Yes. There are Republicans that need a good long trip to the woodshed for a major ass whuppin'. But there are also Democrats who merit the same.
And further, to make this as simple as possible: I find it beyond belief that anyone would stand up and wiggle a figure in any direction and attempt to lay blame for such horrors as racism and segregation at the feet of one person or one group.
Those who do so are no better than the person who gets up, for example, in a black church and proclaims, 'My best friends are jigaboos.'
I'm going to say this again for absolute clarification: Trent Lott was wrong in his remarks. Hillary and Bill Clinton were wrong for their remarks. Harry Byrd is wrong for ever belonging to the KKK and for taking a part as a Confederate general in a movie or film or whatever. John F. Kerry has no excuse or reason for his remarks about Italians or Italian-Americans. And they should all meet the same punishment.
Regardless of political affiliation.
Now. A suggestion when it comes to all of this: You want to stop racism and segregation you do what I do: You start with you.
Last notes: The Republican Party is not my party. I do not march lockstep with them. Nor do I march lockstep with the Dems. I march to my own step and bet and I often misstep in my way through Life. I'm imperfect, which is not allowed. Shucks.
As to the quotes on the Clintons: Which quotes did you want? For Hillary or Bill?
Incidentially, I don't make stuff like that up. I don't need to. Politicians like Lott far too often say stuff that is so outrageous I doubt anyone could beat them with fiction.
Until next time. . .
ROB: Yeah, I was simplistic in my "summation" of what the black guy on NPR was discussing. Perhaps I shouldn't have used him as an example. As for some of the other arguments you made: Just about ALL of us have histories of horror in our past -- recent or otherwise. The Jews, the Arabs, the Africans, the Irish, the Italians, the Russians, hell, even the Germans. Certainly we should be aware of history -- I'm pretty certain I didn't argue against it -- I just tired of modern-day men using history as an excuse for an inability to get out of their own fucking way. Every time a guy goes off the way the black dude this morning did -- blaming that's white for all the problems in his life -- it just sets up more barriers between races. And I'm not saying this morning's incident -- or the many others I've witnessed made me suddenly prejudiced against blacks (or black men). Neither did the incidents of bigotry, sexism or prejudice that I've witnessed involving whites, latinos (usually men) change my feelings about other races or the opposite sex (or homosexuals). I'm just fucking tired of people using history (be it slavery, reformation, the inquisition, ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, the Holocaust or any other tragedy you can think of) as an excuse for their own shitty, whiny or irresponsible behavior. And lately, whether one wants to admit it or not, the whining from some minority groups has reached a fever pitch. I don't have all of the facts before me now, but what about the idea that blacks should get some sort of monetary compensation for what happened to their ancestors when slavery was in fashion here in America? After that, will we try to compensate for the raping of American Indians or the horrible things we did to Japanese/Americans during WWII? And if so, should America (as the World's "conscious" and largest superpower) try to persuade other countries to do the same? Should humans try to get monetary compensation for horrors as far back as the Crusades? Or farther? Or should we quit pointing fingers and looking for someone to blame things on, and simply try to keep fighting the inevitable racism, sexism, etc., etc., that springs out of our very differences. As I said before, I think women have always had it worse than men (of any color) in this world; and they continue to get the short end of the stick. But I don't hear continually crying in their cheerios as often as men do.
JIM DAVIS: Regarding your analogy, it would take a blind man, indeed, to not recognize the particular "termites" you refer to. I don't think we need anyone yelling the "sky is falling" to make us aware of racism. And the guy at the bustop today wasn't a nutjob. He was, like many people in our society, fed up with ineptitude and easily driven to rage. I don't know if he would've let his rage spill over into physical abuse (I didn't feel threatened, but I never do unless my wife and daughter are nearby). If he had, then he wouldn've qualified as a nutjob. I just think he was a guy, in 30+ weather, who wanted the bus to be on fucking time. Hell, I've been there. I just didn't choose to blame Blacks, Latinos, or Asians for the screwed up bus schedule or the lateness of a particular driver. I knew that I had placed MYSELF in that spot at that particular moment -- so I was responsible.
--DTS
And I just want to say that Anthony Burgess's NOTHING LIKE THE SUN (A Story of Shakespeare's Love-life) is the most remarkable work of fiction I've read all year. That is all.
I was going to reply to Jim Hess, but Harlan's already done that admirably, and I think ol' Jimbo's going to be busy with skin-graft operations for awhile, anyway. But I do want to ask him one question:
What's the source for that Clinton quote?
No need to venture further on that topic. Wow. :-)
DTS:
The man you saw on your morning stroll was not a Representative for the Typical African-American. He was, to use the vernacular, a Fucking Nutjob. I can understand your anger at his words, but using him as an example of anything other than the need for a good psychopharmaceutical is just plain silly. Yes, relations between the races are pretty bad, but if every black person genuinely felt like that, this country would've been a smoking ruin a long time ago. It isn't, they (mostly) don't, so get over it. (I didn't hear that NPR program, so I can't comment on that, though Rob seemed to cover it nicely.)
Now, before you think this is some "let's pile on the racist" post, let me say that I agree with you: Whining and complaining ARE counterproductive, and there's too much of them in the news media. But as you and I are well aware, the news media aren't a 100% accurate in their reflections of real life. You wrote, "But instead of complaining or pointing fingers, they've soldiered on, fighting a battle when they can, working around obstacles when necessary, and basically taking responsibility for their own lives. They keep fighting the good fight . . ." DTS, what makes you think that most black people--in fact most people, period-- don't do that every day? The vast majority of them don't have radio shows, or make appearances on CNN or FOX NEWS, or write columns for their local newspapers. They, as you aptly put it, SOLDIER ON. They work their jobs, pay their bills, take care of their families, and try to squeeze as much happiness out of these "muddy vestures of decay" as they possibly can. Don't confuse the shadowshow with the reality.
Don't get me wrong, however: this country IS racist. I'm not suggesting that things haven't improved immensely from the Bad Old Days, or that life isn't better for black americans than it has ever been. But racism is a binary condition--it's either a zero or a one, and as long as the average black person faces SOME degree of it, the country's in the latter position. How could it be otherwise? It was only fortysomething years ago that the US was little better than Apartheid South Africa, and if you think a generation or two of fairer laws can change people's hearts, well, you're more optimistic than me.
I've seen and heard too many examples of out-and-out racism to believe the fiction that it's all in the past. (Did I ever tell you about the real estate agent who warned me about moving into the "colored" neighborhoods? Or the boss at the liquor store I worked in, who told me to watch every black customer like a hawk? Or all the times I've heard white people, including my own father, use "nigger" when they thought blacks weren't around? Or the racist joke my best friend's uncle told last Thanksgiving? Or all the stories of DWB (driving while black) that my black friends have told me? Or the statistics on life expectancy, on income, on housing patterns, on health care? And on and on and on and on world without end ad infinitum ad nauseum I've got a million of 'em, believe you me? You get the point.)
Just because someone whines and moans, doesn't mean the problem isn't real. Even if Al Sharpton IS nothing better than a media whore, it doesn't change the facts: Racism is utterly repellant, and as long as a society engages in it to ANY degree, it has many leagues to go before it can call itself civilized. That's the problem with these nudzhes of race, as galling as it might be for most white folks to admit it: They're right. We can disagree with their solutions, we can dislike their constant harping on racism, we can even wish that they would all just shut the fuck up. But if a house has termites, I damn sure want someone to tell me before the whole thing comes crashing down around my head.
Don't you?
(And anyone who wants to kick you off the board has to go through me, DTS.)
If you'll pardon me, I have to go. I promised I'd supply the molotovs for the next local church burning. (Hey, I didn't say *I* was perfect, did I? LOVE their music, though . . .)
Dear One and All:
Just FYI:
Rabbit Hole #32 will be mailed out to members on Monday. Enjoy. One correction. Please read the name ARNIE NEWMAN instead of ARNIE FENNER. Susan's brain was on holiday that day.
MISSING MEMBERS:
Have you seen these HERC members (last known address included). Send your new address to HERC. Important: Please include your membership number.
Mikey Cofer, Edmonds, WA
Fred Clevenger, Canyon Country, CA
Douglas F. Coppola, New Rochelle, NY
Gary M. Dockter, Levittown, PA
Jim Higgins, Brooklyn, NY
Marc Maurus, Royal Oak, MI
Robert L. Millner, San Jose, CA
Steven Moore, Moscow, ID
Susan Overstrom, Ledyard, CT
Tammy Twotone, Springfield, MA
Debbie Zaretsky, Phoenix, AZ
Hope you enjoy #32--Susan
P.S. Barney--We have all the Swedish books/magazines you listed. Many thanks.
While I am comfortable with my take on Gangs of New York, I admit it is strange to be on the "other side" of the issue - Gangs is getting critical praise (though 3 out of 10 reviews are negative) but is not liked by viewers (getting a very low 3.2 viewer rating on Yahoo and only a B on Cinema Score which is also pretty darn low.) Also, Rex Reed trashed it and I'm always nervous when I agree with him.
A substantial element in the intensity of my emotional reaction is the fact that I love Scorsese fo very, very much. It's possible in a few weeks, I'll merely think it was a bad movie instead of a truly awful one.
As for now though, I agree with Glenn Lovell of the San Jose Mercury News:
**What I found was a misfire of monstrous proportions, the worst large-scale epic since Michael Cimino's ``Heaven's Gate.'' That some critics are rushing to its defense tells me they're afraid to say that this time, the emperor has no clothes, characters or climactic payoff. It's left to the public to go, ``Huh? Why should we care about any of this?''**
**One problem I had with your anti-GANGS double-barrel blathering, Chris, is that you essentially came on like the very type of critic BOTH of us have panned. You took the same easy Jay Sherman route most of them take: "it STINKS!"**
Yeah, sure and same for all your other points on the issue of reviews but I wasn't posting any kind of review of Gangs. I was just expressing my shock and horror at having seen one of my favorite directors of all-time make such an awful, awful film.
As to Ebert's review of the film, I thought it was dreadful. Ken Turan nailed this one to the wall. I like Ebert a lot and he does great work on his Great Movies list. He is also a fine writer. However, he is simply far too soft a touch to really be too reliable. As a firm believer in Sturgeon's Law, I just can't trust too much of what Ebert says anymore. He loves damn near everything.
If you want an actual review of Gans w/ minimal spoilers, here it is:
The press for Gangs suggests that Scorsese and his crew have gone to great pains to recreate mid-19th century New York. I find it very hard to believe that NYC circa 1862 looked like Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome but if the team did their research, I'll believe them. I find it difficult to believe that gans roamed the streets of 1862 NYC armed with every single sharp instrument that can be found in the Dungeon Master's Guide but if the team did their research, I'll believe them. I find it very difficult to believe that any of the events recreated in the film actually happened in anything but the most superficially similar manner (I.e. I know there were riots at the time so they're not completely making it up.)
If all these things are true, however, it only goes to prove the old saw that reality simply isn't believable.
Many reviewers have pointed to Bill the Butcher as the standout character in this film. He certainly is. Rogert Ebert calls him on the great film characters of our time. I think he might be if he was in a better film but, as Ken Turan notes, Bill exists in a vaccuum.
Bill is surrounded by characters who can only generously be called one-dimensional. Leonardo DiCaprio possesses a natural ability to generate empathy for any of the characters her plays - DiCaprio's performance is the ONLY reason the otherwise sappy story in Titanic has emotional resonance. Yet Amsterdam (DiCaprio's character) generates little or no sympathy for the simpe fact that we can't claim to know a single thing about him save that his father was killed (that's in the first scene so it's hardly a spoiler.)
The script features numerous questionable decisions, primarily the lack of tension involved in any of the various plot threads. Amsterdam returns to town and is immediately taken into Bill's confidence - he does nothing to earn this honor, it merely happens. After this, Bill and Amsterdam's relationship, while somewhat interesting, simply stalls for the next hour or hour and a half. Bill instantly likes Amsterdam. Amsterdam still wants to kill Bill, same as he did when he first came back to town.
[SPOILER ALERT] Furthermore, the revelation of Amsterdam's identity to Bill simply happens. Bill does nothing to trigger it. Amsterdam does nothing to trigger it except tangentially. A jealous friend merely decides out of the blue to tell Bill who Amsterdam really is (he is the son of the man Bill killed 16 years ago.)
Not only that, but somehow, the jealous friend's revelation INSTANTLY triggers Amsterdam's attempt to kill Bill. Amsterdam had been biding his time not even shown so much as planning Bill's death (we just know ahead of time that he wants to kill him) but now, just because the plot calls for it, Amsterdam is ready to make his try. And Bill also knows that Amsterdam is going to do it - he even knows when and where. Apparently it must happen then and there because, after all, it's the scene following the jealous friend's revelation so what else could happen?
The film completely collapses under the weight of its own awkward structure in the final act when the writers (this script passed through at least three hands and perhaps Harvey Weinstein's as well) decide to arbitrarily connect the character-based melodrama occurring one section of NYC to broader issues in the country. Suddenly, we are offered pictures of dying Civil War soldiers, lynchings, historical documents being burned, all the time wondering what the hell happened to the characters who were supposed to be fighting each other.
I also cannot begin to explain the ludicrously overwrought fight scenes, as graphic as anything I have seen outside of a gory horror film. One review jokes about the film being called "Stab Wounds of New York" and that's an understatement. The violence escalates to such an extreme in the end with plumes of blood drenching characters and hordes of people slogging through 4-inch deep rivers of blood flowing in the streets, that it can only generate laughter or disgust. Perhaps both.
Outside of Bill the Butcher, there's not a single character to give a damn about so the movie consists of little more than boring mostly nameless people who looks like Dungeons and Dragons characters (one of them is some sort of self-styled vampire) who hack and slash at each other for a good 20% of the film.
I cannot believe anyone could take this ridiculous story seriously. If someone can present a good arguemnt for the film being a parody, I'll listen. Otherwise, this movie is saved from being a fiasco only by the presence of the intriguing Bill the Butcher character whose solo act is not enough to carry the weight of the narrative.
JIM HESS:
As politely as I care to put it: GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS.
No one--repeat--no one--and thrice to hammer the nail into your wooden skull--NO ONE accepts, excuses, ignores, endorses, approves of, condones or makes a brief for the moronic, politically incorrect, racist or otherwise damnable mouth-farts of Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat, just because Those Of Us Who Are Neither Democrat Nor Republican choose to fasten on the bad mouth of Trent Lott at the moment. He's the moment's shithead. In times past the shithead has been Bill Clinton, and Jesse Helms, and Abe Lincoln, and James Madison, and on and on. Politicians are people, as well as Good Men or Women, Bad Men or Women. They are smart, and they are idiots. If we get miraculously lucky, they will be more the former than the latter. But get this through your head, once and for all, and spare us (me, in particular) the wounded baby whining about how EEE-vil Liberals jump on every shitheaded remark by an Arch-Conservative, but turn our backs on, and in your scenario seem to tacitly excuse, equally stupid and evil remarks by "our own."
(Whichever "our own" you perceive as being on your Demon List.)
Here's the message, Mr. Hess, as simply and logically presented as any but another shithead would need it:
LIFE IS NOT A COMPARISON OF CHAMBER OF HORRORS!
You cannot, I repeat, CAN NOT mitigate Lott's bigmouthed gaffe by suggesting that Adolf Hitler made even worse remarks. You cannot, with an iota of porridge for a brain, CAN NOT wave away Lott's almost offhanded revealment of unreconstructed self by correctly, yet irrelevantly, pointing out that Gary Hart was an adulterer who once called the Jewish reporter who caught him out a "sheenie." You cannot--hear it again--CAN NOT pretend crimes of any sort are okay by even a scintilla just because..."well, everyone's doing it." You cannot--CAN NOT NOT NOT--diminish the level of opprobrium for a kid who cheats, because everyone else in his class is also being a cheat. Lott's undoing has nothing to do with "the liberal press" (such as O'Reilly, The Washington Blat, Limbaugh, Hannity & Colmes, The Wall Street Journal, most if not all of the Fox Network, McLaughlin's Group, and on and on...oops, did I forget the vast power and massive audience of Donahue...?) or the sporadic tsk-tsk of Democrats; and it is UNETHICAL to weep alligator tears for this hideously flogged creature when all around him are equally guilty of Bad Speech. How the fuck DARE you, sir!
You can't argue unfairness--particularly since it was your own goddam party yelling loudest, not out of moral indignation, but because of the potential loss of the "niggrah vote."
What the hell kind of ethic do you subscribe to, Mr. Hess, that you would try to assert even the flimsiest case, based on petty comparisons of wretched behavior, for the "victimization" of poor old Trent, who has been an outspoken racist all his life, just because Hillary called someone a kike, and Bill shot off his idiot mouth calling someone a fucking nigger. They are all three imbeciles, rife with racism, and they should be judged against the highest standards of ethical behavior, not against the stained natures of OTHER shitheads.
You do not win approbation reducing your argument to a cheap forensic trick that is as egregious as it is laughable.
LIFE IS NOT A COMPARISON OF CHAMBER OF HORRORS!
Now, either pound that into the forefront of your cerebellum, or stay out of "red button" topics thast require sane, rational, nonpartisan examination. If you want to be a jerk about such things, there's always the Libertarian Party.
Exasperated, Harlan
DTS,
"Whether it be the eleoquent gentleman on last night's NPR program who was expressing outrage and claiming to still feel hurt over the horrible beatings that black slaves took"
Well, I had to stop you right there. That guy on NPR wasn't referring to slavery at that juncture; he was referring to the decades following the failed Reconstruction era - the Jim Crowe years. He made that clear. And he was right on the mark. Not only do too many whites forget HOW bad things really were right up through the 1930's (never MIND the slavery years) - over 3,000 blacks murdered, for Chrissake (somehow, DTS, I sense if you had ancestors - particularly within recent memory - who'd been butchered and mutilated you'd have sympathized more with this man's comments) - but the communication between whites and blacks needs to continue. TALKING about it the way that guy did was absolutely legitimate and constructive (the point he made about "white guilt", for example, was excellent; it's one thing, in our caucasoid confusion, to feel guilt for what we ourselves didn't do; it's another to empathize with the pain). I vehemently object to your reference to that interview because it was NOT an example of what you were arguing: "blaming ALL their problems on racism". He wasn't doing that. He was giving us a subjective honest perspective - which I think had a LOT to offer. I was nodding in reponse to his words. I liked them a LOT. I felt I understood him completely. "Guilt" is a waste of time; empathy is the clear connection we have to make. I DO agree some people place more of their problems than they should on racism alone; not just blacks - those of many minorities, in any part of the world. When life is that limiting for them it's all they can perceive. I've been angered on occasion myself being foolishly and erroneously accused of prejudice (I mean for silly things like just walking by without noticing or acknowledging he's sitting there; I remember this one guy reacting with a comment, as it didn't seem to occur to him my mind was on business not that fact that a guy of color - or ANYONE - was sitting there; I understand insecurity, but it's time for ALL parties to wise up). But you have to know where the boundary lies between THAT scenario and talking about the pain. If the Jews can have a Wailing Wall, why can't the blacks? The latter run into racism all over the world - and unlike many Jews they can't hide what they are (nor should they NEED to). Make the right distinction; because in such a complex social setting NO group has a perspective 100% clear - like YOURS and that of that guy I once strolled past - because our experiences are subjective. No one has ALL the answers. That's why continuing dialogue as we heard on NPR is crucial. I liked what that guy on NPR had to say a LOT. It added perspective for me. He wasn't doing what you implied. Your inference there WAS stupid...because it was absent of balance. Grasp the difference between political correctness and imparting a justified pov.
I understand what you were driving at; but you overreached yourself with a simplistic summation. There are several people here who can respond more subjectively than I can and I'll give the stage to THEM. I think, while bearing in mind SOME people may well place too much of their burdens on racism alone (a natural human tendancy), you should consider where you may be in error too and consider ALL responses offered. Incredible as it may seem to you too many of us white folk can be as fulla shit as anyone else.
Before I close off let me offer a scenario. It might help you imagine why human beings can get confused if not paranoid in what can still be an oppressive setting. Let's say you're a black individual. You know most whites are cool but you also know small-minded bigots are out there too. But you don't know when those types are around. You can do nothing to hide your race; and you never know who in the crowd is among those bigots. They can put a bead on you anytime they want. If you're sitting in a classroom, for instance, given the proportions game, you know some are likely to have one of those "problems". Just being aware of that fact alone is probably going to make you feel self-conscious and wary (though you may hide it). Imagine putting up with that wariness on a daily basis. It's a confinement that is likely to seed resentment underneath it all, though you may not even be aware of it. That's why life can get so confusing. Unless whites really imagine themselves in that situation I can't see them empathizing with blacks; but they CAN get presumptuous and cocky about it and DO (OR they get politically correct, which advances nothing).
It cuts both ways.
Jim Hess, you know and I know that your doctored quotes don't actually exist; and if they do exist, then it is news to me. I think if Hillary Clinton had used racist slurs we would have heard about it. Jimmy, try next time thinking before using the American Spectator as your pacifier.
----------
CEP, yikes, your white privilage has not dampened your paranoia about blacks. Blacks need about three hundred years of reverse racism before the odds would even up. Then someone with a pale face can bark about whining black people.
Sticking head in door and hearing 'Racism'. Oh, okay. Just need to take some notes here for future use in understanding the order of the known universe and cosmos:
It is understandably wrong for Trent Lott to suggest racism and segregation are Good Things, but it is okay, dandy, fine, marvelous for Bill Clinton, as gov of Arkansas to refer to a African-American in his administration as 'a f***ing nigger', in the man's presence; is it perfectly fine for Hillary Clinton, while running for the United States Senate, to refer to Michael Bloomberg as 'the f**king Jew bastard'; it is beyond anyone's concern for wonder why it is no problem-o for Harry Byrd to be a member of the KKK and play a Confederate General in an upcoming production; it is without merit or concern to wonder why it is acceptable for Hillary Clinton, while campaigning for Charles Schumer, to refer to Alfonse D'Amato with a ethnic slur; it is fine, fine, fine for John F. Kerry to, on the Don Imus program, to make slurs against Italian-Americans and not apologize for same; it is cool beans for Bill Clinton, while gov of Arkansas, to embrace pro-segregation whites.
It is all fine, thus, just so long as one does not vote Republican.
Pause.
Y'know, in a strange, unsettling way, all of this double standard stuff explains the one missing sock in the clothes dryer, the fact my car keys are never where I left them, and the fact I always have ten dollars more in my wallet than I thought I did.
Thanks for the lesson, folks. It makes life so much more tolerable and understandable.
Until next time. . .
ON THE SUBJECT OF RACISM: Here's a post that's probably guaranteed to get me thrown off the board, but what the hell. (And before I begin, I should say that I'm FOR affirmative action, equal rights, etc., etc.; and that I grew up, mostly, in the military, where the only color is "green"; or that even when living in South Texas -- between age 9 and 22-- and encountering rascism from chicanos -- who were wont to try and pick a fight with you if your skin was white -- even then I didn't develop a racist attitude -- so if this comes off as such, sorry). I'm tired of listening to a number of black men constantly bring up racism as the reason for all of their troubles. Seriously. Whether it be the eleoquent gentleman on last night's NPR program who was expressing outrage and claiming to still feel hurt over the horrible beatings that black slaves took or the guy I just passed on my walk this morning who (after complaining to someone on the other end that the bus hadn't arrived in time and hanging up the payphone) went into a loud rant about how he hated all white people and wished he had enough money to get a plane ticket to Africa and wanted to kill white men and women and children, and fuck them up their asses, and wanted to shoot the dogs of white people -- I'm pretty sure he threw this in for my benefit since I was across the street, trying to get a paper out of the machine while hanging onto my two dogs, though it didn't move me much in any direction, emotionally -- and generally went on and on about how whites were the bane of his existence. I'm tired of hearing black men whine and wail about racism has hindered every chance for progress in their lives. Seriously. This world had racism, and sexism and a dozen different "isms," in it from the day people started crawling around on all fours. And the color of your skin need not be a reason for enslavement, murder and genocide. The jews can attest to that. So can people of Bosnia. Or many different tribes of modern-day Africa. Racism --and sexism and hatred to due ethnicity and a dozen other evils -- has been, and will continue to be a side effect of the human condition. Sometimes it's brought about by cultural or even religious teachings; sometimes it's brought about by plain old-fashioned envy. Either way, it's wrong, and societies should continue to fight against it, and continue to try and keep it from pervading our everyday public life and government (I say public life, because people should always have the right to be wrong in their own homes). But, damn! I wish the people like the guy at the bus stop or the man on NPR (who neglected to mention that African tribes assisted in slave trading, etc) would stop blaming "whitey" for most of what is wrong and fucked up in their lives. I rarely (if ever) hear women complaining about sexism as often as I hear black men complaining about racism (black women might complain, but not nearly as often -- mainly, I think, because they're still fighting the glass ceiling of "sexual repression" among black men as well as white men). Hell, maybe it's just men. Women have had to fight just as hard (or harder) to get what they want out of life. But instead of complaining or pointing fingers, they've soldiered on, fighting a battle when they can, working around obstacles when necessary, and basically taking responsibility for their own lives. They keep fighting the good fight (knowing, as most intelligent people do, that it may never be completely won, that some stupid prejudices are hard-wired into the human condition), but they continue to go on with their lives, lifting themselves up by their bootstraps, refusing to give in to self-pity or rage that is born of the same. A brave and admirable way to live. If only we men could learn by their example.
--DTS
I'm reading the local Raleigh paper this morning and there's an article on Jesse Helms and the impact he's made in Washington. Suffice to say, one of the most objective pieces of reporting have indicated that Helms will not be missed by ANYONE endowed with reasoning and compassion. I guess I'm preaching to the choir here, but this is the kind of stuff that makes me wonder why we've managed to make it as a species as long as we have.
Forget Lott and his "slip". Forget Thurmond, who has become a joke. The real danger are the Helmses. Lott and Thurmond aren't smart enough or canny enough. Helms and the folks he's groomed for politics are the real dangers.
A couple of quotes from the article (all Helms' words and all spoken recently for the article):
"[Martin Luther King] caused more trouble than good he ever did..."
"I'm devoted to them (black elevator operators) and they're devoted to me."
"I think we have a lot of population in America, by reason of having just gotten here or whatever, they don't have the same, the same reverence for what this country means. It was designed by the Lord himself in the beginning."
I've just ruined my breakfast and I apologize if I've ruined yours. One other thing: A lot of Helms' former staffers are in positions of power in the current administration. So there goes your lunch, too.
Harlan,
Thanks for responding.
Take care,
Phillip
Chris,
Because of an accurate historical backdrop in pre-Civil War New York, the orphanage setting in the story (though I've no idea how much of the film this takes up) and its personal relevance to me, and the Dickens quality the movie clearly evokes I've plans to check out GANGS OF NEW YORK (along with ADAPTATION and ABOUT SCHMIDT ).
It doesn't matter if critics' reactions have been pro or con (incidentally, there have been plenty of BOTH on this one) FEW are what you could really call objective. I CAN tell you Ebert's essay on the film - whether or not I wind up agreeing with him at all (and I've HAD this happen, where I loved what he wrote but found the film to be less than he had me hoping for) - is far superior than anyone else's out there right now. In my view, his writing is as its best when historical threads find there way through a movie. He can be very inconsistant on the broader playing field; but he can write INCREDIBLY well when a movie has layers. His observations about GANGS had enough breadth to draw my curiosity. (I should add having read quite a bit about 19th century New York in recent years has given me a frame-of-reference to use while watching the film). He's a fine essayist.
One problem I had with your anti-GANGS double-barrel blathering, Chris, is that you essentially came on like the very type of critic BOTH of us have panned. You took the same easy Jay Sherman route most of them take: "it STINKS!"
When someone does that I find myself in disagreement with them more often than not, if only because it was an empty extreme.
Quantify then qualify.
If you really expect to become a critic one day - one that stands out of the crowd - you can't fall back on the easy, one-dimensional, glib, hasty swipes typical of most Roeper types. Anyone with half his frontal lobe surgically removed can do THAT. The critic's job (ideally; few really do this WELL) is to follow what the director is trying to do with theme, imagery, and subtext (sometimes done with subtle nuance); occasionally this requires several viewings, particularly when the director renders a unique world view with his own style (you may not at first be able to RELATE to his angle on things). Then determine why the director succeeded or failed (if he failed what alternative would have served the material better?). Anatomy of a review.
Quantify then qualify.
Chris L.,
Thanks. I was wondering what masterpiece I should see this weekend. Judging by your previous reviews, "Gangs" should work nicely.
*** Cindy *** Sadly, Townsend didn't "believe" those words when he wrote them and sure doesn't now. Of course, since he mourns the passing of his bandmates by going on cash harvesting tours his opinion means very little to me these days.
- barney
Department of meet the new boss, same as the old boss, except that he's laying off one-third of the employees:
Oh, yes we will, Cindy.
Over and over and over again.
Think about it:
* Did you know that Trent made a virtually identical statement to the one which got him kicked out on his ass back in 1980 after Strom Thurmond spoke at a Reagan rally?
* Did you know that he fought against the Martin Luther King holiday (which even that old mummy Strom-set Thoth-amon came out in support of), saying that we hadn't "done it for a lot of people who were more deserving"?
(Who was he thinking of? Nathaniel Bedford Forrest, maybe?)
* Did you know that Lott appeared less than ten years ago before the "Council for Concerned Citizens," a white supremacist group, telling them they had "the right principles and the right philosophy," only to later say he had no firsthand knowledge of the group's beliefs when he was called on it?
* Did you know that he filed an amicus curae brief in support of Bob Jones University's retaining its tax-exempt status despite its hateful and segregationist policies, saying that "racial discrimination does not always violate public policy?
* Did you know that he supported a 1979 push for a constitutional amendment to prohibit school busing?
* Did you know that, three years later, he voted against the extension of the Voting Rights Act?
* Did you know that ol' undergraduate Trent was the leader of the fight to keep his frat, all white on a national level?
Now me, I think of myself as pretty well-schooled in the politics of bastardy, and yet I only knew about the frat games and the 1980 statement.
If you really think we won't get fooled again, darlin', you've already BEEN fooled--by yourself.
Two things will happen at the beginning of the new congressional session to make me happy--the first being that members of Congress both Republican and Democrat will override Bush pere's hypocritical attempt to screw us federal workers out of our regularly-mandated pay raise; the second being that Democrats will introduce motions to formally censure ol' Trent. And I think a lot of Republicans would go along with it, were it not for the fact that Mississippi's governor is a Democrat, and if Trent resigns, he'd likely appoint someone who would move the Senate back to a 50-50 bipartisan deadlock (assuming Jeffords sides with the Dems).
>
A post for which he was duly elected. The voters will have their chance to vote him out. I think Lott was pilloried enough. Let's move on, and deal with issues, not assholes.
dept. of same as the old boss;
We won't be fooled again.
Cindy
dept. of meet the new boss;
"stepped down". It's not like this racist sock puppet doesn't STILL GET TO BE A SENATOR OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Probably just about the most priveleged and entitled class of human being presently on the face of the Earth.
I won't be happy until we can shoot these clowns out of a cannon. No, seriously.
Wyatt, you got me in trouble; you happy about that? :-)
Millennium
M-I-L-L-E-N-N-I-U-M
Millennium.
Oh, and YES I KNOW it's only been two years.
:)
Cindy
ALEX JAY BERMAN WROTE;"( though I've no doubt Cindy's regretting her recent rah-rah support of Lott ...)."
THAT is the UNDERSTATEMENT of the millineum.
I was sucker punched by that Southern, aww- shucks- ma'am, sweetness and blinded by the Mississippi accent ( which is a replica of my own dear Daddy's-- a seventh generation Mississippian ). Southern charm caught me in a vise grip and I was unable (unwilling?) to consider that.. not ONLY was Trent a traditional southern Sunday fried chicken dinner but he had ALL of the trimmings including the fucking disgusting yams.
I am humiliated because I did not attempt to scratch off the gold leaf to find the toxic lead beneath. Stupid, stupid, STUPID.
It is unspeakable tragedy to discover that one whom I defended was not at all what I believed him to be. That filthy, reprehensible mindset that is sadly synonymous with the South and symptomatic of a virulent ignorance that I had hoped was growing more distant with the passage of healing time--is still present. Everything that has been sick about the South has been lying dormant in Trent all along... a nasty festering boil that came to the surface during Strom's birthday bash... like the USS Greenville beneath the Ehime Maru.
He has NO business leading BOY SCOUTS let ALONE an arm of our government. I'm glad he stepped down it was the only thing TO do.
It IS refreshing to note that one might be able to hide contemptuous notions for a time but eventually if one rises to a high enough degree of prominence-- the true nature will be revealed.
We ALL hated to hear it but needed to know about it. Trent Lott's core of beliefs ratted him out in the end and I have adjusted my assessment of him.
Sorry, y'all I fucked up.
Cindy
FRANK: I also thought of Heaven's Gate while watching Gates. It's that bad. I'm sure you will love it. :)
It's getting pretty darn good reviews and I have now lost all faith in the objectivity of mainstream critics. There is not a single reason to praise this film except for the fact that Scorsese directed it and it might be Marty's last shot at an Oscar.
Ken Turan was the only major mainstream critic with the balls to call this movie for the incoherent mess that it is.
Crap, now I'm faced with an XMas season when Scorsese and Spielberg each releases a film and the Spielberg actually turns out to be better. ARGH!!!
TWO TOWERS: I thought it was good but definitely a step down from the first film - a huge step down, in fact. They were saddled with a much more difficult story to adapt this time around. Three compeltely separate plot threads. The book doesn't even try to intercut, simply telling Frodo and Sam's story in the second half. The film has to intercut them. As a result, there's so much plot to cram into 3 hours, there's no room left for any characters to breathe except perhaps for Gollum.
I feel they never figured out what to do with the Ents and the film may have been best served to drop that plot line entirely but then nerds would have been rioting in the streets for days if they had done that so it was never a valid choice.
Also, the Battle of Helm's Deep showed the limitations of CGI. Does anyone actually FEEL anything when they watch a punch of computer pixel blobs falling off a bridge or getting hacked to bits? Nah.
I don't know why they treat Gimli as 100% comic relief either.
Still, a good movie.
I have heard bad things about Gangs Of New York, but knowing Chris L's bias against good movies, I will have to make my own judgements; but the term "Heavens Gate" is being bandied around by knowing film buffs. I will cross my fingers, I suppose.
-----------
My take on cross burnings: Burn them on your own land, and preferably when the wind direction is whipping towards your pointy white noggins.
---------
I recently looked at the history of the so--called, "fire in a crowded theatre" quote:
""The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic." -Supreme Court Justice Holmes (1919)""
This at the time was considered a great ruling on free speech, and both the left and the right think it is a great analogy of how speech isn't always absolute. But everyone forgets the actual case that brought on this ruling in the first place. Schenck v. United States was the ruling that made Justice Holmes mutter his famous blurb. But the truth is rather shocking. The case involved a socialist leader, who passed around a petition saying that the draft was unconstitutional. Because of tight sedition laws at the time, Holmes agreed that the socialist didn't have a free speech right to petition the draft because it constituted a "clear and present danger" and went against the sedition law of 1918. Thankfully, these sedition laws were struck down in the sixties; because of unfair targeting of the civil rights movement; but I bet Ashcroft and the like would love to reinstate such piffle.
Did I just say, "piffle?" EEgad.
Chris L.,
I plan on seeing Gangs despite your post on it and was wondering if you had seen (or, anyone else for that matter---though, I think someone posted on this film already) The Two Towers?
I just got done talking with a friend this morning and he said it was better than the Fellowship. I don't think so and there were a quibble or two in regards to the internal logic of the film, but overall it was a good film. (By the way, some idiot reviewer said Two Towers was the best "sequel" since Godfather 2 and I hate to be the one to break it to this nut, but Two Towers ain't a sequel).
And considering this is the 2nd of the three films, I'm wondering if one can really critique Lord of the Rings films until the 3rd and final one comes out next year.
Speaking of critiques, did HE do one for Fellowship?
*** Harlan ***
What follows is an exchange of e-mail between me and a friend of mine from Sweden - Lotta Fjelkegard - between 5PM Friday and 2AM Saturday. I've just returned from a Theatre outlet gig/party and am hitting the sack until 8AM EST. I don't THINK there are any suprises here and it's more for Tim Richmond then you but I don't have your fax # at hand and want to go to bed so this was the quickest way to get it somewhere where you could look at it if you feel the need. I have edited one personal remark and one paragraph where I explained to Lotta that we found more Greek/Ellison material than we expected to and what a pain in the ass that was. Other than that the exchange is all here in chronological order. I have not replied to her last letter and don't expect to until Saturday night or Sunday.
---- Original Message -----
From: "Lotta Fjelkegĺrd"
To: "vze4mxws"
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 11:00 AM
Subject: Trouble i Ellisonland?
Hi there,
>
> The research goes well - I got some very good help from Simon to nail down the short stories in anthologies. BUT... now I wonder how to best send you this information as I expect that you want the correct spelling of names, titles and so on, but I guess that your mail program may not support the Swedish alphabet in all it's intricate glory?
>
> Suggestions?
>
> /Lotta
>
Lotta,
Send me a bastardized English version ASAP. Don't worry about spelling, format, or any of that. If it's stuff Harlan doesn't know about I may just have you fax him or me a print out or photocopy of the actual citations with the double oo thingees and squiggles.
So send a sloppy version ASAP and I'll figure out what to do after I see that.
THANKS! Thank you thank you thank you thank you...
- Barney Dannelke
Lotta responds-
Barney,
Short stories included in anthologies: (Title/publication/year or issue/publisher)
En pojke och hans hund (A Boy and His Dog), Nova Science Fiction 1 1985, Laissez Faire Productions
Pa jakt efter Kadak (Looking for Kadak), Nova Science Fiction 1 1986 , Laissez Faire Productions
Forsok med slo kniv (Try a Dull knife), Jules Verne-magasinet 364 (reprinted in Det hande i morgon #8), Delta förlag
Aniara nr 2 1994 (an Estonian/Swedish pro-zine which includes "a short story by Harlan Ellison", I don't know which one yet)
"Angra dig Harlekin!" sade Ticktackmannen ("Repent, Harlequin", said the Ticktockman), Framtiden infor ratta, Timbro forlag (This is a book)
Novels/collections of shortstories:
Vredens konfekt (Angry Candy), Wiken, 1993
Ensamvark (excerpts from The Essential Ellison), Wiken, 1992
Ensamvark (excerpts from The Essential Ellison), Bra bocker, 1992
Det tysta ropet (I have no mouth and I must scream), Delta, 1978
Ok, so this is probably maximum confusion... and I'll try and explain it, which will probably just make it worse. Please double-check with me first before Mr Ellison gets upset with these publishers and tears them a new asshole. (Not that they may not deserve it, but it's always good to have the absolute _proof_ to prove it). You see, most of this stuff I haven't
seen with my own eyes, but can check out the conditions and the imprint at the Royal Library here in Stockholm.
Ensamvark is especially interesting. Bra bocker is a book club, and also a publisher. Forlags AB Wiken was founded by Bra bocker in 1981 and is still fully owned by them. So this is probably one translation but two printings with different publishers on the spine as well as different quality of the production. (Will know more on Monday when they arrive)
Does Harlan have a Swedish agent or does he handle the business end of this all by himself?
/Lotta
and me again -
That's it Harlan - i'm hitting the sack. If the answer is "yeah, that looks about right" I will forward it to Tim Richmond and send her something for the trouble. If there are specific questions about any of them I'm sure Lotta and Brian will be happy to dig deeper. Goodnight...
- Barney [2:40AM]
*** Harlan *** If you want a DVD of Kona Coast let me know.
- Barney
*** Harlan ***
Thanks for the response regarding Kona Coast. It looks to be obscure even by Boone filmography standards so I don't think it ever had much of a release. Somebody on eBay is selling DVD's and he mentioned you in the subject header of his posts along with John D. MacDonald. At first I thought he was just making stuff up but I checked out some other items this guy was selling and I realized he was REALLY into the realm of the ridiculously hard to find. Peter Greenaway obscure short films, etc. The sort of fellow who might win arguments with the comic shop clerk from the Simpsons. So I thought I'd go to the source. I'll tip it to Tim. Thanks again and seasonal felicitations from one non-deist to another.
