Return to the Harlan Ellison Home Page
Alex Jay Berman <alexjay@earthlink.net>
BOS: If you want to see some GREAT selection of music that you won't see in the stores, go to CDBaby.com. There they stock ONLY indy albums, at some pretty good prices. The quality of the music is pretty uniformly damned good (though I'll admit to only looking at the blues and jazz selections), the shipping costs are reasonable, the attitude is fun, the customer service is excellent, and the fact that a good deal more of the money likely goes to the artist (who almost all have e-mail links posted and actually RESPOND!) is a very nice extra.
FRANK: I agree with you entirely: "Property" is a lie.
I'll be over to take your computer a week from Wednesday.
Zoë~ Three things:
a) Robert's Rules of Order: http://www.rulesonline.com/
b) "People generally quarrel because they cannot argue." Gilbert K. Chesterson
c) In our house, we have a rule. If you're arguing a subject, someone should be able to call "switch!" at any time, and each party must then argue the position opposite their own. This requires a complete understanding of the argument, and often helps one codify one's own position. Arguments disintegrate into quarrels as a direct result of a lack of common definition of terms and concepts.
L.
TO THE ANONYMOUS PACKRAT CALLING ITSELF "f--k y--":
Were I seeking the approbation of monkeys, I might give a minuscule momentary shit about your fundamentalist-adoration-of-the-internet I WANT IT GIVE IT TO ME IT'S MINE GIMME GIMME GIMME adolescent yuppie-offspring garbage. But since the howling wind that blows across the arid terrain between your ears drowns out all ethical considerations and all goodwill or commonsense, I turn away from you with as much concern as I would from the arrant pillar of salt that is your ancestor. I fart smarter entities than you after a good Cobb Salad, you useless little hyena-dropping.
As the Pope replied to the urchin who said, "Fuck you," ..."Fuck ME??? Fuck ME?!??? I'm the Pope, ya little asshole...fuck YOU!"
Cheerily, and without the ball-less, yellowstreak cowardice of them as has to hide out namelessly from standing behind their remarks, yr. pal, Harlan "More Guts on the Most Timorous Day of My Life than You'll Exhibit on the Noblest Day of Yours" Ellison
Diana - It seems to me (although I don't always follow this in real life, sadly) that the point of arguing shouldn't be to "win" but (mostly) to learn. Especially on this here board. Especially when you ask for clarification on something from a specific person, thus being sure to get some opinion mixed in with fact.
A thought, anyway.
--Zoë Rose
Recil
Regarding:
"None of my nephews, or any of their friends give a damn about the books. I would agree with you, that you and I like to read books, but let's face reality, our children and their children will have new media to play around with. Just try to take off the veneer of romance for a minute, look at just how clumsy and antiquated it looks to a kid who can watch a movie and play video games of said movie and watch behind the scenes making of, etc., etc.., and you may get a hint at how static books appear to our younger generations coming down the pipe"
Speaking only from what I see in my son, he started reading before he was two, and for the first seven years of his life he was an avid reader, to the extent that he was, at that point, already reading on a high school level. Then, against my express request NOT to, my asshole mother gave him a couple of video game players. That was the beginning of the end of his interest in reading. Now books are a last resort, if he has no access to the internet, or RPG's, he might pick one up. But really, he almost never reads books anymore. Maybe one or two year, if that. Down from three or four a week at age seven, to maybe one or two a year at eighteen. Very sad. I think so anyway. Did I mention I think my mother's an asshole?
Bye for now.
Diana
CEP
Thanks for your further input on all this.
Regarding:
" The biggest of those compromises is the "work for hire" doctrine; it is also the single doctrine that is behind all of the nonsense on the Internet related to music, movies, and TV. For example, who owns the copyright in a motion picture? The screenwriter? The director? The cinematographer? The set designer? The film editor? None of the above: the copyright in a motion picture is owned by the people who put up the money for it, even if they provided no creative input whatsoever"
I thought that the reason Mr Ellison always insists on the option to use the name Cordwainer Bird is because the above is true. I think I read somewhere that that way if he doesn't have enough control of the creative end of a production he's involved with to where he's able to signifigently effect the results to his satisfaction, and he thus thinks the final outcome sucks, he can, in effect, say he's disowning his part in the whole thing by using his pseudonym. Don't you think that's clever of him to do that? I do.
I would like very much to point out something that I've noticed you did twice so far in your last few posts to me that could maybe cause you some problems when your in a debate with someone. You're not the only person who does this. I hope you don't take it personally that I'm pointing it out.
You make these STATEMENTS and proceed from them as if you've established something by saying these things, when you haven't. You launch your "thuslies" from these statements. I'd recognize this as a weakness in your argument and question your foundational assumptions immediately, if I were arguing with you.Which I'm not. For example, just now, you stated "Art is dangerous. That's its job" If I were looking to win a debate with you I'd jump on that remark like a wolverine. Not because I necessarily disagree with it entirely, or even disagee with it at all, but because I'd be looking to win the argument. If I were arguing with you. Which I'm not. I'm just saying. Maybe art is dangerous, maybe it's not. Maybe being dangerous is art's "job". Maybe it's not. You haven't established this. See?
You did the same kind of thing when you stated "common courtesy dictates..." (or words very similar) then you said, "blah, blah, blah, thusly thusly thusly, blah, blah, blah". Which I didn't pay any attention to, because you'd just made that preceding STATEMENT that I could totally argue against. If I wanted to argue. Which I don't. Again, I'm just saying.
I couldn't, of course win any arguments on legal matters with you. But those two remarks I pointed out up there seemed to be more like philisophical statements, or subjective opinions, or something like that. Easy targets. See?
Bye for now.
Diana
Serious question: why are books so expensive these days too? $30 for a hard cover book, $20 for a trade paperback, $8 for a mass market paperback. I hate to say this, but I buy all my books used (there is a killer used bookstore in Ithaca) or off eBay. My library, sadly, sucks. New releases? Rarely. Wide variety? Not on your life. I donate what I can but...
Between this, and college costing $30,000 a year these days, I'm sort of feeling like there's a conspiracy to keep poor people dumb. Or maybe I'm just paranoid. Or both.
PAB
Someone already said it, but I'll reiterate that:
When Cindy stated: "If you think it will be over in 50 years then you never heard of Harry Potter. BEHOLD another generation of people who cannot make do without books."
That's sounds like a press-kit release or something, Cindy. A whole new generation of kids who want to watch the next harry potter movie. None of my nephews, or any of their friends give a damn about the books. I would agree with you, that you and I like to read books, but let's face reality, our children and their children will have new media to play around with. Just try to take off the veneer of romance for a minute, look at just how clumsy and antiquated it looks to a kid who can watch a movie and play video games of said movie and watch behind the scenes making of, etc., etc.., and you may get a hint at how static books appear to our younger generations coming down the pipe.
Ok, y'all. Diana questioned (politely) my assumptions regarding intellectual property. This is a fair enough question. Some of it requires a little bit more knowledge of the history of law than I'll inflict on you in detail; just trust me. (Yeah, trust a lawyer.)
Lemma: Intellectual property is the very worst way to encourage creation of both artistic and utilitarian mental product--except for all the others.
Specific counterexamples:
* Patronage allows (in fact, encourages) even greater concentration of sources--and therefore lesser diversity of viewpoints--than a private property system.
* Government patronage is even worse. Find me a single work of lasting value that was produced by a Soviet-subsidized artist that did not result in serious repercussions for the artist (Pasternak's inability to accept the Nobel Prize in Literature is only the tip of the iceberg). And don't kid yourself that a "democratic government" would be more trustworthy; it would just be more subtle.
* Expecting artists (broadest meaning) and inventors to survive on "donations" from the public is a true fantasy--particularly because the postindustrial economy depends upon a constant income stream from intellectual property to even exist.
* Allowing "free copying" of originals discourages uncontrolled distribution of works, and would lead to roundabout methods like even worse "shrinkwrap licenses."
None of this is to say that the copyright system is perfect. It is full of compromises, many of which are subject to serious abuse. The biggest of those compromises is the "work for hire" doctrine; it is also the single doctrine that is behind all of the nonsense on the Internet related to music, movies, and TV. For example, who owns the copyright in a motion picture? The screenwriter? The director? The cinematographer? The set designer? The film editor? None of the above: the copyright in a motion picture is owned by the people who put up the money for it, even if they provided no creative input whatsoever. Same for a sound recording. (The composer has a separate copyright, but then there's the "compulsory license" system.)
Stepping back from the economics for a moment, we have a second fundamental assumption.
Lemma: The noneconomic motivations for production of art require respect for artistic integrity and the artist.
This one is less demonstrable, if only because there is only about a 125-year record of art being protected principally by intellectual property laws. Parody is funny, it is necessary, it is essential; vandalism, however, is another matter. Vandalism is what Zoe described with the "filmed in the theater" DVDs, and is what is at issue in the "deprofanitizing" programs being used to remove all the naughty bits from films for the oversensitive (=closed-minded) viewers. Art is dangerous. That's its job. And the artist's dangerous visions must be respected as that artist's. I can trash them as garbage if I choose; but it is intellectually (and otherwise) dishonest to revise them for my own purposes _and then present that revision to others as if it was the artist's original vision_.
