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 Fjelkegård"
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