- Barney
ps. Tim's gonna kill me. I'll be getting some Swedish bibliography material from a friend in a few days once we can figure out what to do about that wacky swedish alphabet. I am hoping it's just a few citations and not like the Greek debacle.
On reading aloud...
I enjoyed Stephen King's readings of his Dark Tower books, I-III. Still do. I believe they were all re-recorded by Frank Muller, but I still have King's and cherish them. Ever since listening to THE GUNSLINGER the first time, I read aloud my own work in successive drafts, emulating the clear, entertaining way King did. Unabridged audiobooks are often expensive, and the only other one I have is Charleton Heston reading OLD MAN AND THE SEA (I bought it when I had a 30 minute commute to college about five, six years ago). It was okay, but I prefered King's reading. Heston was a little...shall I say...dramatic, I felt.
Then I got VOICES FROM THE EDGE, VOLUME 1. From the very first line of "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream" I was hooked. Last year seeing Mr. E read a story at MIT was awesome (the true meaning of the word). King is good, Ellison is great.
Either way, the reading of my stories aloud helps me get whatever beat I need for it. It points out superfluous words, crummy dialogue, and helps point me in the direction of dramatic moments I might have missed on the first draft. Have I gone pro? Not yet. But maybe someday. Either way, it helps me with my stories, and I'm willing to bet most on this board have a lot more talent than I. So, yeah, listen to the man, read your work aloud.
In a small aside, I read two kid's books at my daughter's preschool this week. Performed them, really. Sure, it wasn't my work, but I enjoyed it, the teachers seemed to love it, and the kids enjoyed themselves.
Now I have a question: Does anybody here have an author, or remember a specific story where you just HAD to read a section aloud? For me, Elmore Leonard's, sometimes King's, even Mr. E's dialogue does it for me. I'm reading Dan Simmons HYPERION books right now and have found myself reading large portions aloud just to let the words linger a little longer, as some people would chocolate. Portions of THE GRAPES OF WRATH did that to me, too. Anyone care to share?
Bill
Jon,
"I'd think it's more a case of Ellison not taking crap from people than any inherent, ahem, asshole magnetism effect."
Not to take away anything from those champions of Charlemagne or the notion Harlan is an incarnation but your literalizing took the punch out of the punch. However, since you’re kickin’ down them cobble stones we’ll follow through: when someone staunchly stands up to an asshole used to getting his way it seems to draw out all the other assholes like the Night draws vampires. It SEEMS that way and that’s me point. It’s formula for magic, baby.
On this board a while ago, I believe I said it was impossible for Martin Scorsese to make a bad film.
Today, I stand corrected.
Gangs of New York is so bad it can only be viewed as a mistake. Did they accidentally release the rough cut instead of the final print?
The movie plays like Ghosts of Mars 2. Paper-thin characters hack at each other with sharp implements of all stripes and the blood flows so stronglly it would make Sam Peckinpah blush.
I cannot imagine what Marty was thinking. He's a great, great director. Perhaps it takes a great talent to fail so spectacularly. Do not trust any critic who gives this a good review. They did not watch the movie. They pre-wrote their reviews based on the fact that Scorsese was directing.
This is just horrible. And Marty did it. I can't believe it. I feel like I just got kicked in the balls by the Pope.
The film is so laughable, I began to wonder by the end if it was a parody. I don't think it was. What a crushing disappointment.
Alex Jay -
What struck me was the media take on Lott's words. Listening to Rush Limbaugh, a hardliner, you'd think Lott's words were not worse than any Democrat's. But he made SUCH a fuss and focused on the minority groups and ultraliberals by attacking them, it HAD to be a provocation. Limbaugh made a point of bringing up Sharpton and Jackson speeches that were relatively minor and then spent hours taunting Clinton about his response to Lott's "oops" as well.
Strange this coming from a guy who, weeks before, was complaining how Lott was a liberal-loving weak leader.
So out goes middle-road, weak Republican to deal with a closely divided Senate and in comes...? Whoever is being groomed. My guess is someone more a hardliner or, as you say, neoconservative. Lott's trump card is that he'll retain power for the Repubs in exchange for not being forced out of the Senate.
JAY: Well, half and half.
The hardliner conservatives--think of Robert Novak, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, and the like--are still firmly behind Lott (whose name I just typed as "Loot"--simple typo, or divine providence?), after all.
However, the midrangers weren't wholly happy with him. The current core of the Republican Party is younger now, and happy to cast itself in a different light, away from the Thurmonds and Buchanans as failed legacies of a once-powerful money machine out of touch with what is needed to manipulate power today. Look at the National Review's turnaround, as it has gone from exultation over Lott's rise to its recent and sudden denunciation as someone who should have been ousted from power long before any faux pas flaps.
This core constituency is very cognizant of the new world of sound bites and PR, and has parlayed that cognizance into a healthy dominance, much of which it has achieved by stealing the very platforms and legs the Dems used to reign atop out from under them. This is how George W. Bush, a multimillionaire to the manor--if not manner--born, was able to pass himself off as a man of the people.
Examples of this wing of the Party are Dick Cheyney, Tom DeLay, and Rick Santorum.
(With women like Phyllis George and Kay Bailey Hutchinson in the Ladies' Auxiliary)
But not all of those in this middle group are nasty little bastards like the above three: A large contingent are good-hearted and earnest pragmatists, like (despite their sometimes confused loyalties) Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Arlen Specter. The best of this sort of Republican is exemplified by the much-beloved and MUCH-missed late John Heinz.
Another perfect example of this group of Republicans is, oddly enough, Pat Buchanan. But not the irascible slaphead we know now--no, I'm referring to the Pat Buchanan of the late Sixties and early Seventies, as he appears in Ted White's fine BREACH OF FAITH. Pat was a good guy back then--devoted to country and President, and nearly unable to believe that either could willingly do anything wrong. Whether the current group of centrist Republicans like this will follow Buchanan's Saruman-like good-to-evil progression is hard to say. I'd like to doubt it in most cases.
(It should be poointed out that Lott falls between these two groups.)
But wait! There's more!
(Yes, it's Ron Popeili Sci.)
There's a NEW group of Repubs on the horizon these days, called by some the "neoconservatives." These are former liberals, disenchanted with the Democratic Party. Some are what could otherwise be called libertarian, but did not wish to write off the power which one of the two large parties could give them. It's still too early to tell whether this group will be able to make any far-ranging coup over the party (even though Frist, the likley successor to Lott could be considered to straddle this group and the centrist middle core), as most of these exist at levels smaller than the national.
I believe our own Todd to vary between the latter two groups, and Cindy to be centrist with neoconservative leanings. Both, it must be pointed out, are sincere in their beliefs (though I've no doubt Cindy's regretting her recent rah-rah support of Lott ...).
Because of the new dynamic that the younger groups of Repubs present, Lott's recent comments must have seemed a godsend. While I don't really think any actual manipulation took place, I'd not be surprised if some centrist Republicans caught the ears of some media persons with their knowledge of ol' Trent's history.
BOS: You mistake the situation; Lott is merely stepping down as Senate Majority Leader-elect. He's not giving up his seat. At this point, I highly doubt anything beyond the mild censure given to past Congressional flubs like that of Newt, Torricelli, and Joe Biden (and hey; why is it that House Speaker Jim Wright was forced to step down from his post and his seat, when Newt committed the very same offense, and to a higher degree?).
A few brief thoughts before sailing off onto the dammedable ocean of the festive season fused to family. God help us, everyone.
Head Accoutrement: I've had my head shaved since the age of fourteen; had my goatee and mustache since seventeen. Never looked back. Must admit it makes me a bit mean looking, and I like at least having the appearance of sinister. Mel said it was one of the things that attracted her to me.
Lynn: No problem, sweetheart, and it's always the right thing to do to smile as you drive the knife home. Funny, but Jim has grown rather silent, hasn't he?
Lott: The rat bastard has quit in such a way that his beloved Republicans don't have to give up the seat in the Senate, and therefore risk losing control of the upper house. Of course, he won't lose his pension and all the perks going with being an ex-Senator. Pyrrhic victory for decency, at best.
Hope all have taken a bit of extra money and plopped down a contribution to a toy drive or food bank. If you haven't yet, and still plan to, please call the charitable agency first and find out if there are any specific needs or requests out there. We do every year, and have delighted a number of little ones with making sure that the season doesn't leave them wanting. Don't be afraid to ask for you tax receipt, too. Often the government are the ones who have assisted in creating so many with need through policies to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor. It doesn't hurt to get a bit of coin back in return for your good karma from the politicians who bullshit about helping people get off welfare and into measely-paying toil, without mentioning how often the actions of the elected offical punish innocent children in the bargain.
With that, I take my leave for a short while, and wish all the happiness the season brings.
BOS
Rob: I'd think it's more a case of Ellison not taking crap from people than any inherent, ahem, asshole magnetism effect. The peculiar inability of many bullies to take a metaphorical or actual counterpunch is a thing to behold at times.
Cheers, Jon
"I wrote the opening--as it appears in the film--but then had the displeasure of resisting Boone's attempts at bullying; and we got into it physically, and he had me tossed off the project. I was stiffed for payment"
...Harlan, why is it every asshole in Hollywood seems drawn to you like a roach motel? It cannot be denied you are one of many talents. But how did you acquire THIS one? Is it innate? Or did you build it up through private coaching and breathing exercises? It is palpably remarkable.
Harlan,
You briefly worked for Lamont Johnson? In the annals of criticial auterist sycophants, LJ's name is hardly mentioned and why shouldn't it be if he does his job well. LJ directed my fav WW2 break out movie, The McKenzie Break and The Groundstar Conspiracy. Pity to hear Kona Coast didn't turn out so well.
FAQ
Trent Lott -
Anyone else realize that Trent Lott was a weak Republican leader ousted by his own party manipulating outraged liberals to fan the flames and take the blame?
Philip Cairn:
Since I've received payment for my readings (although I've done many more hundreds of hours of readings, both for recordings and radio broadcast and to live audiences, as a volunteer), I suppose I could qualify as a "professional" in these matters.
I've also written a bit on the subject. My thoughts, now on my Web site, might help to answer some of your questions. The first is a piece that appeared some years ago in the Oregonian (accompanied, much to my pleasure, by a color photo of an audience enjoying my reading of Lewis Carroll, in which several good friends and my wife prominently appeared, unbeknownst to the photographer -- but the pic's not on by site, because the paper charges exorbitant fees for reprint rights):
http://www.david-loftus.com/Books/readaloud.html
The other two are just thoughts I threw together to post on my site, about the pleasures of reading aloud, and my particular "career" as a reader:
http://www.david-loftus.com/Books/read1.html
http://www.david-loftus.com/Books/read2.html
(And Harlan, if anybody asks you to recommend a good voice -- the way Gabrielle de Cuir pinch hit for you on "The Tombs of Atuan," -- send 'em to me. I'll consider traveling at my own expense to do a recording for somebody....)
The Philip in Cairns should have TWO ells. That would be thus: Phillip.
Allll best, Harllllan.
PHILIP CAIRNS:
When I adjured y'all to "learn to read aloud at a professional level," I meant you should develop a reading style both clear and uncluttered by mannerisms, with a sense of what was being read, and a dramatic edge to the voice. In short, "professional level" such as one hears on the best, most effective spoken word recordings. Not droning and flat, as is the case with readings by MOST writers, but rather richer and more audially-impactive (if such a phrase exists). The way William Conrad or Larry Thor or Staats Cotsworth read their lines on "golden age" radio. Ernest Chappell of QUIET, PLEASE is the perfect model, no one better. If you can't find recordings by those guys--and they're not hard to come by--I can suggest without blushing that you listen to the way Harlan Ellison reads on his many spoken word recordings. I recommend him heartily. He's quite good.
Insouciently, yr. pal, Harlan
BARNEY:
Re: KONA COAST. I did, indeed, work on that feature film, at MGM in 197whatever. Did I write it? Yes. No.
It wasn't from a John D. MacDonald STORY, it was from a brief
plot-outline/prospectus JohnD. wrote to interest Hollywood. it was agented around, finally got picked up by Richard Boone soon after the "Richard Boone Repertory" anthology series (featuring Robert Blake and others) tanked. I was hired by Monte Johnson (Lamont, to you), who had been a radio actor and had become a brilliant director. I wrote a detailed expansion of the sparse MacDonald material, and Monte liked it so much he started me on the screenplay. I wrote the opening--as it appears in the film--but then had the displeasure of resisting Boone's attempts at bullying; and we got into it physically, and he had me tossed off the project. I was stiffed for payment, and never heard another word from Lamont Johnson (whom I admired and liked a lot) or from the Beast Boone.
I was unaware that the film had been released . . . so far under the radar that few people know it even exists . . . but when I caught it on tv years later, I was both pissed and bemused to see that Brutus had grafted my excellent opening onto a rather mediocre screenplay.
Yet another Lost Chapter in the Adventures of Little Harlan in Harlanwood.
Geezus, Dannelke, is there no dustiest corner of my past that does not compell your morbid attention?
With love at holidaytime, yr. lab rat, Harlan
http://tinyurl.com/3pz7
Um, er, uh... SHEESH!
L.
Trent Lott has resigned! However he will remain as a Senator from
Ole Miss.
Circling back to the topic of racism (given the present reeking Lott/Thurmond backdrop), I ran head on into an intriguing piece of historical information that ruffled me britches. It recalls a number of past discussions here, including a characterization of Teddy Roosevelt as one of our most blatant racists and my own of Woodrow Wilson extolling D.W. Griffith's BIRTH OF A NATION and the Ku Klux Klan.
I read quite a bit about Wilson in the past and the sick, terrible shackles he put on the women's movement (before politically compelled to cave in to it) as well as his indifference to the plight of blacks. But in an interesting comparison between Griffith and Wilson, Roger Ebert imparted a fact about our once fine president I was NOT aware of (though it explains a lot and, in fact, membership in the KKK through the early part of the 20th century was vast and considered acceptable by many; and SO were the lynchings): "My guess is Griffith was not willfully racist so much as ignorant and naive, as many Americans were at the time; the film was even praised by President Woodrow Wilson--who was himself at one point in his life a member of the Klan."
So, that's it: we had a former KKK member as a president. I believe we often forget HOW mired in murderous racism and anti-Semetism this country really was for so long - things that were considered norms. Lott is a direct descendent of a vast cancerous institution - a lingering lab sample of interaction between heredity and environment in the etiology.
Dan Thorne's message brought to you by Norelco. Even their name says Merry Christmas.
I'll take a wild guess at an answer for Philip, although my experience is considerably limited. The benefit of reading something aloud is that it helps you cultivate a writing voice that's clear and accessible. There's also a nice reciprocal effect to sentence structure: while it keeps your writing from becoming too complex, with great convoluted sentences that are mainly exercises in grammar, it helps you develop the ability to _speak_ in a more sophisticated manner. At least, that's where reading aloud helps in the essay form.
As for fiction, it helps you understand your writing in terms of drama. When you read dialogue aloud, you can "hear" it better than when you simply write it, and you develop a sense of what human beings actually _sound_ like.
And when you're reading aloud in public, you cultivate the skill of holding an audience's attention. That's not a minor skill for a writer.
I've been told that my writing is very close to the way I speak. That's a nice thing to hear, except that it ain't getting me the pretty wimmen, so maybe it's overrated as a virtue.
TO HARLAN ELLISON:
Awhile back, sometime last summer maybe, I came here and asked you about your approach to writing. Guys like Raymond Carver have said, “Writing is re-writing,” and I had a feeling that wasn’t exactly your mantra. Your response confirmed this feeling, and I appreciate your taking the time to answer as honestly and as thoroughly as you did.
Something in your response, however, left me wondering. You said (and I’m going on memory here):
“I suggest that you [writers still learning their chops] learn to read out loud at a professional level.”
Then you talked about reading out loud to people to gage their responses, etc., but not to ask their opinions because their opinions don’t matter. All good stuff. I remember you made a distinction between reading out loud to gage responses--that’s one thing. But reading out loud at a professional level is something else. So I was wondering...
What do you mean by reading out at a PROFESSIONAL LEVEL?
If the answer is too obvious and you just can’t be bothered getting into it, no problem. If it’s not a huge imposition on your time and energy, that’s all. But I think your reflections on this might be an education for myself and more than a few other people who drop by here from time to time. If you have the time...
Take care.
Phillip Cairns
(taking a break from my thesis)
Tossing in the antithesis of Brian’s bad hair story...
My hair started receding from the time I was about 16 years old. For years I’ve had people tell me I would look good with a shaved head. So a few years ago I decided to give it a try.
WOW! Am I glad I did!
Since shaving my head, I’ve been hit on and/or dated some of the most beautiful women ever to walk this planet. We’re talking about women who look like they’ve stepped out of a Scavullo catalog or Playboy! Lest you think there’s something else about me that the women are attracted to, I assure you I’m not rich or powerful, I don’t exude overwhelming charisma (as Harlan and Susan can attest to), crowds don’t stop and stare when I enter a room, I’m just bald!
I’ve talked with many women about this, and we laugh because of the “Great Lie” perpetrated by the hair clinics who would like you to believe that a lack of hair makes you unappealing to women. Trust me, more women love bald men than you would EVER imagine! Granted you’ve got to have a nicely shaped head in order to carry it off. But for those men that do, I would encourage you to try it and watch a new world open for you. Prior to shaving my head, I was NEVER hit on by a woman. Now, a week doesn’t go by where I’m not.
What I want to emphasize as being the most surprising about this entire experience is that these are not soccer moms or average women hitting on me, they are models and femme fatales. I haven’t really known what to make of it, other than to just be pleasantly surprised by it all.
I'll add a Bad hair story of my own. About ten years ago, we had a serious heat wave here in Philly, so I shaved my head. I'd alwasy wanted to try it, so I did it. I learne several things.
1. My head has a decent shape for baldness-- so, if I start losing hair, I won't have to worry. I'll just shave it again.
2. When I wore sunglasses, I looked like Uncle Duke in "Doonesbury" after Papa Doc got through with him.
3. I was much more polite to people, because I didn't want anyone to think I was a Nazi skinhead.
The Bad Hair aspect came when it was growing back in. When hair grows back, it ain't in the most pleasing shape most of the time. So, when Harlan came to town for a comics convention, and I shook his hand and chatted very briefly, I must've looked like a complete geek.
I'm better now.
Xanadu,
Thanks, that was a pretty interesting article on Final Cut Pro and Avid. It's intertesting to read something on Final Cut that isn't either fawning or damning, but much more practical in it's outlook.
Regards,
Joseph
For those among us who use Final Cut Pro on a Mac for editing (and those looking at the future of film editing in general), here's a cool link:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hollywoodreporter/emmys/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1772771
As I recall, Chris L. was having a hard time adjusting to digital editing, to him I say... sorry.
Bern
(still here after all -- but this really is the last post for a while!)
The most interesting hairstyle I've seen in a while was a young African kid with an afro -- with neat vertical black and blonde stripes.
Amy,
I saw a fascinating hair dye job a while back. The young lady's hair was buzz cut except for the forelock, and the short hair was dyed in leopard spots. That was an interesting and downright artistic pattern. She wore it well. Avant-Garde hairdos are the prerogative of the young. Enjoy.
Chuck
Rob: Oh, yeah. If you want weirdness, though, check out Firefly before it rides off into the sunset of cancellation. Long stretches of hooey, and then attention paid to keeping space soundless, and the startling dramatic effects that soundlessness can have in an action sequence. I was watching an episode with friends (and drinking heavily, mind you) when one of these soundless sequences showed up in an otherwise lousy episode. This sequence played wonderfully, and at the end of it one of my friends said, "That's weird, given the general level of attention paid to realism on this show." The damn show even dealt with getting rid of a large fire in a spaceship in a manner more suitable than what you'll see on certain other skiffy shows I won't name...but then it's back to the mock-oldy-timey dialogue and problems distinguishing between solar systems and galaxies.
Argh.
Cheers, Jon
Y'know, there is an interesting irony attached to the new SOLARIS movie. Prior to 1976 movies depicted conditions in space accurately; they followed the example set by 2001. Then 20th Century Fox released STAR WARS and from then on, invariably, all space fantasies ignored science completely. The studio single-handedly changed everything. Now, for the first time in at least a couple of decades, a new sf stays faithful to Newtonian physics and the spirit of science. That movie was also released by 20th Century Fox. They seem to have a way of setting the precedent for everyone else to follow.
Amy,
You're quite welcome. I also discovered by accident that if you drag the URL to the search box in a Google toolbar in Explorer, it will automatically pull up the web page. Kind of a nifty feature, since you can't drag an URL into the address field of Explorer.
Regards,
Joseph
USA TODAY's online edition keeps track of the most frequently clicked articles. If you'd like to bump up the popularity of Harlan's USA TODAY article, visit this link:
http://tinyurl.com/3oue
thanks for the tinyurl suggestion, Joseph!
amy
REGARDING A COMMENT I MADE IN THE DINING PAVILION:
See, I've already posted there today, and this is a response to words directly from the man and I promised him I would post and stuff and I won't be online tomorrow.
I was mistaken. Harlan did NOT make fun of my hair. Harlan, in fact, digs colored hair. Harlan likes blue, black, purple with orange stripes or any other color you can fling at him or on your scalp. I'm sorry for posting otherwise, but it really really sounded like he was poking fun at me back then. Of course, I'm the sensitive type.
---end apology---
I'm thinking about dyeing it purple again. It's a nice dark Gaz shade, but unfortunately it's only semi-permanent. Don't those dye companies realize some people LIKE having plum-colored hair?
Cindy and Bill: Thank you very much for the warm snuggies. I'll try not to be scared off so easily. I'm going to try to stick around after the holidays.
In case anyone's forgotten, BUY USA TODAY today! Harlan's interview is in it!
happy holidays to those who want 'em,
amy
Lasagna-sucking cats do need to be put down. My favorite strip that my local paper runs (most of what they run are the ol' standbys) is THE BOONDOCKS by Aaron McGruder. CLOSE TO HOME by John McPherson is a close second. Not THE FAR SIDE, but close.
That's my two cents.
Stumbled across the issue of OUTRE with A BOY AND HIS DOG articles in it yesterday and snatched it up. As I read it, I convinced myself to actually go out and rent the damn movie. Of course, when I do, I'll replace the last line.
Returning to the Batcave,
Bill
Barney, re: Kona Coast
Don't know if this one ever played in theaters, but Movie Plex has run it a few times and you might catch it there. Not sure when it's scheduled to run again.
--tr
Cool news, folks! Scientists have observed clouds on Titan.
http://tinyurl.com/3om8
"Our Lynn is said to be a sweet, loving creature who only kills when necessary."
Aw, Scott! That's the nicest thing anyone has said to me ALL DAY.
::sniffle::
Sentimentally yours,
L.
All,
Just a reminder of the superlative www.tinyurl.com, which converts hideously long URL into itty-bitty ones, much more convenient for copying and pasting. Not only that, but I found a bookmarklet that somebody made. Put it in your bookmarks, click it, and the page you're on will be automatically converted to a tinyurl. You can find it here:
http://tinyurl.com/3b7i
Regards,
Joseph
Hey all.
First: Jim Davis, aka BOS, aka Christina, aka Mephistopheles (Bloom County fan here. I consider that obese lasagna sucking totally unfunny comic strip cat in dire need of being put down, alongside his creator. Yes, and get that little dog too!). Don't live in fear. Our Lynn is said to be a sweet, loving creature who only kills when necessary. I just don't think you've crossed the line.
Keep the passport handy, however. I'm only going by prevailing scuttlebutt.
BTW, you dues in the ASS (American Smartass Service) are due...
Now to Joseph and Chuck:
I would get those two versions of everybody's favourite plastic bimbo, but it's all the accessories that go with it. For Trailer Park Barbie, you've got to buy the double wide trailer, complete with saggy urine-soaked couch, walls covered with deep grease stains, not to mention purchasing a spray can of the putrid odor vaguely reminscent of solitary inside a Texas prison. Jesus, you've got to get "Aggie", Babsy's aged and senile gramma, who sits in the busted auto bucket seat before the TV, screaming that the football games are stealing away "her stories", and the refrigerator where, if you set the light just right, you can see the miracle of the faces of Elvis and Jesus appearing in a mouldy mayonnaise stain.
Now Paralymic Barbie comes complete with stadium, and the 45,000 other dolls who show up to fill it. There's the steroid testing center, complete with the Ben Johnson doll still trying to get his ass back into track by claiming an accident with a popcorn maker has rendered him disabled. There's the press corps hangers-on who barely cover the events, feeling that the real Olympics are done, but you look bad if you don't give these folks lip service; the IOC officials who don't see the events as worthy of being run alongside the events for the "normal" (steroid and chemically enhanced) athletes, and can't explain to paralympians how they are an afterthought, all the while the governing body for international sport can include ballroon dancing...Christ, it just never stops.
Total bill: (including taxes) $2.8 billion dollars.
Thank you Babs, for showing us all that, through massive overspending for you and your kin, we parents can avoid the cost of psychiatrists and therapy for not having satiated our children's impetuous needs.
Another business Christmas party to oversee. We banned alcohol, but it isn't stopping these fools at all. Still, there's the hilarity to be had watching some booze-soaked idiot hurtling headlong into the boards at sixty klicks an hour (40 mph) as a result of being the end man in a drunken game of 'Crack the Whip'. I tell them that it's forty minutes for an ambulance, and that I'm not driving them to the hospital, but it doesn't seem to stop them.
Thank You, blessed bureaucrasy, for the responsibility waiver form.
BOS
Oh, here's an item of interest to writers who like to use the technology they're comfortable with, instead of leaping for the latest cyber-gewgaws. It's an item from the Boston Globe about the demise of the Eberhardt-Faber Blackwing 602 pencil, which has been a long-standing favorite with writers for decades. The pencil was discontinued in 1995, when the machine that clamped the erasers on broke: instead of fixing it, the company owners discontinued the line. Now the pencils are going for as high as $20 apiece.
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/351/living/Fans_of_pencils_pocket_No_2_opt_for_their_No_1_Blackwing_602+.shtml
Thanks to all for comments re Lynne, especially Alex. On another front, Paul T. Riddell has a short letter in _Salon_ today re David Brin's piece on _Lord of the Rings_. (Brin's piece is worth reading, too.)
*** Harlan *** Did you do a script for this? Says it's from a John D. MacDonald story. It's only listed in about half the Boone filmographies. I'm usually pretty good about resolving this stuff on my own but I'm barely able to confirm it's release.
Finder? Anybody?
Kona Coast [1968]
Director: Lamont Johnson
Cast: Joan Blondell, Richard Boone, Vera Miles
Running Time: 1 hr 33 mins
Summary:
A young woman dies of a drug overdose and the man who gave her the drugs must answer to her tough, seagoing father.
The USA Today article does appear and is located on 11D. The url link to the same (sans picture) is: http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/reviews/2002-12-18-visions_x.htm.
Also, if not mentioned prior, an interview with L.Q. Jones and commentary from HE can be found in the latest Outre magazine (#30) entitled, "Dreaming of Armageddon" and "Huck and Tom", respectively.
mc
Upon well-timed disclosures:
Oh, "Jim"...
I'm horny and I'm going to be chasing your ass around here a lot now. At this point I don't even care if you're lying.
To Chuck, Lynn, and BOS (otherwise known as "those f*cking smartasses"):
You guys are too perceptive. I can't fool you with my piddling attempt at subterfuge any longer, so I'm throwing in the towel. I mean, come on: "Jim Davis"? What kind of lame-o pseudonym is that?
My real name is, of course, Christina Aguilera.
(And I thank everyone for not saying, "Hey, aren't you the guy who draws 'Garfield'?" That comment only makes me want to scratch out people's eyes with razor blades.)
I'm going to disagree with the board's feeling on the "Lynne" (I have "e'd" her so as to differentiate between her and our OWN lovely Lynn). Remember, I met this woman fleetingly. I don't think she's a psycho or a freak. Rather, she would appear to simply be one of the run-of-the-mill neiurotics who now make up at least three-quarters of the world's intelligent population.
My snap take? A nice and cute girl (and any time I refer to someone older than and taller than myself as a "girl" in passing conversation, the warning signs have been given to the roadworkers to put up on the highway between coffee breaks), albeit noticeably uncomfortable with herself in any concentration of people larger than one might normally find in her bathroom.
And she saw you as something else than what you are, Brian--something in her mind which would be more than you are; something in your mind which would be less. I have no doubt she was measuring you for the pipe and leather-patched elbows jacket. What she saw as your eccentricities were either just enough to be cute or else something she might sand off of you, given time--as if you were an unfinished piece of furniture, a table, perhaps.
(No "Brian's a Chppendale?" jokes, please.)
She failed to give you the true depth of personhood you possess, while building in her mind a false depth to which she was drawn.
Oh--and she found you very attractive. Dead giveaway: She found it difficult to look at you, stealing sidelong glances. Despite this, when it was just the two of you, I'll BET she focused in on your eyes with a bloody intensity--but if I read her right, it was something she forced herself to do, as it is likely something she feels necessary in an interpersonal interaction.
Because she had carefully built this construction of both a Brian-Siano-present and a Brian-Siano-to-be, your one comment, falling as it did on ears and mind easily closed, hurt her; you were not the perfect professorial companion she had envisioned. In her world, a single perceived fault ruins the gem. So she set out to injure you, albeit in a meek and minor manner. Hence the conversation and the badgering.
Seem a bit imaginative an assessment, for just the briefest of acquaintances? Well, maybe. But I read people well; it's a talent.
(And before you quibble, know that I repeatedly told my now-ex that "It'll never work out," this on the very night we first tasted of each other's lips and she convinced me that maybe it was worth seeing just what WOULD work out.)
(That the three PREVIOUS exes were all psycho in one manner or another is immaterial--back then, I didn't believe everything I "read".)
But I will agree on one thing with the board-ites: Be well shut of her. GET AWAY. Do not allow her, even should she reconcile herself slightly more with the world of reality and further try some sort of reconciliation with you, to become a part of your world. Don't even look upon what she might give you as "expendable emotion."
Settling would not become you. You deserve a brighter mind--not that she isn't very intelligent, but she knows not how it need be used in life. She is not herself mediocre, but the relationship WOULD be. You deserve better.
So, what of it, gang? Anyone want to start a Webderland dating service for Brian, or myself, or other nice, attractive, and deserving board regulars I shall not embarass by mentioning here ...?
Oh, and Lynn (with or without the E),
There is no Jim Davis in Florida. He's a fabrication like the Mr. Kaplan person in NORTH BY NORTHWEST. The REAL perpetrator uses blinds like this to keep himself out of your clutches.
Of course, I'll never tell....
Chuck
BOS,
Get her Trailer Trash Barbie. I'm sure you'll be able to afford the years of therapy this will bring on years down the road.
Why have kids if you can't play with their heads?
Chuck
BOS,
Get her a Paralympic Barbie and subvert the Establishment.
Regards,
Joseph
Thank you Susan, the 50 year Essential Ellison arrived today.
I went to see the new Lord Of The Rings movie today as I had the day off.There was a huge crowd in line when I got there for the first matinee show, but some where there early buying tickets for the evening shows, so no problen getting in. The movie was terrific, beautifully filmed and acted. A very enjoyable experience, the three hours flew by. Now we have to wait for the last film in the series to see the final story. I'm sure it will be worth the wait.Roger
Lynn:
I'm Jim Davis in Florida...
It's a long story, and I've not time for it...
BOS
Public Service Announcement: Friends don't let friends skate drunk. Another long story.
Time to go to large building, containing many smaller units where individuals can go to exchange legal tender for items designated for consumption. Eldest child has stated that without the Barbie Botox, Collagen and Breast Enhancement Clinic, she will terminate existence immediately.
Please enjoy you annual "Whutchagetme?" Festival.
BOS
Jim~ You do know I have east coast contacts, don't you? How many Jim Davis's can there be in the phone book in Florida?
Sooner or later, we'll find you. And then... Mwuaaahahahahahaha!
L.
Cindy~ You need to read "Xenogenesis", an article that Harlan wrote in 1990. (Xenogenesis - Essay, 1990 First Appearance: Midnight Graffiti Spr '90, also collected in "The Essential Ellison: A 50 Year Retrospective").
It will leave you wondering why he even shows his face outside his door, much less deigns to suffer the likes of us.
L.
And please, stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes. It WAS Lynn at that convention, and now that you've foiled her plans for a husband #4 (5? 6? I've lost count), she has no choice but to put up with the current one, imperfections and all.
I would LOVE to hear about the "infamous unbalanced "devotees" Harlan has expounded on in the past"!
Tell all! Tell all!
With rapt attention, I sit....
on the eeeeeeeeedge of my chair!!
:)
Cindy
PS I ask this of any of y'all, any at all who remember the tales-
Brian,
Lucky, LUCKY man-- today she walks out because you mention the word "hunting" tomorrow you would have found her on her knees in your closet clutching your Doc Martens lace ups screaming," WHYYYYYYY??? WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?????"
But don't let a minor harpy dampen your zeal in the quest for true love. There are REAL princesses out there-- you just have to weed through the thistles.
:)
Cindy
I have to agree with Brian about, well, Brian--as long as he didn't actually SLEEP with this psycho, the danger's past. He may get another flurry of e-mails, and that newspaper article is sure to contain a nasty surprise, but that's it. She's probably moved on to her next victim/candidate-for-total-makeover, anyway.
God DAMN, Rob--
I'm glad you cleared THAT up;
"femmes fatales" indeedy.
Cindy
BOS,
RE; David Fuckin' Duke
Thank you. That truely did make my day.
Regards,
Joseph
Apropos nothing, but somewhat related to other topics of racism and its venal offspring:
Apparently, David Duke is having a few problems;
http://tinyurl.com/3nwr
It's nice to see that the universe occasionally gets around to dealing out a bit of justice upon a deserving soul. Not equivalent enough for the problems his work has caused others, but it's a start.
BTW, whoever here who hipped me to tinyurl.com, my thanks. Identify yourself so others might be able to bask in your brilliance.
BOS
To Rob: I know you mean well, but please, stop worrying. My comments were in the _past_ tense, describing what was said to me _then_. I don't think it was ever likely to turn very serious anyway. I really doubt that it'd ever get close to Bobbitt country as well. But the whip-snaps of mood, and the sense that anything I said could become the basis for a massive moral judgement, tell me that this is territory well worth avoiding.
BTW, I meant to type femmes fatales, not femme fatales.
Brian,
"I never knew that I could switch from "affection" to "contempt" so quickly...but friends told me that I shouldn't worry so much, and I should try to establish a relationship"
Who am I to step in with officious advice? But I gotta say, dude, fer godsake - don't do it! She really DOES sound like one of those infamous unbalanced "devotees" Harlan has expounded on in the past. When he says, "I've been there", man, I BELIEVE him. And you probably do too. So, I'm sure you'll listen to him. But if you consider taking the risk ANYWAY try to keep fresh in your mind what happened to Phil Hartman. Worse than that, you might even wake the next a.m. to find yourself Bobbittized; that one ALWAYS makes me stop and think about whom I'm going out with. There can be no limit to what the "defibulated" femme fatale is capable of. If you don't think you can control your impulses send her my way; I'LL take the bullet FOR you. That's how desperate I am these days...and if I have to go that way, at least I'll feel I'd done it in a final act of heroism.
Lynn,
RE: Philosophical Battery
Isn't that what Camus used to run his car?
(I admit it! I'm weak!"
Regards,
Joseph
Brian~ No harm done. My only wish for you this holiday season is that you find yourself as loving and charming a woman as this woman ISN'T.
And that her name is something interesting like... Svetlana.
No possibility of confusion there.
L.
Thanks for the advice-- and don't worry. It never reached anything like a romantic relationship, and it won't go beyond the last couple of contacts. My first instinct with her was Be Wary, But Explore, and I've explored enough to retreat. I don't gauge her to be as much of a gorgon as Harlan's advice indicated, but no more contact shall be made or countenanced.
And I apologize to our own Lynn for any confusion resulting from my lack of imagination.
Brian:
Let me first say, Heed HE's and Dan advice. Let me second say How happy I am to have found a person with whom I've shared eighteen wonderful years, and have never even come close to the frustrating confusion such a soul as "The Other Lynn" can cause. Am I gloating? Damn straight!
Brings me to sex: Oral's permanently on the menu here, but more as an aperitif, although we've found it makes a nice little break in the day if the kids aren't about. As for who likes to give, well, the feeling's mutual.
Now, decoration. Our walls are filled with assortments of Munch, Picasso, Dali and El Greco lithographs alongside animation cells; movie posters hang next to African masks and sculptures of Mel's creation, right under a moose head trophy from a hunting expedition I had with my father-in-law. Everywhere possible are photos of family. Hell, there are rooms where we must remove bric-a-brac in order to find out what colour we rendered it in. Just feels right to us, and if anyone finds it distasteful, we simply indicate the door and invite immediate egress.
BOS
BRIAN SIANO ... URGENT MESSAGE:
I am about to give you the best advice you have ever received.
STAY AWAY FROM THIS WOMAN. Entirely. No more phone calls, made or accepted. Change your number, if possible. But if not, put a block on the line. Accept no leters, especially those you have to sign for. Do not talk about her again online, to friends, in letters . . . ANYWHERE.
Document, as best you can, all--ALL--previous encounters and/or dealings of the most minute and seemingly innocent or clearly uncontroversial kind. They may not be such idle comments in her view. Make a file. Add to it any random "odd" or "peculiar" or even "oddly coincidental" events or happenstances that seem out of normal to you. YOU may not see a conection, but my friend I Have Been There, and let me assure you that a mind such as this woman's . . . well, it does not run on the same trolley tracks one finds on the map for Normalville.
Heed me, Brian. I'm teaching you to sleep with one eye open.
Harlan
Can we please refer to the other Lynn as the pacifist or somesuch?
Sounds like she is so passionately anti-violence that she doesn't realize her own views cross the line into philosophical battery.
I also hope she never has to defend herself or her children from someone who wants to cause them harm. (Her indian name must be Sitting Duck.)
L.
Barney~ You can put your 'e' back. It's really okay. One of my fondest memories of growing up was looking at the tags on my Christmas presents and counting the number of different spellings my mom could come up with. She still doesn't remember how she spelled my name on the birth certificate.
Alex Jay~ No, I confess, I did not smoke that 'e'. It was a stale tabacco cut with cabbage leaves and doused in chemicals to make it burn faster. The 'e' I did smoke was made from Cuban tabacco, soaked in rum, and hand rolled on the thighs of Cuban virgins. And I only smoked it because you can't let a $200 glass of cognac go by without a good smoke. So there... :P
Barney, Alex & Brian~ I think the idea that men don't like to perform oral sex on women is a myth. I also think there's a corresponding myth about women not liking to perform oral sex on men. In my experience, both sexes like to "give" more than they like to "receive", so to speak. The mutual appreciation ceremony Barney spoke about is highly overrated, mostly because it divides the attention of the participants. True appreciation "given" is a gift that is hard to accept for both sexes, mostly because of the trust and intimacy involved in giving over power and allowing oneself to be vulnerable without feeling degraded, or feeling as if one is degrading the other partner. And having a partner who understands and appreciates the subtler dynamics of such things is the best gift one can ever give oneself.
L.
Brian,
Couldn’t help but be amused at your anecdote about Lynn (not “OUR” Lynn, but “THAT OTHER” Lynn). Not amused in a “Ha-Ha, You Fool” sense, but in a “been there, done that” sense. I too have eclectic tastes—-numerous swords and daggers on my wall, acid-etched metal furniture, biker bar stools that you straddle and have faux shock absorbers, and Frank Miller art on my walls. Anyone I encounter with Lynn’s attitude I simply choose not to be around. They are small-minded folk, the kind who want to take umbrage at every thought, whim, or style that clashes with their perceptions of “normalcy.” They will seek you out when they discover you are one of “them,” then badger, cajole, and fixate on you, demanding to KNOWknowKNOW why you are the way you are, how dare you hold the opinions you hold, and could we at least get together and fuck sometime?