Spend two days shoveling and somebody opens the can of worms I referred to before I left. Not that this suprises me any more than a robin heralding the return of Spring in these parts but still. Sadly, "fuck you" actually raised a couple of interesting points and I would even attempt to address them despite the snide attitude but he/she/it posts anonymously so I pass.
In Ellison related news;
http://www.cleveland.com/books/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/entertainment/1045564323274230.xml
Don't know if I'll make it but I like the venue.
- Barney
[only one more vehicle to shovel out - groan]
Okay, I was just kidding, to paraphrase Michael Jackson...."Fuck You is not my son"
Diana
>And because I'm a criminal if I take the existing music in my CD collection and burn it onto a disc that REALLY rocks, my option involves constantly flipping through discs.<
I think you're wrong on this one:
The fair use doctrine allows an individual to make a copy of their lawfully obtained copyrighted work for their own personal use. Allowing people to make a copy of copyrighted music for their personal use provides for enhanced consumer convenience through legitimate and lawful copying. It can also enlarge the exploitable market for the rights holders. The fair use privilege's personal use right is what allows an individual to make a backup copy of their computer software as an essential defense against future media failure.
Personal use also permits music fans to make "mix tapes" or compilations of their favorite songs from their own personal music collection or the radio for their own personal enjoyment in a more convenient format, or "format shifting." Another example of acceptable personal use copying of a copyrighted work is "time-shifting," or the recording of a copyrighted program to enjoy at a later and more convenient time.
>Give me a CD that offers twelve shitty tracks and one good one for $20, something that I cannot even play on my goddam computer because the rapacious music industry wants to control where I do my listening<
FuckYou, you're fucked up. "Shitty tracks" is a personal judgement. Should I steal a book of poetry because I only like one poem? Or pilfer a movie because I only like one actor in it? Why should the record industry tailor their distribution methods to your cranky tastes?
As for playing music on your computer, sorry you're so technically inept, but here's a clue (the first of many you'll be getting on this board): playing CDs on your computer is about the weakest method of reproducing their sound. The sound system is never as good as the cheapest boom box, and if you're spending hundreds to make it so, with portably sub-woofers and the like, you're a geek.
Some of us have no problem buying CDs for just one or two songs; the $20 is not a deal-breaker. Maybe you should spruce up your resume, or ask if you can be promoted to the deep fryer, before you try to spend money like an adult.
Oh, and PETER - Yup, I've learned to love "real" DVDs. Even got a DVD/VCR so I can watch all my videos AND be somewhat up-to-date, as well. Wheee! Recently bought a couple DVDs, too - my favorite being "About a Boy."
--Zoë Rose
Oh, and CINDY-
I'm sad to have to disagree with you. Do you know how many weird looks I get when I tell someone I stayed up late, engrossed in a book? Or how many times my family would be "avoided" in restaurants because OUR version of a "night out" was to go to a bookstore, get new/used books for everyone, and then go out for a reading dinner? One time my dad nearly got in a fistfight when another customer snarked at him for asking the waiter to turn up the 'mood' lights, so we could all read better. There was also the time when, unpopular as I was in middle school, I became even more so for reading a book in the cafeteria. In fact, some jackass kid managed to "jostle" me into dropping the book in the grinder (you know, where all the trays disappeared into?). (Incidentally, the book was "Zoe's Zodiak," a great book for kids who like animals a lot).
Off the subject, but my dad (who assuaged his anger by telling the snarky guy's wife, "My condolences, ma'am,") enforcing our joy of reading and even the crappiness of kids my own age towards my reading, both somehow reinforced my love of escaping into books. I don't understand why others don't love it as much.
And Harry Potter - didn't take long to make it into a movie, now did it. And you and I both know the books are better - are almost ALWAYS better. Unfortunately, so many kids have seen the movie and not read the book. I even know a few who shrugged off having to read the book (so much effort, to read) because they knew the movie was coming out. *sigh*
One more off-the-cuff thought - one of the things I love about the guy I'm dating right now is that we read to eachother as well as suggest books for the other to read. We're on the last book of the "Ender's Game" series, for the ones we read out loud. It's such fun to find someone who likes and gets into reading like I do!
--Randomly,
--Zoë Rose
To "Fuck You"
Son? I told you NOT to post at mommy's forums...
Diana
"Don't pee on my leg and try to tell me it's raining" ~Judge Judy~
I hate her, but that was funny.
Diana
Harlan: Your automobile metaphor is preposterous. (And this from a man who once wrote an essay in which he prided himself on stealing records.) In a perfect world, art would involve transfer from listener to musician, reader to writer. But the reality is that the artist only owns about 10% of the car. Give me a car that is owned in whole or in large part by the artist, souped up with the latest parts and with a surefire maintenance plan, and I would willingly pay for the car. Give me a CD that offers twelve shitty tracks and one good one for $20, something that I cannot even play on my goddam computer because the rapacious music industry wants to control where I do my listening, and I would sooner tell you to sodomize a dead dog for offering me such an inferior product and download it. And I'd do the same goddam thing if you tried to offer me a shitty Dodge Dart for the price of a Lexus.
Of course, now that the single is dead, I can't buy the one good track (or even the killer B-sides not on the album). And because I'm a criminal if I take the existing music in my CD collection and burn it onto a disc that REALLY rocks, my option involves constantly flipping through discs.
Pretty much no one, aside from your fanboys here, cares about your lawsuit because it fails to account for the greed of the RIAA or offer a reasonable copyright alternative. It does not account for the authors who will remain out of print and forgotten because Eldred died and the copyright term as it stands under the Sonny Bono Act is as interminable and as unreasonable as a Theo Angelopoulos film.
$300,000 of your own money to become a poster boy for the RIAA, media conglomeration and corporate greed. Was it worth it?
How come, up 'til Friday, Iraq and Columbia were top news, and today I can't find ANYthing except for that boxing guy? Yeeesh. Anyway...
FORRESTER - Don't have the e-mail anymore ... drop me a line?
DTS - Same to you! Anymore "fat" pictures published of late? Now THERE'S a good picture to spread around the internet... *grin*
Re: Burning CDs. The only time I burn a CD is to make a mix of songs off CDs that I've purchased. You know, get the best songs from each album to make a driving soundtrack, or chillin' soundtrack, etc. And the only soundclips I really listen to are on BMG when I'm thinking of buying a CD from them.
Which makes me wonder... does BMG have ALL their listed artists' permission to put those clips online? I wonder...
--Zoë Rose
If you have purchased a CD at retail price between 1995-2000, you can file a claim for your part of the settlement at
https://webform.musiccdsettlement.com/english/forms/
Just FYI.
PAB
CDs ARE overpriced. It's a fact, jack. They're gouging us (often for an inferior product) and retail sales are declining as a result. In fact, there was a lawsuit recently where the major producers agreed to pay out to everyone who bought an overpriced CD between 1995-2000:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2289224.stm
Napster has NEVER stopped me from buying the CD of an artist I like. I haven't downloaded anything since my association with Mr. Ellison, but when I did, it was to preview content before plunking down my hard-eared $15+.
Similarly, I borrow books from the library, but any book I've ever loved, I've bought. Same goes for music. I never burn CDs or DVDs. If I like it, I buy it. Books are much less risky than CDs-- chances are, if I buy a book, it's a good investment. However, there are several CDs in my collection that are only collecting dust now. Thus, I understand Napster/Morpheus/Kazaa, and why people use them. I sympathize, and I think record companies are *starting* to understand too. They can't get away with extortionist pricing forever and expect a) to stay in business or b) crush the piracy on the Net.
Just my $0.02.
PAB
Frank:
Got no problems with downloading songs, mon ami, I just don't burn the disc. Agreed, I like to sample an album, but don't need to hear the entire thing. Even then, I tend to avoid the MP3 or other download sites, because of the time and effort needed to search, download and listen. When I'm wandering about Amazon or HMV, I tend to listen to the thirty or forty second clips they have, and that'll generally give me enough of a taste for where the album's going to decide if I want to buy.
Besides, those small samples don't ruin the album for me when I want to hear the entire thing, and they don't take up most of my time.
BOS
Yea, Scott, I love the feeling I get when I buy a cd for eighteen bucks and find only one good song--Yea, that sure was a deal there. Downloading a song is like test driving a used car; making sure there are no problems. Most ethical listeners would buy a cd if they liked the overall album. I mean look at Eminem; he is heavily downloaded, but his latest album still sold seven million copies. Not too shabby, bag o' gettin gouged.
Well, I have no writing career (or film, or music, or art...) so I don't have any vested interest, other than respect for those who create. I bang about on the guitar, but rarely with something I'd written; I just don't think my writing is that good.
So, despite the grumblings I have about CDs being a gouge fest for the recording industry, or any and all places where I find prices for DVDS and books always increasing, I buy retail, unless I get a steal at Ebay. No burning cds or DVDS allowed in my home, period. The only place where I go to the lowest price is abebooks.com.