As I said, been there, done that. No thanks! ;-)
Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick it once, and you suck for life!
lonegungirl: Ahenakew may face federal criminal charges for his latest outburst, thanks to the "hate crime" sections of the Canadian Criminal Code.
For those of you who didn't follow the link, Ahenakew's a prominent Canadian aboriginal leader of long public standing who made some fairly virulent anti-Semitic/Hitler had a good idea remarks at a recent gathering.
Take care, Jon
To Barney and Alex; I looked into the fellatio matter in a pilot study a while back, but the NIH funding fell through. The preliminary results were encouraging for Alex's thesis, but I've since found that the male participants (okay, the one male participant) had a bit of odd wiring of the localized variety.
By the way, the person I described as "Lynn" (stupidly forgetting the presence of our own Lynn, who is NOT the same person) turned out to be something of a wrong-o for me. During a lunchtime conversation, while discussing gun control, I idly mentioned that a lot of people like hunting, and that I might want to try it sometime. I hadn't gauged her distaste for violence well enough, obviously, since she stood up and left.
Later on, I got a slew of emails from her containing things like anti-hunting e-postcards, heaps of anti-hunting quotes, and the like. Then I got a phone call, where she decided to tell me that she'd been _thinking_ of becoming romantically involved with me, but that comment was just too much. However, when I decided to describe my misgivings, she suddenly demands to know "why are we having this conversation?"
Then, five hours later, I get another phone call. She's writing an article about Philcon, and in her draft she'd mentioned that "writer Brian Siano" had been tempted to buy a sword from _Lord of the Rings_. And she wanted to know what I'd meant when I'd said that "it'd be interesting to have that on the wall" and "imagine of someone breaking in saw _that_ thing on my living room."
I said that there was nothing "behind" that comment: I like having odd and surprising stuff in my house. Wasn't enough for her. I said that I hadn't expected to be quoted in an article when I'd told her that, and she replied that I _knew_ she was writing an article. So I asked that she refer to me as an "attendee." More resistance. I requested that she take the word "writer" out, as the context inferred that I was an SF writer, and I'm not one. She finally proposed "Philcon veteran." "Fine," I said, wondering why she was so hell-bent on making sure that my idle sword-chat had to be broadcast.
I never knew that I could switch from "affection" to "contempt" so quickly.
Oh, well. I'd had misgivings, but friends told me that I shouldn't worry so much, and I should try to establish a relationship and see where it went before I made snap judgements that prevented me from exploring such things. I guess my snap judgements really are pretty spot-on.
And for those of us whose knowledge of Canadian history is sadly lacking, here's a CBC retrospective on the October Crisis:
http://cbc.ca/news/indepth/october/
Barney & CEP:
Thanks for the info, regarding the Patriot Act. I wasn't aware of how the library card surveillance system would work, and have always been somewhat dubious of what results could be gleaned. Personally, I'd always mused that crackpots, the violently hateful, and any and all who take an idea put forth in print and twist it to venal causes are much more likely to buy the tome rather than borrow it.
Having lived under a federal declaration of martial law (October Crisis of 1970; I remember having to pass three checkpoints of Anglais soldiers from Edmonton in order to go to school. Yes, I was only seven, but they still demanded ID, and I think took some delight in frightening me with both size and guns), I get a bit disturbed at the insidious creep of government, undermining freedom in the professed cause of defending it.
Even more: the victims tend to be those who have never committted a act more heinous than dissent.
Sleep well, America.
BOS
While I'm eagerly waiting for The Two Towers (seeing it tomorrow), my attention was directed towards the reaction of Stanislaw Lem to the new SOLARIS:
http://www.cyberiad.info/english/kiosk/kiosk.htm#remake
Look for "The Solaris Station".
Additionally, an interesting article can be found at
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/349/focus/The_Lem_chronicles+.shtml
That said, I'm off home and net-access-less for the next week-ish, so to all of you who celebrate it, have a good Christmas/Chanukkah.
The latest in the general trend backwards towards hatred and racism:
http://canada.com/national/story.asp?id=%7B588BC467-7CDE-4F33-A589-36EB28C76BBC%7D
Maybe Ahenakew and Lott should take a cottage by the sea together. It ought to be lovely, sitting on the porch bench, basking in the warm glow of the burning cross.
What, did everyone take their bigot pills this month?
BARNEY: Hmm, yes; I think I may have read the early feasibility study you sent out regarding your patent breakthrough, and conducted a few blind test experiments of my own.
It's nice, yeah, but I'm weirdly wired (as can attest anyone who's seen me suffer injury without feeling pain or any doc who's given me a topical anesthetic in the mistaken belief it'll have any effect on me): In instances like that, unless it's a case of mixing coiltal colloidals, I tend to derive more pleasure from simply GIVING pleasure. Go fig--unless you'd as leaf leaf it alone.
(Hey, I just came back from a con where David Gerrold, Spider Robinson, and Esther Friesner were in attendance--the punninglinguists are contagious ...)
LYNN: You smoked that "E", huh?
RE: Barney's comment "jailed librarians"
This is one of the things that makes me sick about the so-called Patriot Act. The Patriot Act criminalizes the attempt by any librarian who is handed a request under the Patriot Act to even inform his/her supervisor that a request has been made! In my experience, the probability of getting something from library _records_ that could not be obtained by simple observation is vanishingly small.
This is why I advised the local library (the Director is a friend, and I advise the Board on certain issues) that it needed to change its recordkeeping system so that inquiries based on the Patriot Act would be futile. Now, the only record that is kept is an encrypted code for the last circulation of a given item, and only the Director and the Chair of the Library Board have the key (and can thus find out the date and library card number of the patron, and whether a fine was issued for that circulation). An individual's library record shows only those items currently out, those on hold, and those for which fines or lost-book notifications have been issued but not cleared; the "past circulations" get cleared instantly when the item is checked in. Thus, to get the data, the misguided CT folks HAVE to go to a high authority--which is exactly what the Patriot Act is supposed to enable them to avoid, thus preying on the fears of low-level employees.
Further I cannot comment, except to say that I believe that this aspect of the Patriot Act is unconstitutional (violating the right to freedom of association) and in any event ill-advised.
*** LYNN *** Plase xcpt my sincr apologis for th nam inflation. It was a stupid mistak and as you can s I hav rmovd th offnding ky.
Rgards - Barny
$1300 bucks...
I love how somebody can inflate the value of my collection by recklessly overspending. The only drawbacks are in appraisal for my insurance, and how the kids will fight over my stuff when I'm gone.
Still, the war over my collections will keep me in my children's minds for many moons beyond my passing, hopefully having them cursing me with complete vehemence.
Chuckling happily, BOS
Barney~ I know you can buy a vowel, but can you sell one? Hmm. Maybe that's why they call it 'E' bay. ::wink::
I also have no illusions about my ability as an individual to do something against the machine-that-is-my-government. A few years ago I spent an awful lot of time trying to support the West Memphis Three, (back before they were the cause of the day - www.wm3.org), but the lack of *any* forward motion sent me into a downward spiral that took me a long time to recover from. But I don't want my default response to be, "Can't do nothin', might as well not even try."
Also, I've discovered that a lot of the things we blame on the 'conspiracy' are plain and simple stupidity. So I try, on occassion. The odd letter here and there can't hurt, can it?
Lynn (sans 'E')
HARLAN WROTE;
"Per a phone call this morning, from someone who had "circled the book like a hungry shark, bidding and re-bidding" (his words), that paperback of the U.K. edition of DEADLY STREETS closed out at either $1300 or $3300, depending on my faulty memory of the telecon. One or the other, though. Guy called me at home to see if I'd sell him a copy from my vault for $1500. I thanked him nicely, and went to lie down with a cold compress on my forehead."
Just as I suspected. Leave it to Ebay to approach the actual value of an item.
That is OUTSTANDING-- but no surprise.
:)
Cindy
*** Lynne *** Forget that ALA jailed librarian remark. I heard a story [UNVERIFIED] about a couple of library servers being seized for "National Security" reasons and that a librarian or librarians was/were being held without being charged simply for reporting it to their library board. Was told details were on the ALA board but all they seem to have is the PA librarian who was jailed in China and the Amnesty International Union for the blind librarian case. Noteworthy but not what I was referring to. Will have to look into this...
Batting cleanup here;
*** Charlie *** Thank you VERY MUCH for that last post. I know it's like getting football coaches to discuss strategy before a game but details like that help put a very human face on what is otherwise about as much fun as a lutheran puzzling out the meaning of a high mass in latin. Thanks.
*** Lynne *** No, I'm sorry but I have no idea which direction that windmill may be found in. And while I do believe one person can make a difference when it comes to local, regional and the odd nationwide issue I have no illusions about my [or your] ability to alter the course of appointed President Bush policies in the middle east. Plus, now that we're throwing librarians in jail I'm saving my outrage for war on the homefront. See the ALA page for details.
*** Alex *** Regarding your feelings about fellatio -
I have been doing some research with a calculator and some crash test dummies and I think I may be on to something. There MAY be a way for humans to receive and give "oral pleasure" at the same time. It's only a theory right now but I hope to get some grant money after I work up a proposal. There will, of course have to be an extensive human trial period and I don't know where the hell I will get volunteers but if all goes well I hope to patent this procedure. If you think Jonas Salk was popular just you wait...
;-) - Barney
Per a phone call this morning, from someone who had "circled the book like a hungry shark, bidding and re-bidding" (his words), that paperback of the U.K. edition of DEADLY STREETS closed out at either $1300 or $3300, depending on my faulty memory of the telecon. One or the other, though. Guy called me at home to see if I'd sell him a copy from my vault for $1500. I thanked him nicely, and went to lie down with a cold compress on my forehead.
Harlan
Lynn,
Strom is one of the most glaring reasons why so many will never over estimate the Southern intellect.
We'll see how far we've come when this Trent mess is finally lanced.
Cindy
Re Pellegrino chat. I'm really sorry, but I can't recall the details of his concerns about the Atlantic article.
Brian,
I think Barney asked this, too. Can you clue us in a bit more on the discussion you had with Charles Pellegrino in regards to American Ground?
Barney:
(1) If you click on the link concerning the information page on Harlan's lawsuit at the top of this board, you'll find my website, on which you'll find my e-mail address. I'd rather not post it here for obvious reasons.
(2) Harlan is, in many ways, a litigator's dream and nightmare. Simultaneously. Harlan has his records, both of copyright registration and publication; they're organized; they're complete. That's the dream, and believe me it has made my job easier.
The nightmare--fortunately not MY nightmare (vbeg)--is that he has so many of them, as AOL found out during discovery. AOL's lawyers, in their ignorance, wanted copies of every contract Harlan had ever entered into for the publication of his works. That they even asked shows that they didn't do any research at all (let alone enough to have a good faith belief in law or fact that the request would lead to admissible evidence) before they made discovery requests. They were a bit flabbergasted when I told them that their request would run over 20,000 pages, and on that basis we would comply only in making the relevant documents available to them for copying at their expense.
Recordkeeping is something most authors didn't do under the 1909 Act (and still don't do now, although it's less damaging to the copyright itself). It is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL that copies of publication contracts be maintained for the life of the copyright; the same for records establishing copyright, including a copy of the deposit; the same for records requesting alterations for specific markets that are granted (or, for that matter, denied) for any republication or adaptation.
[rant at nobody in particular]
If you're worried about dead trees, look at it this way: Most (or at least a substantial minority) of the factual disputes in copyright litigation could have been avoided if records had been kept, and kept properly. When I teach copyright, I spend two hours out of forty-odd just covering recordkeeping--it's that important.
Do you have any idea how many trees a lawyer can kill without trying very hard? No lawyer can ever claim to be a tree-hugger--just a tree-killer. The appellate briefs that we filed in Harlan's case ran to a case and a half of paper (over 7500 pages) in all copies. That's just our side, for one small part of the litigation. And this case didn't even involve substantial factual disputes!
[/rant]
Just a brief further thought on the subject of American/Iranian relations, and public relations in general, from Howard Rosenberg:
http://events.calendarlive.com/top/1,1419,L-LATimes-TV-X!ArticleDetail-46514,00.html
"The naive faith in good old American know-how turning every tide was alive also in the administration's decision recently to hire legendary advertising executive Charlotte Beers..."
Who is Charlotte Beers?:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0776487.html
Well, Charlotte should be proud, and can now say honestly that she has gone from selling Uncle Ben's Converted Rice to huckstering Uncle Sam's Perverted Lies...
Now, to shave ice using large noisy machine. God, how I love this job.
BOS
It has been written that:
"The FINAL new episode, "The Most Horrible X-Mas Ever," is scheduled to be aired on Nickelodeon this Sunday at 4:30 pm Eastern/Mountain. Nick tends to screw with their lineup, especially when it comes to ZIM, so if Tivo comes up with other airings, I'll post them. I MUST see Jhonen Vasquez's take on the Earth Christmas."
They ran it last week, too. I can't say that it's the best ZIM ever, but it is wonderful change of pace from the rest of the Xmas slurry. And it does explain why we've lived under the protective Dome for the past two million years...
Zim: "Don't worry, Officer. You're in a filthy Earth brain hospital. There's a squid brain in you now."
Darryl~ Thank you very much. A very well-written explanation of why Trent Lott should hang. I confess, I'm a political ignoramus, and while I'm not really inclined to listen to either of the major political parties, I didn't really understand why all the ruckus. (I still don't understand why, if he's so reviled, Strom Thurmond is still in office.)
Barney~ Any idea who we can write to express our outrage at the death of Radio Azadi? Talk about your idiots out of the loop. Living in the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles, I've been lucky to be exposed to one of the largest Persian expatriate communities in the world. They are *wonderful* people, and many of them would love to see the oppressive regime of their country overthrown. This is exactly the kind of stupid policy that shows just how out of touch our government really is.
L.
For those who still have interest in Invader ZIM:
The FINAL new episode, "The Most Horrible X-Mas Ever," is scheduled to be aired on Nickelodeon this Sunday at 4:30 pm Eastern/Mountain. Nick tends to screw with their lineup, especially when it comes to ZIM, so if Tivo comes up with other airings, I'll post them. I MUST see Jhonen Vasquez's take on the Earth Christmas.
this has nothing to do with jelly,
amy
Thanks to Alex for the exceptionally kind words about myself, but I must make a few corrections. I seem to be liked by a handful of people; I think most people are indifferent to me (ah, but they'll pay, they'll PAY for it...). I'm not more learned than Alex is: he just let me ramble on about a subject I knew a lot about, that's all. As for the testicles, they _do_ function-- but to what end, I ask?
Re Clemens and Livy. Maybe there's hope for the fabled Lynn-person and me after all. She has a somewhat puritan/Catholic streak in her, and it's sort of fun to come up with a real shocker that she can't help but laugh at, because her face gets red.
The talk about the magnificent Clemens reminds me of something that popped up while talking with David Gerrold. We were talking about _Apocalypse Now_ versus "Heart of Darkness." I mentioned that, although Conrad's work was taken as a kind of dark fantasy about human nature, it was as grounded in the real world as the best journalism because it was based around the real events in the Belgian Congo. King Leopold had decided to make his new territories pay off big in the rubber market, and to accomplish this he placed that colony under the most bloodthirsty rule of its time. Villagers were ordered to acquire unrealistic quotas of rubber; the price of failure was their hand. (And the hands piled up.) Men went there to make their fortunes, and morphed into Kurtzes. All of this was told in Adam Hochschild's book _King Leopold's Ghost_, which also describes how the outrage over the Belgian Congo gave birth to the first global human rights movement. Among its most prominent activists were Arthur Conan Doyle, Roger Casement, and Samuel Clemens.
To Xanadu, about skanky experiences at cons: Oh, definitely. "Xenogenesis" wasn't hard to believe, even if we never saw any of that stuff up close, and that was one of my concerns with knowing two first-timers were there. But this year was helped by the fact that Philcon's only problem was that it was getting to be kind of drudgy at the Adam's Mark. Now, at the Marriott, something seems to have given it new life.
Alex Jay: Howzabout 'metaquasihistorical authorifiction'? It just slides off the tongue like a steel bar.
Cheers, Jon
Bern - right, Alex was who the Twain stuff was intended for. But I know you hang on my every pixelated word. - Barney
Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to work I go...
Barney:
Not surprising, considering the history of US involvement in the Middle East, where American interest in oil has superseded an interest in human rights.
From the US supported overthrow of Dr. Muhammed Mossadeq in 1951, through the CIA training and support of SAVAK and the arrogant butcher Reza Pahlavi, hundreds of thousands of Iran nationalists were sent to their deaths. What astounds me is the fact that the majority of Iranians, despite all that's been done directly or indirectly by the Americans to Iran, still want and desire good relations with the world's only superpower, and desire a US-style democracy for themselves.
It's an irony of astounding proportions; The US, desiring safer, more democratised regimes in the region, the Iranian youth and moderates hoping for American support to bring about reform. Instead you get Duh-Bull-Ya standing before Congress, shouting some nonsense about Iran being part of an "Axis of Evil" (I still smile at Will Farrell's Bush stating that Evel Knievel is part of the same nefarious order), giving the mullahs and ayatollahs who have squirrelled away billions of dollars of Iranian oil revenue for themselves and their supporters, ample propaganda ammunition to maintain control.
Somebody's got to get it through to your government: The Islamic people throughout the Middle East love everything about your country EXCEPT THE POLICY THAT PERPETUATES SUPPORTING DESPOTIC, SELF INDULGENT REGIMES THAT UNDERMINE CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS!!!!!!!
If you ever get a government that finally understands this precept, give me a call. That's one I'll have to see to believe.
BOS
Barney - Uh, best as I can figure - you intended your "Livy" discussion to be aimed at Alex Krislov, I think...
But the "Radio 'Tomorrow'" article saddens me immeasurably.
Alex Jay - you're right, I don't know you. (how'd you guess?...) But I'm glad your "first" was such a blast. Not all are like that, some are real skanky affairs - but the best are unequaled experiences... (By the way, Brian, I'm glad you enjoyed yourself, too.)
On the KKK thread - I could have been clearer, I think. The private property I was referring to was supposed to mean THEIR OWN. If they burn so much as a piece of paper on someone elses property I am all for nailing them to a wall and picking off the tender bits with big ole pliers. (All the while, showing them looped video footage of off-white individuals winning significant awards and honors).
In the interests of being completely clear - I do not like the KKK, anything they stand or have ever stood for, but as long as they break no law simmering in their own misbegotten idiocy, I don't give them a second thought. I am not terribly supportive of the various "Hate Crimes" laws on the books around the country. I believe a crime is a crime, and should be punished as such. Different sentences for different "motivations" gives me the willies as a concept. As I have stated before - I'm not a mind reader, and I don't really think we should start basing crimes on what someone THINKS. Such a thing leads down dangerous paths, in my mind.
Bern
That was from the 12/15/02 Washington Post. I forgot this site bounces HTML tags.
- B
More stuff to piss me off - We're just all about freedom these days...
- Barney
After an Iranian court sentenced the reformist academic Hashem
Aghajari to death last month, the largest and most sustained student demonstrations in years erupted in Tehran. As they grew, day after day, U.S.-operated Radio Azadi, or "Radio Freedom," was their favorite medium. Every day, student leaders would call by cell phone from the roiling campuses to the radio's headquarters in Prague and narrate the latest developments live. Each night the radio would broadcast a roundtable discussion, patching together students and journalists in Tehran with exiled opposition leaders to discuss where the reform movement was going. So instrumental to the rebellion-in-the-making did the radio become that pro-regime counter-demonstrators recently
held up a placard reading "Who does Radio Azadi talk to?" -- a taunt taken by the station's staff as a badge of honor.
The protest movement, now five weeks old, rolls on, spreading from students to workers and from Tehran to other cities. Some see parallels to the popular movements that overthrew the Communist regimes of Europe in 1989 -- with a big dose of help from U.S.-sponsored Radio Free Europe. In this case, however, the tottering dictatorship has gotten a big break: Two weeks ago, Radio Freedom abruptly disappeared from the air. Iranians
were no longer able to hear firsthand reports of the protests or the nightly think tanks about their country's future. Instead, after two weeks of virtual silence, the broadcasts are being replaced this week with tunes from Jennifer Lopez, Whitney Houston and other soft-rockers.
How did the mullahs pull off this well-timed lobotomy? They didn't: The U.S. government, in the form of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, did it. In an act that mixes Hollywood arrogance with astounding ignorance of Iranian reality, the board has silenced the most effective opposition radio station in Iran at a time of unprecedented ferment. In its place, at
three times the expense, the United States now will supply Iran's revolutionary students with a diet of pop music -- on the theory that this better advances U.S. interests.
Even the name of the station has been sanitized. Instead of "Freedom" -- regarded as too political by the programmers -- the radio will be called "Farda," meaning "tomorrow."
*** Daryl *** Thank you for filling in some of the particulars regarding Trent Lott. The prolonged success of Trent and Strom on a national level just makes me despair for this whole country.
I saw yesterday that Lott was just interviewed on the BET network. That'll be some must see TV.
*** Xanadu *** Livy wasn't perfect BUT I will chime in on her behalf. She travelled quite a bit for a woman of her day. Much of Europe and selected portions of the North East. Throw into the mix the bearing, raising and untimely deaths of three of her four children and she got around quite a bit. She also had very real health problems during most of her life. She seems "stay at home" in contrast to Twain, who was one of the most well travelled men of the 19th and 20th centuries. Take away business airfare and he would still be one of the "most travelled" men ever. Everywhere but South America and Antartica.
As to Livy and censorship there were two things going on here that don't often get credited. First, Clemens would often write stuff to read to Livy "just to see the look on her face" that he KNEW he would have to cut. Secondly, Clemens knew full well that his first fortune was founded on 3 "childrens books" and a body of humor that was more or less family oriented entertainment. Yes, there are a TON of exceptions to that statement going back to the beginning including essays on when soaking babies overnight in a barrel of rainwater or how just shoving them right into an ice fishing hole might be just about the best thing for them but stay with me. When you remember that with the exception of some of LETTERS FROM THE EARTH the instances of Livy preventing Clemens from publishing something are really quite mild compared to say what Heinlein's editors did to him with his YA material. Clemens' heirs were more of a problem to the publics appreciation of Clemens full range of work than Livy ever was. I would say about 95% of what he wanted to get out in his lifetime actually got out there. That'a a helluva batting average. I love what the California Press does in terms of getting ALL the Twain there ever was into print but even 3rd generation Twain junkies and completists like myself know that the last motherload was LETTERS FROM THE EARTH.
One thing Susan and Livy have in common is a tolerance for languge that would peel the paint off a battle ship.
Finally, if it needed saying, Susan is clearly the better looker.
- Barney
XANADU: Sit back? Relax? Ahhh, you've never met me. I'm the type to jump into pools without first checking temperature--or even depth.
TODD: Di Filippois a very good writer indeed. For his best book--or at least his best out of those I've read--go get LOST PAGES, a book of stories all dealing with alternate worlds based around writers. An Anne Frank who escaped the Nazis and is discovered at Schwab's, going on to take over for Jusy Garland in WIZARD OF OZ? A Franz Kafka who, though milquetoast by day, dons the raiment of a masked avenger of the night? Beryl Markham and Antoine de St.-Exupery flying above the last remnant of civilization in an Africa free from the plague which destroyed Europe? Alternate avatars of Tiptree, Bester, Sturgeon, meeting the aliens who've just landed? This and more, all brilliantly executed.
(HARLAN: Is there yet a name for the subgenre of writer-wrelated stories like this, and Niven's "The Return of William Proxmire," or Peter J. Heck [a very nice guy and one heckuva guitar player]'s Mark Twain mysteries?)
BOS: Am I crazy? I enjoy fellatio, but would rather give a woman pleasure than receive it myself in that manner.
CINDY: No B&B for me, actually; the one drink I DID have a few times was, at the SFWA party, my own concoction of too much creme of cacao, too much creme de menthe, and too much coffee. The three too muches morphed into "just enough," though I'm sure that if it were physiologically possible for me to get drunk without first getting alcohol poisoning (for that would happen long before I got tipsy), I'd enjoy it even more.
CHUCK: Sorry to hear about the car. At least now you can, with a wink, smile, and nod, fix that dent on the whereveritis, right?
XANADU: If the KKKlucks want to burn crosses on their own lawns, fine, good, and dandy. If, however, they attempt to do so on MINE, then they had better be ready to be chased off with prejudice.
(You know, I REALLY didn't intend that pun ... maybe I'm still infected from the con ...)
BARNEY: Harlan and Susan a modern Sam and Livvy? Well, perhaps, but I simply cannot see Susan either censoring Harlan or being content with a stay-at-home lifestyle.
BRIAN: Oh, you evil bastard. I think I broke something laughing.
"Alex is good-looking,"
Good lord, but you have low standards.
"extremely smart,"
See above comment.
"plays the guitar,"
You say this only because you saw me toting one about. I woun't play with any facility for at least another year.
"sings well,"
Okay, you have me there. Mine is, after all, the voice of an agel who's just discovered sex--and is angered beyond belief at his own lack of genitalia.
"and draws from a wide range of cultural interests in his intelligent conversation."
Only to cover the fact that I know very little--but I know veryu little about a LOT of things.
"So, to compensate for these pluses, and to restore balance and moral order to the Universe, I hope he has a _really tiny dick_."
Damn, Brian. I know you've had at least one conversation with my ex, but I'd never have believed what you girls were TALKING about.
By the by: Brian himself is taller than myself, has the greying hair I wish I had, is far more learned than I am, has written and published a lot more than I, lives in a neighborhood I would love, and is apparently known by and very much liked by everyone.
If there indeed IS a balance and moral order to the universe, he has a truly HEROIC penis.
And nonfunctioning testicles.
ON THE CON: Fun. Fun. Fun. I can't remember smiling quite so wide. There's nothing like having one of a husband-and-wife author team whom you respect a shitload (let's call them Spider and Jeanne) look down from the stage from which they are singing and remark to you, "You know, you really have a very good voice," while the other nods assent. Whoof! Almost as good as having Spider show interest in the plot of the book I'm sketching out. Oh, wait; that happened, as well.
(I REALLY can't stop smiling.)
Meeting all the writers there was jazzing, but I mainly gave my set speech to people from Connie Willis to David Gerrold to Esther Friesner and lots more: {firm handshake} "Thank you for all the enjoyment I've derived from your work."
Funny how many of their faces lit up from that (In Nalo Hopkinson's case, literally--the woman's face burns with an incandescence).
I think I pleasantly surprised Hal Clement, though: Seeing him sitting alone and a little tired later on, I asked him if I could fetch him anything he might need. He seemed genuinely touched. (Mr. Clement was hobbling around on a recently fractured foot, you see ... and still kept to a panel schedule to exhaust writers less than half his age.)
Are cons the only place where writers are afforded the treatment they deserve, the "Xenogenesis" essay notwithstanding?
There was just so much, I have memoriy-snapshots flitting scattershot through my mind:
Got to sit in the front row at a singalong done by Spider and Jeanne Robinson (hence the face-splitting smile mentioned above), with Peter J. Heck playing some fine lead guitar.
Was ordered by david Gerrold to feed several dollars into the pun jar (to benefit the SFWA Emergency Medical Fund, so I was only to happy to pay for my panonomasia.
Sat amongst filksingers for the first time, and was surprised when they liked my "Um, I just thought this up, and I won't know the melody until I start to sing it ..." songs, despite my never having done it before. In fact, they had a "Filk That Tune" competition later in the con, and I actually WON! Pity, no doubt.
(My first reaction: A shocked "But HIS was better!")
Watched our own Brian and David Gerrold holding court across two beds, in rapt debate.
Was taken into the (voluminous) bosom of the people there, who truly accepted and befriended and welcomed a schmuck like me.
And oh, lots more.
Granted that I would have liked to have found and wooed and won the love of my life there, but ...
(Actually, I would have settled for having more than a three-second flirt with a truly lovely and sharp lass who may or may not have been Esther Friesner's daughter, but ...)
Sorry to have taken so much time out of your lives with this post, gang.
But DAMN!, that was fun!
I think this about Trent Lott and his brand of merry thugs (Strom, Jesse Helms, etc.) I agree with the statements made by Chuck and Barney. I certainly understand why there is such uproar over the Lott affair.
When Trent said that he thought that "we wouldn't be in this mess we're in" had Strom been elected in 1948, there could only be one thing to which he was referring. As Chuck so eloquently stated, Thurman didn't run on a platform of balanced budgets, more defense spending, and better schools. The largest, most elephantine, 800 pound gorilla "idea" he had was that segregation was a good thing. That the systematic exclusion of a significant percentage of the population was not entitled to equal protection under the law, not entitled to try on shoes or clothes in a department store (if a black tried on a pair of shoes, they were required to buy them, no matter the fit), not entitled to breathe the same rarified air as whites in a movie theater, or use the same restrooms, or, well, you get the idea.
Trent Lott was, in effect, standing on the Pettus bridge, firehose in hand, Lester Maddox on his mind. Keepin' the nigras in their place. It wasn't the first time he's made such statements. In 1980, after a speech by Thurmond in Jackson, MS, he stated "You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today." In the late 1992 he addressed the Conservative Citizen's Council, (the CCC is the bastard son of the 50's & 60's era White Citizen's Council, hmmm), where one of his relatives (an uncle, I believe), is listed as an executive. He's tried to deny that he knew the provenance of the group, or their beliefs. Lest you believe that they are just another group of ordinary citizens with a website, go there and read a little. Visit cofcc.org. Go ahead. I'll wait. Back now? Good. Lott's words to this group? "The people in this room stand for the right principles, and the right philosophy. Let's take it in the right direction, and our children will be the beneficiaries." How's about a 1981 _amicus curiae_ (friend of the court) brief he filed on behalf of Bob Jones university (where you have to have a written note signed by your parents if you want to date someone from another race) "Racial discrimination does not always violate public policy." Or in the early 1960's, when he fought to keep the national organization of his fraternity from admitting blacks.
Wow. This went from Trent Lott's bad day, to Trent Lott's bad decades.
For one of the few times in my life, I find myself in agreement with the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, when it said that "Plainly America would not have been well served by the triumph of the segregationist Dixiecrats at a moment when the civil rights movement was coming into its own..."
Lott's first apology mentioned the "discarded policies of the past" and his "poor choice of words". Noted liberal Andrew Sullivan states that:
"So now we have Gore, Sharpton and Jesse Jackson piling on. For once, I think they're right....Everyone deserves a break for a 'poor choice of words' but it wasn't the words that really offended. It was the plain meaning of the words. What other words would have sufficed? Notice also the adjective Lott now uses to refer to segregation: 'discarded policies.' Not immoral. Not wrong. Not abhorrent. Merely 'discarded.' And notice too the weasel politician way of not apologizing: only 'some' were offended; and it's only those to whom Lott feels obliged to apologize. And of course, his position as the Republican spokesman in the Senate remains unchallenged by his fellow partisans. It's at times like this that I realize why I'm not a Republican. I could never be in a party that included someone like Trent Lott."
I felt the same way about the elected official (I believe it was in North Carolina) who voted against funding for poor rape victims to get abortions. He said something like “if a woman is truly raped, the juices don’t flow and she can’t get pregnant.”
Racism, sexism, and discrimination are ugly things. They are even uglier when expressed by those who are supposed to create our laws. We can try to ignore them, but the decisions these people make each day affect all of us.
Republicans have said to me in the past "Why don't you join the party of Lincoln". I have often responded "Because the current incarnation of the party is led by the likes of Helms and Thurmond." I don't agree with 100% of what either party platform contains. In my life, I've voted for Libertarians, Independents, Greens, Democrats and Republicans. I understand and join with the clamor for the resignation of Trent Lott. Don't even ask me what I think about our Chief Justice Rehnquist, and his abhorrent _written_ defense of Plessy v. Ferguson.
Happy & Joyous Birthday wishes to Sir Arthur C Clarke on his 85th
Birthday!
Hey Barney - if you know someone selling "Fahrenheit 451" in the Johns–Manville Quinterra binding for $845, jump on it. Simon Finch Rare Books in London apparently moved #9 of the 200 'asbestos' bound copies sometime during the last six months for 9,000 pounds sterling (I'll save you the trouble: that's $14,334 on this side of the pond - today, anyway). I'd love one, but that ante is a little too rich for my blood.
It almost - ALMOST - makes an $800+ copy of "Sex Gang" sound like a bargain...
We saw Soderbergh's SOLARIS last night and enjoyed the hell out of it. In its intended effect we talked about its concepts at length on the way home. One of its most refreshing aspects is it's the first sf film in something like 30 years to depict space and how things move and how things DON'T sound with scientific accuracy. It was even more faithful to the laws than a non-sf called APOLLO 13. This was, for once, not a film pandering to the dumb fucks in the audience. T'was won'rful. I'll be revisiting the flick.
Berman,
"Some days I think it's true that burning a cross as a means of communication with someone IS a threat of violence and as such is not protected speech. However, having a KKK rally on private property where a cross is burned seems to be protected. After all, free speech shouldn't mean "only speech I agree with.""
When you have termites in your house you want to be able to see where the little bastards are. There is therefore a practicality in protecting Free Speech, however contemptible that voice might be. If we suppress it for extremists or the primitive hate groups they'll conduct their damn meetings in greater secrecy and it would be tougher for us to monitor their activities. Of course, we're talking about proper legal boundaries, as you've implied: if I burn a cross in my back yard, much as I hate to concede it, it's my right of free expression; if I burn it in the public square (property that belongs to ALL of us) or in front of someone's home it's not even harrassment, it's an assault...a threat of violence. In the latter case a severe penalty is obviously warranted.
I remember a few years ago CBS' 60 Minutes airing a KKK march though downtown streets (I don't recall which city this was). Police were organized to keep order. A Klan leader gave a speech devised to incite a riot among the massive spectators - many of whom were black. He even pointed to blacks in the police force standing in front of him. As he went on, the cameras roamed through the crowds. They revealed many blacks laughing their asses off listening to this jackass going on and on. They'd latched on right away to what the guy was trying to do. Having essentially been mocked - failing in their intents - the Klan members quietly departed looking frustrated.
I felt this was the key for all of us, together; understanding the tactics of the steadily diminishing organization and, while always monitering their actions, brushing them off like dandruff. Yet, merely assuming they were on this decline was a bit naive on my part. Several articles I would go on to read about hate groups imparted more complexity to the issue. While, indeed, there IS a slowly strenghthening convergence of new social movements involving civil rights, women, and gays in our efforts to confront the destructive consequences of hate crimes, hate groups are emerging more in the form of anti-government militias and "survivalists" groups, almost totally unheard of before 1980, and have made their presence increasingly known throughout the 80s and into the 90s. Although many among these groups disavow any connection with hatemongers, there is at least some overlap between militia groups and white supremacists in the United States according to the Anti-Defamation League. What I find rather alarming is the splintered effect this has, I think, on the hate crimes themselves; they are not particularly done to represent the sentiments of any one group and become tougher for agencies to monitor. I recall reading, for example, a statistic in South Carolina wherein two-thirds of the hate crimes were perpetrated by teenagers and young adults looking for a good time. Some them had tenuous links with the KKK, if only because they enjoyed their symbols of power or Klan propaganda. But most of the offenders operated on their own. And in one city in the state of Georgia, one group of whites shouted racial epithets at a black couple as they moved their belongings into their new home in a previously all-white neighborhood. A week later, when it was clear that the couple had no intention of leaving, assailants sprayed gunfire at their home. At least four bullets struck the house, one missing the man's head by a few inches.
Moreover, white supremacist organizations now often cloak their hatred in the aura and dogma of Christianity. Followers of the religious arm of the hate movement, the Identity Church I think it was called, are only "doing the work of God. " Members of the movement also believe in the inevitability of a global war between the races which only white people will ultimately survive. The survivalists among Identity followers prepare for war by moving to communes where they can stockpile weapons, provide paramilitary training, and pray. This is what gives me the creeps nowadays. Global reports of ethnic violence also lend support to the suggestion that hate crimes have been on the rise. Though claims as to the increasing presence of hate crimes in the United States may be controversial, reports of escalating violence directed against Jews and immigrant groups in the early 1990's remains essentially undisputed for many European countries, including France. It has become important, therefore, to apprehend youthful hate crime perpetrators, especially in light of the possibility that many property offenders who go undetected may later graduate to hate crimes directed against people. One thing that hasn't change is the tide in prevailing economic and political circumstances at any given time and place. Skapgoating still characterizes the mind-set. Hate crimes rise whenever one group in a society feels that its advantaged position is being threatened by the presence of another. This was true in Nazi Germany; it was also true in the United States during Reconstruction, the Great Depression of the 1930's, and the civil rights movement of the 60's.
Yeah: when you have termites in your house you want to be able to see where the little bastards are.
Pardon me, that should have been $405.
Great googley-moogely. Same eBay seller has a copy of the UK paperback of Deadly Streets, reserve not met, for $805 (starting bid was 199):
http://tinyurl.com/3l8q
$845 for Sex Gang by Paul Merchant...
I only paid $60 for mine, and mine looked in better shape...
BOS
*** Brian *** If you'd care to expand the Pelegrino remarks about the WTC and the Atlantic deconstruction article I, for one would be very interested. It's a topic on another list I'm on.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I don't usually remark on eBay Ellison items but someone just sold a VF+ copy of Sex Gang by Paul Merchant for $845 smackers. I honestly don't know if I'm amused or outraged. I could buy about a half dozen important Twain firsts or an asbestos bound Farenheit 451 or a signed Kipling or a ...
Ok, I think I'm leaning toward outrage.
- Barney
Hokay, Philcon. I used to have really mixed feelings about cons, because I'd go, browse the dealer rooms, maybe sit in a panel discussion, and leave. Sometimes I'd watch a panel discussion on a topic that I know something about, and I'd want to SCREAM that the comments were ill-informed, glib, or simply worthless. Sometimes the grouchiness comes when I pass a classic fan, and get a whiff of goatish stench he's been culturing in his scraggly beard or unwashed _Blake's 7_ T-shirt. Or, I pick up some relatively minor trait and dwell on it for a while: for example, I'd never noticed that a LOT of fans and writers conduct conversations as though they're some kind of sage, making pronouncements more than explanations. (It gets irritating when you realize that many SF people have opinions that aren't very different from the conventional wisdom.)
But, the occasional nuggets of fun make it worthwhile.
This year offered a lot of changes over previous years. For one thing, I've now been a member of PSFS for almost a year, so I know more people, which means that I get to share meals with people instead of slouching off on my own. This year, Philcon was held not in the remote and forbidding Adam's Mark Hotel out on City Line, but in the Center City Marriott. HUGE improvement, gang: the hotel's of recent vintage, clean and well-managed, and close by to the Reading Terminal Market and Chinatown. Even though this new location is just a trolley ride away from my house, I'm tempted to get a room there next year.
Another difference this year came from the presence of two people for whom this was their first convention. One's Alex Berman, whom y'all know; I'd met him before when I went to his birthday party last year, and we wound up hanging together and having some really fun conversations. (Just so everyone here knows: Alex is good-looking, extremely smart, plays the guitar, sings well, and draws from a wide range of cultural interests in his intelligent conversation. So, to compensate for these pluses, and to restore balance and moral order to the Universe, I hope he has a _really tiny dick_.)
The other was a lady friend who shall go unnamed-- let's call her Lynn-- because she isn't here to give her impressions. She's a journalist and folklorist of progressive politics who's worked for In These Times, the New York Times and the Philadelphia Inquirer. We've known each other distantly for years, but for the previous few weeks we'd been socializing a lot, and since she's really attractive and smart I was seriously interested in turning the friendship into a relationship. That doesn't seem likely to happen, sadly. But she came to Philcon on her own to see what it was like.
It's not that science fiction conventions are all that _bizarre_; sure, fans like to portray them as Woodstocks of freakery, and there are elements that really do skirt the edge of the truly strange. But, as Lynn told me, it's not very different from the crowds she deals with at the Philadelphia Folk Festival. Afterward, though, she confessed that there were a _lot_ of people who reminded her of the Comic Book Store Owner in _the Simpsons_. (She was shocked later on, when I had to explain the Furries to her.)
So I got to hear the opinions of Lynn and Alex about the con. Alex had a great time, which I'll let him describe. Lynn seemed to enjoy it, but she can be very reserved, and she was doing some research for an article she'll write. Remember my comment about how a lot of SF people have opinions on non-SF things that are not all that different from conventional beliefs? Lynn described a panel on the post-9/11 world where the participants didn't say much beyond "those people hate us because they're _jealous_ of us."
(There was one thing that'll sound like sour grapes, but here goes. I was talking with a friend a few weeks ago about Philcons. I said that I'd always wanted to participate on a panel, especially since I could probably throw some things out that were a little afield of SF stuff. She read through the panel listings for this year, and lo and behold, there was a panel on George Orwell on Sunday-- and I knew Orwell's work pretty well. So I contacted the programming guys, saying that I'd like to participate of they had any openings. I mentioned my publishing background: editor at _The Humanist_, journalism in various magazines, including a piece about public relations in science that yielded some nice Orwellian points. Got turned down. No big deal, but I learned that the main concern was that, since the panel included two Hugo winners and a Hugo nominee, there was some concern about having someone with comparatively little standing at the same table. I take a little comfort in knowing that Christopher Hitchens has equal standing in the community.)
But on the brighter side, I got into a fun chat with David Gerrold and a bunch of others about some wide-ranging subjects-- Israel, _A.I._ (Gerrold didn't like it), Coppola, the way time slows down when you're in an adrenaline rush, that sorta thing. Charles Pellegrino told me about some of the strange stuff they found at the WTC site, and why that _Atlantic_ series on unbuilding the site was reprehensible garbage. On the whole, I did have fun, and I'll be going again.
Barney, if you're studying Twain's comments on copyright, be sure to include "Christian Science" in your reading. It's Twain's greatest polemic. Amidst the acid-laced examination of the religion and its prophet, you'll find Twain's comments on how Eddy was able to circumvent the limitations of copyright law as they existed in his time.
--Alex
*** Charlie [and Susan] *** Thanks for the detailed response on those questions. I have two follow-ups and then I'll drop it.
This part is for Charlie - I asked;
"3.] If that's the case, is Harlan working from a precedant or trying to establish one."
and you responded;
Not to my knowledge for either, except in the sense that under the 1909 Copyright Act, what Harlan did was exemplary, and I wish far more of my clients had done so.
Could you expand on this just a little. What exactly did Harlan do that was/is somewhat ahead of the curve or more canny than the average copyright holder? Not that i for one moment doubt this is indeed the case.
and this part is for Susan if she would care to field it. I know you've been doing Harlan's copyright administrata for years and I remember Harlan saying you had more or less taught yourself this aspect of the business. Once you took this on was there anything in particular that you started to do differently? And finally, did anybody "mentor" either you or Harlan on any of this? Did Silverberg or or Sheckley or somebody ever say "whatever you do Harlan, don't do this or you'll end up like so and so..."?
My interest in this comes from all the Twain bio reading I've been doing and coming across the clever things that Clemens and his wife Olivia did to protect his works from copyright lapses and outright thievery. Clemens was a copyright scholar and theorist by the end of his life who was called upon at least twice to testify before congress about his feelings regarding copyright law. It seems it was also Twain and Kipling's favorite topic of conversation when they were able to get together as they had both been pirated so many times on both sides of the Atlantic. At any rate, there are genuine parallels between Sam and Livy and Harlan and Susan [the Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice of copyright]!
- Barney
ps. Charlie, please bounce me your e-mail. I have a newbie question about copyright for this play I'm making real headway on once again. - B.
Freedom of speech should and does allow the Klan to spew their leprous dogma. They may say what they will; but the law, intended to protect the liberty of EVERYONE should require them to leave their tactics of terror at the mobile home.
Common sense (which doesn't appear to be common at ALL)SHOULD have a seat at the right hand of government.
Unfortunately people complicate.
Cindy
Much like my thinking on flag burning, my thought is as long as the fire itself is legal, I don't care what someone burns on private property - cross, flag, outbuildings, an entire forest - it simply doesn't matter to me.
To use Harlan's analogy of just of a few days ago.... If it's by the KKK, it's legal, and it's on private property it should monitored, yes, but not broadcast or reported in any way, shape, or form. Ignore the idiots in the dirty sheets for being idiots, arrest and prosecute the HELL out of them if they cross the line.
Bern
(This post's illogic and provincialism brought to you by Xanadu)
P.S. Frank, please do not take my opinion of some of your ideas as any reason to stop posting them. (Not that I think you would anyway.) Even if the message doesn't work for me, I do admire your perseverance in the face of adversity.
Haven't been around too much lately, so I was wondering if you guys have discussed the Supreme Court case about making cross-burning illegal. I've been thinking about this one a lot and have reached an impasse with myself. Some days I think it's true that burning a cross as a means of communication with someone IS a threat of violence and as such is not protected speech. However, having a KKK rally on private property where a cross is burned seems to be protected. After all, free speech shouldn't mean "only speech I agree with."
Any thoughts?
Bermanantor
Rob, you are a sweetheart. I love when political discussions and just plain ole funspeak turn into violent gruntfests and demands to change your views.
If I saw you walking down my side of the street, I would give you a great, big, warm Republican hug and tongue-kiss you until you are infected with my loving conservative cooties. I will beat you with love! Mwah!
-TODD
Alex:
Correct, and one of these days I'm going to learn to listen to the reporting. Of course you realize I'm married, and should be better at paying attention...
BOS
BOS: My mother's doing fine. She'll have them take a look at the aneurhysm from the inside in early January. After that, my parents are taking a vacation while pondering what to do next.
As to the Pop Shoppe, I think the relaxation of recyclable container initiatives in Ontario helped hasten its demise. I was impressed when I was in PEI with the province's attention to putting virtually everything pop-related in recyclable glass containers with deposits. Well, I was impressed with other things as well (not so much with the $7.50 Guiness, though). I also had a laugh at the 'oldy-timey' liquor store -- the kind where you don't walk through the store but order from someone at the front. Interesting place.
Cheers, Jon
Barney--Charlie's answer re: copyright is on the mark.
All best--Susan
There is a bunch of stuff for some of you in the Art Deco Pavillion. Responses for the last week's posts.
Harlan
BOS, it's not John Sebastian who died. It's the Loving Spoonful's guitarist, Zal Yanovsky.
Bit of a bummer. Just heard that John Sebastian of the Lovin' Spoonful has died.
Jon:
Pop Shoppe? God, I remember those. Had some pretty good flavours, ones made available by forsaking the conglomerate mentality of shucking off sugar and caffeine as soft drinks, instead choosing the giving to customers a treat of taste. And, like all good things it became a victim of the fight for market share and profitability over quality and service. Damn fine ginger beer, though.
BTW, how's your mother doing?
Lynn:
I'm handling this on this board due to feeling the other should be about HE more exclusively, even to the point where if folks feel the urge to say nice things about the parton scribe, go ahead. (Heaven forbid anyone should say something nice about the guy if he's done some deed to earn it.) Miller gets this look in his eye when he starts getting deep into one of his takes; a glassy eyed stare reminscent of those who tell you that aliens are controlling the government, plotting to make used Kleenex the legal tender of the nation. I just shut off when I see it. Yes, HE can rant with the best of them, but Ellison doesn't lose the track, and where Miller's stance makes me feel like wanting a bit of distance from the man, HE can stir a bit of passion for the concern being addressed. Delivery is everything; Ellison is simply better.
There. I said something nice about Ellison. Bring it on.
BOS
I'm not Susan (not nearly good-looking enough, for one thing), but I do practice copyright law, so I'll give Barney's questions a shot (even though he said "skiffy" and therefore will burn in hell):
"1.] At what point in revision does it become legally or technically "revised"? Can he just add a comma or is there a legal bar involving word count, etc?"
It depends. Mechanical revisions are certainly not sufficient, and probably irrelevant (see 4 below). There's no specific test--it's determined on a case-by-case basis, with the most common result turning on whether the target audience (not just collectors) would want to read both the original and the revised work.
"2.] Is there a strategy to all this beyond not letting a copyright lapse like wait until it's due for renewal, revise at that point, renew, and thus extend the copyright as far as possible by having the copyright start with the renewal."
Not anymore. The law is quite specific on when something can be renewed; see also 4 below.
"3.] If that's the case, is Harlan working from a precedant or trying to establish one."
Not to my knowledge for either, except in the sense that under the 1909 Copyright Act, what Harlan did was exemplary, and I wish far more of my clients had done so.
"4.] What's the present state of this story [Goddess in the Ice] in terms of it ever going into public domain. Do we start the clock in '67, '82 or '95."
Depending on the result in Eldred v. Ashcroft, which was argued before the Supreme Court in November and will be decided by June, the work will go into the public domain either fifty or seventy years after Harlan's untimely demise. (Whenever Harlan's demise is will be untimely for those of us who don't view the "l" in "literature"--or "liberal"--as a scarlet letter.) This has been the case since the Copyright Act was revised in 1976--no more renewal terms, although there are administrative things that have to be done for transitional works (those that were created before March 1, 1977 but were still in copyright on that date).
Rich,
Sorry about the delay in commenting, I've been quite busy and just got back on-line. I did write a detailed response to your query about the commentator but repeating it simply, I suspect the man hasn't done his leg work (i.e. ground research). He would be surprised (BTW - If CEP is reading this and disagrees, I'd be glad to compare anacdotes and notes with you off the site).
As for Ritz, I suspect he was asking questions to get a response from me. It stank of a clumsy attempt at provocation and maybe connected to a project I'm currently working on. I have little time for wannabe spooks or amatuer agent provocoteurs.
Best.
FAQ
BOS: You know, the words 'Pop Shoppe' sprung to mind upon reading your reference to Faygo, but I figured going any further with that would be a bit too obscure for anyone outside of Canada.
Well, that, and I've a sneaking suspicion that Doug Coupland's next non-fiction book will delve deeply into the Pop Shoppe.
Cheers, Jon
Chuck, Re Break-in:
Yep, rank amateur. Either a kid, or an addled junky who's not much better for anything else to get the money for his next hit. I hope nothing of value was taken, and that the insurance company decides that this claim's just a quick check, rather than saddling the agent with paperwork.
BOS
Barney:
Gods, we're close to agreement, and I am frustrated at the lack of respect shown to your mother. Probably one of those cases where she and your dad gave their taxes and hard work to the improvement of your country and a better life for themselves, while Bush and his kin do precious little by way of real work, while using the benefits of political connections and privilege to grow fat, often for scurrilous deeds and deals. Oh, for a bit of justice, eh?
I guess the anger toward Clinton is for the ideals so quickly thrown aside in order for him to satiate some of man's more venal tastes. Bill had the benefits of both a good economy, and Democratically held Congress in order to bring about some real change. A pity more than anything else.
Chuck: Fava Beans? Nope, don't drink chianti, either. Still, I hear liver goes down real nice with Faygo Redpop...
That's disgusting on so many levels.
BOS
*** SUSAN *** This is a question for Susan Ellison if she would care to answer it. I will ask this question in the form of plugging an Ellison book appearance - I was in Borders today jotting down ISBN #s of Twain scholarship I'm hoping to find cheaper on half.com and I strolled over to the skiffy section. This was after checking the lit section to see if they had put him next to T.S. Eliot and Ralph Ellison. No such luck, although being wedged up against Silas Marner is not exactly a favor. Where was I, oh yes - so I'm checking for new anthology appearances because I know that Tim Richmond is actually REALLY getting down to crunch time and I came across WITCHES BREW edited by Yvonne Jocks ISBN# 0-425-18609-1 [Berkley TPB c. 10/2002] $13.00 with the story THE GODDESS IN THE ICE by Harlan Ellison. I got a small kick out of who he was sharing the table of contents with, ie. Benjamin Franklin and H.P. Blavatsky. If there was an Olympic version of Six Degrees of separation I think Harlan could give Kevin Bacon a run for the money. So that's the plug - here's the question. The story was copyright 1967 with a revised edition copyright 1982 and then was renewed by Kilamanjaro Corp. in 1995. I know Harlan can answer this but I also know you do his copyright stuff so here goes -
1.] At what point in revision does it become legally or technically "revised"? Can he just add a comma or is there a legal bar involving word count, etc?
2.] Is there a strategy to all this beyond not letting a copyright lapse like wait until it's due for renewal, revise at that point, renew, and thus extend the copyright as far as possible by having the copyright start with the renewal.
3.] If that's the case, is Harlan working from a precedant or trying to establish one.
4.] What's the present state of this story [Goddess in the Ice] in terms of it ever going into public domain. Do we start the clock in '67, '82 or '95.
I think you both know me well enough to know I'm not trying to josh or bust chops and that I believe whatever protects the value of Harlan's property and literary estate is what I'm all for. I'm just asking about strategy. This is far enough away from the present a*o*l situation that I thought it might be worth asking.
Anybody else WHO KNOWS COPYRIGHT may certainly chime in but please, no guessing.
Thanks - Barney
*** BOS *** Your position is probably closer to reasonable than either Todd's or my own. I think Clinton was a far better president than you do but I respect your criteria more than I do Todds for the moment. And while the disparity between the vary rich and the very poor has been under constant erosion for decades I think what contitutes the middle class briefly expanded under Clinton's 2nd term. Of course that's all gone now.
- Barney
My mom just got her 1.4 percent bump in Social Security. Lowest she can remember. This on the same day our appointed President makes a speech that inflation is under control and food and clothing is more affordable. Sure it is.
Oh Chuck,
I knew Spiro Agnew was mentally defective when I was in the seventh grade! What a jerk.
If Ann Coulter made those remarks then she should receive the same treatment as the Nazis who marched on Skokie-- we should not listen or look.. she should get nothing but dead air for her trouble.
Sorry I didn't do more than scratch the surface before making my pronouncement. Geeze...I'm not doin' THAT again.
Cindy
CHUCK,
I'm just glad you didn't stumble across the thief in the night!
A Saturn door panel we can replace-- but we can't buy another Chuck.
:)
Cindy
This has nothing to do with Trent Lott or movies, etc.
A couple of nights ago, someone tried to beak into my car. I went out to my car the next morning to go to work, and noticed the driver's side door was slightly ajar. I thought I hadn't latched the door all the way, but lo and behold there was a hole where the door lock had been. The knuckle-dragging bastard who did this must have gouged the lock out of the door, since the door panel was cracked (Saturn SL1 - plastic door panel) and now instead of heading to work, I had to call the police, my insurance company, etc.
It was a bad job of car theft, real amateur hour stuff. They must have been interrupted, or my car would have been gone.
Well, shit. Now it's time to get an estimate, do the little dance with the insurance company and get the damned thing fixed. It seems I'm not the only one who's car has been messed with, but this is the first time they got serious.
It's not earth-shaking, just a bummer.
And, BOS, nice to see you back. Nice to see you didn't have to resort to eating any long pig. Where is one to find any decent fava beans these days?
Chuck
ALEX JAY BERMAN,
Go to the Hotel Bar and have a B&B for me.
I attended a convention like that once..years ago. I can't recall what the name of it was but it was in Denver. I was introduced to A.J. Budrys there and he introduced ME to the delight that is B&B.
I HIGHLY recommend it.
:)
Cindy
I think everyone should be forgiven for mistakes made in their youth. Come on, do you really think thirty seven year-olds should know better or something?
---Peter
Todd,
"You don't have to change your opinions when I come to town. I promise."
I sure as hell wish you'd prove yourself an astute individual and change YOURS. Unlike the others here - and I know I'm good at "concealing" this - I haven't the wherewithal at this time to be objectively tolerant on the matter (hence, I dispense with the rational eloquence with which Barney crafted his counter). I would characterize my emotions about it as stormy and violent: too much of the Republican agenda is at MY expense...and, in fact, most of the country's. The left side of my brain tells me to strive for tolerance; it's the only way we can remain civilized. Many, including our two hosts, could lecture me on the point; and I couldn't disagree. They're absolutely correct. It's something I have to work on. But right now I just don't have the self-discipline or maturity.
...so, if we ever cross paths just stay on your side of the street and you won't get hurt.
"I belong to the Sky and the Sky has taken me".
Cholerically Yours,
Rob
I am at PhilCon now, and having a hella lotta fun. Reports to follow.
Barney, I'm not trying to sway anyone. There was no argument in my post. I express myself here, I don't attempt to teach or sway or gather the gang into perfect rendition or Row Row Row Your Boat.....I just like typing what comes to mind as the discussion threads twist and turn and knot.
That's all. You don't have to change your opinions when I come to town. I promise.
-TODD
Chris,
"I'll be watching my first Tarkovsky this weekend"
Just be sure you're in the right mood (so you don't later brood, "I couldn't take it I couldn't take it I couldn't take it I couldn't take it I couldn't take it I couldn't take itI couldn't take it I couldn't take it I couldn't take it..."). No partying or car chases before getting started. Just figure you're going to a meditation meeting, not a movie. Bring incense. Plan on more than one viewing. Watching and sharing it with peers can be a lot of fun. Follow these guidelines and you'll get very attached to this director.
Barney:
"Your opinions (I really couldn't find an argument in that post) have failed to sway me. I remain firmly against racist U.S. Senators and "firmly" for blowjobs."
Marvelous. In a poll of men, eight out of every ten said yes to having fellatio performed on their person. The other two just wanted to cuddle, and were soundly beaten by the octuplet when this became common knowledge.
What irks me about the question of morals and public life is how forgiving people tend to be of the transgressions of their ideological fellow travellers, and wish hell upon their opposite. Lott deserves censure, but won't get it, the same way Bill deserved impeachment and remained in office.
To me, character is of some level of importance in public seervice, at least in the performance of one's duties, and responsibility towards the electorate. I don't forgive a Clinton's inability to keep his hands off the help in the face of the promises he made of health care for all Americans, or assisting those who sat at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder to be able to better their lives, then after an eight year term of Clinton slogging his way through a morass of scandals, he left office with even more Americans without a health safety net, and an even larger divide between the richest and poorest of Americans. All of this failure I feel resulting from a President who seemed to invite scandal through his inability to control himself, undermining his credibility to govern by being unable to be forthright, to learn from past mistakes. Personally, I think Clinton one of the worst presidents in history.
Conversely, I don't forgive Lott's covering of reprehensible comments by saying that the circumstances of the ceremony took away his ability to use better judgment, and therefore made his comments acceptable in that context. To me, Lott showed the truth of the person he is, an heir apparent to that rat-bastard segregationalist Thurmond, himself a bile filled, pus encrusted walking stack of human feces I'd be proud to urinate on the grave of. C'mon, Strom, you don't need that next breath.
Wrong is wrong, irrespective of the political stripe. Punish it.
Of course, what about Duh-Bull-Ya's covering of cocaine use and alcohol abuse under the euphemism "youthful indiscretions"?
BOS
Todd, I was at at the bookstore yesterday purusing DiFilippo's new short story collection, and noted a blurb by HE on the inside jacket flap.
Rob,
I haven't seen Paris, Texas either. Definitely high on my list of movies to see. Another of Ebert's recent additions to the Great Movies list was Don't Look Now which was just wonderful.
I'll be watching my first Tarkovsky this weekend - just got Andre Rubleiv from Netflix.
Barney,
"Or was the argument that if a Democratic President had an extra-marital affair then we should turn a blind eye to all future instances of Republican corruption, racism and historical insensitivity elevated to Orwellian proportions?"
Excellent job putting that together. Only a coxcombical cretin wouldn't stop to consider the point. There's nothing I could add to the argument that would make it any more effective and on the mark.
Chris,
Ebert brought to my attention a film I'd never seen and REALLY should. PARIS, TEXAS with Harry Dean Stanton. I don't know how I let that one fall through the cracks but I'm going to rent it soon. Tomorrow we're going to check out Steven Soderberg's version of SOLARIS.
General sidenote (I like the word sidenote instead of 'trivia'; because I hate trivia): For anyone here who remembers the Vincent Price flicks of the 50's, I turn your attention to HOUSE OF WAX. Charles Bronson - in 1953 - played 'Igor', Price's mute assistant. I never knew that. It's funny as hell. I always SUSPECTED Igor was a Lithuanian coalminer.
Started my holiday movie viewing with Miracle on 34th St. (the one with Edmund Gwenn - who was also the scientist in the classic sf THEM - and Natalie Wood) and King Kong and The Iron Giant and Willy's Wonka. Love 'em all. Anyone have zpezific holerday faves of their own? How 'bout really eccentric preferences (Russ Meyer? Mario Bava? Robert Wiene?).
**And you like Ann Coulter? Are you serious? She was fired from the National Review. She's said that traitors should be excecuted so the liberals would think twice about betraying their country. She also wrote that we should conquer countries like Afganistan and covert them to Christianity. That'd take care of the problem.**
Plus she thinks women shouldn't be allowed to vote because they're too stupid. Granted, she does her best to prove this every time she speaks.
Cindy,
"But I don't understand the " Fat Jap" Spiro Agnew reference-- could you enlighten me please?"
Jap in this case is: J.A.P. or, Jewish American Princess. It was Spiro giving the Big Apple an anti-semitic smack across the mush. Spiro had a sense of subtlety matched only by Mt. Vesuvius. I think he was made VEEP so Nixon would look downright cuddley by comparison. Obviously, it didn't work.
And you like Ann Coulter? Are you serious? She was fired from the National Review. She's said that traitors should be excecuted so the liberals would think twice about betraying their country. She also wrote that we should conquer countries like Afganistan and covert them to Christianity. That'd take care of the problem.
I think you're just kidding.
Chuck
*** Todd ***
Are they paying you to swim with these sharks? Is it because they're so fiscally responsible? Is it because they're such boosters of big business? Have your taxes gone down? Are your schools or roads better? Is your local government running a surplus?
Do you live vicariously through them by watching them treat what little is left of the middle class like peasants or cattle?
Have you taken any pleasure in watching the national debate lowered to a point where discussion is on a Curious George Goes To The White House reading level? All I'm getting from you is Pavlovian outrage over some oral sex that happened about a decade ago. And you talk about moving on. Spraying a consenting Monica Lewinsky a little protein and spraying U.S. citizens with fire hoses for lawful assembly are not the same thing no matter how you try and equate them.
Your opinions (I really couldn't find an argument in that post) have failed to sway me. I remain firmly against racist U.S. Senators and "firmly" for blowjobs.
- Barney
Or was the argument that if a Democratic President had an extra-marital affair then we should turn a blind eye to all future instances of Republican corruption, racism and historical insensitivity elevated to Orwellian proportions?
ADAPTATION: The film may have a limited target audience and it is self-indulgent but I think anyone who has ever tried to put pen or pixel to paper will enjoy Charlie Kaufmann's self-reflexive story about telling a story. There have been many movies about making movies and a few about writing screenplays but none I have seen features the writing process so prominently. The screenplay is, for all intents and purposes, the main character of the film.
It addresses all the standard advice about "How to Write A Hollywood Script" and both rejects and, in a way, accepts it. Kauffmann's master stroke is, IMHO, the introduction of his fictional twin brother into the story to represent the Hollywood Way of doing things. The script is even credit to Charlie and Donald Kauffmann and the film makes it very clear where Donald steps in to help - the ludicrous ending with all sorts of action and tension and obstacles and even a car chase, all the things Charlie said he didn't want to do in the first place.
Charlie (in the movie) never quite figures out what he wants to write, only what he doesn't want to write. When he gets stuck, he falls back on formula (realized on-screen by a meeting with Robert McKee) and the result is ridiculous - intentionally so. That's definitely NOT the answer but what is the answer? Charlie doesn't quite figure it out but he thinks he knows what feels right, no matter what McKee says.
I'm trying to give an impression of the story in the vaguest manner possible so as not to spoil it but it's a lovely film for anyone interested in movies or in any kind of creative process.
Are there any pat answers or is each new story a journey into the unknown? Charlie has obviously been thinking about this for quite a while.
Just received the latest Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine in the mail today (February 2003) and was tickled to see a nice little review of Harlan's The Voice From The Edge cd in Paul Di Filippo's book review column. Nice to see a blurb on the HERC to alert those who don't already know of Susan's nifty club.
Paul Di Filippo is no pushover easy, might I add. I always enjoy his work when I can find it. I can't remember the title, but I read a truly fun tale a few months ago about a murdered husband reborn as a tree. I think the title was something about the short, ashy afterlife of FirstnameLastname.....something like that. Loved it.
-TODD
Hey all. Just a brief one to inform one and all that our DSL is now functioning again. We're alive, honest, and with only a small ingress towards cannibalism.
I do like finger sandwiches...
Have fun, and see yas a bit later, BOS
"ain't never".....Holy Double Negative Frankman! Looks like you did it! You convinced me!
-TODD
Frankie, you ain't never gonna convince me to give Jesse Jerckson a break. I have enough of an issue with my Jewish brethren often leaning left out of some God knows what guilt (Jew=Guilt, end of story)....I have a bigger issue with any of my brethren who treat Jerckson or Sharpton as equal partners in the game of life. Blindness.
As for Lott resigning....go for it! I'm all for it....I don't care squat for the man and his politics, and by constantly apologizing over and over and over without just halting these shenanigans with an assertive "Guys, enough already, let's talk about some real business....after all, isn't that what we heard for 2 years of presidential blowjobs?" he proves to me more and more that he is simply going to serve the role of Conservative Appeaser and let the slight minority Democrats (and I ain't talking about skin color, friends)keep the senate moving in no direction at all (wow, talk about a run-on sentence).
What I'm saying is this: Resign, Lott, and maybe we'll get someone with some real conservative moxy to take your place. Then again, that probably isn't possible in today's world. Liberals in power lean Conservative to keep their jobs...and shock of shocks, vice versa.
They paint by numbers in Washington, and that's why nothing gets done. Bush comes out against Lott's comments...why? Because that's the next move in the game, of course. Take two steps forward and do what the analysts say you must do, or lose the next election to the next poor schlub.
Washington made simple. Reality teevee it ain't.
-TODD
MR. & MRS. ELLISON
The book and poster arrived safe and sound today. My thanks.
Two recent favorites:
“Go in peace! I will not say: do not weep; for not all tears are an evil.” ~JRR Tolkien
“God be between you and harm in all the empty places you walk.” ~18th Egyptian Dynasty
Frank - Real Names tend to come back to my email from posting here, even without posting my address. I've discovered this after recently going back to my own. As for pseudonyms, I'm on record as saying one should use their own, but I use aliases for my own reasons, but for specific results or purposes.
For those who wondered when we were going to produce movies with CGI dead celebrities, this may be the first seal breaking:
From Dark Horizons: "The Sun reports that it looks like an actor has been found to takeover the part of Albus Dumbledore - the original star Richard Harris. It seems producers have been in
contact with various FX wizards about using facial mapping techniques with the late actor's visage for the role. Harris' stand in Harry Robinson would be on-set and would shoot the sequences, with his face later replaced by a CG rendering of Harris - already it seems "Many hours of footage are currently being scanned to see if the process is viable for the film" says one insider."
Aren't I the chatterbox today?
http://www.cafeshops.com/webderland
Did you guys see the "woof woof a goldfish" bumper sticker?* I just skimmed our products again, trying to get some ideas, and damn... We have some pretty nifty crap in there. Check it out again, see if you aren't amazed and somehow inspired to whip out your checkbook.
L.
* 3$USD with $1 of every sale going to KICK Internet Piracy. Buy lots. Give them to your friends. Slap them on your boss's car.
LYNN:
A grammatical suggestion. In the Purkey quotation, were I thee, and were I contemplating posting it in plain sight, I would change each instance of "like" to "as if." As it stands, it does read a bit ValleyGirlish. Just a suggestion.
Respectfully, Harlan
Yes, yes of COURSE I know it's LIES instead of LAYS.
:)
Cindy
LYNNIE,
Better there she GOES than there she LAYS.
:)
yer pal-- REALLY!!!!!
Cindy
Cindy~ Tsk, tsk, sweetheart. Never turn your back on a scorpion. Even if it is to run like the yellow-bellied coward you are... ::wink::
>:-}
L.
>Real dummies, this lot.<
Well, since you mentioned it, I wouldn't be too quick to call Jello Biafra a brainiac. Nor would I be nominating Howard Zinn for any major literary awards, although he does provide an alternative voice, I suppose, even though it's awfully one-note.
There's a few names here that I haven't heard of, and I don't feel any less well-read because of it. At the end, you start to cheat and pull out modern saints like Ghandi and King, as if they have something seriously in common with people like Charlie Chaplin and Michael Moore.
Sure, people like Steinbeck and Terkel had/have good minds, but don't most major writers? I don't see the point of including them, any more than I do putting in Henry Miller, who's politics would probably be rather surprising to you, Frank.
It's not often one sees Gore Vidal and Emma Goldman lumped into the same list. But adding Thomas Merton seems to me a little calculated, and finally dishonest. Maybe you should title the list, Frank.
Nooooooooo.. I don't want to save you from yourself, Frank. I like yourself just fine like you is. Those who agree with me all the time just make me sleepy.
As for Lynn's pugilistic expertise-- I found a long time ago that the best defense is a quick sprint to the toughest man or men in the room. Most of the time they protect me.
:)
Cindy (LIGHTNIN') Jones
Why can't people just post their names and not be such pussies? If you are willing to sling mud, then defend yourself with your chin in spitting distance of the eternal light.
Bern, you sure you don't have an angry ex-wife or something?
-----------
Cindy, you champion me? Does that mean that you want to save me from myself? But I will give you a hint; Lynn has a good right cross, so duck, bob and weave. You go girl.
------------
Todd, just like a damn Republican to throw the race card on a black man. I like you dude, but Jessie Jackson made a mistake a long time ago; he apologized for it, and now let's do him a favor and move on? And unlike Lott, who has a history of intolerance, Jessie Jackson has credibility on race issues that Trent Lott could only dream of. The Jewish community work very close to Jackson, and to Sharpton, so don't give the false impression that they have been booted from the debate.
Lott's comments were obvious and bile; Jackson has street cred and a record of service. Toddie baby, I expect more from you.
Lott should step down. Racist motherfucker. :-)
---------
Bern, here are a list of fellow, "rock stupid" people I have no problem being in the same club as:
Gore Vidal, Emma Goldman, I.F. Stone, Abby Hoffman, Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Michael Albert, John Pilger, Manning Marable, Ursula K. LeGuin, Adolf Reed, Katha Pollit, Eugene Debs, John Reed, Jello Biafra, Jerry Rubin, Ralph Nader, Charlie Chaplin, Bertolt Brecht, Oscar Wilde, Rudolf Rocker, Karl Marx, Mother Jones, Howard Zinn, Oscar Romero, Thomas Merton, Helen Keller, Edward Herman, Edward Albee, Henry Miller, John Steinbeck, Studs Terkel, Paul Krassner, Helen Caldecott, Michael Parenti, Jeff Cohen, Ben Cohen, Martin Luther King, Ghandi....
Real dummies, this lot. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
To Alex, and anyone else who's at Philcon: If you're looking for me, I will be the guy with brown-grey hair, carrying a green-and-brown travel bag, probably wearing a brown bombarier jacket, and maybe wearing a leather cowboy hat (assuming I don't put it in the bag). I may be standing near the estimable Diane Weinstein, who seems to attract lots of friends anyway, or (even better) a tall and striking woman with long hair for whom this Philcon is her first. Oh, and I'll probably have my glasses on, too.
Oh, and I am NOT overweight, and I have decent hygeinic habits, so I'll probably stand out from the crowd.
Hoo hah, the movie is out, and don't it suck! Told ya all they needed me. Once I came up here, to this great cabana in the sky, the whole freaking franchise has become some yuppie's action-packed wet dream. And you all thought looking for God, only to find out he was a crazed child, was such a bad plot device! Well, now you get Orcs in space...
Whoops, Janey Russell just knocked my polo mallet all over my canasta chips, trying to get in my lap. It's a closed table, sweetie! Gotta go, pals...
ANONYMOUS=SPINELESS
Cindy wrote: "I was proud of George W. for his remarks against the reprehensible statement-- that took some balls."
Huh?! It took balls to come out on the same side as the vocal majority calling Lott an ass?! Well after the furor broke?! How d'ya figure that takes any balls at all? From where I'm sitting, it'd be political suicide NOT to say that the comments were out of line.
And I reiterate, the idjit in question was spewing inanities whilst giving his crony what he considered props. He may associate with segregationists, but folks! It isn't like the guy said, "Put 'em in the back of the bus! And don't let 'em share the water fountains!" That view of the world is yesterday's news! While some parts of the world struggle to catch up to the 21st century, the rest of us should just MOVE ON.
Dubya says my religion isn't a "real" religion and people shouldn't be allowed to be practice it (just about as anti-First Amendment as you can GET), and it doesn't even get second page notice. This guy makes a thoughtless offhand comment and people freak.
::sigh:: ::switching channels::
L.
Bern:
"And you're right, I may post simplistic propaganda from time to time"
And those three working brain cells to which you ascribe your capacity should ponder the following: your own occasional forays into provincialism and illogic hardly put you in a position to condemn a fellow poster wholesale for the like. Your line of reasoning at times ran no better than Frank's. That's all. We ALL have a stake in humility where sometimes we forget it. Your thread spurred me to discard my own.
p.s. Those who came to your support (and will doubtlessly go on doing so) to characterize you as "sageful" (and I'm sure even you have to balk at that one), frankly, share the same condition.
The point was made. No more energy will be wasted on this subject, regardless of the predictable rejoinders from predictable people.
Shoulder to shoulder I stand with LYNN and FINDER, on this one-- XANDADU IS a brilliant and gentle man. Even when he's scrapping with our dear Frank... one can tell that he is not trying to cripple anyone. I suspect that had he the notion to DO that-- cripple someone verbally I mean... he would leave them wriggling along with a broken spine.
I also champion Frank Church because he is direct and passionate-- unflinching in his belief that his methods would work. They're not MY methods-mind you-- as everyone here knows we are POLITICALLY polar opposites, but you have to love Frank for his spine... it's made of titanium steel, you know.
CHRIS: Your Ann Coulter post was shameless-- I admire her politics-- but couldn't your post be tantamount to shouting " Give me the neck bone!" at Sunday's fried chicken dinner?
Thurmon IS the final flake in the crumbling portrait of Dorian Gray-- his is the mindset of someone who grew up in another era.... in a CAVE. Am I the only one who sees a similarity in Thurmon and Grandpaw on the Texas Chainsaw Massacre?
Trent, I expected more from. He's from Mississippi ( I was born in Mississippi) and of ALL people HE should be excruciatingly sensitive to what the black people suffered during those ridiculous times he referred to. I can't get my mind around his words. I am dumbfounded that a man who has achieved such a high position should be so backward in his thinking and so ignorant in his speech.
I was proud of George W. for his remarks against the reprehensible statement-- that took some balls. No matter how unspeakable the gaffe-- Trent Lott is exceedingly popular in the GOP. For George W. to cross him publicly was the right thing to do and I'm relieved that he did it.
CHUCK;
Your post was the delight of my morning.. I laughed and laughed! You're priceless!
When you wrote;
"Oh, and Todd, as for Mr. Hymietown, how about we book him with Al Sharpton and Johnnie Cockroach and tour them as the Three Low Verbals. Michael Jackson could be their opener and Lott could stand in the lobby in blackface, with an "I'm Stupid" sign around his neck. Newt Gingrich could bite the heads off rats."
I thought the aneurysm which began with Harlan's caterpillar eyebrow statement would burst.
But I don't understand the " Fat Jap" Spiro Agnew reference-- could you enlighten me please?
:)
Cindy.
Todd was right about Jesse Jackson-- I just can't stomach married men "of the cloth" that spew hell and damnation to everyone else while boinking women and spawning babies on the side. Geeze wasn't he driving the tumbrel that carried Jimmy Swaggart to the guillotine?
SCANDALOUS BABTISTS,
:)
Cindy
Harlan~ Thanks for correcting me. That one's going on my white board here at work. Right under "Not all who wander are lost." ~J.R.R. Tolkien & "Dance like no one is watching, Love like you'll never be hurt, sing like no one is listening, Live like it's heaven on earth." ~Wm. Purkey.
L.
LYNN:
You remember ALMOST correctly. I did, in fact, say it, but the way I said it was this:
It's a strange world, filled with odd-shaped people.
And I said it that way because that's the way it was said by the guy who said it first: Robert Sheckley.
Credit where credit is due.
Punctiliously, yr. pal, Harlan
LYNN:
You remember ALMOST correctly. I did, in fact, say it, but the way I said it was this:
It's a strange world, filled with odd-shaped people.
And I said it that way because that's the way it was said by the guy who said it first: Robert Sheckley.
Credit where credit is due.
Punctiliously, yr. pal, Harlan
Well, I managed to catch "Heaven" on the big screen before it tiptoed out of town. It was already relegated to a $3-per-show second-run house that allows you to ingest pizza and beer while viewing.
For those of you who missed it, this is a Krzysztof Kieslowski ("The Decalogue," "Blue," "White," "Red") story directed by Tom Tykwer ("Run Lola Run," "The Princess and the Warrior"). Cate Blanchett plays an English teacher in Turin who, fed up with police inaction after her husband and a number of her teen students die from drug abuse, tries to kill the big businessman drug dealer responsible with a bomb. But through unhappy circumstance, it blows up four innocent people instead. She's swiftly taken into custody, and the police (at least some of whom are collaborating with the big dealer anyway) grill her mercilessly about her "terrorist organization." Giovanni Ribisi is a young translator -- she insists on responding to the interrogation in her native language -- who believes in her (relative) innocence, falls in love with her, and helps her finish her mission and escape.
It's not a perfect film by any means (there are several plot developments which strain credulity), but much of the acting and camera work are breathtaking. And I've been amused by all the confusion among the IMDb reviews. Even Roger Ebert, who mainly liked the film, apparently missed the point of the ending.
I think Blanchett is my favorite actress now. There are others more gorgeous, more sexy, more striking, but she can out-act, out-chameleon them all (she was marvelous in the underrated comic caper "Bandits," never mind her more famous roles) . . . and do the gorgeous thang if she has to.
I'm sure sorry Kieslowski is no longer around to give us more rich, thought-provoking films (I haven't even seen "The Decalogue," I'm ashamed to say, just the astounding Three Colors trilogy, although I read a cool essay about the former this morning in my brand-new copy of _The A List: The National Society of Film Critics' 100 Essential Films_), but at least Tykwer is alive and kicking. I wouldn't dare miss a single one of his films.
I'm resolutely ignoring all the political sturm und drang on this board -- to say nothing of "out there" in the real world -- although I emailed a rant letter to the editor earlier in the week to protest the public dogpiling on the "What Would Jesus Drive?" movement . . . probably a tactical error on my part . . . just as I'm taking a badly needed break from all the tiresome studying and paperwork necessary to get me back into school.
So that's why you're hearing about little else than movies these days.
Alex Jay and Brian - enjoy the con. Alex, just sit back and enjoy the atmosphere - there's something distinctly heady and wacky about it.
Bern
P.S. Finder **whap**, just after I get done saying this is not a Xanadu Appreciation Board you go and appreciate me. Thank you for your kind words and defense, though.
Everyone: Please ignore Finder's last post - I warn him not to post after taking hits from the Nitrous Oxide, but he insists it clears his head. Finder, repeat after me - Nitrous Oxide Does Not Have The Same Effect As Sodium Pentathol... ;)
Xan~ You're welcome. Oh, and What Finder Said...
Finder~ You post so infrequently, I'd forgotten how much I enjoy your posts as well.
TTPBLAAJA~ Kubrick much?
Alex Jay~ I once heard Harlan say, "The world is full of odd-shaped people." The first con I ever went to, LosCon in Burbank, THEY WERE ALL THERE. Have fun and enjoy the dealer's room!