I just feel that the person who's entertained me in some fashion deserves renumeration, plain and simple. It's, to a degree, a quid pro quo arrangement.
Besides, I have no problem with returns should the product be flawed in some fashion.
BOS
One mustn't forget Senator McCarthy, either. Man, the CG was HORRIBLE on that guy! I could spot it from the moon!
Zoë,
If you still have the email address, please drop us a line.
Mr. E: Did that suggestion work, make life a little easier?
PETER,
"When I see a Harryhausen Roc flying down and chewing up Sinbad's sailors, I know it's a fake effect, but one that was painstakingly modeled, molded, feathered, and then animated frame by frame and motion by motion to acheive that effect. I can respect that effect."
This is the way I look at it: you can recognize stop motion animation a mile away, and yet it has it's own charm and quality CG has not yet been able to achieve. Computer graphics can require an equal, if not more, amount of effort than stop motion, but I see what you mean. There's a 'fluid' feel to CG that yanks the creation itself out the of the context of the film.
Nowadays, however, if the character and delivery is GOOD enough, with enough PASSION - i.e. Gollum - I can respect CG. Another nice deal is, unlike stop motion, an actor can actually play the character at the same time, and his/her effort can still be seen on-screen. Sadly, CG has indeed been used as a creative cheat in recent years.
I also believe most anti-CG vibes out there are aftershocks of the cosmic abomination that was Jar-Jar Binks. That bastard ranks with the likes of Scrappy-Doo and Adolf Hitler. It's THAT level of hate.
Recile wrote;
"I think literature and literary careers as we know them will probably shrink to almost extinctive levels over the next 50 years. Sad but true. "
I think you're wrong. I believe that people who understand the value of a book find it not only in the printed word but in the weight of the thing in their hands. The feel of a book, the comfort and the relationship that one has with a book and the words and the author that is not present in any other form.
If you think it will be over in 50 years then you never heard of Harry Potter. BEHOLD another generation of people who cannot make do without books.
Who looks forward to crawling between the covers after a day that's been too long and too difficult and too taxing-- with a computer or MP3 player? It's about a book in your hands at the end of the day-- and forever it shall be.
Cindy
Diana, you take sarcasm to an insane level. But you have my permission to flip off any Jehovah's Witness at your door. They are pests.
I would mention that I am against the concept of "property", but I will leave that can of worms alone.
--------------
Eric Alterman has a great new book called, What Liberal Media? That critiques the idiotic Bernard Goldberg tome and other such rot. He tells the truth about how media is actually conservative, not liberal. And unlike Goldberg or the shit beak Ann Coulter he does his homework.
-------------
So the Directors Guild didn't nominate Bowling For Columbine eh? Can someone say, class envy?
------------
Harlan Ellison
YEAH, BUT...
Just kidding. I've seen the light. Really. I'm not being sarcastic (at the moment) I removed the all the art and wavs and poetry. I can't lay claim to having the high moral qualities of others. I'm not suffering from deep deep guilt over having downloaded and listened to people's music without their permission, or over having looked at a picture without the artist's permission. I think I can live with myself for having done these things (I mean it's not like I shot an innocent little gopher between the eyes or something)(heh heh) But I really can't argue with people when I think their right. It's a form of stealing. I get it.
I'd like to be able to argue, so I can keep swiping stuff but now that I've realized the error of my ways I can't, in good conscience, keep up my evil practices. *SIGH* Fine. OKAY. You're right. I got rid of it all. I'll never do it again. HAPPY NOW???
I'd probably, normally, be sulking for a while, but I've realized I now have an excuse to play with all my image editors and fonts. I'm wondering what me and Photobrush can do to my son's face.
Bye for now.
Diana
ZOE (dot-dot): How's it goin' gorgeous? If I'd had half as much brains at twenty-two as you do, I'd gotten out of twice as much trouble. Shalom and L'Chaim, baby (hope I spelled that right).
--DTS
Zoë:
I really hope you've gone on to watch real DVDs with real picture and sound quality.
People used to pull that stuff in the 80s when video cameras (pre "camcorder") were first coming down in price. When my brother had his tonsils out, a neighbor offered to lend us E.T. on videotape, to cheer him up during his recovery. We thought it strange that our neighbor should have the movie on video, since it had never been released on tape and never shown on cable. Turned out a friend of hers had taken a video camera to a drive-in. Needless to say, the video was unwatchable. We turned it off and returned the tape to our neighbor.
Sounds like the same thing is still going on.
Sheesh.
---Peter
I'll represent "THEM" for a moment, because I'm guilty of most of these crimes, and I understand the mentallity a bit.
The internet allows theft so easily it becomes decriminalized--in much the same way that marijuana is essentially decriminalized in Caleefourneyeyaaay. The kids who push this anarchist line, that all things, art, literature, ideas themselves, the "information superhighway" should be free are extreeeemely intractable. And, the feeling of getting on the internet when it became a whole, organic sort of thing, was intensely liberating. You could GET OVER on folks, now. Corporations no longer had control over EVERYTHING, monopolies dissolved overnight, and kids, mostly kids (and those who can't stop being kids) get high on this shiznit. The arguments Mr. Ellison, et. al. are making are really convincing, but these kids don't care. You could reinvent the American Constitution and put it in front of these kids, they just don't care. I've been there as well. So now, what you have is a situation that can only be resolved as long as they can't "get away with it." Like Mr. Ellison said earlier in his nook, artists are forced to put out fires. And, unfortunately for the future of art in this entire country, world, forever, there are way too many fires to put out, ad nauseum.
One guy that made me really laugh about this was Billy Corgan, the guy from "Smashing Pumpkins", who said in an interview something to the extremely flaky effect that, "All music should be free." He was talking about the Napster case. I just remember thinking to myself, "what a heeepocreeet; there's no way he could produce the extremely overproduced music that he puts out without the revenues he's pulled in." I mean, free music basically puts musicians back into medieval subsistance roles at its logical conclusion.
Ok, so, where am I going with this? I suppose I'm not sure. I can tell you, though, Mr. Ellison, that the only security from internet piracy there is, to my knowledge, is extreme obscurity. Kids are born and raised on piracy-as-self-empowerment anymore--they have access to music, software, and buttloads of porn, and they are legion, and there is absolutely nothing I know of in the way of data, that cannot be found for free, all the time anytime--as long as it's relatively in demand. So, good luck to you as you face off against AOL, the tyrranasaurus-rex of the modern information superhighway, but its those little rodents scurrying about behind your back that will inherit the earth. I think literature and literary careers as we know them will probably shrink to almost extinctive levels over the next 50 years. Sad but true.
Hmmm, I dunno that this made any sense now that I think back on it. maybe that's why I don't get paid to do it...
On "misappropriation," sort of:
A friend of mine invited me over to his apartment last year, to watch "Enemy at the Gates." It was a movie I'd yet to see and wanted to. He added that he had it on DVD, so I was pretty excited - I had as of yet to see a DVD. Yeah, I was kinda behind. Oh well.
I went over and we watched it, but something during the whole viewing bothered me. For one thing, the picture wasn't all that clear. For another, there was an odd shadow-thing that kept popping up at various points in the movie. I was devastated, thinking that DVDs were really crap despite all the hype about them.
I asked my friend watching with me about it and he laughed. "Oh, it's a DVD," he said. "I burned it off the internet from this guy who goes into movie theaters and video tapes the movie. The shadows are people gettinig up during a movie. The pictures not very clear because he's holding the digital camera and moves around sometimes."
He thought it was a lark. He thought it was cool. He had over 20 movies like that, that he'd gotten. I was, even then (before I'd learned of the whole KICK thing and other "ownership" issues), mortified beyond belief. I was even ashamed that I'd watched the damned thing.
I think, when you look at it, that there's no good place to draw the line of when it's ok to take, and when it's not, without permission. Because once it's ok for one little thing to be "misappropriated" ("just" a song, or "just" a picture), then it's all right to record movies and give them away for free on the internet. And thus it's all right to take anyone's art/work/fun from the internet and give it to whomever you please, for free or for profit.
--Zoë Rose
Ben:
I'll grant you that there are a few exceptions, Gollum being one of the few watchable CG characters out there. However, intention isn't even what I'm harping about. It's the craft itself. When I see a Harryhausen Roc flying down and chewing up Sinbad's sailors, I know it's a fake effect, but one that was painstakingly modeled, molded, feathered, and then animated frame by frame and motion by motion to acheive that effect. I can respect that effect. When I see the Centaur in Harry Potter, looking very much like a Harryhausen creature, I can't help but feel cheated, because I know that while it may have taken hundreds of man hours to actually model and texture the thing, animation was acheived through motion capture, and the rest was interpolated and rendered with computers on autopilot. If they went for a more photorealistic approach to the creature, I could accept that. Instead they cheated and went Harryhausen level without doing Harryhausen work.