Cindy~ I haven't forgotten you, darlin'. I just think our responses were starting to look like Usenet posts, without the tiers of greater than response indicators. Tedious for this forum. If you want to chat more re: prohibition and the modern drug war, we can. cavalaxis-at-digitalcarrion-dot-com
WEBDERLANDERS~ http://www.cafeshops.com/webderland
Today is your last day for $5 standard shipping for any number of nifty schtuffs we sell, the profits of which go entirely to the KICK Internet Piracy Fund.
Did I miss anyone?
L.
BRIAN: Cool. I hope to see you there.
To Alex Berman: I shall be a mingler, as always. (I'd asked to be a panelist on the Orwell panel on Sunday. I figured, I know the man's work well beyond _Nineteen Eighty-Four_, I could talk about his work as a political journalist, and I've got a small portfolio of articles on my cv that could show that I have some minor standing as a critic. They said nope, sorry, but ask again next year. Oh, well.)
Pray for me, all. I'm heading out to my first science fiction con.
Not that he needs a testimonial from a lurker of ill repute, but if you throw down against my brother, you throw down against the whole clan.
The notion of Bern as an unwitting, programmed drone, incapable of forming his own opinions outside of the bad old evil propaganda machine made me laugh so hard, I tossed my oatmeal. That view of him shows closed-minded ignorance of who he is - and an unwillingness to learn.
I've known him for (sit down, Bern - this will make your head swim if you haven't done the math recently) sixteen years. I'm virtually a sibling by association. And across this time frame, going back to those heady days on the Southern Tier of New York, he has remained one of the least mainstream people I've had the pleasure of knowing - in addition to being one of the most logically oriented.
Make no mistake. Some may glance in his direction, see a colloquial turn of phrase or a down-home metaphor and dismiss him out of hand as some bumpkin who just toppled off the turnip truck, but this guy is as sharp as a blade just pulled from the box. I've watched him think circles around well-educated individuals, and I've witnessed him open people's eyes to beliefs, ideas, and information that run in direct contradiction to what would be considered "the norm". I wish I had 1/100th his attention to detail, a grain of his passion to know everything he can, and but a wisp of his intellect.
But what sets him apart from most people I know? He will do his research and form his opinion, and he will defend his position - but if you present him with a supported counter-position, he will give your opinion and your arguments their due. And sometimes, he's even been overheard to say "You know what? I never considered that." He will make space in his world view to explore this new viewpoint, to see how (or if) it reconciles to his own beliefs. And he will update his way of thinking on something if a cogent argument is presented that invalidates what he believed to be the meat of the matter. I know, because on rare occasion, I've changed his mind. All it really takes is a well-informed opinion and some rational discussion.
This is in sharp contrast to some I've seen who simply *must* be right, no matter how inconceivably and irrevocably twisted their world view is - those people who allow no quarter for the possibility that they might not know everything after all, and who seem dumbfounded that anyone would ever believe they aren't Wile E Coyote brand Sooooooper Geniuses.
Hey Bern - Remember Gordiano and the hot air balloon ride? Or the eventful day Lutwinvision was invented? This is the same animal, different stripe pattern. My best advice would probably be the same advice I offered back in 1987 in Bingham 235: you might as well laugh - because that's all this particular interaction you’ve stumbled into is good for.
To The Person Both Lynn And Alex Jay Addressed: henceforth known as the Poster TTPBLAAJA (go ahead, say it out loud, it has a very nice spit content....)
You don't like me, or my turn of phrase - wonderful, there's no requirement for it and this is definitely not the the Xanadu Appreciation Board. You're more than welcome to criticize, disagree, be amused by, or even sit there in seething hate of me and my posting here, it's a free country.
And you're right, I may post simplistic propaganda from time to time, but I assure you the three working brain cells in my head are overheating with effort to make sure it's at least orginally worded, thoughtful(with three brain cells it's not hard) propaganda. I also know that MY opinion on THIS board, at the very least is frequently one of the more "radical" and extreme ones - Loyal Opposition, I believe is the phrase generally used.
In any case, Poster TTPBLAAJA, welcome to Webderland as the spokesman for those who dislike Xanadu - a numberless horde, I'm certain!
Lynn: Thank you, I am quite honored and touched by your opinion of my efforts.
Bern
David David Loftus Loftus: Yes, now I need to start taking meds for memory enhancement.
CEP: It's the lack of anything resembling a careful psychiatric evaluation (much less a medical work-up) in all four cases that gives the situation some of its strange glow. They're all using the same medical centre, which probably explains some of it.
Cheers, Jon
TO THE PERSON WHO HAS IT IN FOR XANADU:
Here's a hint, cousin. That blank field at the top of the "Submit" page? The one that says "Your Name"? That's where put in what people call you, rather than the name of the person you're addressing.
"Bern is probably the most logical, rational, SANE person in this room."
Thank you. A FEW of us needed a good laugh at this hour.
BRIAN: Will you be working the con, or just an inveterate mingler like myself?
**could you please give me a list of some political writers or critics that you admire? **
I admire the hell out of Ann Coulter's legs. She may be evil and insane but I can't help but wonder what it would be like to split those uprights.
And it might shut her up for a few minutes too.
And that's my contribution to the political forum for the night.
To whomever can't figure out that their OWN name is supposed to go in the "YOUR NAME" field, I strongly disagree. Bern is probably the most logical, rational, SANE person in this room. He's taught me more about how an argument should be *crafted*, based on logical debate techniques and sound research, merely by exercising his skill at debate. Not shit slinging, not name calling, not ad hominem attacks, not petty mental sleight-of-hand. Pure, analytical THINKING. The only one who turns a phrase better than Bern (aside from our patron, goeswithoutsaying) is Rick.
{This post has been sanitized for your protection.}
Great, now I get to go to bed pissed. Again.
L.
*** Todd *** Let's stay focused here. Jesse Jackson isn't an elected official of squat. Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond are United States Senators. These are not "just folks". And 1948 isn't the last time Strom Thurmond uttered the phrase "the nigger race" in a public forum.
Is Jesse Jackson a bit of a hypocrite for calling the kettle black on this one. Probably, yes. Is he a xenophobe and racist who goes around taking pride and drawing attention to opinions that were hurtful, devisive and retrograde 50 years ago? He's not even in the same league with these dinosaurs.
Jackson said something off the record that he has been paying for and apologizing for ever since.
Lott and Thurmond go around crowing these opinions - Thurmond still doesn't believe black people are quite human - in order to curry favor with their redneck constituents. The difference is shame. Lott and Thurmond have none.
- Barney Dannelke
who is mildly happy to see Thurmond is looking more and more like Gary Oldman in makeup from his role in Hannibal.
Cindianna,
"Why do politicians have to SPEAK??????? Why can't they just shut up, stand there and look pretty?"
Because they can't help themselves, my dear. They're stupid. It's part of their job description. Even when they're Rhodes scholars like Billy-Bob Clinton. These are gregarious, outgoing people who love to press the flesh (get that dirty thought out of your mind, young lady) and talk. And talk, and talk, and talk. The worst politicians, Nixon and Newt Gingrich, for example, don't fit that mold. They are withdrawn, paranoid, bad-dispositioned people who will, sooner or later self-destruct.
Trent Lott is a dope. Like many of his compatriots, He is both stupid AND arrogant, a deadly combination. Do I think he should resign? No. Do I think his comment was an innocent flub? Okay, so he said he was glad Thurmond ran for office, that he would have been better than Truman? Better how? What caused Truman to lose the south in the first place, when he was a democrat and from the big MO? Because he committed the unpardonable sin of integrating the armed forces and promoted a Civil Rights bill.
That's what Thurmond was against. His platform was: Segregation now, Segregation Tomorrow, Segregation Forever. (to borrow from Geo. Wallace) That was the foundation of Thurmond's platform. We're not just talking about school segregation, but different water fountains (don't want to catch those nigra germs) different seats in theaters, different everywhere.
Trent Lott is a horse's ass. If the GOP wants this turd sandwich as their majority leader, more power to them. He's their albatross, they can decide what to do with him. Me, I prefer scorn and ridicule.
Oh, and "Just sit there and look pretty"? Have you LOOKED at these guys? Some of them would lose a beauty contest to Ernest Borgenine. (sp?)
Oh, and Todd, as for Mr. Hymietown, how about we book him with Al Sharpton and Johnnie Cockroach and tour them as the Three Low Verbals. Michael Jackson could be their opener and Lott could stand in the lobby in blackface, with an "I'm Stupid" sign around his neck. Newt Gingrich could bite the heads off rats.
And does anyone recall Sprio Agnew's calling New York a "Fat Jap"? You know what he was talking about.
He couldn't help himself. Patrick Buchannan was writing his dialogue.
Chuck
"Your ideas are the absolute worst kind of silly, unthinking, simplistic propaganda"
As is often the case with you as well, Bern.
It's tough to understand why anyone with psychosis would not follow through with the medications. Andrea Yates leaps to mind. Then reflecting on the film, A Beautiful Mind-- it becomes easier for me to grasp why it's hard for those afflicted to take a pill that will change their entire perception. I would imagine that there are pieces of each individual's world that would be difficult to part with.. even for an even keel.
Nice analogy, CEP-- about the artifical limbs. It had an auto focus effect on me. I guess putting things succinctly goes with your territory.
Cindy
Frank: " Xanadu, you should like USA Today; that is the kind of capitalist news rag that you should be rallying for." - I don't read newspapers - at least not pulp or paper ones anymore - my information stream is strictly bits. Those sources are varied and I go wherever the links take me.
"Hey, Bern, I feel wonderful in my own skin, as should you." - Thank you but I have no need for a Franksuit, it's probably not even my size.
"And my views are not that radical." - Never said they were, they're just nonsensical.
"You just have pre-conceived notions about how the world works based on propaganda fed to you from childhood." - spoonfed by eunuchs and buddhist monks 'til the age of 23, that's me.
"Now, granted, I am not implying that you are dumb;" - Thank you Frank, I get enough of that from my corporate masters... Oh wait, I'm an independant businessman, sorry...
"even the most learned elite intellectual knows what to believe, and is taught through the school system, and the corporate culture how to think; that is the propaganda model at work; and it works much better than anything ever tried." - You imply, I think, that all of us folks have been preprogrammed from birth to accept the status quo without hestitation. So, pardon me for asking - how, exactly did YOU escape the programming?
"Free thinking is fun--you should try it some time." - You know what Frank, coming from a guy who main thoughts consist of quotes from everybody under the sun, that statement made me laugh out loud.
"Bern, could you please give me a list of some political writers or critics that you admire? I'm curious what side of the boat you are paddling from. Thanks." - This is the god's honest truth, Frank - there are really no political writers, critics, pundits, talking heads, or analysts that I admire. I have a very low regard for media in general, and I have even less for those paid to supposedly think for me. I don't bother with predigested rehash of what should be a one minute news story. I look for solid information and follow my own research path whenever possible. I respect people that have original thoughts (even when I disagree with them) that tell me what they think about a situation, not what _I_ should think. I'm opinionated, and sometimes witty. I am to the right of you, politically speaking (aren't we all), but I think I could best be described as "independant". I'm pro-gun, pro-abortion, fiscally conservative, but I recognize that there are some things only government can do well; I think welfare is a poison that is destroying the poor, and I think the war on drugs is an idiotic holdover from a bygone era. Rational Thought is a great tool for exploring the universe, maybe the best tool, but it's hardly the only one. Capitalism IS NOT democracy it's capitalism, and your "simple" ideas for a perfect world are stone stupid.
I decided I really couldn't continue to argue with you anymore, Frank, because I have had to keep myself from just simply ridiculing you, not your message (that ridicules itself), you. I was starting to feel mean, and I didn't like it. Your ideas are the absolute worst kind of silly, unthinking, simplistic propaganda spouted by people who really have no clue how venal, stupid, selfish and petty most people really are. You make grand pronouncements that are self-contradictory and mostly illogical. I could give a damn what your politics are if only you had cogent, thoughtful, original insight to offer. But you don't, Frank, and trying to inspire some from you is like hitting my head into the same bloody spot on the wall over and over again. (Thanks for the metaphor, Chuck) In short, arguing with you was driving me bugnuts.
"No hard feelings, k?" - No, Frank, no hard feelings, have a happy holiday season.
Bern
Let me get this right.....Jesse Hymietown Jackson is actually opening his bigoted mouth to whine about Trent Lott's little bit 'o wordplay?
It's not like Lott said "If Strom were president, we wouldn't have none of those there nigras around to bother us today." Jesse did say Hymietown and called jews Hymies. Oops, whattagiveaway!
-TODD
Ya know, I always cringe at people who try to claim "my psychiatric meds ruined my life." Trust me--the alternative is usually far, far worse. Prescribing them based on a written test is ludicrous; it takes a well-informed, persistent, caring psychiatrist to deal with the situation. That's where too many patients go wrong. They expect the first drug they're given to be a panacaea, when psychiatric drugs are sort of like artificial limbs--it's a helluva lot easier to pick up a coffee cup with an artificial limb than with a stump, but it still requires training, refitting, and occasional replacement when something wears out or gets damaged.
No, this is not just a lawyerly "let's look at both sides." I have far too much experience with the situation in my own family.
Lynn,
Yeah. I noticed that, too. Not to sound reactionary or like a Dittohead, but if one praises Thomas Jefferson in the same way, is he advocating slavery? Or is praising Lincoln defying women's liberation? Is Lott saying that if we were a segregated society we would have avoided the problems to which he referred?
Not that Strom has any street cred worthy of those two presidents. He's a relic from an era best left buried.
Here's a link that might be of interest to those who like true tales of comuppance(sp?). About a guy who got scammed on ebay and managed to track the guy down, with a little help from strangers on the internet. A nice read.
http://www.remodern.com/caught.html
While everyone's breathing heavily over Salma Hayek, let me commend to your attention Mike Figgis's "Timecode," a very interesting failure of a movie dating from 2000.
For Hayek fans, there's a sequence early in the film where her character makes out in the back of a limousine with her lover, played by Jeanne Tripplehorn. It doesn't get much better than that in mainstream films. (The Hayek character later has sex with Stellan Skarsgard, but you don't get to see as much, which is probably just as well.)
It occurs to me to wonder whether "Timecode" is out on video at all. If you don't have a huge flat screen, it's gonna be really hard to make out the action, because the screen is split into four quarters, all running at the same time concurrently. See my description on AllWatchers at:
http://www.allwatchers.com/Topics/Info_7283.asp?BSID=0
Yet another thing I don't understand:
Trent Lott makes an offhand, stupid remark about something that happened fifty years ago and people are screaming for his resignation ... but Strom Thurmond who actually *ran* on a segregationist platform... is still in office.
HUH?!
Damn, I thought Mary Higgins Clark was another pen name.
- B.
Jon sort of recalled
> and the officious Major in Catch-22 whose name currently
> escapes me
That would be Major Major.
Also known as Major Major Major Major.
I can understand your forgetting his name . . . .
While the addictive thread dies down, I've been mulling over the number of people I know on prescription drugs, mainly for depression or OCD. That number currently seems like everyone, most of whom got the stuff by either filling out written personality tests or simply admitting to feeling lousy. The effects on the four most recent people I know to go down that highway include one person who's lost her sex drive, one man who's developed priapism combined with an inability to orgasm, one man who admits that he's simply affectless now and one man who's metamorphosed into a truly bizarre personality combination of Yosemite Sam and the officious Major in Catch-22 whose name currently escapes me.
And I'll I've got to add is...this is truly a disturbing universe.
The non-orgasmic priapism really cracks me up, though, even though it shouldn't.
Cheers, Jon
The true definition of success in America: making it as an answer on Jeopardy. (Or would that be a question?)
L.
I guess no one watches the evil idiot box. Harlan was a question on Jeopardy last night. I do not remember the exact answer, but it had to do with Harlan's use of pen names in some of his work. Not a big news flash, but it was fun to see Harlan's name mentioned. Maybe it was a sign. Oooooga booga.
----------------------
Xanadu, you should like USA Today; that is the kind of capitalist news rag that you should be rallying for.
Hey, Bern, I feel wonderful in my own skin, as should you. And my views are not that radical. You just have pre-conceived notions about how the world works based on propaganda fed to you from childhood. Now, granted, I am not implying that you are dumb
; even the most learned elite intellectual knows what to believe, and is taught through the school system, and the corporate culture how to think; that is the propaganda model at work; and it works much better than anything ever tried. Free thinking is fun--you should try it some time.
Bern, could you please give me a list of some political writers or critics that you admire? I'm curious what side of the boat you are paddling from. Thanks. No hard feelings, k?
-------------------
Brian, Capitalism has a residue effect of democracy at best; but we are working from todays model, which is as corrupt as the feudal systems of old.
The class system is much more pronounced now than it was years ago. Everything is just getting bigger and bigger and less democratic. Unless you think buying cheap products at Wal-Mart is democracy in action.
NOTICE:
Spoke to Zubin Jalveh at USA TODAY. Piece was bumped. He apologized for not extending the courtesy of an update call.
He tells me "it turned out to be a shorter piece," but it is scheduled for publication NEXT Thursday, the 19th. Sorry if you bought a newspaper you didn't need on my account, folks. But if it IS used next week, and you have your copy left over after reading it, if you'd pull the lifestyle section entire, toss it in an envelope and mail it to me, I'd appreciate it.
Life's like that. Harlan
For those of Hungarian descent:
http://www.notam02.no/~hcholm/altlang/ht/Hungarian.html
Well, it's really for those of Hungarian descent who've heard relatives speak the language but know very few words themselves. I finally understand what my Negymama was saying under her breath all those times she was pissed off...and verified that the potato noodles I always make for the holidays are indeed known as "Angel's Penis." Disturbing, yet entertaining. For everyone else, I guess it's a good site for finding swear words that your coworkers will probably not understand. Whee!
amy
This link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2361167.stm may have some info on smoking you haven't seen before.
David, I've known 5-6 people who smoked and used heroin. Only 1 managed to quit smoking, all of them quit heroin. They all said smoking was harder to quit. Anecdotal, but...
Alex Jay's post recalled a quote someone used as a usenet sig, maybe more apropos than ever; "Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity. It eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation."
OK, Harlan warned us, and it appears that the "bump" occured. Not being a normal reader of this fishwrapper, what is the next likely date for his story's appearance in the paper? In other words, is the Life section a daily or weekly feature?
Thanks for the input in advance.
Bern
ALEX JAY BERMAN,
I loved what you wrote about the moon.
Then you wrote;
"CINDY: If being dopers explains why we're all Democrats, how do you explain Geedub"
I was aaaaactually kiddin'-- but I suppose you could explain him the same way you explain me! He did some really ignorant things when he was younger but once he grew up he was grown.
Oh, and Happy Monday Birthday, sweet Alex Jay.
:)
Here's two kisses and a hug from me.
xxo
Cindy
Hey Greg--
I KNEW somebody was going to mention Trent. That was about the stupidest remark I've heard a politician make since, " AAhh did not have sexshul relashuns with that woman.. Miss Lewinsky."
Why do politicians have to SPEAK??????? Why can't they just shut up, stand there and look pretty?
Throwing her hands up in exasperation is...
Cindy
:)
Last words from me regarding drugs:
I'm a professional, so I can say this. I no longer do hard drugs not so much that I had an addiction to them (yeah, I know I know, we all say this, but you're gonna have to trust me on this one; after all, I'm a professional), but that the people you have to hang out with to get them... They don't bathe. They leave dirty needles so their kids can play with them. And, they just seem to be assholes, even the ones who are only in the drug game for the business and aren't users themselves.
(And don't you just hate it? You've got some white stuff on the mirror and you chop it up a bit and get ready with your straw or rolled up dollar bill or whatever and then the guy next to you pushes the lines back into a pile and starts chopping it up some more and you ask, "What the fuck are you doing?" and he says, "Chopping it up." and you say, "It's fine enough as it is." and he says, "Well, on tv..." and you explode and say, "You ain't fuckin' Tubbs and I ain't fuckin' Crockett and this ain't Miami Vice and we live in a fuckin' trailer and we certainly ain't on television 'til COPS shows up and busts us for spending fifteen minutes chopping this stuff when we should be snorting it so put the fuckin' razor down and step away from the mirror, goddammit!")
I'm telling you. It's the people that you have to hang out with that make doing drugs a bad thing.
ONE LAST MOON NOTE:
(and yes, I'm still collapsing; exhaustion has always had a hard road with me)
Upon lifting the last human foot to touch the lunar surface FROM said surface, astronaut Gene Cernan said, ""We leave as we came, and God willing, as we shall return -- with peace, and in hope for all mankind."
Why have we allowed ourselves to make a liar of him?
(I'm a few seconds away from collapsing in exhaustion, so bear with any rambling or mistakes in this post.)
FIRST, A POINT OF SOME IMPORTANCE: This Saturday, December 14th, will be a big day for me. No, not my birthday; that was Monday. Saturday, I'll be smack dab in the middle of PhilCon--my first ever convention.
But the date holds a much greater significance, and I wonder if the congoers will recognize it.
December 14th, 2002, marks the time: Thirty years to the day since men last walked on the moon. Thirty years since the last time Mankind broke free of the tethers of Earth.
And brothers and sisters, I am ANGRY. This, to me, is a sacred promise denied me and the rest of humanity.We reached out our hand, touched the sky, and then retreated, never again to soar quite so high. Man ventured out to play in the fields ogf the stars, then took his ball and ran home.
Why, why why, why WHY?!?
What have we been DOING these thirty years? Since before the invention of speech, hominids have looked up at the night sky and been awed. Religions have been based around the majesty of this sight. Poems, songs, plays, film, an entire literary genre, have all revolved around our species' lifelong dream to one day go OUT THERE.
We DID it! In the words of Wendell Patrick Magee, Jr., we dared enough to get off our asses, "reach out, and touch the face of God."
AND THEN WE RAN AWAY.
Ran away, to conduct our business as usual, our petty thieveries, internecine conflicts, deathmakings.
We had the stars amd we pissed them away. Is there any wonder I am angry?
One of my favorite books is Heinlein's THE MAN WHO SOLD THE MOON. And with each year passing, with each year spent without another try to (again in Magee's words) truly "break the surly bonds of earth," I identify more and more with the character D.D. Harriman, the man who dreamed of a life on lovely Luna, who financed and finagled and dreamed his dream aloud to others who might make it so--only to be denied that very trip he had worked so hard to make possible.
Oh, sure; there's a multinational expedition tentatively set for the Moon in 2009. But damnit, it's too late for me. And far too late for those who most deserved to see us step out into Space.
Heinlein spent sixteen years likely wondering when we might go back. Asimov, twenty. Sagan, almost twenty-five.
The question seems no longer to be "How long, oh lord, how long?", but "WILL we?"
And this pisses me off no goddamned end.
Here endeth the rant.
DAVID: Yes, but just look at how long and arduous a process it was for Stephen King to break HIS cocaine and alcohol addictions, and how much creative time he lost because of them.
(By the by: I'm for the legalization of marijuana and the hallucinogen DMT [the latter only to be allowed in supervised "trip clubs"], but I doubt I'd much partake. The first reason is that I seem to be immune to many drugs [most of the anaesthetics ending in "-caine," for example; the second because I have enough faith in my own brain to go elsewhere outside my head without chemical aid.)
(and now my one cheap shot)
CINDY: If being dopers explains why we're all Democrats, how do you explain Geedub?
Shaving my own Yiddische unibrow with regularity, I remain,
On drugs.
(Neurontin [gabapentin], a drug which stimulates the GABA enzyme in the brain. Used for problems as diverse as back pain to psychosis, it's the one antiepilepsy drug they've found for me which works, doesn't cause allergic reactions, and doesn't kill my liver.)
More S*T*A*R info: Salma Hayek is romantically linked to Edward Norton. I can't tell you how ashamed I am to know that.
amy (but even as a straight chick, I gotta agree that she is nifty.)
LYNN: Read my post again. That's exactly who I meant. (Are you going to be home tonight? I'll give you a call, if you are.)
Jim. Newsflash. Ben Affleck is engaged to marry Jennifer Lopez, not Salma Hayek.
As for the troll, my research engine churneth...
L.
Harlan,
So you're telling me that the man who wrote "Bleeding Stones," "Shattered Like a Glass Goblin," and "The Prowler in the City at the Edge of the World" is scared of a freakin' UNIBROW? What's next? Sam Peckinpah fainted at the sight of blood?
Seriously, I empathize. Everyone has an irrational aversion to SOMETHING. Me? I can't stand to touch silk with my fingernails; for whatever reason, to do so makes me shudder with disgust. Maybe I was a silkworm in a former life, I don't know.
And you're right: Salma Hayek IS nifty. Also smart (she knows four languages), sexy, and positively pulchritudinous. In a just world, she would be the Hot Latina Actress of the moment--there can be only one at a time, apparently--instead of the bland Jennifer Lopez, who is as exciting as a chalk sandwich. (Why does Ben Affleck want her? Come to think of it, why does anyone want either one of them?)
It's too bad you had such a lousy experience at the ICFA. I'm a little surprised--I've never attended, but it seems to be a professional affair, not like those fly-by-night shindigs that call themselves "conventions". I'm tempted to email Gary Wolfe and get the full skinny on what happened, but I'll let it slide.
Took only a short while to read through the posts before finding so many stoner mistakes. WR Hearst had NOTHING to do with stopping the production of hemp as paper or any other such thing. Hemp was grown in the great state of Kentucky well into the 1950's before ceasing operations, mostly due to rising doper awareness of such. (ask tokemeister Woody Harrelson about that too). Drugs are classified by "schedules" not classes. "Schedule I. - (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. (B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision." Such stuff is found anywhere on the Net or library but you were too buzzed or paranoid to look. As far as personal use goes, the stories are often amusing, like watching a drunk wet himself/herself. Anything like coke, heroin, good luck. It's a roll of the dice. If you don't care about your sorry ass why should anyone else? And no it's not an illness, it's a behavior problem, like all addictions. Illnesses just get better funding. Speaking of which, has anone seen Trent Lott?
Harlan: Understood. But ya never know. Those wonderfully weird things called 'miracles' do happen. As to all your requirements, let me see what I can do. I make no promises, but. . .
stay tuned.
And if all should work out consider it a payment to youse on a debt I can never repay.
Now. Time to harness the white terror some damn fool calls a 'dog', lug himself into the machine, power up said mechanical beast, and go to the local newstand to find tomorrow's issue of USA Today. Then back to the writing. Always back to the writing.
Oh, yes: F*** X-Mas.
Until next time. . .
ASSORTED REPLIES:
RICH: No harm, no foul. Slant right, go long.
FRANK: Knew Abbie, knew 'em all. Tom Hayden was around a month or so ago. Like Krassner, I was left behind when they went to Chicago, to crank out Yippee pr for the gaping news maw. My home was a stop on the Underground Railroad for various people who were heading for, er, other venues. Among whom were Kathy Power and Rap Brown. Talked to Bill Wyman the other day, and he asked me if I was still "hiding out those wankers doing a bunk." I told him no, I've long been a pillar of staid conformity. I don't think he believed me.
JIM: I understand "Frida" is sensational, and Susan's and my friend Alfred Molina is superb. But the simple, unvarnished (and likely wonky to the rest of you) reason I won't go to see the film is--as you posit--Frida Kahloo's unibrow, like a giant caterpillar inching across her eyesite. Call me phobic, if you wish, but the goddam thing first scared the shit outta me when I saw her self-portrait, decades ago. Not even the niftiness of Salma Hayek can drag me before a screen with Frida's entwined eyebrow extant.
And as to whether or not I'm going to the upcoming International Conference on the Fantastic in the Arts in Fort Lauderdale, the answer is NO. First of all, they don't want me. Second of all, they haven't invited me. Third of all, they ain't GONNA invite me. And fourth, and most puissant of all, if I want to be smarmily treated like dirt again, to be ridiculed and openly disrespected again, I'll go to Baghdad and sing "Eli Eli" in front of a mosque.
It has been at least a decade longer than your querulous "a couple of years ago" that I was their Guest of Honor, or Keynote Speaker, or whatever they called it. But that's a story better told by my chum Prof. Gary Wolfe of Roosevelt University in Chicago. The guy who did the OSU Press book about my work. He was there, and since he's been an officer (or Pres. or some high mucky-muck title with the IC on the F in the A), his retelling of l'affaire would seem a lot less biased than mine. So ask him.
Yr. pal, Harlan
Cindy,
"DOPERS! Explains why y'all are all democrats!"
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that the former were all BORN dead from the neck up; the rest of us strive so hard to ATTAIN that state so we's all can be as happy and blissful as you.
Stoke on THAT, you (murmer, murmer, murmer)...
"but I was a smart, observant kid whose life depended on avoiding shit that could kill me."
...not to put the weight of the obvious on anyone, especially our eloquent, eagle-eyed host (and I cannot express how delighted I was back when I first read you'd kicked th'tabbaker)but along with the nicotine frenzy, restaurant food (not just, fastfood, which is REALLY killer; I mean the high-price, ritzy binges) - if taken TOO regularly - is also amongst that shit that can kill you...slow and inexorably...giving them free radicals a field day with all the sugars, sodium, excessive commercially derived glutamates, sulfates, fats, and and so on. We're a species of self-indulgence and ALL of us find our vices, many being fatal in the immediate or long run. ALL of us.
To Tony Rabig, who wrote:
"Believe it was Lawrence Block who told the story about the writer who had the most brilliant insights into everything imaginable when he was smoking the demon weed, but he could never remember them the next morning. So the next time he lit up, he kept his notebook handy so that he could capture the revelations. Next morning he read what he'd written. Which was: "This room smells funny."
"If it ain't true, it oughtta be."
The story's been told in a lot of different disguises-- the Hollywood producer whose best ideas come in dreams, who wakes up to find that he's written "Boy Meets Girl," is one. In academia, the legend is about William James, who was experimenting with nitrous oxide gas at harvard about sixty years before Tim Leary started dosing grad students. James was having what seemed to be tremendous insights under the gas, but he always forgot them. One night, he managed to write the Secret of the Universe while it was still fresh in his mind. When he sobered up, he found that he'd written, "The Universe is permeated with the smell of turpentine."
Frank: Reading your post, the only thing that came to mind was this this:
"All animals are equal.", and everything that follows...
With this, I retire from arguing with you. You and I don't live in the same world, let alone share similar worldviews. Good luck, Frank - you're gonna need it.
Bern
To Harlan, re the tsunami that wasn't a tsunami:
Do NOT take this as any kind of snide insult or nyaah-nyaah comment, Harlan, but your note really _was_ what I'd imagined you'd be writing. I've read your comments re drugs before, you've mentioned several of those incidents in the past (for example, in the introduction to the Krassner book), and I know you don't use... but I figured it wouldn't be long into this board's chatter of Good Dope before you explained why. "Tsunami" was probably an ill-chosen exaggeration, Still, take some reasurance in the fact that, if you _had_ decided to get all Jonathan Edwards on our admissions of happy buzzes, I'd have been surprised.
I do want to ask you about one widdle bit of alcohol use. You like a decent meal every so often. How are you on wines?
To Frank Church: Sure, capitalism isn't democratic if you're working for a capitalist. And it's certainly far from real democracy. But consider how much _more_ democratic it is than feudalism, monarchism, or even religious systems of order, which were far _worse_ in that regard. Marx and Engels have been vindicated; capitalism really _has_ smashed many of the old methods of power.
Jim, thanks. It was a good time, wasn't it?
Yours in the chilling straight world, Eric
HARLAN: Dug your comments, as always, with one exception:
What's wrong with seeing "Frida"? Did you have a bad experience with a uni-brow-wearing female Mexican surrealist in your pre-Susan days, or what? (I'm with you on the Madonna thing, though. Too much baggage--it would be like having sex with Big Ben, or something.)
Oh, and do you have any plans to attend the 2003 International Conference on the Fantastic in the Arts, in Ft. Lauderdale? (You went a couple of years ago, didn't you?)
ERIC: And I dug your post, too. You're right--recreational drug use doesn't automatically turn you into a refugee from a W. S. Burroughs novel. The problem, though, is it's impossible to predict HOW how any one person will respond to drugs before he/she takes them. Will it be a fun experience, and casual in nature, like it was for you and me? Or will it become some Dantean Hell? Since there's no sure way to tell, maybe it's a far, far better thing if humanity just took reality straight, no chaser. But since that won't happen anytime soon, perhaps honesty and compassion are the two best approaches to the Drug Problem, no?
Harlan knows Paul Krassner eh? Cool, that guy is pretty radical, I mean, my level of political madness. I was curious, Harlan if you ever at one time ran into Abby Hoffman?
-------------
Michael, privacy rights are part of the democratic handout--got it! No you may not walk into my private space and eat my food, but you are welcome to clean my house.
When I used the term, "artist" I meant someone who would be approved by a democratic counsel, for the desired stipend. No way would I want a world where anyone could get the stipend; but if some group of bad artists wanted to form a collective and sell their bad art, then if they made money, then more power to em.
And, no, I do not like Capitalism, because it is not democratic; remember? Capitalism works from the top up, while democracy works from the bottom up; where the worker, has a say in how the work will be done and the desired man hours and pay scales; the worker would even be able to vote on who his boss would be. Capitalism is a fascist system of upper-managers who manage the lower-lings like trained roaches. A boss can tell a worker what to wear, when to eat lunch, when to take a break, deny any break, when to go to the bathroom, how fast he or she must work, you must call the boss, "Sir" even if the boss hasn't earned that kind of mutual respect. This is not democracy, in a real democracy, the workers would run the factory or buisiness, and have equal say on things like pay and vacation time and breaks and so forth. There would be mutual respect, and worker solidarity. All workers would help out in even the lowest of chores; there would be no elite that hide away in some office building, planning the company. There would be balanced job assignments, and best of all, no firings, except under extreme circumstances. I mean, if the Supreme Court gets to keep their gig for life, then why not a worker?
I better quit while I'm ahead. This subject is boring the room.
---------------
Message from me: Drugs are bad, except in moderation. And, it is a matter of CHOICE!
Or maybe not...the Asimo site says it stands for "Advanced Step in Innovative MObility."
Come on...can't be a coinky-dink...
To HARLAN ELLISON re: my post on Pot Stories...:
I apologize. No annoyance intended (isn't it always the case?) as I remembered this "introduction" not from Amazon, but from Quality Paperback Books, which also listed your name for the introduction. And I certainly didn't mean to imply that you were in any way shape or form advocating a certain stance with regards to the wacky tobacky. Given the way the posts were going and my lame attempt to interject your name into the discussion, I can see how the post could be inferred in a way I did not intend. (I was really thinking about the book itself "being good enough for me" and not pot. But, like all half-assed writers, my meaning was not clear.) Again, I apologize.
Scraping the ground with my pointy head, gnashing my teeth, and rolling in the ashes,
Sunny Jim (otherwise known as He Who Doesn't Know When to Be Quiet)
>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021211/ap_on_hi_te/japan_robot_1<
New story on the cool Honda robot, named Asimo. Has to be for Isaac, right?
And since we're on the subject . . .
MOJO magazine, the British music monthly, has a cover article on the 100 greatest drug songs ever (with accompanying CD). I was shocked by the inclusion of two songs: "Got To Get You Into My Life," by the Beatles, and "Red Balloon," by Tim Hardin. The first is a love song to marijuana; the second, to heroin. I guess Bill Hicks was right: all the good songs WERE written on or about drugs.
Believe it was Lawrence Block who told the story about the writer who had the most brilliant insights into everything imaginable when he was smoking the demon weed, but he could never remember them the next morning. So the next time he lit up, he kept his notebook handy so that he could capture the revelations. Next morning he read what he'd written. Which was: "This room smells funny."
If it ain't true, it oughtta be.
--tr
>This summer, I finally acquiesced to a friend's long-standing desire for me to try pot. I tried it. I coughed a lot. It burned in my chest. I felt nothing else. I have had no urge to try it again.<
Hey, didn't I just...
Forget it. (Am now going off to bungee-jump with a Tom Clancy novel in hand, visions of J Lo's rear end dancing in my head...)
So I check in on Webderland after a day's absence, and, well . . . you know that scene in the Cheech and Chong movies where someone opens the van door, and all this grey smoke just POURS out?
My position on legalization of narcotics is Libertarian in nature: Drug use is, ultimately, a private, consensual act, and the government has no business criminalizing the matter. To punish simple possession and use of narcotics is dumb, and to imprison otherwise law-abiding citizens for holding picayune amounts of them is positively insane, in my view. Should narcotics be legislated, zoned, taxed, and restricted? Yes, JUST LIKE ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO IS. Otherwise, whose business is it WHAT I choose to do with my own body, and on my own time? Because it's marijuana? Go choke down another snickers with your apple martini and your Pall Mall, and shut the fuck up, already.
That said, I'm not sure the idea of MORE culturally-sanctioned drugs is a good thing. We're doped up enough as a society, whether it's with booze, coffee, krispy kremes, or 500 channels on our satellite tv. It's hard enough to know WHO'S being straight with you these days, in ALL senses, without worrying if someone's picked up a pack of Acapulco Golds from the local smokeshop, to boot. I mean, shit folks, I know reality can be a bitch, but most of these drugs make the little communication we DO manage to have almost impossible.
And I don't say this as some drug virgin--in my first two years of college, I smoked, snorted, swallowed, and popped EVERYTHING. I repeat: EVERYTHING. I'd lived a fairly straight-laced existence in high school, so I wanted to experience what I'd only read about in books. And you know what? For the most part, it was FUN. Except for my first drinking binge, I can't say I had one scary experience with drugs, at all. (Well, there was that moment on acid when Tom Waits was crawling out of the speakers, but even THAT was kinda cool.) I was moderate in my use, I never operated a vehicle when I was high, and I certainly never killed anyone (I think). I tried it, it was interesting, and, except for the odd social drink since, that's been it. (Prescribed medications are another matter entirely.) I don't regret anything, and I'm proof that you can do them, have your fun, stop before it becomes a problem, and emerge from it unscarred and maybe even, in some ways, BETTER for the experience.
But looking at all the people who regularly imbibe SOMETHING, folks like me who can take it or leave it are in the minority. Drug use is basic to human existence. Whether that's a sad thing or good, I can't say. And for that, I'm glad: I've stopped insisting that a Utopia would arise if everyone copied my behavior.
TO JIM HESS:
Unlesss there is an extenuating circumstance of major urgency, my policy as regards store signings (having just done 13 in one day, plus an evening reading, in San Francisco) is simple:
I support independant bookstores absolutely.
I choose NOT to sign at chainstores.
I will happily sign anywhere I happen to be.
Bringing me in to a far venue would have to include airfare for Susan and me, and would likely be counter-productive for a small shop. But it's happened.
I insist on the gig being handled professionally, and not slapdash as is often the case with small shops that don't know how to run their business. Advertising & pr are a MUST!
Each case is handled idiosyncratically.
Harlan
AND TO RICH, RE: HIS TUESDAY POST:
I did not so much write an "Introduction to POT STORIES FOR THE SOUL" as I wrote what was CLEARLY CLEARLY CLEARLY (oh, and did I mention it was) CLEARLY an anti-marijuana essay for my longtime friend--and grass-puffing maven--Paul Krassner. There is NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING (oh, and did I mention there was) NOTHING in that short piece to afford you the rathole "if it's good enough for Harlan to have written an intro for...it's good enough for me." Paul was supposed to use the piece as an Afterword, but the publisher thought my name might sell a few extra copies and the snippet became an "Introduction"; so to my chagrin, when Amazon.Com listed the book, they made it look as though I was the co-author. It took a gardyloo at 180 decibels to get them to drop it. At least I was assured they'd dropped it. But, who knows, with this goddam system. Friendship may have put me IN the book, but I do not ENDORSE any part of the book save my poor meager scrawlings.
Get it straight, Sunny Jim.
Unsettled, I remain, with annoyance, Harlan
There's a difficult balance to strike. I'm a firm believer that everyone should be allowed to fuck themselves over in any way they like. And this bullshit from the anti-drug forces about how you're not just victimiizing yourself but you're also victimizing your family and friends - well, it's true but the same damn thing's true about working too many hours, overeating and being an asshole. And none of those are illegal.