---Peter
DIANA:
You have GOT to grasp the concept. It doesn't matter if your website, or your school play, or your t-shirt, or your billboard is for profit, for political statement, for lobbying, or--as you phrase it--"for fun." The "fun" thing is YOUR obsession, and so that is YOUR remuneration; it is moot as regards obtaining valid permission. Look at it this way: say you need to drive to West Virginia tonight, whether for "fun" or to say the last words to a dying relative, and you come by my house, use a spooner to pop the lock, hotwire the ignition, and drive away. You have stolen my property, whether it was just a "fun" joyride or a serious, imperative journey. The car isn't yours. The car is mine. You cannot use it, for fun or anything else, without MY permission.
YOUR intention, YOUR true purpose, YOUR excuse why you're not liable . . . it's succotash. Judge Judy dismisses it out of hand; it's bullshit and everyone in the courtroom knows it.
Do you grasp the concept? Your rationales are obfuscations, as are those of the kids who download CDs and steal movies and pilfer stories. What THEY want, what THEY believe, what THEY choose to misunderstand or blow off ... well, it don't mean bat-shit.
Would that I could get the pirates we battle through KICK to understand that simple concept. Thou shall not misappropriate. For misappropriate, read: STEAL.
Seriously, Harlan
PETER,
Personally I believe that computer graphics are only as good as the brains and talent behind them, which explains why a lot of CG work today is...well...crud.
CG is often an act of sheer laziness and little else. Look at DAREDEVIL. The employ of digital technology in fight sequences that should have been truly REAL and BRUTAL deflated the film beyond hope. Mark Steven Johnson lost several notches of my respect in that field. Please, please don't get me started on THE SCORPION KING. Please.
However - HOWEVER - CG properly utilized (as in SERVING the story, not OVERRIDING it) can have it's enormous benefits. The more the CG relies on the actual actor filling in for the digitally-rendered creature, the more spectacular and rewarding the final product. DRAGONHEART's Draco (Sean Connery), for beginners. LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS' Gollum (Andy Serkis). And hopefully, God willing, THE HULK (Eric Bana). You can throw all that computers can create at the audience, but nothing will ever equal the presence of a flesh and blood thespian. Mix the two, and you've got a diabolical combination.
My feelings, anyway.
Speaking of cornfields, (nice segue, eh?) this Wednesday the revamped Twilight Zone is featuring a sequel and a remake.
Bill Mumy and Cloris Leachman reprise their roles as the evil (not so) little (anymore) Anthony Fremont and his mother, respectively (although a real twist would be a switch in the roles... okay, maybe not) in "It's Still a Good Life."
Also, a remake of "Maple Street" with former brat packer Andrew McCarthy trying to prove he has a career beyond direct to video and made for cable soft porn thrillers.
I have hopes for the Good Life sequel, but just the idea of remaking Maple Street leaves me cold.
---Peter
Nono...that's a very good opinion you have...its very good you think that way. Don't...don't wish me into the corn field....please don't wish me into the corn field....
Sheesh.
CEP
Regarding:
"as a suggested rationale to help people comply with the law's technicalities"
Your little soapbox speech works okay (and *merely* okay) as a "suggested rationale". I could argue with you about it easily if I wanted to. You based what I refer to as your "thuslies" on an unestablished foundation. Only I don't want to argue with you. What you wrote that worked for me was presenting for consideration the idea that someone might, by using some artist's work without their permission, inadvertantly cause them harm or difficulties in some way. As far as I was concerned nothing more needed to be said.
I'd already decided I should revamp my web site. But I was whining to myself about it. You debated my "yeah-buts" effectively. What you said convinced me to go ahead and do what I already knew I should do but was balking at.
Then you went on.
In order for me to be willing to answer your question about where I think your argument broke down it would need to be agreed beforehand that it was to be an abstract exercise. It could be an interesting and entertaining debate, or at least it would be interesting to me, but I'm afraid it might devolve into a lot of virtual hair pulling and name calling, and other such annoying dumbnesses.
I'm trying to avoid that sort of thing for the time being. I hope you understand.
Bye for now.
Diana
Fast, cheap, good. Pick only two.
http://tinyurl.com/60v4
Lonegun Girl:
Correct, but that's the fault of the government's standards for physicians to practice in Canada. We have a backlog of foreign trained physicians living in Canada, driving cabs rather than seeing patients, due to the near impossible task of having to start virtually from scratch to retrain to fit the law created.
Recently, that was changed by the Eves' government, who, under pressure to reverse the cuts into the number of physicans and health care professionals they made in order to fund tax cuts, will allow fast tracking of foreign trained doctors. Of course, the retraining will still take a few years.
Mike Myers and The Treasure of the Sierra Madre: Well, I get the willies about the idea. Smells a lot like colorization to me. I'm one who didn't like "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid".
Love to all, Melissa
Rich:
I can't help but wonder if your trepidation about Meyer's proposed project is the same as mine. When Steve Martin did Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid, it was a lot of really effective editing to give the illusion that Martin was interacting with these old movies. Even if you didn't think the movie was particularly funny, at the very least you could appreciate what it took to put it all together.
Nowadays, they don't need editing, just a computer and Forrest Gump.
In a way it's the problem of CG rearing its ugly head again.
I have yet to see a CG creature that doesn't look like something from a Ray Harryhausen film. They're made up of polygons instead of clay, but they still look the part. All computers have done is taken out the really hard bits of animating.
To me it all feels kind of cheap. Like a cheat. Which is why I worry about them digitally inserting Meyers into old movies. It doesn't take skill, or imagination, just a computer and Forrest Gump.
---Peter
I don't know...maybe seeing Myers in a hip, new, edgier Casablanca is just what that movie needs. Or, maybe he could be the next door neighbor to that creepy Nora Desmond. Or, he could be the cub reporter looking for rosebud. The possibilities are endless for utilizing someone else's creative work for a laugh at their expense.
Oh, my, the tears are just pouring down my face it's so funny.
ERIC,
I think the only explanation behind this evil is marijuana HAS been legalized...at least within the confines of Hollywood executive board rooms and celebrity homes.
Maybe it's the snow and ice and the boredom or the sniffing of the glue that's affecting my brain, but I'm gonna have to ask.
Diana,
Charlie's 'argument' seemed pretty straight forward to me and I'm curious to know where it "breaks down". I probably wouldn't have butted in (and I'm ok with you telling me to butt out), but your reply back to CEP is curious. Unless I'm reading it wrong and you're just being facetious?
CEP
Regarding:
"CEP
- Tuesday, February 18 2003 7:4:16
So, then, Diana, where did "[my] argument break down"? Except between the [SOAPBOX] tags, I wasn't making an argument at all, but merely stating the law as it stands. Harlan's lawsuit isn't about whether there was an infringement, but who is responsible for it. Even the "argument" on the soapbox wasn't an argument so much as a suggested rationale to help people comply with the law's technicalities"
See, what did I say? You're an attorney. You want to argue some more. CEP,I should warn you, you'll probably LOSE if you argue with me. Heh heh.
You'll get mad at me if you lose. I don't want you to get mad at me. You might sue me or something. :=P
Bye for now.
Diana
>So Mike Myers and Dreamworks are trying to acquire old movies so that Myers can "insert" himself into them. <
Another dry well in the increasingly parched landscape of the American arts. Har har, let's watch an aging, thickening Mike Myers make non-sequiters in old classics.
Maybe we SHOULD legalize marijuana, after all.
So, then, Diana, where did "[my] argument break down"? Except between the [SOAPBOX] tags, I wasn't making an argument at all, but merely stating the law as it stands. Harlan's lawsuit isn't about whether there was an infringement, but who is responsible for it. Even the "argument" on the soapbox wasn't an argument so much as a suggested rationale to help people comply with the law's technicalities.
Alex Jay Berman
I'm going to have to redo my kudzu pages, but I'll check out the url you offered.
Kudzu is a great resource, and a *serious* pest.
It has many uses. Among other things, it's a food, fiber, and medicinal plant.
It looks to me like a matter of "If you can't beat 'em join 'em". It seems unlikely that it can ever be irradicated, but maybe if the right approach were taken to the present problems with it, the nightmare could be turned into a blessing.
Bye for now.
Diana
So Mike Myers and Dreamworks are trying to acquire old movies so that Myers can "insert" himself into them. Personally, I liked when Steve Martin and Carl Reiner did a variation on this in Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid, but why do I have a knee jerk reaction that I probably think this isn't a good idea?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/17/film.dreamworks.myers.reut/index.html
Bill
Thanks for your input. It was appreciated. I think it would probably be a good idea for you to read the rest of the posts in regards to my question when you get a minute or two.
Bye for now.
Diana
Diana,
What everyone else has said and I tried to say. The Stephen King comment I made was an aside and simply made because he's the only damn person I've read about paying for the stuff. I know others have to, movie makers and other writers, but I used him as an example because I knew about it. It doesn't matter if a person makes a gazillion bucks off the property or pay a gazillion for the fun of having a website, you ask permission. I'd be ripshit if someone took one of my crappy stories and posted it, or took the art from my site (which I designed if not actually drew) without the proper permission.