On the other hand, we do live in a society and, because of that, we do NOT have the right to do whatever the fuck we want to. You can't blast your radio at 4 a.m. in your apartment. That's a right you should have, of course, but yout neighbors have the right to peace and quiet too and their right trumps yours. You can't drive at 140 mph through town. You SHOULD be allowed to have that right and kill yourself if you want to but, fact is, there are other people on the road who have the right to get home safely. Same for drunk driving.
So where do we draw the line? I think if you're in your home, do anything you want to do. In public, there would need to be restrictions but I don't claim to know where to draw the line.
Personally, I don't smoke or do drugs. This summer, I finally acquiesced to a friend's long-standing desire for me to try pot. I tried it. I coughed a lot. It burned in my chest. I felt nothing else. I have had no urge to try it again. I didn't drink alcohol at all until two years ago when the same friend (hey, wait a second - I see a pattern here) offered me a beer while we were camping out in the woods. I was in a shitty mood and thought "Why the hell not?" Wound up drinking 24 cans and half a bottle of Wild Turkey on my very first night of drinking of any kind. So now I know what's it like to be drunk and I'm glad to have that experience. Since then, I've had the occasional beer or glass of wine but that's about it.
Generally speaking, I am loathe to take too many mind-altering substances. I even avoid most legal madicinal drugs when I can. I have never understood the urge to "escape" one's mind. I like my mind. I like it the way it is. I know some people consider it mind "expansion" but I don't understand that. Seems like you wouldn't want to do that to yourself unless you were really unhappy with the way your mind normally works.
But that's just me and to each his or her own.
TO ONE & ALL
but
MOSTLY TO DAVID LOFTUS & BRIAN SIANO:
Expecting an anti-drug "tsunami" from me, are you? A papal bull, mayhap? Some enraged and blood-passionate pronunciamento inveighing against the soul-scouring and intellect-sodomizing side-benefits of dope . . . that what you thought I'd send winging down the e.ways to you? What a boogeyman I must seem.
Clearly, after all this time, you people STILL don't read me accurately. What the hell do I (STRESS CAP) care if you snort shoot suck up drink down or wear as a party hat the most deadly virulent horse-trank kitty-flippin' crystal meth skank the world has ever known? What you put into your widdle bodies, good or bad, from McDonald's aorta-cloggage to vapor-base Xtasy is YOUR business, chillun. How you select which door you wish to open to gain access to Hell is YOURYOURYOUR concern. Those who wish to delude themselves that a congeries of the million-plus alien and native substances available to b r o a d e n their world-view or put lead in their pencil or enhance their sensory input or better their high-jump or mitigate their angst or reduce their back-pain are--in my laissez-faire view--entitled to fuck themselves up as much and as permanently as they care to.
Absolutely.
Who the hell you think I am, your Mommy?
All my life, from my first days on the road at age thirteen, I've been surrounded by people "using." Booze, coffee, pain killers, medications, drugs, marijuana . . . but I was a smart, observant kid whose life depended on avoiding shit that could kill me. (As a long-time heavyduty heroin addict, a buddy of mine--now dead--once put it, "It ain't the shit you get that kills you; it's the shit you don't get.") And I watched and observed and figured it out early-on. So with only a few exceptions, I've just sidestepped and blown off and avoided those who "felt the need." Nonetheless, the most personal lessons I learned close-up and intimately: I had a girl friend o.d. in a bathtub while I was down the block in Greenwich Village geting Chinese takeout. Came back, she was dead, hair floating like plankton. I saw a bindlestiff I was riding with get both his legs taken off above the knees when a dope-impaired perception led him to extend his
limbs out the open door of a boxcar. I saw Charlie Parker go into a bathroom to fix, at a $2-a-head spaghetti rent party up in Spanish Harlem, and almost wept when he came out and blew so badly, so erratically, so amateurishly, that if one didn't know it was Bird, one would've sneered and hooted him out of the room.
As they say, amigos, been there, haven't done that.
I don't use, because I don't need it. Never have. Don't anticipate I ever will. There's a number of dumb for-assholes-only things in this Good Lifetime I have no interest in partaking of: bungee-jumping, fucking J.Lo or Madonna, steak tartar, organized religion, novels by Tom Clancy, seeing "Frida" and, top o' my list: doing the dance with devil dope.
But that's me. I also don't drink. But that's another tale, for another time. Suffice that I have NEVER drunk. Not even beer. (Which looks soooooo rich and golden and luxurious, but tastes like effluvium to me.
You wanna make a case for it, knock yourself out. You want to rock the spike, get it awn. Just don't lean in my direction when you start to fall.
That's as close to "tsunami" as you're going to get from the boogeyman.
And yes, I WILL be getting around to telling you how I kicked cigarettes. When I have the time.
Till that time and inbetweentime, have a ball, won't'chu all.
Harlan (Now clean and sober 67 years.)
>I HAVE smoked pot-- the seventies.. remember? It made me sleepy one one occassion, on another it made me laugh and laugh.. but mostly it smelled really really bad.
Can one ever get through a communal drug discussion without hearing numerous testimonials about how someone has tried it, didn't really see the point, finally didn't really like it, but is now nonetheless qualifed to discuss recreational drug use, even though THEY THEMSELVES are not or were not recreational drug users? The not-so-subtle implication here is that to be taken seriously on this issue, you can't be perceived as an actual enthusiast.
I say HARUMPH. I smoked pot and hash for a good solid five years, and loved every minute of it. When I lived in Germany for two semesters, I made numerous trips to Amsterdam to sample their finest products, in their wonderous hash bars, and later went down to Morocco with a group of friends on what was nothing more than a pure hash odyssey.
Although my preferred method of indulgence was hash under glass, I did bongs, joints, one-hits, whatever worked. I met lots of fun people with a similar interest, including many hot ladies with open minds, and clinging together in our cloud of smoke we managed to survive the Reagan years with our sanities and sensitivities intact. Pot culture turned me to all sorts of things that I would not have found otherwise, hailing as I did from a cloistered yuppie Chicago suburb: alternative music, underground comics, radical politics...the usual trappings.
All things must pass, of course, and one moves on to more "adult" pursuits: a marriage, a family, a career. But to those who like to say "well, I tried it once, but never got high" I say you tried the wrong weed, dude. And while I myself, alas, no longer "live the lifestyle," I say salut to those who still can manage it, without getting busted or fired or pilloried as losers.
Sophomoric closer: put Saddam and Dubya in a locked room with a bong and a bag, and say, finish it and then we'll work things out. Who knows what would happen. Sure couldn't be any worse than what's happening now.
FRANK: Is there food and drink in your kitchen today? My family and I will be in this evening to help ourselves. Have you a car? I'll expect it to be in front of my house tomorrow at 10:00 am, as I have an appointment at 10:30. You'll be driving, so arrange your schedule accordingly.
Any artist worthy of the title has spent years of effort as well as money and devotion learning to do what they do as well as possible. Lord knows I have, and still do. When I offer my art to the public (currently Shakespeare's "Twelfth Night," opening January 10th at the Adobe Theater, call ahead for reservations) you can be damn sure that I expect to be compensated for my effort. If you are enjoying my art without said compensation, and without my express permission, you are guilty of outright theft, plain and simple. There is no other way to look at it. Your remarks here regarding what you see as what is "fair" regarding your enjoyment of someone else's effort are both ignorant and rude, and any artist who reads them should and will be offended by them. I hope this is not deliberate. Perhaps you should give this matter some RATIONAL thought, particularly before posting these sentiments on a bulletin board ostensibly dedicated to the life and work of a very talented and hard-working artist.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Blum, artist
who finds himself incredibly fed-up with small-minded, unimaginative, uncreative bozos whining about what they "deserve" from an artist
WELL SHIT!
I was just in the process of my last edit on the post that follows and it SENT IT OFF in PREVIEW MODE!
Soooo I didn't get to fix my typos like "forfeit" or any other damned thing.
I musta hit a button or something.. in any case.. y'all are getting the unabridged version. Scroll past it anyone who isn't able to look beyond the length or the rough cut.
:)
Cindy
GAAAAAAHDDAMN! Buncha fuckin' DOPERS!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!! Explains why y'all are all democrats!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!!!!!!!
Nooooooo, seriously folks.... step back a second.. this is going to be war and peace as I answer Lynn's remarks.... uh, hold your applause until the end of the show, please.
LYNN WROTE;
I love Trainspotting. It doesn't glamorize drug use, but then it doesn't glamorize day to day life in urban industrial Scotland either, does it?
Me: LOL! When my second daugther was in high school she said if she HAD been inclined to experiment with drugs Trainspotting would have cured her of it permanently. The scene where the guy craps his pants was attractive.. then there were the parents who were so stoned they forgot about their baby who consequently dies of neglect before they snapped out of their drug induced stupor. It was VERY enlightening to Savannah .
Not ONLY do the drugs in that catagory melt your curcuitry and make your brain unable to release endorphins-- ( no more rush when you see the man of your dreams) they enslave those who use them. If THAT is not victimization ( passing a curse of THAT magnitude on to someone else) then there ain't a cow in Texas.
Here Lynn responds to my idea for substance abusers.
"Sounds like an alcoholic's halfway house, only these people aren't arrested for being bad citizens. They're criminalized by the mere presence of a "controlled substance". Haven't committed any crime other than possessing something the government doesn't want them to possess. I could twist this into some sort of Free Speech argument, but I don't want to go there. Yet."
That is what I am saying, it's an illness... self induced-- but an illness nonetheless. People who are on drugs and people who are addicted to alchohol cannot control their own behaviour... no matter what they stand to lose and no matter what it could cost someone else they can't forfiet the feeling they get from the substance.
When I wrote, "I believe there should be different jails for different crimes. Drunk drivers should go to the dorm with the druggies. If they can't keep from driving they should be locked up... not with murderers and rapists but with other habitual chemical offenders."
Lynn writes:
"Again, you misconstrue. Possession of a controlled substance gets you hard time, not violating any other law. Mere possession, or possession with "intent to distribute". At least with alcohol, you have to endanger someone other than yourself before Unka Sam comes down on your head."
ME: No, Miss Lynn, YOU misconstrue.. I am not discussing reality as it is now.. but as I would have it. I like my envisioned world-- don't you?
I WROTE;
"The big thrust should be in preventing the victimization of others. Taking drugs off the sreet and locking up those who would prey on the vulnerability of others ( in particular children and adolescents) is an exercise in futility but a worthy one. "
LYNN WRITES
And again, you presume that drug use means victimization of innocents. I'd ask yourself how much you've bought the party line. And then reexamine the number of rich, white, landed gentry doing coke on their lunch hour away from the trading desk who end up doing hard time vs. the number of minorities in prison for "possession." Last time I checked, my sister's friends at USC were driving their Porsche's into South Central to pick up their nose candy, and driving away when the cops busted their dealers. Hmm. Makes you wonder.
I RESPOND:
No presumption to it, Lynnie, drug dealing IS t he victimization of innocents, and that has nothing to do with any party line. I don't care what the party thinks about this issue I only know what I have observed. The rich can be victimized just as the poor-- whites just as easily as blacks and NO ONE should get a pass on it. RIGHT OR WRONG, right NOW , the way things stand.. your sister's affluent friends are courting a fall... if they're caught they will be just as busted as the dealers.
I suggest that THOSE WHO KNOW what it has done to people's lives.. then choose to offer it to those who have not had their brains cauterized SHOULD be accountable on a higher scale-- and it should not matter WHAT color their skin is or what their socioeconomic status is.
LYNN:
"The program I watched pointed out how much corruption took place during Prohibition. You think it isn't happening in law enforcement today?"
ME: There is no doubt that it is happening.. especially in the South where cops have a vested interest in making big busts that net their departments vehicles and large sums of cash.
I WROTE:
"As for pot.. don't we all know at least one old doper whose only ambition in life is to toke, or a pot smoker who is brilliant beyond words but just doesn't live up to his amazing potential because the weed has dulled his ambition?"
LYNN RESPONDS:
Yeah, I also know some incredibly creative, talented people who use recreationally and function just fine. They even pay taxes and hold down jobs. Just like the folks who drink.
I RESPOND:
LOL-- little smartass!
:)
I'll give you that there are those who can function on a higher level and still toke I would lay odds that they are in the minority. Most who get hooked on pot don't achieve what they would have. I grew up in the SEVENTIES my argument is not merely academic. .
TO MY REMARK:
"I don't want my kids to think it's an acceptable recreation-- I've seen too many people fall short of their potential due to weed. We already have to try and steer them around alchohol why broaden another avenue of destruction?"
LYNN WRITES:
Um, because they're intelligent people who can make their own decisions about what to do because their mother raised them right? ::grin:: Don't fool yourself into thinking that making something illegal is gonna keep your kids from getting into it without you having instilled a sense of self-preservation and self-respect into them.
ME: FOOL myself? Hmmmm..... spoken like someone who hasn't raised a brood just yet. I know this with certainty.. not just because of my kids but my own experience. You can teach them what you will and strive to instill in them self respect and judgement.. but they will still be succeptible to their peers. The old adage is still as applicable.. Show me your friends and I'll show you your future. If their peers think it's cool to smoke dope ( or drink beer) it is the exceptional child who will abstain from it. I don't fool myself.. mine is a long life of lessons learned.
LYNN:
"Traditionally illegal? Did you know, Cindy, that pot was made illegal in the 30's not because of its mind-altering proper but because hemp paper was significantly cheaper to grow and manufacture than wood pulp paper. And folks like William Randolph Hearst and a few others, who made their fortune on paper (and the yellow ink printed on it), talked to their cronies in the government to see about changing the situation. So again, I ask you, how much have you swallowed the party line?"
ME:
70 years is long enough to establish a tradition. I don't know about cheap paper and I am not concerned about the " party line". What I am concerned about is my children. I watch my kids myself.. I don't delagate that honor to anyone else. I don't even use babysitters, but I eventually send them to school. It REALLY PISSES ME OFF when MY kids are exposed to dope AT SCHOOL!
My second daughter, ( in high school at the time) came home with the classic red eyes and Mona Lisa smile.... I said, " Savannah? Who have YOU been tokin' with?" Her eyes got wide like " Whaaaaaaaaaaaaat?" She had momentarily forgotten, I suppose that I grew up in the seventies in AUSTIN, where I practically LIVED at Armadillo World Headquarters. I then told her that all she had to do was look at my stepbrother Jerry, who is now 60 years old and hasn't worked a day since his mother married my father. All he does is smoke dope. I have a cousin.. same deal-- SMOKES DOPE-- NO AMBITION.. I don't know WHAT he does but he looks like a member of ZZ Top. Countless people I went to high school with are in the same boat with ol' Jerr and ZZTop-- menial laborers who punch a clock and take their checks and flush it away on another lid.. or whatever y'all call it these days. After the lecture I made her something to eat.. 'cause YEAH she was hungry.
LYNN:"And as I watched on this program, prices would drop, usage would drop, safety would go up... I was stunned at the parallels between alcohol prohibition and drug prohibition. Stunned, I tell you. (Not to mention, it could be taken off the controlled substance list and used LEGALLY in medical research, and we could find much cheaper, more easily renewable ways than cotton and wood pulp to make fabric and paper...).
ME:
Lynn, darlink mine... do not be decieved there IS no replacement for cotton. Cotton is KING.
LYNN:
And no, I don't partake. I got enough problems as it is to tempt fate by breaking the law. But I have friends that do. And the only thing "criminal" about them is that they like to relax in a fashion that the government doesn't approve of, and just might send them to jail for. Does that even remotely make sense?
ME:
I think it's sad that they risk compromising their potential for a buzz. Some will be fine others will be limited for life. I see no sense in taking that chance.
HERE CINDY FESSES UP!
And Oh yes, I HAVE smoked pot-- the seventies.. remember? It made me sleepy one one occassion, on another it made me laugh and laugh.. but mostly it smelled really really bad. I did it a handful of times.. I'd rather have a Pearl Light... and that ain't sayin' much.
Party line has nothing to do with the way I feel about anything... I don't vote a straight ticket and I don't buy everything the GOP cranks out. They just line up better with what I believe.... People who make money should be ENTITLED to the rewards of their labor.... those who can work--SHOULD... guns belong in the hands of QUALIFIED citizens and the government should be COLORBLIND. We should protect the weakest and most vulnerable among us and nobody's rights should trump anyone else's. Murder someone.. take their rights or their lives and YOURS shall be sumarilily taken from YOU.
CINDY TELLS ALL!
I've also seen what cocaine can do-- I lived near and spent alot of time in Aspen during the 80s. Like Tom Hanks-- I tried it. I would have NEVER done anything like that before.. not even in high school But you hang around people that do it long enough.. and you start to think, " It doesn't hurt THEM. Eventually someone will catch you at a weak moment... as in my OWN case when I was about to get on an airplane for a trip-- I am terrified to fly. I'll take a train over a plane ANY day... but on THIS occassion I was fixin' to fly. My friend said he had "laid out a bump on the towel rack" he said, " You're afraid to fly? You do this and not ONLY will you NOT be afraid to fly you'll be sayin', ' step back-- I'm gonna FLY this plane." After you do it that first time and realize how subtle the substance's influence is -- you think.. it's NOTHING just a little powdered courage... THEN you realize that it has certain medicinal properties. If you've had one too many and you do coke.. you will feel instantly sober. Like I said, after the first time the stigma fades. At parties in Aspen they had bowls full of it. Take what you want. It will keep you wide awake all night long and drinking will have no apparent effect on you .
I was very lucky. On one occassion that when someone pulled it out I realized suddenly, that I was entirely too delighted by the prospect of the powder. I stopped immediately and never did it again. It was like a light going on in my head and I could see how somebody-- no wait... I could see HOW I could become addicted to the stuff. After that night I stopped going to parties in Aspen and I stopped hanging around with those people.. finally I got my perspective back. I moved back home to Texas and all of that became an embarrassing memory of what my life had degenerated into after my divorce.
Cigarettes not addictive? Lynn, Lynn-- don't bet on it. THAT is a monkey that will climb on your back and before you know it his fingers will be knotted in your hair. I quit twice... the last time almost 16 years ago. Now i'm a hypocrite-- I get furious when I walk into a store with my shiny freshly Pantene shampooed hair and walk out with it stinkin' like an ashtray.
DON'T DO IT RECREATIONALLY AND YOU WON'T GET THAT STINKIN' MONKEY ON YOUR BACK in the FIRST PLACE! Oh, and try Pantene it will give you incentive... it smells DEVINE.
If you're gonna make all the illegals legal, why not sell prescription painkillers over-the-counter? After all, most people get hooked on drugs to cope with the pain of life, and if Winona Ryder is any example, liquid Darvon would seem to be a more popular choice than heroin.
Pretty soon we'd all be doped up, just like in Brave New World, somatose, and then the machines would take over, and then...oh, we've been here before...
WEIGHING IN ON ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCES: Lynn, I have to say that most people who take up smoking DO become addicted. Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances around (I think I've read that it's as tough to kick, for a lot of folks, as heroin). Perhaps you meant to say _some_ people can use it recreationally without becoming addicted. But I agree with you (and others) regarding the marijuana issue -- it IS stupid to keep it listed as illegal substance when so many people in America die from abusing alcohol. ('Course, I wouldn't be surprised if liquor lobbyists in Washington have some say in the legality of Maryjane and her sisters). The one addictive substance most people don't seriously discuss is caffeine. I'd guess that about 90% of the U.S. is using the stuff in one form or another: coffee, soft drinks, chocolate. And it's a bitch to give up. I quit smoking cold turkey, with the only side effects being weight gain and that nagging urge to put something in my mouth (which subsided after a year or so -- about the same time I quit having the urge to smoke a cigarette when I saw someone else lighting up). But when I quit coffee cold turkey I had the shakes (and nearly all of the other symptoms) of a heroin junkie for about three to four days. Even now I haven't thrown the monkey completely off my back: I STILL like to have a piece of chocolate (or two) nearly every day. And while I admit the taste is delicious, I also have to admit that I get a rush from the caffeine. So I'm still not "clean." Maybe someday.
--DTS
Jon,
"pot -- personally, it affects me like kryptonite affects Superman...So use something like an Amsterdam solution, and worry about other stuff. People like to get f**ked up. "
I have one friend who expresses pretty much the same about its effects. He doesn't like it at all, so he keeps away from it (opting instead for cigarettes so he can poison my lungs with second hand smoke; actually, I brandish hefty threats if he DOES try that around me. I'm VERY intolerant of being engulfed by nicotine clouds. And know what? So long as you can sit there and smoke that fucking thing and take my life along with yours, I'm not interested in hearing blind, unscientific, across-the-board giberish about taking substances. You're being dependent as anyone is else. RECREATION is one thing; DEPENDENCY is another issue. Isn't it interesting how second-hand smoke from pot doesn't effect me but cigarettes send me into athsmatic spasms? I mean NONE of this stuff is GOOD for you, with the exception of anything with medicinal side-effects; but it IS relative).
Interestingly, on MY end of it, I don't feel ANYTHING. Not one damn thing. DRIVING? I've joined friends puffing on a bong for an hour; I drive FINE. I even drove past a cop once after a few stokes. Why did I keep puffing if I didn't feel anything? Because I kept hoping I would (I mean I get a light, "dainty" tingle when I swig wine. So how 'bout the hemp, baby? Let's have some action! Nope. NO action). I have friends who vary as much in their reactions; some very much like me. Others react visibly to its effects. Now, before you's all jump to the conclusion that I just kept taking ineffective "Clinton" puffs, I DO, on the other hand, feel the effects of hashish ; it has a caffeine-like effect on me and I tend to talk a bit faster. Other than that I'm still in control of my senses. Alcohol, to ME, is far more potent and far more dangerous; so are cigarettes. It's clear to me it all depends on individual metabolism; everyone has a different reaction. Some people crave milk; others are lactose-intolerant.
Given the option open to an individual to try pot or avoid it if he finds he just doesn't like it (and I only stoke it on occasion myself; in fact, it's been well over a year since my last), marijuana is OBSCENELY innocuous, compared to other substances out there , legal or otherwise.
I don't mind the individual choice of taking a substance. Ban one and people will find something else to take. It's been a human tendancy since our species first saw the sun rise. It's only the abstraction of a law that stigmatizes the reputation attached to one substance or another; had marijuana been legal all this time, it never would have found the silly designation, "the gateway drug". Individual RESPONSIBILITY is another issue; if you can't handle the use don't hang around me (just like with someone who drinks or smokes). And dependency on ANYTHING has a deteriorating effect (whether we're talking substance use, tv, or chocolate). (BTW, do you know CHOCOLATE was illegal in a part of the world once, hundreds of years ago?).
Instead of irresponsible government spots piling all substances together in their "consequences" and mythologyzing it all, education is more crucial; supplying accurate, objective information about the chemical effects, history, and risks of each and every one of them...with the realistic EXPECTATION that someone, somewhere is going to try them and knowing the more they understand it before experimenting the more savvy they'll be of the precautions (I once had a remarkable book called RECREATIONAL DRUGS that served this purpose exactly; it was very scientific. Because of it, and because I knew a few things about my metabolism already, there were SOME things - particurlarly the chemically addictive stuff - I wouldn't try. I LOST the damn book when I lent it out and I really regret it).
>Do you think people having a joint now and then is such a dangerous thing, worthy of the billions of dollars in taxpayer money spent preventing its use? <
I sure don't, and I could sure use one right now, a big, fat, spleef, filled with a mixture of hash and tobacco...you can't do better than that...
I smoked my share of weed in college, but dropped it when I started having kids. Have to set an example, don't you know. I've had the occasional social puff since then, but it's not the same. Legalize it. Tax it, restrict it to over-21, and a lot of problems are solved...money is made instead of spent.
As for the narcotics, it's a tougher sell to legalize coke, smack, etc. While the denizens of this board may have the personal maturity to function in a world where crack cocaine is sold next to those little bottles of vodka, I'm afraid that most of the great unwashed aren't going to handle the buzz. This is a country where people are suing each other for being fat, remember. It's a country where yahoos insist on trashing our national forests with snowmobile runs, gamely support a presidential administration that threatens first-strike nukes against Iraq, and provide loads of Nielson demographics to keep all those reality-TV shows on the air.
Do I want these people legally loaded up on crystal meth? No. But they can smoke all the hooch they want...
> You realize that we should be getting the anti-drug
> tsunami from Harlan any day now.
Only after he gives us the promised story of how he kicked his many-decades-long tobacco addiction....
By the way, if you keep your eyes open, you'll find the most surprising allusions to drug use (or at least experimentation) out there.
Everybody knows about Carl Sagan, of course, but Tom Hanks has admitted to trying cocaine -- no problem -- and Dr. M. Scott Peck had an interesting aside about heroin addiction early in his recent book about "death with dignity" (he's against that, by the way, and I don't find his arguments particularly compelling). As a young physician treating vets returning from Vietnam, it was his observation, as I recall, that heroin addiction is not half as gripping as it's made out to be. Apparently a lot of soldiers kicked the habit pretty easily once they left Southeast Asia.
Peck may also have stated that nicotine is more addictive than heroin, and I suspect he's not the only one.
As a former and sometime distance runner, I dislike putting any foreign substances in my lungs, so I've smoked pot only about half a dozen times over the course of the last 37 years -- more, I'd say, in a spirit of communion with the people I was with than out of any desire to get high. I'd sooner do (more) hallucinogens, if I had a reliable source.
But the hypocrisy of getting all tied in knots over marijuana when tobacco and alcohol kills thousands of people every year is the height of absurdity. I think it highlights that the powers that be are happy to legalize lethal forms of entertainment when they control the market, but oppose the legalization of anything they haven't got a significant cut of. Free market capitalism at its finest.
(And don't think the U.S. government HASN'T had a hand in supplying its citizens with narcotics. A little research will show you otherwise. The subject comes up in the recently-mentioned collection of essays about significant news stories that were watered down and killed, _Into the Buzzsaw_.)
Either ban them all, or legalize them all. Much like pornography, I think most of the social problems with drugs -- especially the less powerful ones like marijuana -- may be laid at the feet of their illegality and the social opprobrium in which they are held, rather than their "dire" physical effects. If you make something criminal, then criminal activities will accrete around it.
Back when I was a full-time reporter and columnist (this would have been during the first Bush administration), I wrote an op-ed which advocated the "re-legalization" of drugs, and awaited the shit storm I expected to follow (this was in redneck southern Oregon). The only response was a highly appreciative letter from a guy who was trying to put his life back together after a drug conviction. There were more nasty letters to the editor after a feature story about a night security guard who captured black widow spiders and kept them in a glass jar to die!
Why does it always come down to moralizing about drugs when discussing the actual reasons behind their illegal status?
People are *going* to find ways to be stupid, irresponsible, social unacceptable, dangerous, you name it. Alcohol can be deadly and people still manage to use it responsibly. Not everyone who drinks socially is an addict. Tabacco is definitely deadly, no way around it. People still manage to use it recreationally, without becoming addicted.
Are we really such a bunch of fucking sheep, completely unable to be personally responsible and make rational decisions, that we have to surrender the decision to the feds? C'mon. Do you think people having a joint now and then is such a dangerous thing, worthy of the billions of dollars in taxpayer money spent preventing its use?
All I'm asking is, why is marijuana so deadly they won't take it off the list of Class A Controlled Substances so medical researchers can *legally* study its effects in a controlled laboratory environment. Just who is it that has a vested interest in seeing marijuana/hemp (and all its beneficial uses) kept off the America market?
It's interesting to watch the response just *asking* these questions gets.
L.
You realize that we should be getting the anti-drug tsunami from Harlan any day now.
Thanks to Jon's comatose comments I just remembered something. By the way, ignore my previous stupid, wise-ass comments regarding drugs (though, I do think they should be legalized) and I'll try to keep from Bogarting this subject, but this must be said: Hemp is a wonderful plant. Many things can be done with this plant. However, the THC which gives us that wonderful high can only be obtained from the flower of that plant. And Jon is correct that non-flowering hemp has been produced.
Now, to what I remembered. Those anti-drug commercials that were rampant a few years ago (not talking about the 'supporting terrorism' commercials), there was one in particular that didn't stay on long. I might've seen this commercial maybe twice. It purpotedly showed the brain activity of a "normal 14 year old", as the somber voice offscreen told us. The screen showed these lines like some crazy kind of EKG machine and this 'brain activity' was all over the place. Spiking high and low, it was craaaaaazy, baby, like some guy failing a polygraph test. Now, the next scene, the somber voice then said, "And this is the brain activity of a 14 year-old high on pot."
And the screen showed 'brain activity' that was cool, calm, and collected. A few blips, but nice and steady, baby.
So I'm thinking: "And this is an ANTI-drug commercial?"
I'm surprised we didn't see a spike in 14 year-olds smoking dope. Like I said, that particular commercial didn't stay on the air for long.
I seem to recall that the Great and Powerful Dubya's father's WWII plane used hemp oil for lubrication, petroleum being a hard-to-acquire commodity at the height of WWII. Granted, hemp and pot are different, loveable plants that are both gifted with high amounts of THC. You should be able to find hemp-paper books at your local library without looking too hard, and hemp, unlike trees, is a quick-regrowing renewable resource for paper.
Funny how little money goes to de-THCed hemp plants, though -- that stuff's been floating around research farms for years without any market push for them.
As to pot -- personally, it affects me like kryptonite affects Superman (I'm not kidding -- if you want to watch someone become comatose, we can always schedule a me-on-pot night. It would also probably work as an anti-pot ad campaign poster.) One probably doesn't want people driving around after toking up a lot. So use something like an Amsterdam solution, and worry about other stuff. People like to get f**ked up. That's pretty much a constant. Everything else is negotiable.
Cheers, Jon
Frank:
" Bern, I actually wasn't talking about "entertainment" per se, I was talking about art." No, you spoke specifically of books and music. You thought physically stealing books and CD's, while you didn't support it, could be morally justified in certain cases and you saw nothing wrong with downloading a song, as long as no money changed hands. I'm sorry, Frank, in such a case, laws have been broken, and the thief is essentially asking the creator of the work in question to entertain them without recompense.
"Should art be available to everyone? I say yes" - Cool, do we get to pick what art we want? I've always fancied the Mona Lisa hanging in my bathroom, just imagining that sly smile as I fart loudly puts a grin on MY face.... Come, on, Frank - what the heck are you talking about? No one is entitled to anything - you earn it. You perform labor and you are compensated for your time - you trade that compensation for other needs or wants in life; like food, shelter and luxuries. It's called the Real World. If you can't afford to buy a book - you go to the library, and you wait in line to borrow it; if you can't afford an album, you listen to the radio; if you can't afford the movies, you wait for it to hit TV. This is how it's done, this is the legitimate, legal methodology for experiencing "art" in our system. It's not legal, moral, ethical or fair of you to steal the book (physically or electronically), steal the music (ditto), or sneak in to a movie. You are not entitled to someone's effort when you want it, in the form you want it, just because you want it.
"COPYright law sure isn't protecting most published writers, since most published writers cannot make a living from just their writing." - Yeah, and stealing their work will put so much more food on their table. Frank, copyright doesn't guarantee an income - it just gives the creator primary control over his or her own work.
" I do not advocate stealing, but I would do it to make a moral point" - Stealing to make a moral point - the concept boggles.
" When a band that sells ten million! copies of a record album only see fifty thousand dollars in payment, then you know this country has fucked priorities." - First off, is this an actual fact, or some hyperbole to make your point? And why does a single, scum-sucking company's behavior have anything to do with our country's priorities?
It comes back to the fact that you don't like capitalism, Frank. You advocate a world where artists are given stipends and they freely offer their work to any who pass. There's just one problem (actually there's a whole truckload of them, but I'm gonna concentrate on just one.), where does the money come from, Frank? In this wondrous world of yours, who ends up footing the bill? The government doesn't just have money on its own, Frank. It comes from you and me and companies. The problem arises because, in your world, no one is making any money - you've disbanded all the scumbag companies and everyone is getting a stipend for sitting around producing lute music or something. Why would someone work hard, real hard, to farm the land, or fish the sea, or any other crap job you can imagine, especially when they can sign up for one of those artist stipends you keep imagining?
No, Frank - your "perfect world" would collapse almost immediately, it just can't sustain itself. And by applying your principles of "I'm Entitled" in this world, you are just stealing.
Thanks xanadu.
Tom,
Yes, it's true. No, neither Harlan nor his script are involved. And Harlan has asked us not to say much more about it. If you are curious, this link provides a fairly accurate summation of the current situation:
http://www.corona.bc.ca/films/details/hardwired.html
(thanks, FAQ - who provided the link originally)
Bern
Someday, I will have CEP as my lawyer. Oh, yes. He will be mine.
Is there any truth to the I, robot coming to the silver screen rumor?
Is Harlan involved in any way?
Can someone who knows these things enlighten me please?
Thanks
For the edification of those who give a rat's ass about the meaning of that motion... which clearly does not include the cutesy little trolls...
An amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief is filed by a person, organization, or group with an interest in the outcome of the case, but is not a party. There are strict time and length limits on amicus briefs. They are due seven days after the due date of the corresponding party brief. Thus, since our brief was due on 23 August, all amicus briefs supporting reversal were due on 30 August. Similarly, as AOL's brief was due on 07 October, all amicus briefs supporting affirmance were due on 15 October (14 October was a holiday).
The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure allow a potential amicus to file a "me too" letter saying that it adopts an amicus brief as its own position. However, that letter must be timely--all the briefs had been in for nearly a month before this wretched attempt--and it can't add argument. Fourteen hundred words to say "me too" sounds like an argument, not a joinder.
Thus, the motion to strike. And that's before one gets into the substantive problems with that position, which requires one to misread the entire record in the case to even begin to accept its rationalization.
In other words, we're using a procedural ground to throw out a filing that was procedurally improper on its face because it didn't follow the well-established procedure. Sorry if you trolls find that offensive; it's the way law works. You may dislike litigation, but try resolving disputes short of bloodshed without it.
Come to think of it, I'm not sorry at all. Sod off.
Lynn,
I remember seeing a talking newsreel with Billy Sunday himself shouting into the camera talking about how the Noble Experiment, Prohibition would go on and on, how it would make America a strong country, a good country, a MORAL country....
While he was saying this, America was sinking into a morass of corruption and violent crime. People like Billy Sunday would set the whole world on fire in order to achieve the "moral purity" they think would make a perfect world. That's why so many societies based on some utopian ideal end up slaughtering millions of their own citizens. It's why Robespierre, a man who once opposed the death penalty sent some 17,000 people to the guillotine. He just wanted to make people behave, even if it killed them.
There are people who would support the "War on Drugs" no matter what the result. It's just the RIGHT thing to do, darnit.
The whole problem with a "war" on a concept; drugs, poverty, alcoholism, etc., is that there is no enemy. No one you can grapple with. It isn't even a physical thing you can touch. How can you fight a thought, an idea, a condition? In the end, you're just trying to fist fight a tar baby. The more you struggle, the more you get mired in the mess and the dirtier you get.
War, my ass. We can't even control drug use in prison.
Chuck
Darryl: I have a Rolling Stone article about prisons that highlights the various reasons more black men are incarcerated per capita than whites, and it discusses the drug sentencing practices you mention. I teach it to my 9th graders, and it really shakes them up. I figure maybe if I get them when they're young, something will change someday.
Bermanator
Darryl wrote:
"I probably don't need to mention that Federal sentencing guidelines are much harsher for crack cocaine (used by poor people) than those for powder cocaine (used by mostly well-to-do people)."
I'd recommend reading Randall Kennedy's book _Race, Crime and the Law_ for a discussion of this issue, and it ain't as simple as that.
The mandatory sentencing for crack versus cocaine comes out of the Anti-Drug AbuseAct of 1986, which says that a person convicted of posession with intent to distribute of more than 50 grams of crack must be sentence to no less than ten years. To eran the same sentence, one would have to be moving 5,000 grams of cocaine. And crack was, at the time, the only drug for which a first posession offense carried a mandatory minimum sentence (5 years).
This disparity was seen in racial terms for two reasons. The first is that both substances are basically the same. The second is the racial disparity: in 1992, 92 percent of those convicted for crack cocaine offenses were black, but for cocaine offenses, 45 percent were white and 20 percent were black. The main argument that sentencing disparities were racist came from Judge Clyde Cahill of Missouri. One of his main points was that, given the disparities of drug use, the stiffer crack sentences would inevitably be pressed more often upon black people than white.
However, Kennedy argues that Cahill's argument misses a number of facts as well. He points out that no black leader in Congress raised these issues when the Act was debated, and that many of the more liberal blacks in Congress supported the Act. Their position was that crack was a severe scourge to the poor and black communities, and that stiffer sentences against crack were required to prevent the drug from damaging those communities even more than they were.
And there are differences between crack and cocaine. Crack is typically sold in smaller quantities in a more convenient form, and is thus more accessible to larger numbers of people. In other words, cocaine's high prices were keeping it from flooding poorer neighborhoods, but crack meant that anybody could buy a toot for a few bucks. That's why it hit poor black communities so hard, and that's why many black leaders supported the stiffer sentencing for crack posession.
And if _Pot Stories for the Soul_ is good enough for Harlan Ellison to write an introduction, it's good enough for me.
Bliss. I have in my grubby little paws "Troublemakers". Wonderful bliss and a special nod to she-who-must-be-obeyed. Love ya, kid. Every day I am blessed by the miracle of you being in my life.
--sigh--
But I digress into the sappy and silliness woo-woo that is eternal love.
And what was it I came in here for? Oh, right: The unfortunate demise of Dangerous Visions, the bookstore, and a question relating to same such for Mr. Ellison: How do you decide what bookstores you will visit and won't visit? I know, from a brief conversation with himself, Dan Simmons, he won't set foot in certain chain stores. Understandable. But for you, what makes the measure of a bookstore? I wonder this because I happen to know of an indie mom-and-pop outfit and I think it would do them good if you did a book signing and reading in their establishment.
Until next time. . .
If hemp was good enough for the Founding Fathers, it's good enough for me.
To jump on Lynn's _partyin'_ band wagon...
There is an interesting column in the San Francisco Chronicle about our "War on Drugs." The column concerns a young man who _introduced_ two drug distributors. He made $1,500. He got caught. Had _no_ criminal record. Used the money to pay for college. The sentence for the two "real" dealers he introduced? One of them is already out of prison, the other was sentenced to 24 years. His sentence? 3 Life Terms, without the possibility of parole. Yup. Life, without the possibility of parole. How's about that. The columnist recommends that Bush parole the young man.
I probably don't need to mention that Federal sentencing guidelines are much harsher for crack cocaine (used by poor people) than those for powder cocaine (used by mostly well-to-do people). I probably don't need to mention that the man is black, and the sentence was given in the south.
Here's the kicker. The columnist is Debra Saunders, normally slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun. I guess that proves the adage about a million monkeys on a million typewriters...
Rich~ Hehehe. Must be my eyes going. Hmmm....
Joseph~ Your experience with hemp is limited. I've seen some stuff that could be mistaken for rough silk. Gorgeous. Cheap to grow, grows faster than cotton without depleting the soil of vital nutrients, is strong than silk, and is cheaper than wood pulp for paper, not to mention it doesn't require all the incredibly environmentally hazardous chemicals that wood pulp does to make it into pristine white paper. (pardon my rambling) But that really isn't the crux of the argument. Prohibition doesn't work. We know this, historically, even if we suffer from cultural amnesia, as Harlan would say.
L.
Cindy: Another aspect to the War on Drug and why it's not successful: have you considered that making marijuana illegal actually leads to MORE victimization of kids? Marijuana is much cheaper than alcohol, and b/c it's illegal, it's actually MUCH easier to get than alcohol. However, by and large you have to do business with criminals to get it, and they don't ask for proof of age.
If marijuana were legal and government regulated, we'd avoid the middlemen (read: the dealers, the only violent people associated with pot use), avoid laced pot (which is the only kind of pot that will put you in the hospital), and avoid otherwise law-abiding citizens being put in jail for asserting their free will to enjoy a recreation activity that only hurts them. Also, people who are sick can get it without worrying about dying in prison.
History has shown that prohibition doesn't work. As long as there's a demand, there will be a supply, and some enterprising entrepreneur will fill the need. Believe me when I tell you, marijuana use is pervasive among high school students. To quote one of my summer school kids, "There's one thing that unites all teenagers, the hip hop fans, the metalheads, the hippies, the preps, the jocks, and the dweebs: everyone smokes weed!" Sigh.
Bermanator
Okay, a small opinion on hemp, and then some actual Harlan stuff:
Hemp sucks as a fabric. It smells, and compared to pretty much everything else is scratchy and weak (I'll concede that the scratchiness is probably due to hand-made manufacturing). I'm always amused by the supposed point that hemp is useful. Sure, it is; it's base plant is useful as a source of THC, a very useful substance. Just my opinion.
Now, an actual Harlan item. For whatever reason, Warren Ellis posted in his blog, Die Puny Humans (www.diepunyhumans.com), a scan of the New Worlds ("Five Shillings or One Dollar!") that had "A Boy and His Dog" inside. Very interesting cover art. Any idea who did the art, Harlan?
Lynn,
Actually, I think that should've been addressed to R. Wilder (unless his name is Rich also).
But, to throw my pennies in there, ALL drugs should be legalized and/or controlled through prescription. So there.
Now, I'm off to score an eightball and pick up the daughter from daycare. (And the muthafucka better not cut it with B12)
Rich~ Actually, I just had my walking encyclopedia inform me that between Hearst's yellow journalism (read: blatant lies about marijuana causing people to go mad, complete with rape and murder sprees) and Dupont's lobbying (seems he had this little contract to sell nylon to the gov't for uniforms for WWII, only he had a competitor in cheaper, just as durable hemp cloth...hmmm), hemp never had a chance.
L.
Wilder, yes, Lynn is right, but also, marajuana hemp is such a strong fiber that it would easily put loggers and the like out of buisiness if legalized. I compare this story to the one where oil companies and coal companies make sure that wind and solar power are never an option of energy consumption. Corporations basically own the politicians, and this countries goofy religious beliefs play a part as well.
You can grow hemp anywhere, and it can be created without THC, the drug that creates the high. As you can tell, that subtle point is never mentioned.
Lynn: I have never heard that marijuana was illegalized because of the paper lobby, but it rings true. I've always heard it was because Mexicans and Negroes were the big users, and it was fear of miscegenation that caused pot's illegality. I, too, know many a groovy artist, musician, and scrivener who likes to inhale wisps of burning hemp, corrugated twine, THC caresses, gage, the chronic, Texas tea, audio buds, creeper, ganja, grass, green, herbonium, kabak, keef, kindness, cheeba, nugga nooch, abba zabba, skunk, and even shwag. They'll red eye an uber bowl of tuwamp and get paggered. They'll use a j-bill to roll the green, and fog up the hot box. They wanna talk to Samson! Whether it's kicker or kind, they're in love with Mary Jane. And most of these toasted folk are middle-aged hard-working literate creative members of my generation who came through the druggy '70s ok. Sure, I know plenty of people with substance abuse problems, and nearly 100 percent are alcoholics.
Cindy, ah, ummm, remember that in the last sixty years there has not been one reported case of overdose from the magic sprout. Alcohol and tabaccky (aint that how you say it in Texas?) are the big killers, so why don't we make them illegal as well? Good question Cindy, and here is your answer: In a free society you are allowed to do anything you like that doesn't infringe on someone elses rights. Now back dem pretty dimples up and lets put some garland up in this place. Webderland is starting to look like a vampires closet.
---------------
Bern, I actually wasn't talking about "entertainment" per se, I was talking about art. Should art be available to everyone? I say yes, that is my answer. That is why museums should be free and libraries. Remember that an enlightened public makes for a healthy country. And maybe my real "beef" is with corporate shit holes that seem to control the channels of intellectual life. And if you will notice Bern, COPYright law sure isn't protecting most published writers, since most publised writers cannot make a living from just their writing. Isn't that in essense, the real crime?
---------------
Let's go back to Napster: Eminem is the most downloaded artist in recorded history, but his latest album is selling like hotcakes, so what does that tell ya? The downloaders actually are willing to buy his album as well. When artists get the idea that their fans are out to get them, that makes it hard for artists to be taken seriously. I believe that most of us are willing to shell out the doe when it is time.
I do not advocate stealing, but I would do it to make a moral point; just as a hungry man might steal bread because he is hungry. I mean, if thousands of people started stealing Ann Coulters book as a form of protest that would make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. According to the law it isn't legal, but there is I believe a higher law, and I do not mean religion.
Unlike writers, musicians really have it bad in the compensation department. Musicians are the only creative class that cannot own their work. When they sign with a major label they sign away the rights to the master tapes, which is owned by the company; which later can even put certain songs in commercials without asking the musician's permission. Where is their justice? When a band that sells ten million! copies of a record album only see fifty thousand dollars in payment, then you know this country has fucked priorities.
Cindy wrote: "Watch Train Spotting--- that's a good education in why narcotics should be banned. "
I love Trainspotting. It doesn't glamorize drug use, but then it doesn't glamorize day to day life in urban industrial Scotland either, does it?
"Society needs to come up with an alternate plan for non violent offenders and those who have fried their brains on narcotics. Perhaps some sort of dormitory situation with counselling and light manufacturing work to pay for their stay. "
Sounds like an alcoholic's halfway house, only these people aren't arrested for being bad citizens. They're criminalized by the mere presence of a "controlled substance". Haven't committed any crime other than possessing something the government doesn't want them to possess. I could twist this into some sort of Free Speech argument, but I don't want to go there. Yet.
"I believe there should be different jails for different crimes. Drunk drivers should go to the dorm with the druggies. If they can't keep from driving they should be locked up... not with murderers and rapists but with other habitual chemical offenders."
Again, you misconstrue. Possession of a controlled substance gets you hard time, not violating any other law. Mere possession, or possession with "intent to distribute". At least with alcohol, you have to endanger someone other than yourself before Unka Sam comes down on your head.
"The big thrust should be in preventing the victimization of others. Taking drugs off the sreet and locking up those who would prey on the vulnerability of others ( in particular children and adolescents) is an exercise in futility but a worthy one. "
And again, you presume that drug use means victimization of innocents. I'd ask yourself how much you've bought the party line. And then reexamine the number of rich, white, landed gentry doing coke on their lunch hour away from the trading desk who end up doing hard time vs. the number of minorities in prison for "possession." Last time I checked, my sister's friends at USC were driving their Porsche's into South Central to pick up their nose candy, and driving away when the cops busted their dealers. Hmm. Makes you wonder.
The program I watched pointed out how much corruption took place during Prohibition. You think it isn't happening in law enforcement today?
"As for pot.. don't we all know at least one old doper whose only ambition in life is to toke, or a pot smoker who is brilliant beyond words but just doesn't live up to his amazing potential because the weed has dulled his ambition?"
Yeah, I also know some incredibly creative, talented people who use recreationally and function just fine. They even pay taxes and hold down jobs. Just like the folks who drink.
"I don't want my kids to think it's an acceptable recreation-- I've seen too many people fall short of their potential due to weed. We already have to try and steer them around alchohol why broaden another avenue of destruction?"
Um, because they're intelligent people who can make their own decisions about what to do because their mother raised them right? ::grin:: Don't fool yourself into thinking that making something illegal is gonna keep your kids from getting into it without you having instilled a sense of self-preservation and self-respect into them.
"Alchohol is a traditional part of daily life all over the world. We use it in our religious services and with our meals. It is more difficult to limit something that has been an integral part of our society since time immemorial than to exclude something that has been traditionally illegal."
Traditionally illegal? Did you know, Cindy, that pot was made illegal in the 30's not because of its mind-altering proper but because hemp paper was significantly cheaper to grow and manufacture than wood pulp paper. And folks like William Randolph Hearst and a few others, who made their fortune on paper (and the yellow ink printed on it), talked to their cronies in the government to see about changing the situation. So again, I ask you, how much have you swallowed the party line?
"On the OTHER hand, if we legalized marijuana then we could TAX it. "
And as I watched on this program, prices would drop, usage would drop, safety would go up... I was stunned at the parallels between alcohol prohibition and drug prohibition. Stunned, I tell you. (Not to mention, it could be taken off the controlled substance list and used LEGALLY in medical research, and we could find much cheaper, more easily renewable ways than cotton and wood pulp to make fabric and paper...).
And no, I don't partake. I got enough problems as it is to tempt fate by breaking the law. But I have friends that do. And the only thing "criminal" about them is that they like to relax in a fashion that the government doesn't approve of, and just might send them to jail for. Does that even remotely make sense?
L.
AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT: Politics.
For those who argue that the current administration ISN'T just catering to the rich. Forget the tax cuts which earmark 52 % of the cuts to the wealthiest 1% in the country. That's old news.
The day after awarding bonuses to high-ranking political appointees, Bush froze locality pay increases for federal workers. He cited the national emergency clause--aparently forgetting that he was screwing people who work for the Department of Defense, CIA, FBI, Customs, and others on the frontlines of the war against terrorism. He also cited a 1990 pay law, apparently forgetting that it's a law which has never been enacted, a law which provides for pay parity between civilian workers for the Fed and the military.
The recent Homeland Security Act excuses all those businesses recently in the news for incorporating in Bermuda and other tax havens to get out of paying U.S. Taxes--apparently, it's okay for these companies to be unpatriotic as long as many of them are contractors to the federal government.
The Wall Street Journal last month had an editorial which vociferously argued that the poor just don't pay their fair share of taxes (there's an article on this at http://slate.msn.com/?id=2074593 ).
And just yesterday, Bush announced that it would back new regulations which would exempt companies from age-discrimination suits and liability when they raid their pension plans. (short article at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0212100151dec10.story?null ) So Enron-like companies can breathe easy.
Comapssionate conservatism in action.
**I contend the majority of creative people, regardless of whether they fit this extreme, do their "thing" whether they're being paid to do it or not. For many it's simply what gets them through life. **
Just to beat it to death one more time, I think you are merely describing a type of artist, not all artists. You may be describing the better artists but I think there is room for the tyro and the dilettante in the universe of artists as well.
I might be more inclined to accept your suggestion that this is true of MOST artists if you limited it to the idea of artists getting obsessed by particular problems or projects at particular moments in life but not necessarily at all moments in life. Harper Lee seemed content to keep otherwise occupied after To Kill A Mockingbird. For myself as a tyro, individual projects get stuck like chicken bones in my throat and I have to cough them up so I can breathe but once they're out, it can be a long time before I start choking on anything again.
Just one footnote about the context attached to "obsession" in my last post. As there are obviously SO many different kinds and degrees of obsession - a swirl of hang-ups, baggage, complexes, passions, and manias - I was, in this argument, likening it principally to pain (and whatever little torments it might rattle one's psyche with). Even something as relatively innocuous as a haunting infatuation can evoke pain on a deeper level; every individual has his or her own conception of inner pain.
LYNN WROTE;
"What I *don't* understand is why this very blatant lesson in history has been ignored, to the point of filling our prisons with non-violent drug offenders. Is it just easier to ingest what the propaganda machine spews?"
Watch Train Spotting--- that's a good education in why narcotics should be banned.
Society needs to come up with an alternate plan for non violent offenders and those who have fried their brains on narcotics. Perhaps some sort of dormitory situation with counselling and light manufacturing work to pay for their stay.
I believe there should be different jails for different crimes. Drunk drivers should go to the dorm with the druggies. If they can't keep from driving they should be locked up... not with murderers and rapists but with other habitual chemical offenders.
The big thrust should be in preventing the victimization of others. Taking drugs off the sreet and locking up those who would prey on the vulnerability of others ( in particular children and adolescents) is an exercise in futility but a worthy one.
As for pot.. don't we all know at least one old doper whose only ambition in life is to toke, or a pot smoker who is brilliant beyond words but just doesn't live up to his amazing potential because the weed has dulled his ambition? I don't want my kids to think it's an acceptable recreation-- I've seen too many people fall short of their potential due to weed. We already have to try and steer them around alchohol why broaden another avenue of destruction?
Alchohol is a traditional part of daily life all over the world. We use it in our religious services and with our meals. It is more difficult to limit something that has been an integral part of our society since time immemorial than to exclude something that has been traditionally illegal.
On the OTHER hand, if we legalized marijuana then we could TAX it.
LOL.
:)
Cindy
Bern, Chris, and whoever...
""you're describing an obsessed craftsman, nothing more. "
Of course. Absolutely. NOTHING MORE? Obsession is precisely what I'm getting at. In THIS encampment, obsession is the distinct trait of an artist. I'm talking about an individual driven by a very private force, trapped in haunting landscapes of his psyche, who dreams in his waking hours and whose creative fire is stoked by personal struggle or quest (the reason why some have trouble getting practical). That, to me, is what distinguishes the artist from the craftsman (dilettantes don't count). In this sense, the distinction can be seen clearly in comparing someone like Jackson Pollack to, say, Chesley Bonestell.
Yet, returning to the original argument, it still isn't that complicated. I contend the majority of creative people, regardless of whether they fit this extreme, do their "thing" whether they're being paid to do it or not. For many it's simply what gets them through life.
I know it's the only thing that gets ME through life. If deprived my creative outlet I'll just lose it all, come over there, and slash your fucking throats. Never mind the "nobility" bullshit; this is a self-centered universe.
Jon,
Yes, th Blackhawks are only shown what was previously SportsChannel, now (I believe) Fox Sports Network. Even among the sports owners of Chicago, a particularly avaricious lot, Bill Wirtz is considered to be the king of jerks. He's a local beer baron who basically doesn't give a darn what anyone thinks, and seems to think that free TV is taking money out of his pockets.
The Bulls, on the other hand, split their games between free TV and two cable channels (as do the Sox and Cubs - the Bears are all on regular TV).
Regards,
Joseph
New Topic~
I caught the first hour of RUMRUNNERS, MOONSHINERS & BOOTLEGGERS last night and damn was that some fun stuff. I couldn't help but draw the obvious parallel between the alcohol prohibition era of the early 20th century and the current drug prohibition. Seems like the average American consumed five times as much alcohol then as they do now. And prohibition only pushed consumption up, made the prices so exorbitant that people on the economic fringe learned very quickly how to make a fast buck, regardless of the quality or safety of their product. Many people died, in battles with law enforcement, their own unscrupulous competitors and as a result of ingesting the very product they'd paid so much money for.
What I *don't* understand is why this very blatant lesson in history has been ignored, to the point of filling our prisons with non-violent drug offenders. Is it just easier to ingest what the propaganda machine spews?
Curious,
L.
R. Wilder - Thank you, my expectations have been suitably lowered. (To wit: I'll catch it on TV when it gets there...)
Joseph J. Finn - my fellow MacNut, you've discovered my secret plan to suggest that all Windoze users are guilty by association... (Though my wife got an iPod this year, and yes they're every bit as cool to own as you'd imagine.) (And to fend off any concerns, her 2100 MP3's are culled from our 650 CD music library... For those interested, we also have a 400+ DVD library, as well as a nearly 200 laserdiscs...(Though many of the last are up for sale, now - I love DVD)
Rob - you're describing an obsessed craftsman, nothing more. While it might seem noble or somehow "untainted" by worldly concerns to create "art for art's sake", it's still just a matter of putting words to paper, or paint to canvas, or pen to paper... producing works. You're claiming that THIS set of choices is somehow "purer art" than THAT set. What I'm saying is that "art" is the craftwork produced, incorporating those materials available, the limits imposed (internal or external), all philosophical points being considered. A limit set on the work is a limit set - it's not less "artful" if the limit involves commercial considerations.
The process is not a mystical, mysterious, dark and brooding mindset - it's the act of creating that defines the craftsman - it's the audience that declares it "art".
Frank: You're still on my Fecal Roster, bud - I have further thoughts on your little Utopia... But, you still need to answer this no-longer-rhetorical question(s). What makes you think you have a right to be entertained for free? That you should be able to read the works of writers, or listen to the songs of musicians without compensating them? Why is it moral to download a copy of a song, but compromising ethically to scribble a quick bit of art on a napkin for a few bucks for a fan? (In my mind, the napkin art is a commissioned work of very limited scope - Sort of saying, "what can you do at this moment, with this canvas....")
I'm curious, Frank, 'cause from my vantage point - it seems like your position is ill-considered bluster and adherence to a poorly formulated ideal.
All: Once again I fail to listen to my own advice concerning Trolls, as well as the advice of my betters, here. (Which includes the lot of you, by the by) I'll try to do better next time.
Bern, over and out.
"It was the first time Alex ever chewed me a new asshole..."
Er, sorry, Jay, the sequence of messages gave me the impression you were the Evil That Dare Not blablabla. Or maybe I was feeling kinky last night.
**Artists, those whose lives are defined by their work, are OBSSESSED with finding the time; and they WILL (even if it's a few minutes each weekend). I'm in the position to know, Chris; because I AM an artist and I've been in that situation for some time.**
I feel this is a limiting definition. You are describing a SUBSET of artists not all artists nor is this a defining quality of an artist though it may be a defining quality of a GOOD or GREAT artist.
I suggest that the majority of people who write or paint or shoot films do not do so out of an obsessive need. They do it because they like it - because it is ONE OF THE THINGS they like to do with their lives.
As I've mentioned before, I write but I have no designs on "being a writer" in terms of a profession or a lifestyle. I just write. It is one of the many things that I do with my life. I do not need to do it. I do it when I like to and often force myself to do it when I do not want to. But I don't need to. I have plenty of other things to keep me busy and happy.
You may say this means I am not likely to be a good writer. Perhaps this is true but I'm not arguing quality here, merely definition. If we agree that writing is an art then a person who writes a lot is frequently engaged in an artistic activity. Whether this makes him "an artist" or not (whatver that means) is another story but that person is still creating art (probably shitty art but still art.)
To get back to topic, I suggest to you that if there was big money in poetry, we'd have more poets. If there was bigger money in short stories today, we'd have more people trying to write the Great American Short Story than The Great American Novel. If there was big money in table tennis, we'd have more people competing to be professional table tennis players. But perhaps people who are really great at table tennis and love to do it still choose other more profitable ventures to occupy their time.
I just saw that Will Smith is going to be making I, Robot. Has Harlan seen this? And if so what did he have to say?
Thanks
Chris,
"some talented artists who would otherwise never have tried their hand at this brand spanking new art form came into the business. Quality improved dramatically as more competitors entered the film and many of the ones who entered the field were previously employed as playwrights or short story writers."
AS I SAID: "the foresight and ability to make it marketeable absolutely varies with the individual."
As is the case with art and commerce. Sometimes it's mutually exclusive, sometimes it isn't.
I have to say, as you rattle on about interaction with the markets you lose me. Your statements are true but they seem to be part of another argument. I'm missing its correlation with the point I made.
"A brother's gotta eat, y'know?"
OBVIOUSLY. What d'you think I meant by, "swinging between commercial product (designing posters and covers; drawing comics; writing "popular" stories sought by a publisher, etc.) and ventures ENTIRELY from their souls" out of practical strategy? And what do you think artists are doing when they come home from their dead-end jobs? They're doing their art (well...that is, AFTER using the can, feeding the cat, punching out a neighbor, victimizing some schmuck online, scrounging the back alley for your dinner, mauling your porno mags...all the routine demands when you get home).
HERE'S the problem we're dealing with, I b'lieve: art, by MY definition (regardless of what YOURS might be or anyone else's), is uncompromised personal expression or self-exploration utilizing a craft ("he does it for himself"); commerce, the compromised work aimed at satisfying the popular predilections of a mass or targeted (catered) audience or readership. These are the distinctions I adhere to, regardless of the convergence or mutual exclusion between the two in the infinite variations. You have plenty of boundaries that blur in the gradient: the job of a craftsman is to deliver what is commissioned (the commercial venture), whether or not he feels empathy or apathy about the project. The plight of an artist might be to meet criteria any craftsman must. I make clear distinctions between what I think of as the craftsman (the practical mind-set) and the artist (the personal quest). We inferred such a distinction a while back in our discussion about directors.
Re: the artist's need to do his art whether or not it earns money...
"I don't doubt this is true of some artists...But it's not true of everyone or even most"
Yeah, it IS.
"That (working a job) will be time that cannot be spent writing or painting"
Artists, those whose lives are defined by their work, are OBSSESSED with finding the time; and they WILL (even if it's a few minutes each weekend). I'm in the position to know, Chris; because I AM an artist and I've been in that situation for some time. (When you see THE GREAT ESCAPE think of it as an analogy for the situation; you implement ingenious strategies, piece-by-piece, little-by-little to fulfill the GREAT PLAN).
Joseph: Are Blackhawks games only available on some special Blackhawks/Bulls 'network'? Well, one of the good things about Canada is that there's still a bloody awful lot of hockey available without having to go to special channels...although in Ontario, it helps if you're a Leafs fan.
Cindy: Coppola made comments similar to yours (about a possible boom in personal film production) in _Hearts of Darkness._ The one drawback to that hopeful vision is the convergence of media in fewer and fewer hands, as distribution is always the ultimate means of control. The Canadian film distribution system is a fine example, but I won't bore you with the details -- suffice to say that only in Quebec, with its built-in language advantage, is there anything close to a a thriving commercial Canadian film viewership (as opposed to industry).
The flip side (in Canada, that is) is the increasing prominence of multi-national partnerships on films and tv series that need a certain level of funding. That multi-headed monster brought you _Lexx_ and _Andromeda_ and _Johnny Mnemonic_ but it also brought you _Bowling for Columbine_, some Cronenberg films and other good stuff.
Because it's produced here, Andromeda is actually up for Canada's version of the Emmys every year (in make-up and special effects categories, by the way -- Canadian tv hasn't sunk that low. Yet.)
Without the remaining federal and provincial subsidies and tax breaks for films, I'm not sure that Atom Egoyan's _The Sweet Hereafter_ (to name one) would ever have been made in Canada.
Cheers, Jon
See what happens when we stop talking about Kubrick?
Looks like we need a DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS sign around here....
L.
Harlan, you're right. If I'd read my own words more carefully and thought for a moment, I wouldn't have pressed the send button. Apologies, and best to you and Susan.
--Alex the Schlemiel
Xanadu,
May I complement you on your elucidation of my (admittedly pissed off) points? You did much better than me, even acknowledging that only owners of Windows iPods would steal music (I kid! I kid! God, how I want a real iPod....)
Oh, and your crack at me was funny as hell. Wtach out for that leg from under the table as you walk by with the lunch tray! Whoops! (Really - it was funny.)
Regards,
Joseph
**I'm trying to say, mainly, one driven as an artist will proceed in his work whether he can make money with it or not...because it's something he HAS to do.**
Yeah, that's what you said before and I'm still taking some issue with it.
I don't doubt this is true of some artists, perhaps the better ones. Maybe it's even a defining characteristic of a great artist. But it's not true of everyone or even most, IMHO.
A brother's gotta eat, y'know? And if there isn't any money to be made writing or painting, then you need to spend your time bussing tables or shuffling papers for the man. That will be time that cannot be spent writing or painting.
For the first ten years after the motion picture camera was in use, films were mostly one-shot "found subject" little deals sent off to the Nickelodeon and changed on a daily basis. Then people started noticing there was money to be made and suddenly they started taking this new film thing a little more seriously and some pretty smart cookies and, indeed, some talented artists who would otherwise never have tried their hand at this brand spanking new art form came into the business. Quality improved dramatically as more competitors entered the film and many of the ones who entered the field were previously employed as playwrights or short story writers. They only tried to write scripts for movies because they knew there was money to be had.
ROB WROTE;
"The quality of films, particularly the scripts on which they were based, jumped dramatically once markets expanded to the point where sufficient money was available. More money meant more people who wanted to be part of the business. "
Now I wonder what is going to happen now that the cost of making films is no longer an insurmountable obstacle. With the advent of programs like Project Greenlight and now....Triggerstreet.. the floodgates are open to a new generation of potential players in the entertainment industry.
Add to that the insatiable satellite market with endless time slots on innumerable channels and there is suddenly a need for material.
NOW, with so many would-be screenwriters with access to equipment allowing them to realize their OWN vision of their work things could be really really good or really really bad.
It's a chance to make our own films without having to kowtow to anyone.
Any of y'all who haven't already done so-- head on over! It's like being in FAO SCHWARZ at Christmas time. OKAY, okay I've never BEEN in FAO SCHWARZ at ANY time.. but it's what I imagine it to be.
See if you think I'm right... go ahead it doesn't cost a thing to look around!
http://www.triggerstreet.com
Ah, So much material so little time.. I LOVE THIS website. No surprise it was set up by Kevin Spacey. Check out the judges for the first round of competition... way cool.
Yes, I'm working on a new short film myself for triggerstreet.
:)
Come on IN y'all the water is GREAT!
The easily inspired,
Cindy
If it makes any difference the Unmistakable Evil One and I were not working together. I guess we both picked the same night to set barn fires.
Bern, that makes perfect sense. So through the protection of the Container, you can - in effect - attempt to protect the rights of the artist or creator of the Contents. The library being the key example used by Napsteroids as well as video pirates, bootleggers and the usual band of thieves, the difference is that the property returns to the shelf. No power or law can contain the exchange or distribution of the Contents. So the idea of ART IS THE PROPERTY OF THE WORLD is limited to the control of the means by which the Content is delivered.
By your definition, then, the container is the digital file which is regulated under Title 17, yes?
FAIR ANSWER. One that helps me explain it better to others. The only way to get an objective answer in some cases is to play anonymous. I know the replies would be different (or not even forthcoming) if Jay Smith asked them. It was the first time Alex ever chewed me a new asshole, but thanks for responding by point, Bern.
Shutting up per HE's request.
Chris,
"The quality of films, particularly the scripts on which they were based, jumped dramatically once markets expanded to the point where sufficient money was available. More money meant more people who wanted to be part of the business. And while the majority were hacks, the law of large numbers kicked in and produced better work at the top end. Not only are art and commerce not mutually exclusive, I would argue they are mutually dependent"
LET ME EXPLAIN WHAT I **MEANT** TO SAY...
My point was MUCH simpler than that. I wasn't saying art and commerce were necessarily mutally exclusive. I NEVER believed that. In some situations they ARE, in some they are NOT, as I suggested when I said, "wherein personal elements are either placed aside or intermixed and imbedded cleverly with the commission. I'm trying to say, mainly, one driven as an artist will proceed in his work whether he can make money with it or not...because it's something he HAS to do. But if he DOES want to generate an income from it, particularly when he's just STARTING toward a certain market and no one's ever heard of him, he MUST take certain practical steps and adjust according to criteria (ESPECIALLY if we're talking about publishing or film markets). Some genuine artists - a genius in some cases - just can't get their acts together (again, Van Gogh AND Poe were such examples; and if it hadn't been for Peggy Guggenheim, Pollack would have stayed locked away in his trashy studio apartment); lacking in pragmatic navigation, so to speak (whether because of medial or emotional problems), they hardly earn a CENT from their work. THEN you have those who DO find their mobility. As success comes they are forced less and less to compromise their visions, until what is true art booms for them (whether we're talking Picasso or James Joyce). One practical strategy, among many, is to swing between commercial product (designing posters and covers; drawing comics; writing "popular" stories sought by a publisher, etc.) and ventures ENTIRELY from their souls, pains, and passions. I'm not implying anything in absolutes, with one exception: the ARTIST will go on doing his work whether he succeeds earning money from it or not.
Harlan,
I actually got riled up when Frank started spouting the nonsense earlier - the Masked Ones and Unmentionable Evils just added fuel to a fire already roaring...
But I get the message - I'll shut up now. (Cause when someone tells me to shut up, I shut up, I'm not known for continuing to yap my fool head off when ***SMACK***
...
Shutting up.
Jay - I'll back down a bit, since it's you, but I'll suggest this.
It's the difference between "intellectual property" and "physical". You would need the legion of jack-booted thugs watching everyone, all the time, to catch "intellectual" crimes (like reading a book you yourself didn't license, or watching a movie, or listening to music.) By protecting the physical container, you achieve the necessary balance between absolute "intellectual property" protection and functional, workable "real-world" protection.
Where this goes theoretically haywire is when the "container" is every bit as non-corporeal as the "property" - but in reality, that's still covered - by the copyright provisions.
"Fair use" was originally intended as a safe harbor for those who needed to make noncompeting, noncommercial copies of portions of a work to acomplish a far greater good. Of course, once the bad guys sees an angle.... So kiss "fair use" goodbye pretty soon.
Bern
Harlan posted while I was writing the previous post. His Skokie analogy reminded me of what happened here in Denver.
Every April 20th, a group of neo-Nazis got together and celebrated Hitler's birthday in front of the state capitol. They had a permit, it was all legal. Every time they did this, people crowded in, shouting abuse at the celebrators and sure enough, violence broke out.
Not only did this bring the local press swooping in (the blood is the life), but it got the Nazis all kinds of free publicity. On top of that, the wrong people got beat up. Black on black violence at a Nazi rally. This was not good.
My idea was to wait until April 30th and have a Hitler's Death Day parade. The songs would have included "Thank You Very Much" from SCROOGE, "We'll Be Glad When You're Gone You Rascal You", and the Spike Jones classic, "Der Fuhrer's Face".
What people actually did was a lot better. They stayed across the street keeping quiet while the Rocky Mountain Goose Steppers stood all alone. Turned out there were only about eight guys actually taking part in the celebration. Very embarrasing. The Nazis tucked their forked tails between their legs and slithered home.
No more publicity.
Harlan's right. Don't feed the trolls.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to wash my fingers off with soap.
Chuck
To all:
Well, Bern and Rick said it so effectively, I don't think CEP needs to add much.
However.
Although I wouldn't be surprised if someone blundered in here, knowing squat about the AOL case, and blurted out the usual drivel about the supposed lack of merit to Harlan's case, or, "how is it different if I borrow a book from the..." Yadda yadda yadda. I can understand this from a newbie. We can either blister his/her hide, or pat them on the head and sigh. They can't help themselves.
It is obvious, however, that these two have been here before, and have presented the same argument over and over, getting the same answers and never really varying their argument. How disappointing. I suppose it's entertaining, in a way, to watch someone bash their head against the same spot on the brick wall saying "Ow! ow! ow!" as they impact with the unyielding surface. It also gets monotonous. Perhaps they should try knocking themselves out on a different spot on the wall. But, I suppose they can't help themselves.
As for ghosts and aliases, I think it's all fine as long as it's done in fun and it doesn't go on too long. I was Uncle Will and Ming the Merciless. It was all just for grins, although with Ming I was venting my spleen over the USA PATRIOT Act. I'd read about how much fun Farmer had writing VENUS ON THE HALF SHELL as Kilgore Trout. Ming was the same kind of lark, except I didn't get paid for it. It's great giggles to be a villain.
I just tried to use my judgement concerning the most important part of any performance: When to stop.
Chuck
You folks aren't really going to spend another moment with this yegg, are you? He knows the arguments. Logic will not purify him. He knows he's acting the argumentative fool. He does so purposely. Whatever agenda he has, he's voiced it elsewhere, I guarantee you. He is playing with you.
It's as one with the Nazis marching in Skokie, a town filled with many who survived the death camps. The ACLU defended their right to march--as is proper--but instead of trying to quash their freedome of speech, the proper response was simple:
Let them march. Don't go to the march. Let them speak...to empty streets.
Do you get the parallel here?
Let him speak. Let him gesticulate and fulminate. Do not answer. Turn your back. He speaks, thus, to empty streets.
Yr. pal, a grateful-for-you Harlan
Xanadu,
Got it. COPYright.
Isn't copyright law (most of the stuff under Title 17 of US Code) designed to protect the copyright owner's right to fair compensation for their work and protect them from misuse that would prohibit them from earning money for their products? If I, as an entity, purchased a book (like that ever happened) I am essentially licensing that book for private use. If I do anything with it, outside of the "fair use" (which is growing smaller every time I go to a review class on the subject) is actionable.
I'm trying to marry the two concepts to strengthen the arguement, not prove that writers don't deserve to be paid. And Jesus GOD I'm not trying to shut down the libraries...
The comparison I'm making is that the content, not the container, is the property at issue. If I take away from a novel the best of it, isn't that like getting into the carnival for free and riding all the rides?
The Masked Psychiatrist - Cool, fresh meat. You're cute in your coy manner but, like Frank, you fail to understand a simple principle and you're hereby elected to play half of this Socratic Dialogue... (Can you tell what term _I_ learned this week?)
It's called COPYright, people - COPYright.... COPY right. As in, the right to control the COPYING of the work, and to be compensated when it is.
"So does that mean if I borrow a book from a friend and never return it, I am not only guilty of theft, but of failure to pay royalties?" - No, the royalties were paid when the book was first purchased - authorizing its existence. But you're definitely a thief, and I've called a few like you "friend" over the years. Come on over and I'll introduce you to my new best friend, L. Slugger.
"Am I then even ALLOWED to borrow a book from a friend if I receive the full intellectual, entertainment or other value it possesses without proper compensation of the copyright holders?" - Borrow away - it's called COPYright. Not Viewright, or Cogitationright, or Entertainedright, or Performanceright. COPYRIGHT.
"Am I obligated to then purchase my own copy of the material to satisfy the publisher and artist's right to collect compensation for their work?" No, but it'd certainly be nice and I'm sure no one would complain too much - except Frank - who hates the whole "capitalist" thing.
"If I borrow a book from the library, is that not serial theft of intellectual property? If a library lends the latest hardcovers, CDs and DVDs, isn't that an infringement the same as downloading music online? Granted I don't own it, but I have access to the material any time I wish without the obligation of paying anyone anything. How does a library set itself up to compensate per use? If royalties are paid per-performance in the case of radio, television and film, who pays when fifty people borrow the latest John Grisham novel instead of going to the local bookstore?"
OK, here is the meat of the argument - and I'm surprised so many don't get it. (Joseph J. Finn gets it - so how hard can it be? Joseph, I'm joking...) The library and Napster aren't even close to the same thing, and Joseph was very close to stating it. The Library paid for the book, shelved the book, and lends out the book. Person one, comes in and borrows the book. Person two comes in five minutes later, see the book is in the card catalog, looks for the book and CAN'T FIND IT. She inquires sweetly at the circulation desk and is politely informed by the librarian that the book is currently on loan and would she like to be placed on the waiting list? She indicates the affirmative, and a week later, when Person One returns the tome - she is called by the librarian's co-worker that they have the book on hold and she can come in any time to pick it up.... That's the library model.
Now, Napster. I'm feeling generoous today so I'm going to give Person One the benefit of the doubt and say that they go out and purchase the latest album by the hit group POPSENSATION. Now the first single on the album is a groovin' track and Person One feels compelled to share the joy. He rips it off of the CD, which he paid the royalties for, and puts it on his diskdrive in the SHARED folder. Moments later, Person Two runs a search on his favorite group, and lo and behold - the latest single shows up as available for download. Cool, he thinks (I'm making Person Two a he here, cause we know she's are all sweetness and light....), and he clicks to download it. Moments later, the groove beat of POPSENSATION is wafting from his speakers. (Person Two has broadband) Person Two likes this tune, but he doesn't want to be tied to the Beige Box, man - such a bummer. So he uses he handy syncing software and downloads it to his Windows compatible iPod, and away he goes... Meanwhile, Person one has made a CD-R copy of the latest tune for his Best Friend who is unfortunately, seriously internet disabled. (He only has dial-up) Persons Three through Two Hundred and Fifty-Six have also discovered that the new tune is on-line, and they too, click to download. But this means serious bummage, dude - 'cause even though Person One has, like, a T3 line - this is waaay more than he can handle so some of the people get tired of waiting, and they click on the next person who has this awesome tune, dude - which just so happens to be Person Two. (Don't you just love that the Napster software is just so well designed that it automatically puts all the songs you download into your own SHARED folder. That's just sooo righteous.) Pretty soon, there are two hundred and fifty-six copies of the tune available for download and a whole boatload of happy people groovin' to the POPSENSATION beat... That's the Napster model.
Let me just ask that rhetorical question you know I was going to ask. Which model involves the repeated breaking of say a COPYright restriction? Which model fails to pay the the expected royalty to the band for every COPY made...? Hmm? What's that? I'm not sure I heard you....
"If I borrow material I have no intention of buying, is that worse than, say, borrowing to see if the property is worth buying later? Do I even have the right to 'test-drive' such material if I retain some intangible residue from exposure to the medium?" See the answer above to the question "Am I then even ALLOWED...", that should help.
"If copyright doesn't permit ownership of an idea, but of the way in which that idea is packaged, am I free of obligation if I understand the message, but forget the metaphor?" - It's called COPYright, not UnderstandItright.
"If I borrow a copy of a book that has been removed from an Internet server or site due to copyright violation, is my possession of that material in printed form also a violation? If not, does the printing of this material from a digital source put me in the clear?" Borrowing book... not COPYING - OK by us. Printing a digital copy. Let's see - digital COPY printed, which is also known as a hardCOPY. Nope, don't think so. Book 'em Danno.
"Should I not borrow from a library or source other than a retailer of books to remain faithful to the restriction? If the electronic version is illegal but my physical version is legal, how does that satisfy copyright protection of the layout and design department of the publisher?" COPYright. COPYright. COPYright. Say it with me. COPYRIGHT.
The law says you can't COPY it. Get it right.
Bern
Alex,
Again, it isn't an arguement. I'm not refuting anyone or saying that I have a conclusion.
How can I miss a point if I don't draw a conclusion?
I agree with you. I'm not saying property is theft or theft is property. I'm interested in those gray areas I get to debate on a regular basis with my customers who seem to think that it's okay to copy a 500 page book at the library but wondr why I won't do it at work.
No, Masked Schmuck, you haven't raised an argument that merits further refutation. You already know the answer: libraries are legal "fair use," piracy is not. It's really that simple. The issue in Ellison's suit is not about whether piracy is piracy, but over who bears the responsibility for the piracy. In short, you've missed the point--and by now everyone knows you're doing so deliberately.
The rest is sophistry, and deserves to be treated as such. You already knew the answers before you posted. You just wanted to get a response. I gave you the one you'd earned.
--alex
I'm sure Charlie will arrive shortly to bulldoze these few houses of cards, but let me add a brief two cents.
It's been my experience that relatively intelligent people have very little trouble finding all sorts of rationalizations as to why THEIR theft isn't REALLY theft. The law, curiously, remains the law. It is an imperfect organ of society, as are most such organs. But even as complicated a one as the judicial system is theoretically set up in such a way that the guy who transcribes a book to read to his blind friend or who rents a movie to show to a huge crowd of poor kids is given proper consideration. Please don't think you're being Thoreau-like and extending people's civil liberties by being a prick about the unavoidable philosophical loopholes.
It also needs to be said that a "national organization" with a high-minded name is in no way guaranteed to be any less an enemy of the people than an oil producer or terrorist. I would have thought the party involved would know better than to engage in as despicable and obvious a debate tactic ("You said they're wrong! That means you're saying they're terrorists! Or maybe Nazis! Or baby-eating terrorist Nazis! Which they obviously aren't, so YOU must be wrong!").
And speaking of parties involved (Hi Eric! Hi Jay!) - my tolerance for anonymous posts ends when they are used to engage in needling or backstabbing. This also extends to those stupid "Ghost of" posts which keep cropping up here. The posting system is set up to be convenient to first-time and shy users, not to allow potshots taken from the safety of anonymity. Those of you who know better, or SHOULD know better, including those I have ALREADY discussed my distaste of this practice with in e-mail, please cut it the hell out.
Alex,
Schmuck I may be, but you haven't addressed how they are different. The points are brought up for discussion, not to support a point of view. If I wanted to do that, I would have made statements supported by evidence. I'm asking because I want to know and provocation seems to be the best way to get Webderlanders talking.
Dr. Schmuck
Dear Masked Schmuck Whose Name No One Will Ever Recognize,
That's an interesting experiment you suggest. Since you think it's a good idea, here's another idea for you: do it yourself, with your own material. No one here will try to stop you. It's your material, after all. Here's your chance to be a true Internet Pioneer! Show up all the old fuddy-duddies who believe in personal property! Strike a blow for anonymous twits everywhere!