If all this was covered, I'm sorry to repeat it. I quickly scanned the board today as opposed to reading every single post (except CEP's, whose soapbox moment was enjoyable).
Since kudzu was a recent subject on this board, and Chicago seems a perennial subject here, I offer this:
http://tinyurl.com/6041
AND
What about "dingbats" Like the ones of Elvira, or of "The Skellingtons" ? I know the second set of dingbats was issued at the "official" web site of the creators. Using certain dingbats, you'd be reproducing a created image.
Diana
MORE QUESTIONS
My son asked me a question about the intellectual property rights thing as it relates to the internet. He wants to know how far this is going to go, assuming that Mr Ellison, and like minded others can have their way in this regard. He said he didn't think there'd be a lot left on the internet. I don't think that's true. But I thought it was a very good question.
He also asked (and I'd like to know) where one would go to get permission for using something, for example by someone like Jim Croce, or Alan Ginsberg, who's dead. I know that someone dieing does NOT automatically make their creations "public domain" or whatever the term is. My son thought that, but I figure the artist's family or whoever he (she) left their work to would then own the copyrights.
Bye for now.
Diana
Thanks Recil.
But you shouldn't pay my whining about deciding to revamp my web site TOO seriously. I totally *love* making new web pages. This crisis of conscience just gives me an excuse (like I need one) to use my various image editors, and play with all my fonts even more.
(Hi. My name's Diana, and I'm a fontaholic...)
Chuck!
Maddox is a maniac! If you like him, you may like Ze Frank too.
(http://www.zefrank.com)
Neither one of those men are at ALL well.
The Beloved Offspring has returned, cold, chastened and hungry. I'm a bad mother. I plan to make him take a hot bath, dope him up with soup and cold medicine and get him to go to sleep. I know it's evil that I'm a tinsy bit glad he's sick, so I can fuss at him.
Bye for now.
Diana
Good luck Diana.
Hi,
Me again. I was going to answer in more depth to some of the answers I got to my question, but I was dealing with my son all of sudden just as I was writing that last post.
Anyway, some of what "CEP" said, especially the first part, where he was explaining that there could be all kinds of reasons why an artist might not want some of their work used without permission, made sense. Things could be going on that someone like me might not know anything about. However well intentioned a person might be when they used stuff without getting the creator's okay, they could cause problems without knowing it. Of course I never even thought about anything like that.
I realize there's even more to it than just that, but that was a new bit of perspective that I couldn't disagree with. Because it was right. It was a good point.
I could go on to where I think CEP's argument broke down, but I don't want to hurt his feelings. I mean he's an attorney, and they're supposed to be good at debating. He might feel insulted, and want to argue even more. My son just finished having a HUGE shit fit, throwing food and furniture around, and screaming and kicking things over and clenching his fists in my face, and then running out of the house into the cold night even though he's sick. I don't feel up to getting screamed at anymore right now, virtually or otherwise. As I may or may not have mentioned here at the forum, I've got a medical condition which is aggravated by just that kind of stress. When it flares up it gets very painful. I've had to take some codeine/Tylenol pills just now which I hate to do. But he was acting like a total maniac, and I got upset.
Anyway, the reason I asked about all this is that I have all this stuff on my site without permission. And I felt okay about it up until now. But it seems like a conflict of interest, sort of, and all of a sudden. I'm posting in here, and Mr Ellison has been my champion on more than a few occasions, and has been so almost since I began posting. (Not to mention that I adore his very bones and whiskers) It doesn't seem right for me to have all that unauthorized stuff on my site, in light of the fact that this is just the kind of thing he's fighting against happening.
Of course I was sort of hoping someone would say it *was* okay, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen. I didn't really think it would anyway, but I was hoping. So I wouldn't have to go and re-do my whole web site. Which I already knew in the back of my mind I should do. But I dun wanna.
Oh well.
I will be screeching and howling throughout the whole process, believe me. But after I feel a little better I guess I'll go start dealing with it.
I'll have the song "We Are The Champions" playing in my mind. :=)
Bye for now.
Diana
Diana
THANKS EVERYBODY for your input.
Bye for now.
Diana
Harlan,
Based on your last post in the 'nook, I have to apologize to you.
When I first joined the message boards long ago, I was very proud to have adapted one of your short stories for a school video project and said so to anyone who'd listen.
The video doesn't exist anymore. I don't even think the school has a copy any more. Besides, it sucked and no more than 20 people saw it.
Sorry, boss. I'd LOVE to do a version that does the story justice one day with your blessing and an exchange of cash.
Jay
Without giving legal advice for Diana's particular situation...
(1) Diana is not committing any "crimes." What she has described does not rise to criminal liability under the Copyright Act.
However...
(2) What she has described appears to violate copyrights (with the single exception of the "Monster Mash," for which she requested and received permission). Whether the artists and musicians involved will choose to object is another matter; what she described is sufficient to create liability if she is presenting entire works, and probably sufficient for less than that.
The WHOLE POINT of Harlan's lawsuit is that it is the CREATOR'S CHOICE how material goes onto the Internet. For all we know, each of the creators at issue would in fact give permission. Even if you are giving "free publicity," maybe that's not what the creator wants. What if, for example, the creator has been forced to withdraw a work because it was found libellous? Or has withdrawn it simply because he/she doesn't like it, or is in a contract dispute with a cocreator, or that this particular "free publicity" undermines other marketing efforts, or...
[SOAPBOX]
Common [expletive deleted] courtesy indicates that if it's not fair use--if one must ask whether it's fair use, it probably isn't--one simply should not put others' creative efforts on one's website. This isn't just from the standpoint of legal liability; it's from the standpoint of respecting artists of all kinds in their efforts to do art, let alone make a living from it.
[/SOAPBOX]
Diana,
I read some of Maddox's writings from the link you posted. He is one sick puppy. A real hurtin' buckaroo.
I like him already.
Chuck
Also, just because your darling little brats are IN the pictures taken by Olan Mills or Sears, doesn't mean they own the rights to copy it on my Kodak Picture Maker. The photographer owns the rights and keeps the negatives and if you cretins would READ THE CONTRACTS YOU SIGN YOU'D KNOW IT!!!
(ahem....sorry...I get that a lot at work.)
If you take a photo, draw a picture, write a sonnet...create it, you have thr right to decide how that material is used. If someone uses the material created by someone else without permission, it is a violation of copyright. Say you post a photograph of a noted author on a web site. That photographer is unable to decide the use of the property of which he or she has legal ownership. If the photographer has given conditional permission to someone, say, the webmaster of a bulletin board, copying of that material and putting it on another site is still a violation.
Say your picture is placed on a website that puts you or the photographer in a negative light. As copyright owner, you have the right to have it removed because the USE of that property is exclusive to you. If someone enters your house, even if they don't take anything, they've still violated the law.
DIANA: Sorry, but the "my own personal interest" thing doesn't wash.
Those creators did that work for pay. They may love the work, true, but it's what they get PAID for, as well. Often, it's their only livelihood.
And you're giving it away for free.
The artists may choose to give away their work, but the choice is no one's to make but theirs. Credit however you may, you did not ask for their permission to give away their work.
In other words, you're doing exactly the sort of thing Harlan's been fighting for the last few years.
Please. Unless you have permission to have that art, music, whatever, on your website, take it off.
Hi Bill.
Thank you for your input. BUT...Stephen King is a writer, Bill, writing with the idea that he'll probably be selling his work, or trying to. If he profits from the sale of that work, or he intends to profit from the sale of work that includes someone else's music, or art work,, then OF COURSE he needs to pay people for their stuff. Whether or not he ever makes a penny of money from the book, or short story, his aim/hope is to do so.
My site is there for fun. I will not, now or ever, as far as I can see, profit from using anyone's work on there. In FACT, in a very real sense I'm providing free advertising for any artist who's work I feature. I pay for that site. It costs me money every single month to have it. I design the logo's. I design the site. All for fun...
I just don't see it as being anything like a situation where the site is a business site, or one that has advertising, or one that's being used to promote the designer, say if they design web sites, or fonts for a living. Mine is a personal interest web site, and nothing more. Still, I wonder...
Please DO let me know what you think about that. I'm *very* interested in feed back and more input.
Bye for now.
Diana
Diana:
I can't speak on a strictly legal standpoint about what you ask, but I can tell you what _I_ would (and do) do. On my site, except for quotes which are about one line or so from various authors here and there (so far Jules Renard, Mark Twain, Harlan Ellison, and Frederick Douglass), I don't have anything on the site that can infringe on someone else's copyright. The artwork on the site was done by my best friend and "commissioned" by me (I offered to pay, he refused and slapped me) and holds his name for the copyright. Other than that, I steer clear simply because I don't want to step on another's toes. I would at least ask the artists for their permission. Same with music. I would think that most quotes and wavs from music would need to be paid for (I've read that Stephen King has shelled out big bucks for songs for his books). That's how I see it and that's how I, personally, do it.
Bill
To Whom It May Concern:
I actually have a serious question about intellectual property rights. I have some pictures on my "me stuff" site that are by various artists & photographers. I have the name of the artist with a link to their web site if they have one. Or I intend to go ahead and add that information where I don't have it presently. I have no reason for having their stuff on my site besides the fact that I think it's cool, and want to turn people on to it. The only reason I have a "me" site is because it's fun. I don't in any way make any kind of money from doing it. Nor do I intend to. There's no advertising. I pay for everything myself.
Plus I have wavs on my site. I say who wrote the songs, and who sang them. I'm planning to put in links to the various artist's sites at some point, and I thought I should put a link to where someone could go buy their stuff. But no one ever said I could use the music. (Except Bobby (Boris) Pickett, who wrote and said "of course" I could use his song) (which is the least he could do all things considered, but I digress) Anyway, I was wondering if I was commiting crimes by having those things on my site without permission?
Bye for now.
Diana
Heh heh....
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/uclickcomics/20030210/cx_tmqui_uc/tmqui20030210&e=7
Heh heh....
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/uclickcomics/20030202/cx_bo_uc/bo20030202&e=7
(Just 'cuz it's funny)
Diana
Melissa Reeston:
"Conversely, the imbalance favors the US in taking our professionals (doctors, nurses, others in skilled trades). "
Isn't it true, however, that there are restrictions about reverse flow? I seem to remember hearing that it was reasonably simple for physicians to come practice in America from Canada, but that it was almost impossible for American doctors to go to Canada...perhaps to restrict the competition for the current doctors there.
HE:
"If I cut and run, why did they bust their humps? And what about all of you who sent contributions? How could I ever hold my head up in your presence?"
I don't think you really need to worry about not being able to hold up your head amongst your faithful. I suspect those who gave money probably didn't do it as an investment, expecting payback in the form of cash or favorable litigation.
More likely, it was a contribution--for a worthwhile cause, to a worthwhile person. An attempt to confirm that as long as you want to continue in your quest, you will not be entirely alone...
Frank Church:
"Gunther, that shit happens all the time in America....America didn't really learn a thing from 9/11. We are as selfish and dirt cowardly as always."
Although I can not help but be revolted at the lack of concern for his fellow man demonstrated by gaspump guy, I would question the scapegoating of America for this. It seems as unlikely that the sheer geographical presence of a person determines their amounts of selfishness/cowardice as it does that this sort of activity only occurs in America.
It occurs to me that people are people, prone to the same negative and positive qualities wherever they are.
Gunther, that shit happens all the time in America. We have this thing here about saying we care about our fellow man and humanity, but our game is pocket pool. When the chips are down, we fold and run. America didn't really learn a thing from 9/11. We are as selfish and dirt cowardly as always.
-----------
Harlan, sorry for the skirmish with sweet, sensual Diana. I will cook my ugly soup at a slower boil in the future. You the man.
Good luck with your life Harlan. You lived and are living a wonderous life. No need to regret a thing. In the end the best of us will make it--and become even better for it.
--------------
Cindy, go catch Bowling For Columbine; for the film mentions the Canadian health system, briefly.
With that system it has to be seen for what it is: A human right. Sure, you will have the bum politico's who will take from the till, but the freedom to access health care is way too important. The same with welfare. It is better that all have access to a helping hand than a boot in the keister.
No more clowns, I promise. Except for me o' course.
-----------
Gary, Karma balloons centered in a perfect circle. You are a great guy. A breath of fresh air from these heathens.
-------------------
Brian, I saw your name in Sceptic Magazine. You need to write there more. We want to see our uber liberal do good.
Kitty Genovese 2003:
http://www.local6.com/orlpn/news/stories/news-198186820030217-080250.html
The Whimper of Whipped Dogs.
People have learned nothing.
I finished reading MEMOS FROM PURGETORY a couple of days ago and I must say that I have never ever come away from a book as altered as I have this time. I have read stories about Harlan being bold and daring but never had I any clue just how much until I read MEMOS.
My first encounter with Harlan was an episode of SCI-FI BUZZ years back, and after that I tried to get as many of his books as I could and to learn a little something about the man. Even though I liked to read about the man himself, I always believed the man was in the stories. But after MEMOS, I realized that much of him was missing: the real world Harlan. I may be a neophyte when it comes to Harlan and that may explain why I'm taken aback, but golly gee whiz! Harlan did something I never could have done, nor anyone I know could have. I was completely engrossed, pulled and held hostage by the book, by what he did! I couldn't put it down or take my eyes away from it. It had me from beginning to end.
Damn, I really cared what happened to the guy! Sure, I knew he was going to live but was he going to be OK? Really OK? I can't imagine what it must have been like to be him at that time, to put so much on the line for background material for a book (To say "he put so much on the line" is an understatement and possibly an insult to Harlan himself). The man put it ALL on the line. His life.
The Barons stick in the mud of my mind almost as much as Harlan. Especially Pooch. There was something about him that made me concerned for him, worry about him. Even though he was doing horrible things, all I could think of was getting that kid outta' there! Get him some help! Give him a life! There is potential there!
But there was more. Harlan entered the TOMBS. For 24 hours his life was taken from him by someone unknown, and HE was forced to suffer a justice system that saw him as nothing more than a number. I couldn't hold the book still. I was nervous. I was concerned. How the hell could anyone survive that process and come out sane? How could that not scare a humanbeing to the point of no return? I don't think I would have handled it so well.
The thought that keeps running through my mind (and this may have been answered in later works or through articles and whatnot): does a day pass when Harlan does not think about those events? Do thoughts of Pooch and the gang just pop in out of no where? It's been two days and I haven't stopped thinking about those kids, Harlan, the initiation, the gang warfare, the reunion with Pooch years later, the public defenders bereft of compassion, the jaded judge and the friends who came to Harlan's aid. And all I had to do was read it. He lived it.
I really don't know why I felt compelled to write all this down and post it, but there it is. Sorry for the WAY too long post, but this book is stuck in my psyche and I can't get it out.
Thanks,
Steve
Re: Deacons of Defense: I'm very interested in this (and I also love Forest Whitaker), but I don't have Showtime. Any chance that this will be released on video at some point? I don't buy videos, but perhaps I can put in a word to the library. Thanks.
Oh, and HE and CEP: best of luck. I will be chanting hoodoo incantations for your success from here on the East Coast.
Sorry, Corrections:
It should read "of any CanWest/Global station", and parallel should be spelled parallel.
Wait, I just did that...
Mel
Warning!!!: This post is or great length, and does contain more Canadian content than a week's television programming of and CanWest/Global station) Americans, however my find paralells between this discussion and circumstances in the US. No viewer discretion is advised.
There. Cassie's down for a nap, and I've just given the husband a good tongue lashing. Now, back to business.
Don't worry about flames, Velvet. I learned hard from my embarrassing conduct a few months ago vis a vis Bermanator, and Scotty just reminded me. So, let's have at it.
Now, at least we agree (somewhat) that corruption resides in the minds of men, not in the doctrine of political parties. Point taken as well that parties are only as noble as the actions of those so engaged.
Now, to where we diverge:
"True, Ontario's return-to-work initiatives, action plans and employment consulting committees may not work (and, by and large, they do not work), but at least they are making a (half-hearted though it be) effort to try and reduce the number of people on the welfare rolls by encouraging them towards a life in the mainstream."
Now, in all fairness I've never been involved in Ontario Works (the name of the Conservative program), nor know anyone locally who has been enrolled, so I cannot speak from experience on this. Anecdotally, I've heard both positive stories of sucessful clients, and horror stories of those who felt the program was of little or no help to them. So we come to agree in that aspect.
However, Velvet, you fail to mention that the first effort to "aid" those on welfare to get off the dole was to simply cut the amount received by a person on welfare by 22.5 percent. That, and the termination of rent controls (a program promoted by the NDP) basically displaced numerous amounts of of the poorest Ontarians, including some numbers of disabled persons. It's a wonderful idea to promote people to get off welfare by the incentive of self-reliance and rewarding those who wish to work, but I fail to see how an individual can succeed by cutting their funds and then making it difficult to find a place to live.
Certainly, the goverment has repeatedly put forward the amounts of those persons who are no longer on welfare, but have never divulged what became of those people. How many wound up homeless, how many left the province, being unable to maintain residence? How many are struggling just to keep a roof over their heads?
"The NDP keeps increasing funding to welfare and I'm on welfare so if I want to get more money so I can improve my quality of life I have to vote for the NDP so they can increase funding to welfare."
That is the cycle of dependency decided upon by the individual, not by the party. I myself feel that persons on welfare shouldn't be left to believe that a "manna from heaven" mentality is a permanent certainty. My suggestion, and one put forth by a fair number of NDPers is to take funding from the welfare system and put it into filling job vacancies in our economy, by funding direct training. No person should be left to simply collect a check month after month.
"The return-to-work programs in BC have parasitic "consultants"..."
Here in Ontario, the consultants are know as Anderson Consulting, who have had a very incestuous relation with the provincial Tories, by taking millions to advise the Conservatives on social policy reform, then kicking back contributions to the Tories political war chests.