We're all agog with wonder at your marvelous audacity, honestly. Would these fingers lie?
--Alex
So, let me get this straight CEP, the underlying point is that you're trying to get the comments stricken procedurally and that your opposition includes, but is not limited too (like my legalese?):
"Association of American Universities, American Council on Education, National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, Association of Research Libraries, American Association of Law Libraries, and American Library Association."
Oh yeah, those groups are right up there with oil producers and Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. We can't allow those "Evildoers" the American Library Association to get a word in edgewise can we? What would they prattle on about anyway: this kind of strict interpretation of copyright law would undermine the very principle of libraries as Frank has alluded to in his brilliant posts (Hail Satan!)? And, what, you won't even get a hearing until Mid Feb? You do realize that kids will have half gig IPODs around their keychains doncha with no realistic DRM on the horizon right...?
Sincerely,
The Lurking Evil That Dares Not Speaks Its Name
PS: Look, why doesn't Harlan just do an experiment? He has enough material for a small country as I've stated in other forums. Why doesn't he just publish two books of lesser material or stuff that he doesn't value as much. Take one book and sue anyone who dares mention even the name of the book in chatrooms, message boards, email, etc., or the current Brilliant Plan...But with the other book, post the stories everywhere, newsgroups, email chain letters, websites, blogs, arcane net technology I haven't heard of yet...And then compare your sales. My humble guess is that you'll get Eric Flint's results and that not only will book two sell more than book one, but your overall sales will increase as well and the next time you query that ignorant frell over at the Village Voice they'll know who the frell you are...and tremble accordingly. Just a thought. Now, back to the lurking slime of mine evil...
So does that mean if I borrow a book from a friend and never return it, I am not only guilty of theft, but of failure to pay royalties?
Am I then even ALLOWED to borrow a book from a friend if I receive the full intellectual, entertainment or other value it possesses without proper compensation of the copyright holders?
Am I obligated to then purchase my own copy of the material to satisfy the publisher and artist's right to collect compensation for their work?
If I borrow a book from the library, is that not serial theft of intellectual property? If a library lends the latest hardcovers, CDs and DVDs, isn't that an infringement the same as downloading music online? Granted I don't own it, but I have access to the material any time I wish without the obligation of paying anyone anything. How does a library set itself up to compensate per use? If royalties are paid per-performance in the case of radio, television and film, who pays when fifty people borrow the latest John Grisham novel instead of going to the local bookstore?
If I borrow material I have no intention of buying, is that worse than, say, borrowing to see if the property is worth buying later? Do I even have the right to "test-drive" such material if I retain some intangible residue from exposure to the medium?
If copyright doesn't permit ownership of an idea, but of the way in which that idea is packaged, am I free of obligation if I understand the message, but forget the metaphor?
If I borrow a copy of a book that has been removed from an Internet server or site due to copyright violation, is my possession of that material in printed form also a violation? If not, does the printing of this material from a digital source put me in the clear?
Should I not borrow from a library or source other than a retailer of books to remain faithful to the restriction? If the electronic version is illegal but my physical version is legal, how does that satisfy copyright protection of the layout and design department of the publisher?
" My view as a Libertarian Socialist (anarchist) is that most forms of property are basically theft. "
C'mon, Frank. Let's get real on this one. Which kinds? Personal property? Corporate property? Government property? My clothing? My ideas? This is why libertarianism is looked down upon by most humans; it comes up with these whacky, completely untenable ideas.
People like to own stuff! Is it a power thing? Sure. But it's also based on their hard work and their abilities. They worked for thst stuff, and tye're going to reject some half-baked political theory that claims they're wrong for owning it.
No matter if you love or loathe horror movies, you'll probably find this more hilarious than SCREAM or SCARY MOVIE could ever hope to be:
http://nac.tamu.edu/x075bb/survival.html
My personal favourites: Numbers 83 and 208.
"I don't think it's theft" is the excuse we hear from everyone who argues "information wants to be free." If it's not specifically permitted by the copyright owner and laws, it's theft. Whether you think so isn't the issue, Frank.
There they go again: I never said I would "steal" anything, but I don't think that downloading a song is theft. Actually, most civil libertarians would agree.
Frank, I'm sorry, but you are advancing a self-serving rationalization here, and in the end, it's still theft. If you don't wish to take part in the system that enriches a corporation more than the artist, you don't have to. You need only refuse to buy or use any of its products. But when you claim their enrichment gives you the moral right to steal a copy, you aren't just robbing the corporation; you're robbing the artist.
If you don't believe in the system, opt out of it. Don't use it as an excuse to steal the bread from the artist's mouth.
--alex
Frank,
Er...because your case violates the legal principle of "fair usage?" To wit, when you take a song from the Internet that somebody (hopefully) paid money for to compensate the artist and the publishing company, you and the person who put the song up are violating the fair usage principle that the buyer implicitly agreed to in purchasing the song. To take the example for libraries, they are operating under the fair usage that they may lend out copies of books they have purchased. Now, if they were to start making full photocopies of books and giving them away to patrons, that would be a violation of fair usage. Whether or not the album or the book is mostly crap is of no consequence; copyright rightly covers all work, whether good or bad.
Regards,
Joseph
Minor case update (so minor I won't even post it on my webpage):
We just filed a motion to strike an attempt to evade the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure by a group that sure as hell should know better. The "Education Amici" (Association of American Universities, American Council on Education, National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, Association of Research Libraries, American Association of Law Libraries, and American Library Association) tried to file a 1,400-word letter "stating their support" for another amicus's position. Just a few problems with the letter:
* It's not a "short letter" indicating that it "joins the brief of an amicus," being 20% of the length of a full amicus brief. (The rule says two pages, about 350 words.)
* It's a month and a half late.
* It doesn't cite to the record, to the briefs, or even to Judge Cooper's thoughtful (if wrong in some respects) opinion.
I won't go on--there are other, more-disturbing problems--except to note that this is not the first time I've seen this sort of nonsense from the law firm involved.
Otherwise, there is a good chance that by this time next week we'll know when and where oral argument will be held. The Ninth Circuit issues a scheduling order for argument midmonth every month, and we're just about in the window now. If issued this month, argument will be from mid-February to mid-March.
Frank,
"The point about Picasso was good, but remember, Picasso would scribble stuff on napkins just to make an extra buck from his name."
...I LOVE those scribbles, you uncultured savage.
rich,
"Far be it from me to come to Rob's defense as I'm sure he'll send volley after volley your way, along with edited comments, and clarifications on what he really meant to say, but..."
Oyyyyyyyye. Now that truly, TRULY hurt. HOW am I to handle an emotionally crippling "volley" like THAT? At LEAST be kind enough to supply me with the phone number of a good therapist...and not just leave me on the roadside crying and moaning in a fetal position.
BTW, you: I never venture to "clarify" what I "meant" to say. I say precisely what I mean. I realize supporting facts in an ordered argument mean little to you; but if some of you cretins (which excludes Chris, just to make you feel relieved about THAT) are too damn dense to follow the obvious I sometimes have to elaborate...to HELP you along (no wonder Spielberg doesn't trust his audiences).
(See, even in a pathetic fetal curl my Charles Bronson defiance bursts like a solar flare)
Talkin' bout a bunch of cluckin hens; I never implied that you should not make money from art, but in the real world, you probobly will not make much money, so you should create art for the sheer joy of it. Sure, in my dream democracy artists would receive a subsidy from the government, but I am not dreaming and we are in the middle of nightmare central here, and reality is as bitter as the taste in a poor artist's mouth.
My view as a Libertarian Socialist (anarchist) is that most forms of property are basically theft. As the land we live on now was stolen from the Indians, intellectual property is in the hands of mostly corporations. They control who sells and who stays marginalized. Corporations have complete control of the media filter and the radio air-waves; which in a perfect world would belong to the people. This makes their ownership and control illegitimate. They were handed the keys to the kingdom under un-democratic means, and therefore they have no right to my money or anyone elses. But as I said, I am in the real world, and that world is anti-democratic and capitalist in nature. I will strive to change the way this world functions, but for now I except the nature of the game.
I make my decision what I will pay money for and what I will not. Any book, I feel does not deserve my money or I think the author is un-ethical, I will either get the book from a library or read it in a book store. I am not on the side of people who advocate stealing books or cds as protest moves, but I sympathize with the morality of why they do it.
And on the music sharing debate I have no qualms with taking a song from the internet, especially if that song comes from an album with mostly bad songs. If it is available and no money passes hands then what is the problem? I am against pirating, but file sharing does not constitute piracy; at least not to Churchomsky.
You all seem to be advocating that they either privatize libraries or get rid of them. Remember, that when you check out a book or cd or video, the artist makes no money from them. So there are criteria where art can be shared without compensation. I would surmise more people read certain authors in the library then would ever buy their books. Imagine the money the artist is missing out on? You all didn't think about that did you? ;-)
Why is a library ok, but not Napster? See, there are subtle points that can be missed in the heat of battle.
Now If I were to create art would I try to sell it on the open-market? Sure, because that is how the game is played. I do not like it, but I except it. Do I want the game changed? Yes, I do, but that is for another day and another Utopian fantasy. But nobody would be abliged to buy my art, and if someone needed it so bad they had to steal it, I as an artist would feel flattered. Would I try to jail someone for stealing my book? Probobly not, but I would hope that most people are ethical enough that enough of them would shell out the cash. I definetly am against the starving artist bit, believe me; been there, done that.
My hope is that more people become better more selective readers. But that is for another debate.
-----------------
The point about Picasso was good, but remember, Picasso would scribble stuff on napkins just to make an extra buck from his name. He lost part of his ethics because of the insane nature of commerce.
Xanadu: In reply to your query on Friday, I greatly enjoyed "The Matrix" but haven't seen "Gattaca." I found "The Matrix" absolutely compelling, and wished I'd seen it on the big screen instead of on VHS. Where "The Matrix" successfully mixes action/adventure with science fiction and flies with a visceral cinematic flare, "Equilibrium" lies there like a dull thud, post-vibration. Also, where "The Matrix" is tricky, and slight-of-hand with it's reality/concept/presentation, "Equilibrium" is severely obvious.
Chris L,
Far be it from me to come to Rob's defense as I'm sure he'll send volley after volley your way, along with edited comments, and clarifications on what he really meant to say, but...
The quote you pulled from his post is actually dead on, in my opinion. Your analogy with films is really about making money and not art. And I agree with your parting shot regarding exclusivity in art and commerce, but the bottomline is these people (artists) have to do it, they have to create, they have to write, draw, sculpt, or whatever because it is something they cannot stop.
Again, this is strictly from an artistic point of view and doesn't include those that are just in it for the money (the bad movies or the latest 'thriller'). I think any artist will tell you that it's fine and dandy that they're getting paid to do something they love, but even if they weren't getting paid they'd have to use this creative outlet, anyway.
**While I agree the endeavor (in whatever form) comes to an artist through an internal NEED and sheer love of it, whether or not it can make money,**
I'm not sure I'd even agree with this.
The quality of films, particularly the scripts on which they were based, jumped dramatically once markets expanded to the point where sufficient money was available. More money meant more people who wanted to be part of the business. And while the majority were hacks, the law of large numbers kicked in and produced better work at the top end.
Something similar occurred regarding short stories and plays in the late 19th century. Short stories and serials published in magazines became extremely popular with the public. More writers who may have otherwise sought other work crowded into the field. A cottage industry in how-to books sprang up over night. And so on.
Not only are art and commerce not mutually exclusive, I would argue they are mutually dependent. The romantic notion of the starving artist is really a load of crap.
Alex Berman,
Sure, if I could watch the Blackhawks on TV....
Regards,
Joseph
Frank,
" The point that artists should never expect to make money from it; that they should do it for the sheer love of it; or it is not purely art, but commerce."
While I agree the endeavor (in whatever form) comes to an artist through an internal NEED and sheer love of it, whether or not it can make money, the foresight and ability to make it marketeable absolutely varies with the individual. The Picasso/Van Gogh example is an excellent model. Picasso marketed himself ingeniously, shifting painting styles, creating trends, taking advantage of media promotion, and throwing in charisma to boot (yet WITHOUT compromising sincerity in his art); Van Gogh sure as hell WANTED to make money (his brother did everything he could) but didn't know how (though, to be fair, obviously, his illness didn't help; I absolutely believe, had he lived a long life, overcoming the disabilities, his brother would have gotten him on track; eventually, he WOULD have learned how to market himself).
Some get it together, some don't. On one leg you have your Picassos and Ellisons; on the other you have your Van Goghs and Poes. The FIXED common factor - the unchanging boundary - is the need and drive; all these people would continue the work whether they'd earned an income from it or not...because it's the only REAL thing that's LIFE to them. But the ability to make the work remunerative varies with the individual. One thing IS certain: in that process, the individual has to know or acknowledge (or at least HAVE someone in his life who does; that's the only way Pollock ever saw an income from it) when one piece of work is ENTIRELY for himself and when another effort meets disciplines and confines of commercial criteria (wherein personal elements are either placed aside or intermixed and imbedded cleverly with the commission) OR the marketing strategies that WOULD make his personal art profitable. There's no set rule, as some aesthetes try to put down; but there IS a process, if one wants to make the ends of art and commerce meet.
JOSEPH: But at least you have the Bears and--oh, wait.
(Well, the Blackhawks don't have a losing record; that's something, right ...?)
Jon,
Please, no reminding me about basketball. My Bulls have a couple more years of rebuilding.
Ah, well - 111 days until Opening Day.
Regards,
Joseph
Frank reported
> Camille Paglia made the same point about art: The point
> that artists should never expect to make money from it;
> that they should do it for the sheer love of it; or it
> is not purely art, but commerce.
Paglia is hugely entertaining, and sometimes quite sharp, but this is not one of her better lines. How comes it's never artists who say things like this, but critics and fans?
If you're starting out to create art, this may be a healthy attitude -- find your "voice," don't copy what's selling currently -- but I'm not sure even Paglia would agree that an artist should expect NEVER to make money.
Look at the difference in attitude between Picasso, a tireless self-promoter and trickster who lived long and prospered, and van Gogh, who didn't. Maybe in his heart of hearts, van Gogh would have preferred to be more like Picasso and simply didn't know how.
Setting up art v. commerce is a false dichotomy, anyway. Just because something doesn't sell doesn't make it good art, and some bestsellers, from Dickens to Fowles, are true artists.
Anyway, as antidote to Paglia, I offer the good Dr. Johnson, who said anyone who wrote for a reason other than money was a fool.
I don't fully agree with that attitude, either (he was probably smiling ironically as he said or penned it), but it's a healthy approach.
By the way, saw "Far From Heaven" and was deeply moved and impressed. It was a bit like reading Jane Austen for me; I resist initially because it's depicting a world totally foreign to my experience, one I would never be interested in experiencing, and yet I get so totally sucked in to its milieu that the emotional results are deep and devastating. Some of the people in my audience were laughing because they were so surprised by the absurdity of the behavior and values of the time, but I just found it painful, horridly painful, right from the very first minute.
Cookie~ Respectfully, I disagree. Your *skills* as a musician are what make your *time* valuable. It doesn't have to be {insert negative adjective of your choice here} to be work. Where do people get off thinking that you should only get paid for doing a job if you don't enjoy doing it?
I code for a living. My skills are in demand. I'm good at what I do. On the other hand, I enjoy it. I spend time in my free time learning more about it. Does this mean that somehow, by some strange cosmic contract, I shouldn't get paid to do what I do?
Art *is* work. The time spent to do it (or to get to where you're gonna do it) is irrelevant.
L.
The "work v art" thing reminds me of this story. I was playing a gig in a bar and before we began, I was sitting at the bar and talking to the bartender. The clock struck 6 and I said, "OK. Time to go to work." Then the bartender said, "Where do you work?" and I said,"Right here." Then she said, "Really? Did [the owner] just hire you?" And I said (pointing toward the piano), "No, that's my work." She looked a little confused, and then it dawned on her. "Oh, right!" she said. The bartender knew I was playing that night, but I was amused that the playing didn't register as "work" in her mind.
But as much as I love playing (and they call it playing for a reason---it's fun!), playing is work. It's like Phil Woods says, people have to realize that when they pay musicians, they're paying for the musician's time and effort. We'll play for free, but if you want us to come to your place, you pay us for travel, set up, and time. Art takes time. Time is valuable.
Joseph: Ah, if only baseball contracts were more like NFL contracts -- namely, non-guaranteed for the most part, at least the last time I checked. Last I heard, whoever had Albert Belle last (Baltimore?) was not only still paying his contract for last year despite his retirement, but also had to pay his per diem for the season.
Of course, my Raptors royally shot themselves in the salary cap foot with their three-year deal with Olaujawon.
Cheers, Jon
BTW, just so no one tries to fuck with me I saw it...
I misspelled "Ken Russel"...
Yeah, yeah...it's Ken Russell.
Now kiss my pinata.
**In this medium, the "author" is the visualist, whose personal expression dominates the narrative, philosophy, and subtexts throughout the film. That is why the "auteur" is only properly applied when referring to those exceptional few. **
Right.
I just watched the documentary "Divine Trash" about John Waters' early work. In the documentary, Lawrence Kardish of the Museum fo Modern Art in NYC says Waters is the sort of director they like to display because they seek out "auteurs." In other words, not all directors are auteurs. Most aren't. Some are.
What does it mean? It's a nebulous meaning but there's that undeniable sense of watching a movie and seeing something and saying "Yep, there's that John Waters again" or "Oh man, that's got Werner Herzog written all over it."
Hell, Russ Meyers is probably a good example of an auteur. When you watch a Russ Meyer film, well, let's just say you know damn well you are watching a Russ Meyer film. Whatever the hell is up on that screen is definitely a manifestation of that great, crazy pervert's vision. Though special credit goes to the great crazy pervert who wrote the script for Beyond the Valley of the Dolls too.
Chris,
"The notion that any director is the author of, say, a James Bond film is asinine. The possessory credit in Hollywood is an insult."
Right. But it's Sarris' rendition (actually, read about Kael's role in it sometime; SHE actually brought more attention to the concept by turning it into embroiled controversy than Sarris himself) that is being used perversely by the Hollywood system so that hacks like Sonnenfeld or your James Bond director (actually, in the Bond cases, it's the producers who are claiming the possessory privilege) can control all decisions on the project.
In film, to me, "the author" is not so literlized, as meaning the one who WRITES it. In this medium, the "author" is the visualist, whose personal expression dominates the narrative, philosophy, and subtexts throughout the film. That is why the "auteur" is only properly applied when referring to those exceptional few. In most other cases, credits are collaborative. The WRITER did not do the film (thus, he is not the author of the film, he is author of the script; no matter what, there's a difference); the director (with obvious exceptions) did not do the script. Credits, I feel, should express such contributions accordingly.
Well, editor's note (boy, I oughtta be PAID for editing my own stuff)...
"Most writers responsible for the screenplay (that includes any input from the director himself) aren't going to be able to do SHIT with the camera and editing"
To make the sentence technically clearer, since I'm not trying to say the director (along with the writers) "isn't going to be able to do SHIT with the camera and editing"...
Just read it as, "Most screenwriters couldn't do SHIT in the shooting and editing process"
Alexes:
Excellent points, gentleman. Let's just make sure to lay the blame at the feet of the clueless industry and the bloated egos of hack directors, not with Sarris or the New Wavers.
The notion that any director is the author of, say, a James Bond film is asinine. The possessory credit in Hollywood is an insult.
But there IS such a thing as an auteur and, IMHO, the medium achieves some of its best moments when one guiding vision really does emerge and produce what we see on screen. Not that there aren't lovely studio pictures too.
Maximum Point of Diminishing Returns
Alex, Chris, et al
I'd like to quickly reiterate here, Truffaut did not come up with the auteur "theory". Truffaut formulated the politique des auteurs - the auteur "policy". Sounds frivolous, but in this case it isn't. Truffaut didn't think every director was an artist. Far from it. He thought most directors were mere "furniture movers". The term auteur was reserved for those exceptional directors - like Chaplin, Welles and Ford - who managed to impose very singular personal visions on diverse material over the course of a career (I just recalled here that Pauline Kael had mounted a failed campaign to deprive Orson Welles of the title of Citizen Kane's auteur, to direct the credit for the film to screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz; for reasons I'll elaborate in a moment I don't agree with her effort and I never would).
It was Sarris who hilariously designated the concept as a "theory", as though we were applying a set of scientific propositions to explain a phenomenon. The auteur concept emerged in France, but America is where it would be reduced to a generic device.
Except when due credit is denied a writer, or anyone else's creative input in the filmmaking process, it's actually a pretty silly argument...simply because it's so subjective. Most writers responsible for the screenplay (that includes any input from the director himself) aren't going to be able to do SHIT with the camera and editing; on the other extreme, many directors can't WRITE worth shit. Hence, there's a direct honesty in, say, "A film by Ridley Scott from a script by Dan O'Bannon". Or a variant of this. Of course, it often depends on the reputation of those involved too. When Ken Russel teamed with Paddy Chayefsky to do ALTERED STATES the two REALLY clashed. Legally Russel couldn't touch a word of Chayefsky's script. But he pulled off tricks with the camera Chayefsky never thought of...VERY cool ones that added SO much to the visual storytelling experience (just as a director can ruin what a writer might bring to the project, the writer can take away elements from it as well if HE dominates all decisions). WHO'S film is it? It's NOT Chayefsky's; the SCRIPT is Chayefsky's. The film is Russel's. (I'll leave out the fact Chayefsky protested by using his pseudonym). Thus, it becomes a story from both (having ORIGINATED, obviously, from Chayefsky). On the other hand when you have a genuine hack behind the camera (and, man, we've a SWARM of THOSE guys) and a remarkable writer, the movie can ONLY draw its power from the script and cast. I can't even begin counting these cases. Now and then, the reverse is true, wherein a SHITTY script is redeemed by a remarkable director (he might bring style to an otherwise mundane plot); which is why the success or failure of a film does not necessarily begin and end with the screenwriter. Other times the familiar imprints of a well-known producer would dominate the movie (more often, of course, in them days of the OLD Hollywood system). None of it is black and white. I think a great deal of it has to be weighed by the reputation of those involved. That's why, unless someone is denied proper credit in his contribution or some producer allows the quality of a script to be corrupted by a hack director on the payroll, it becomes a silly argument when simplified to some kind of proposition. The concept is just a tool; a way of approaching things. But, depending on the people involved, we need a SET of tools to fit the situation, deal to deal; not a standard one to fit ALL situations. The latter, I think, simply came to impose itself too much in today's setting of manipulative marketers.
Yet Sarris DID reduce it to a rule-of-thumb, allowing a system to give excessive control to the director, whether he's a hack or not. The result is some dipshit (with an unremarkable track record) may toss out what was a good script and hire two, three, maybe four kissass writers who come up with an atrocity; the hack has HIS way without a challenge. You wind up with generic shit (THE WILD, WILD WEST movie directed by a true nadir, Barry Sonnenfeld, is an example that just sprung to mind). These are the hustles of Truffaut's "furniture movers" .
Art & commerce are not mutually exclusive. There is nothing high and holy about creating works of art. Just because an artist does something that the general populace *can't*, doesn't make the product anymore sacred than, say, the research done by scientists. Whether it's a service or a product, lay down the cold cash or go the fuck away.
Only the filth-dwelling, shit-throwing groundlings want to make the distinction between "WORK" (which by definition is not mystical or, in any form or fashion, enjoyable) and "ART" (which by definition is mysterious and somehow not messy or difficult). If you're *not* lucky enough to get paid to do what you love, fuck you. That's your problem.
Realizing more and more how blessed I am to have a job that I do well, get paid for on a regular basis, and is more challenging than shovelling shit.
L.
On a less serious not:
C'mon! One of you people couldn't urge your local ball team to take Frank Thomas off our hands by yesterday? Jeeeezzz! Now' we've three people sharing DH, Thoams wants playing time at first, and it's all gone to hell. Freaking cheap Orioles.
Regards,
Joseph
P.S. That was a joke about Baltimore. I wouldn't have paid that much for Thomas, either..
Alex K., my namesake, we think alike.
Be very, very, very afraid.
CHRIS: You seem to be forgetting something. It matters very little at all whether or not we, as students of film--or in my case, guys who like flicks--accept the current view of the auteur theory, be it a misreading or no. What matters is that the industry as a whole, or at least the drunken captains of said industry, DO.
Cases in point?
Okay. The Kevin Smith script of SUPERMAN LIVES, for those of you who've read it. A very good script, done several years ago with wit and respect for the subject matter. Thrown aside when Tim Burton was brought on board the project. The Superman project has since gone through three directors and a couple stars attached to it, and has also gone through several scripts and screenwriters. Now it's to be done by the director of CHARLIE'S ANGELS--IF it gets done, of course.
Harlan's script for I, ROBOT. It's received much acclaim, was beloved by the man who originally created the stories, and was published as a well-received book on its own. How many directors have passed through the revolving door of that project since Costa-Gavras? How many of them have decided that it wasn't the script for them?
There are any number of stories of this sort.
In the kingdom of the blind, the one-lensed man is king. No matter what Truffaut may have meant when he sketched out his view of the auteur theory, the Powers That Pee see directors as emperors.
(When, of course, they're not putting on their kneepads for star actors, of course)
Chris, you're missing the point. It no longer matters what Sarris thinks. It doesn't matter what the French auetur theorists think. What matters is how the film world today things--and, like it or not, in today's film world, the directer is the author, no matter who else was involved. The studio's assumption that the director, not the writer, of "The Wrath of Khan" was the creative force behind that film is an illustration of this perception.
You're in the position of someone who argues that Derrida might not agree with all of today's whackier notions of deconstructionism. It's irrelevant; the theory has taken on a meaning that is commonly understood, whether he would like it or not.
Of course, in deconstructionist theory, what he intended is irrelevant anyway, but that's another kettle of eyeball stew entirely.
**And they hired the same director. The director, who, under the auteur theory, is the true "author" of the film. **
Again, I would like to note that I believe this is a serious misreading of the so-called auteur theory.
I don't think Sarris would ever claim that, for example, Jan de Bont is the true author of Twister. And that would, in fact, be part of the problem with it.
There is no claim made by the "auteur theory" that the director is the one true author of every film that is made. The idea is that a film is best served when there IS such a person who is the one driving voice or visionary of the film.
I don't think Sarris would ever claim that the majority of Hollywood films have any "auteur" at all.
But then I don't know as much about Sarris' intent as I do about Truffaut's so I may be wrong and Sarris may really have assed things up as badly as some people claim.
Jim, there is one profession besides art where one hears the "you should be doing it for the love of the profession, not for the money" bullshit: teaching. Teachers hear this every time they have a strike vote. It usually takes the form of, "Don't they care about the kids?" That's usually followed by remarks about how overpaid teachers are, because they get three months of the year off.
And, Jim, your point about the screenwriters is very well-taken as well. For me, the great illustration of that is the "Star Trek" films. Few would deny that "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" is the best of the series. The studio finally noticed it, too. For for fourth or fifth or whatever film in the series, they decided to bring back the creator of that excellent flick.
And they hired the same director. The director, who, under the auteur theory, is the true "author" of the film. They hired Nicholas Myer and waited for lightening to strike again.
Meanwhile, Jack Soward, the real creator of "The Wrath of Khan," wasn't hired to write the script. So we got a Nicholas Myer film instead of a Jack Soward film. And it sucked. And the funny thing there is that Myer is a writer, and a competent one on some material (such as his thoroughly enjoyable "Seven Per-Cent Solution"), but when it came to Star Trek, Soward was the master. Soward's was the vision that created the best film of the series.
But you know the story about the dumb actress. "How dumb was she? She fucked the writer!"
--Alex
Jim,
I may be in the basement waiting for them Penthouse letters but I was the one who pointed out that some films are (or HAD been)shot without scripts; not quite WITHOUT scripts but STARTING without them or just working on the FRAMEWORK of a script.
Methinks I will need to move this link from my "literature" folder to my "movies" folder.
Addendum to my earlier post:
As Chris pointed out, some films are shot without scripts, so my comments don't apply to them, obviously. (To carry the musical metaphor one league farther, those films are like free jazz combos, instead of classical orchestras.) But since we're talking about Spielberg and other mainstream directors, it's kind of beside the point.
And yes, the names are properly spelled SCORSESE and SCHRADER. (Hey, the dogs were howling, so whaddya want?)
Brian,
I scrolled back to my original post about Spielberg just to see in what ways the rhetoric was "sloppy". While I concede I pounded it out rapidly and sent it through without any proofing, frankly, my rhetoric plays like the strings of a cithara. It's perfect. I stated my point precisely as I meant to. The argument was neither muddled nor contradicted.
Chris L: Add Mike Leigh to your list of exceptions to the general rule -- most of his movies are workshopped with the actors for quite awhile.
Cheers, Jon
I'm going to second Bern's thoughts on Churchomsky.
I ignored Sattler's remarks, 'cause they just weren't well thought out and, irregardless of what one thinks of KICK, it didn't make no fuckin' sense. So, I ignored it.
And, then...Churchomsky. Yet again, Frank shoots from the hip and knows not what he's talking about. So let's, as Curtis Blow may have said, 'break it down.'
"To be fair to Sattler, Camille Paglia made the same point about art: The point that artists should never expect to make money from it; that they should do it for the sheer love of it; or it is not purely art, but commerce."
Quite frankly, that's bullshit. But, since it's an opinion, I'll leave it at that and not get mired in loose definition.
"Copyright laws are like other property laws, and in my view all property laws are subject to regulation--fair regulation, mind you. I feel that "fair use" should be expanded, as long as you do not copy an entire book or article, that is is fine to copy vast parts of a work."
Oh, you think so, Doctor? How much VAST parts of a work is it ok to copy? And why should it be ok to copy VAST parts of a work? Mona Lisa without the smile? A Dali with one of the clocks missing?
"Or with the Napster debate, if one doesn't try to make money from the sale of copied work, then it would be fair to use that work to burn a cd or give away a cd to friends--as long as money doesn't change hands."
Missing the point entirely. It would be fairer to say that LACK of money is changing hands. As Xanadu rightly pointed out, it costs moola to put the bread and butter on the table. (or, whatever the metaphor is)
"I also believe that most book buyers are fair in how they approach a work. If they want it bad enough they will buy the book; if they do not, then...let a friend copy it and send it as email transaction--with no money changing hands, of course."
Oh. You mean steal.
"And let us be blunt: Books are damned expensive. This economy makes it hard to buy lots of books in succession. My suggestion is to read parts of a book in a book store first, before buying the tome; that way you will not get ripped off."
Huh? Thankyou, Smart Consumer. Ok, I see. Books are expensive so it's quite dandy to copy them or buy one and copy it and then give it away to your friends. 'Cause no money is changing hands. Meanwhile, the poor slob who worked on the book sees not a penny. Oh, that's right. The changing hands again.
"Because I do believe that a great work is timeless."
What the fuck's that got to do with anything? Bueller? Anyone?
Not much to say about Mr. Sattler's comments that others haven't, but I'll point out one thing:
I can never understand claims that artists shouldn't be compensated for their work. You NEVER hear these people say that about any other profession: "You know, plumbers should do it for the LOVE of the job, not for money!" "How DARE doctors expect to be paid for their time and expertise!" And so on. The sloppy logic here is obvious, I think.
Try again, Mr. Sattler.
Alex K. - you're right, I should try harder, but it's the freakin' arrogance of the position that gets me. The thought that their mere desire is sufficient cause to bend the universe to their will is so damn infuriating...
***breathe, Bernie, breathe***
I begin to understand where Harlan gets the desire to pull out the AK-47 on the lot of us.
XANADU: Don't take the language in my "remember the screenwriter" rant too much to heart. Trust me, it was written with more than a goodly chunk of tongue in my cheek. (Strangely enough, it wasn't my own, but that's another topic.) I mean, "you lack the common sense God gave the lowest planarian"? When I'm REALLY angry, my words tend to be a little more, shall we say, ANGLO-SAXON in nature.
So now that I've got that out of the way . . .
Lots of good comments regarding the auteur theory and the proper role of the director. Let me be clear: I never said the director wasn't important, just that, when discussing topics of authorial intent in a film (plot, characterization, theme), it's more appropriate to address the role of, well, the person who wrote the thing to begin with. For the record, I think Spielberg is a terrific director. Anyone who helms the production of films like JAWS, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, SCHINDLER'S LIST, ET, and EMPIRE OF THE SUN needs no defense from me. But he's still no writer. We can say that Spielberg has an affinity for certain subjects, and chooses scripts that reflect them, but his input into the project is still in the INTERPRETIVE realm only.
Now, that's no small input to have. Without going into all the things that a film director does, let's just say that he can influence the overall look, tone, and pacing of a film to a greater degree than almost anyone else you can name. But, in the end, he's still serving the words that are in front of him, words that, in Spielberg's case, someone else wrote. That's why I said Spielberg can't properly be compared to Wilder, Welles, et al--not because he isn't in their league as a director, but because he, in the final analysis, isn't the AUTHOR of the films bearing his name. That's all. (And yes, Bern, we CAN include Ed Wood in that list. His films may look like all involved had chunks of their brains removed with corkscrews, but every last stinkin' one of 'em reflects Ed's vision from the ground up.)
Now, I'll admit that when I'm talking about the films that Spielberg's directed, yeah, I usually refer to them as HIS works, rather than (insert individual screenwriter's name here)'s. In a way, I've been as indocrinated by the Cult of the Director as everyone else. But when someone mentions EMPIRE OF THE SUN, which may be the finest thing Spieilberg ever attached his name to, I'll always bring up the sublime script of Tom Stoppard, who's revealed himself to be as gifted a screenwriter as he is a playwright. Just give credit where it's due, is all I'm saying.
The best analogy to the director's role in filmmaking that I can think of involves the symphony orchestra. The conductor, like the director, has considerable control in how the material is presented--its tempo, the dynamics of specific passages, the overall ambience of the piece--but it's not his score on the music stand. When I cue up a Mahler CD in my stereo, I'm not thinking, "WOW! I'm in the mood for Leonard Bernstein conducting the New York Philharmonic!", though that can certainly influence my choice of recording. In the end, I want to hear the MUSIC, which Bernstein, as wonderful as he was, didn't compose. (Unless he's conducting one of his own works, of course.)
Joseph wondered what my opinion of Scorcese was. Easy: a great director with an energy and verve so intense that the screen practically PALPITATES. But when we talk about TAXI DRIVER and RAGING BULL, we have to credit them as much to Paul Shrader as anyone else, if we're honest. (In a way, those films fit more comfortably into Shrader's oeuvre than Scorcese's. Scorcese, in the scripts that he DOES write, avoids putting the sociopaths in the primary roles. Even in GOODFELLAS, the movie focused on Henry Hill, not Joe Pesci's character.) Also, Joseph pointed out that Kurosawa rarely created the stories he scripted. I'll agree, and add that Welles's films were, in the main, adaptations as well. But that was beside my point, Joe--whether adapting from an outside source, or creating the whole story from scratch, the screenwriter is still responsible for blueprinting the movie. So even when Welles is translating Kafka's THE TRIAL into a film script, he's still WRITING. Adaptation or no, it's all the same thing, in my view.
And now my dogs are howling to be let out, so I think I'll wrap this up:
ROB: Ok, I'll toss a copy of PENTHOUSE LETTERS down there, as well. Goddamn, I save your neck from the noose, and all I get is attitude. See if *I* do you any favors again.
LIL' WASHU: On the hook? You? NEVER, little buddy! Don't you know it's you and me against the world? I tell you, when I finally snap and do a Charles Whitman, I want YOU to be there by my side, feeding me ammo! Feed me, Lil' Washu, feed me! (These kids today, you've always got to reassure them . . .)
Frank - wow, damn. I expected more of you, given your tenure here. Idiot can be forgiven because he knows not whence he speaks, but you... you have far more than just tread upon dangerous ground, you have clunked way the hell out onto the ice and are jumping up and down saying "See! It's a lot thicker than it looks!" Mind the creaking and cracking sounds all about you, young man.
You and I and Camilla Paglia disagree about "art". Basic definition disagree, so I won't really try to talk you down from that. But, as I rhetorically asked Idiot below; What on god's green earth makes you think YOU are entitled to be entertained, for free, by your betters? (And yes, they are our betters, 'cause neither you nor I will ever likely convince someone to pay us for our sterling wordcraft, or musicianship, or artistry, or even our masonry skills.) 'Cause that is what you advocate. How much of a novel would you be willing to copy over for a poor "brother" in need? How many stories from a collection? How many songs are you willing to rip and burn to CD?
Its must be nice to live in a world where YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY THE EFFIN' GROCERIES. A simple smile and nod, and kind young men take them out to the car and load them for you. Where cars run on good wishes and sunshine, and nobody ever asks to see the color of your money.
WELL I DON'T LIVE IN THAT WORLD, BUDDY, and neither does anyone else I know, including Harlan, Susan, Janet Asimov or any other craftsmen working their trade. They have bills to pay, windmills to overturn, and damn it, your "philosophical position" is condeming them to a life of abject poverty every bit as thoroughly as picking their pockets. You, and everyone who thinks like you Frank, are killing our artistic and cultural future by pennies.
Damn it, Frank, you really pissed me off again.
Bern
I share the general attitude toward Mr. Sattler's remarks here, but I think it might be valuable to point out the errors a bit more calmly. To wit:
Yes, R., piracy is the same as theft, because it does deny use. The use of a piece of art, to its creator and owner, is in its ability to provide the artist a living. Making a living allows the artist to create yet more art. The artist benefits, and so does the audience.
And yes, the audience also benefits from Asimov's work generating money. Asimov was a man like any other, with loved ones. Like anyone else, he wanted to leave an estate that would benefit Robyn and David (his children) and Janet (his wife). Would you rather the good doctor had worked for a corporation, to build up a nice pension plan and investments? He could have, you know. He could have concentrated on ventures that would produce income. Ah--and so he did. He left an estate of copyrighted material that generates the income. Deny him that right, that COPYright, and you deny him any reason to continue working and creating art after he's funded his own retirement.
For another example, do you know who Frank Zappa was? Zappa, knowing the end was near, put all his final recordings into the Zappa Family Trust. He worked hard to fill that trust with income-geneating work that would provide for his nearest and dearest after he was dead. Otherwise, hell, maybe he'd have just taken the last few years of his life as a vacation. He didn't--and now his family enjoys the income, and we, the audience, enjoy the records.
Finally, you're wrong in assuming older work doesn't generate income. Work, like artists, grows in fame. I wouldn't even try to guess how many times "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream" or "Repent, Harlequin! Said the Ticktockman" have been reprinted. Those are Harlan Ellison's retirement funds. They make it possible for him to survive. And every person who reads and enjoys those stories owes him a little bit for that enjoyment.
Copyright _does_ matter, and theft is theft. No thief deserves our respect or support. Artists, however, deserve both.
To be fair to Sattler, Camille Paglia made the same point about art: The point that artists should never expect to make money from it; that they should do it for the sheer love of it; or it is not purely art, but commerce.
Copyright laws are like other property laws, and in my view all property laws are subject to regulation--fair regulation, mind you. I feel that "fair use" should be expanded, as long as you do not copy an entire book or article, that is is fine to copy vast parts of a work. Or with the Napster debate, if one doesn't try to make money from the sale of copied work, then it would be fair to use that work to burn a cd or give away a cd to friends--as long as money doesn't change hands.
I also believe that most book buyers are fair in how they approach a work. If they want it bad enough they will buy the book; if they do not, then they will either go to the library to read it for free, or let a friend copy it and send it as email transaction--with no money changing hands, of course. And let us be blunt: Books are damned expensive. This economy makes it hard to buy lots of books in succession. My suggestion is to read parts of a book in a book store first, before buying the tome; that way you will not get ripped off. Because I do believe that a great work is timeless.
---------------
Spielberg is great with images and with actors, this is why I love the guy. And he is a humanist--a confused humanist, to be sure.
----------
Sattler, I would hide...hehe.
Ber