"And the cuts to education, housing, and the like that Campbell's government made? Those programs were getting too much money and not providing enough services for the truly atrocious amounts of taxpayer dollars that they were receiving."
You've answered your own question. Ever heard of throwing out the baby with the bath? My solution would've been rather to cut education, or social housing, find out what's wrong and fix it. A program run efficiently saves money in itself. Don't think for a minute that I, or anyone else should pay for waste.
Now, you and I actually agree that the programs that were in other times cannot be at present. Yes, alteration is needed, but that should not mean irresponsible cuts, and pandering to nescient beliefs promulgated about the poor by governments (remember the statements made by the Tories in severing the additional welfare payments made to pregnant mothers on social assistance? Granted, I don't feel that women on Mother's Allowance should be getting pregnant, but the government's simply claiming that all of these women were using the supplement to buy booze was reprehensible). I see more folks than ever using food banks to survive, and increasing numbers in the waiting lists for affordable housing. There's as much need for social programs in this country than ever.
Well, enough for now. Can we pick this up tomorrow? The kids are about to hit the door.
Love to all, Melissa
Harlan Ellison.
Of COURSE you're a hero. And of course you're only human. Doggedness, stubbornness, and an inclination towards "stiff-neckedness" when it comes to what you see as ethical behavior...the makings of a hero. And the makings of a man who is, no doubt, sometimes ***very*** difficult to live with. One example of an entirely human hero that I knew personally was my own father. He had to have been one of the most stubborn, doggedly-determined-to-make-a-point, and get-you-to-see-things-his-(Translation: the RIGHT) way, never-give-an-inch-if-he-thought-was-right, nag-you-until-your-ears-bled, unreaonable bastards that ever walked the face of this earth. My GOD, that man was a pain in the ass. My f'ckin'n GOD. He was also terribly decent. He was a noble fool. Just as an example of some of his noble foolishness, he campaigned, warred, against American Motors for years over this Rambler he bought once that turned out to be a motorized piece of shit from hell. He wanted satisfaction, or he wanted his money back. He
wanted JUSTICE. One of the many things he did in his battle with that corporate dragon was, he built this HUGE plaster and paper mache lemon. Yep, a lemon. He had it attached to the top of the Rambler, kind of like one of those lighted signs on the top of pizza delivery cars? Only it was a lemon. He drove around with it up there. Everywhere. He'd sometimes pick me up from school in that car. Kids would say things to me like, "You know, your father has a huge lemon on top of his car?" (like maybe they thought no one else had noticed it yet) I'd start praying they didn't ask him why it was up there. But of course they would. So then he'd get to tell them why. At great great length. He wrote these LETTERS to American Motors too. Ten-twenty pages long. Single spaced, both sides of the paper. My dad was famous for his letters. You didn't want to be the receiver of one his letters, because if you were, and you were also one of his kids, he expected you to *read* them. There was going to be a quiz afterwards. To make sure you got his
point(s). My dad really did have the makings of a hero. He fought never ending, sometimes futile battles for truth, justice, and his own way. He was also a "flawed" human being, if one considers not always being able to live up to the very high, even unreasonable standards they've set in their minds as "ideal", flawed. One thing doesn't negate the other. In fact, I suspect they're connected.
The first thing I thought of, when I read your "disclaimer", regarding your being seen as a hero, was a part in Thoreau's "Walden Pond", where Thoreau's quoting Rousseau. Rousseau said, and Thoreau agreed (and so, by the way, do I) that rebeling just for the sake of rebeling, wasn't in the least bit noble, and was, in fact, idle and foolish. He said that there might very well be many times in a man's life, if he were a man of conscience, when he would find that he *had* to go up against the powers-that-be, and against the established and ordinary order of things, just be able to live with himself. It certainly looks like this battle your in with AOL is one of your times. It's a worthy cause. You're right. They're wrong. You've GOT to fight. It seems obvious to you that you do.
Naturally enough, when I read your disclaimer, David & Goliath also came readily to mind. David definately expressed an "of COURSE we should fight" kind of attitude in one famous situation I've read about. David, who was just a youngster at the time of the story I'm thinking of, said as much to his brothers and the other soldiers. His people had been ordered by God to go and fight a much bigger enemy, but they were all afraid to. David sees them all hesitating, and scared and he's confused by their behavior. He points out that they were God's people. That God was on their side, and had ordered them to fight. He couldn't at all understand why everyone else was holding back. He was so sure he was in the right that he felt he had to demonstrate (to get his point across) so went up to the front, and took careful aim at the giant, and shot a stone right between that arrogant s.o.b.'s eyes. And the rest is history.
David was another hero who was also entirely too human many times, by the way. He's famous for that also. God loved him anyway.
Personally, reluctant, unlikely, and imperfect heroes are my favorite kind. I can believe in that kind of a hero. Because they're real. I think those are the best kind. Real ones. The kind that walk around and get irritable, and have hair growing out of them, and are occasionally (even often) weak, and even act stupid sometimes. But when push comes to shove they're also going to be the ones you'll find standing in the gap, too "stubborn, dogged, and stiff-necked" to exit the fight, no matter how tired they get. Because that's what heroes do.
Bye for now.
Your fan, Diana
P.S. (Just in case you don't win...Some other famous guy said that the only causes worth fighting for are lost causes)
AND JUST AS A REFLECTIVE P.S.:
I am more than a quatt chagrined at my snappish tone earlier, chiding the masses for not paying enough attention--in my tunnel-visioned singlemindedness--to the upcoming 9th Circuit Court of Appeals brouhaha. As if you didn't have anything else to worry about in this life. I had no right to whip guilt on you. Bad manners, just plain old bad bad manners, unfair and impertinent. And, more embarrassing, your responses--particularly Barney's--were so sensible and obvious, that I bite my tongue in remorse.
Really.
I ask your forbearance. Sometimes I revert to pure seven-year-old. Unbecoming in a man my age. And EXTREMELY unfair to you loyal little band.
Shriving myself, yr. pal, Harlan
Velvet:
Just saying that this sounds much like our conversations at the dinner table. It's worse when her father and mother come for repast. Yeppers they "those people" too...
Just get the couch ready for me, Mel. Two pillows, please?
BOS, who needs to build a bigger doghouse when he gets home...
rich,
If the "Bill?" you're referring to is me, I sadly say I won't be making I-Con. Too much dough for me. I'd give it up in a heartbeat, but my wife would leave me and I'd be even deeper in financial ruin. If it's true what I heard (that Mr. E attends I-Con every other year) then maybe the year after next. Maybe by that time, things will be better, my own writing will have made it farther, and fun can be had by all. Don't weep for me, just make sure you come here with some great stories (and, again, the offer is extended to anyone who vids Mr. E's lectures, I'll pay for a blank tape to have it recorded).
Bill
In other news....
Holy jeeeeeeezus CRAP, Riddell has a "V" action figure!
Paul, we hardly knew ye.....
Velvet
(Who owns a couple of the media tie-in books to the series, thanks to a used bookstore in Arizona, many many moons ago.)
Hi Melissa!
(Heh...yet another post that only two or three brave Canadian souls on this board will understand. Scroll up or down, whichever direction pleases you, if you don't want to have your retinas burned out by more bandying back and forth of Canadian politics.)
Firstly, a flip answer to your initial point, but a true one nonetheless: You can take the corrupt politician out of the NDP, but you can't take the NDP out of the corruption. And yes, I too curse the name of the starstruck Big Kahuna (Does anyone know why Mulroney has decided to come out of hiding to tell Chretien that the Americans are stupid if they think we'll go to war with them? I mean, even Chretien is not so stunned that he needs a reminder of that, is he? Well, I hope, at any rate.) who visited upon us the curse of the dreaded Goods and Services Tax that has still not been eliminated (a mistake made by the Liberal Party, lest you think I am rabidly partisan or anything), and yes, he was Tory.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my rantings. I blame the men, and not the party. *But*, none of the associated shenanigans that went on, with Vander Zalm, Hargrove, Clark, et al (yes, I lump the SoCreds in with the NDP--deal with it), in my opinion, would have happened if the party's platform and philosophies had not blatantly encouraged it to happen.
So, yes, the corrupt politicians are to blame, but they utilized a political system that let them get away with the corruption a hell of a lot easier than they would have been able to if they were Liberal politicians. Or hell, even Tory ones.
I don't forget the history that I learned on my own (they certainly never taught us this in school), rest assured, I know who Tommy Douglas was. However much amount of good the programs that his party brought in may have done at a time when they were needed, the times have changed, and the programs have NOT, which is the crux of the problem.
The welfare programs may have been coopted by the mainstream parties in the rest of Canada, but at least the welfare system here in Ontario (for instance), is very strongly aimed at making sure that those caught in the social safety net DO NOT remain there for the rest of their lives. For the most part. NDP welfare programs are aimed in the exact opposite direction, with the taxpayers (of which I am one) taking the fall for the costs.
True, Ontario's return-to-work initiatives, action plans and employment consulting committees may not work (and, by and large, they do not work), but at least they are making a (half-hearted though it be) effort to try and reduce the number of people on the welfare rolls by encouraging them towards a life in the mainstream. It has nothing to do with "maintaining power" and everything to do with empowering the individual to stand on their own two feet. Something the NDP welfare policy-makers would shudder in horror at, since, if you're eligible for welfare under an NDP regime (and almost anyone is, if you know how to lie on the applications appropriately, a wilful act of fraud that is encouraged by the "advocates" and never examined too closely by the caseworkers), you are expected to apply for, be granted, and remain in the welfare system, for the rest of your natural existence.
Which leads to the vicious cycle of "The NDP keeps increasing funding to welfare and I'm on welfare so if I want to get more money so I can improve my quality of life I have to vote for the NDP so they can increase funding to welfare." Tell me that is not "maintaining power", please.
You think the Ontario social assistance programs are a joke at providing legitimate return-to-work strategies? The return-to-work programs in BC have parasitic "consultants", taking the government for exorbitant private consultation fees, while sitting there and telling the participants that it would be a good thing if they just stayed on welfare. Ontario's MCSS programs may be a joke, but at least they're making the effort, and not openly telling the participants that they should just shut up, put up, and stay on welfare where they belong in the first place.
And the cuts to education, housing, and the like that Campbell's government made? Those programs were getting too much money and not providing enough services for the truly atrocious amounts of taxpayer dollars that they were receiving.
The wealthy needed those sizable tax cuts because, under the NDP, the taxes were downright demonic. Where the hell else do you think Clark got the three million bucks for the fast ferries that ended up being pulled from the water because the workmanship was so shoddy the boats were in danger of capsizing? And DON'T tell me that every single penny of that three million went into the program it was earmarked for...it was probably distributed quite nicely among the unions who were "responsible" (if such a term can be used when it comes to unionized workers out West) for overseeing the quality of the project.
The cuts are hardly Liberal, I'll agree, but the overfunding of the associated programs *with no improvement in the quality of the services that they provided at all* (and this is the key thing) was wholly unnecessary.
You think Ontario has doctor problems? True, it's rarer than hens' teeth to try and find a GP out here, and getting a family doctor out West is much easier...but try finding a walk-in clinic somewhere that's actually OPEN when it's 3AM in the morning and you've had an accident that requires immediate medical attention. If you're sick and need any kind of medication, good luck getting into your family doctor at all, since they're so often on strike (Yeah, it's a horrible thing what the Liberals did, capping GPs' salaries at, what was it? $85K or $100K? I forget. Horrible thing, that. Truly atrocious, considering the number of three-day weeks most doctors put in, out there.), or not working at all most days of the week.
At least in Ontario, there is no shortage of walk-in clinics that are ALWAYS open ALL the time and won't turn anyone away because they're closed or on strike or only open two days a week. So, the medical system in BC receives much higher funding than the medical system in Ontario...but Ontario provides better service than the BC system. (I say that with full cognizance of the understaffing and underfunding problems that OHIP currently suffers from. They still provide better service than I ever got when I was living out West, even with all the problems they have.) Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this picture? The NDP sinks more taxpayer dollars into the "socially acceptable" programs, but the programs themselves provide little to no real service at all.
If you are looking for a political party in Canada that will provide social assistance programs that provide an equalization of opportunity, you are definitely barking up the wrong tree. The social programs spearheaded by the NDP and CCF in the past may have had the intentions of providing that, but in the cold, hard, present, those very same programs under the current New Democratic Party banner just widen the already-gaping chasm between the very very rich, and the very very poor. Why do you think British Columbia has little to no middle-class-income earners?
Finally, one last point, and then I have to leave for the dentist (aaaaggh): No, not all those in the system are there by choice; I would argue that the vast majority of them are NOT. But keeping them in the system, and keeping their voter population firmly under the thumb of the politicians, by whose funding they live and die, is the one and only goal of the NDP when they have a majority government.
We now return you to your regularly-scheduled Kubrick, court proceedings and other discussions. Move along home now, nothing to see here. Nothing at all.....
Velvet
(Oh, and Melissa? I'm having great fun with this. I hope you are too. No hard feelings or fanning the flames intended, right?)
Hello to all of Texas, Cindy!
Children aren't asked at all to learn any language, but there is encouragement for children to be engaged in French or English immersion courses, in order for children to bcome bilingual. When one learns both offical languages here, there is an advantage in the job market. Thanks to Scott, I and the kids are now fluent in both English and French. It comes in very handy when we go back to Quebec.
We feel our health care system is of good quality, but there is the disparity of economic resource between Canada and the US (one Canadian dollar = 65 cents, US funds, approximately). The problem is, for our exports having a dollar of lesser value greatly improves our trade with the US, in the fact that our goods can be bought in much larger amounts by US firms; in that way our nation benefits. Tourism is also successful based on the disparity. Conversely, the imbalance favors the US in taking our professionals (doctors, nurses, others in skilled trades). The problem isn't helped by politicians who laid off thousands of health care professionals, claiming these people were in part to blame for massive budgetary overruns. In spite of this, it seems our system still functions well. I've never had complaint about the service I've received for the children and myself.
Well, I've been downright chatty, and my little one wants to see Bob.
Love to all, Melissa
Saluud Harlan,
Good luck, and I promise to never think of you as a good or even mildly decent person ever again!
-recil
Joseph: The NDP isn't "irrelevant" historically -- at its peak federally it held roughly 5-10% of seats in the House of Commons in the early 1980s, and it's managed to hold provincial power at various times, including in Ontario in the early 1990s. I suppose you could always go to whatever the official NDP site is (ndp.ca, ya'd think) and look at its history in more detail.
Cindy: I learned three languages? Geez, how did I miss that? I can pass (actually, have passed) a graduate translation test in written French, though my spoken French is positively Ed Broadbentesque (geez, what, three people are going to get the reference on that last bit?). Public schools and universities alike have been getting the funding bejesus beat out of them by the federal government, as has the health system; the two-headed publically funded school system (public and Roman Catholic) causes its own problems because, at least funding-wise, you're dealing with a duplication of bureacracies.
And on the weird side, this may be the only country in existence where calling someone a "Pepsi" could get you popped in the mouth, and justifiably so.
Cheers, Jon
John G.:
The education system is, as our health care system, single tier public funded, and taxation for it occurs at the provincial level. There are private pay-per-use schooling, and that generally favors the wealthy.
Here in Ontario, we have two school systems the public, secular based system, and the Catholic separate school system. Yes, odd that the Catholic church has say over a system to benefit those of their faith (and non-catholics fund it through the tax system), but the government has moved to allow for tax breaks for any who wish their children to have private educational instruction based on any and all religions.
A better idea? One system, funded by all, ensuring all receive the quality educational training for a transitional economy and job market, as well as funding properly the humanities (art, music, theatre: the first cuts to programs in schools are always to the arts). Vouchers are nonsense: they don't improve choice at all. One trades sending their children to a lousy and underfunded public school for sending their kids to a lousy underfunded private school. If vouchers allowed the poor to send their kids to the most upscale private institutions, then I'd support it.
Now, if all will excuse me, I'm going to take Cassie on a Spongebob adventure. By the way, I loved the Bart Simpson chalkboard gag a couple of weeks ago: "Spongebob is not a contraceptive".
Love to all, Melissa
TODD:
Tough question you asked. Do I ever just "want out of it" -- the KICK lawsuit, that is? I'd be a clot of dirt if I didn't think of it. Like...every day. But...
I'm trapped by my own implacable sense of ethical behavior.
(Let us pause a nanoinstant for this disclaimer: notwithstanding my puffing up like a pouter pigeon with pleasure at the comments some of you have entered, that I'm a "warrior in a noble cause," or words to that effect, I must iterate for the millionth time...
(I am EXTREMELY uncomfortable being cast in the role of Bolivar or Zola or John Peter Zenger. Trust me, I am anything but insensitive to the serious ramifications of what I'm doing; but there is a klaxon that goes off in the alabaster corridors of my heroic image of myself, that warns me ever and again that I am a SERIOUSLY flawed human being, given to mountebank behavior disguised as the labors of Zorro.
(Bringing down the icon is a traditional agora pasttime of the
bread&circuses mentality--5 hours of teleprogramming tonight on Michael Jackson--and I suspect that the nobler you try to be, the more ethical you strive to be, the more effective in your efforts you try to be, the faster "they" will point out that your Achilles Heel is weightier in the balance than your Good Deeds. And if "they" want you, kiddo, they'll find the indictment to get you. Clinton, poor bastard, is a prime example. No one has to look very far, or probe very deeply, to find some act of carelessness or casual dopiness in my past--or present, for that matter--that invalidates everything positive I've tried to do in my life.
(So. I privately batten on the kudos, as any jerk would; but also privately, I worry that making a hero of me in any way only feeds the appetites of those who would be happy to see me mulched.)
And so, do I wish I could just "get out of it" after three years and $312,000 I'll probably never recoup, even if we win?
One sane, survival-prone borough in me says YES YES YES. But I've painted myself into an ethical corner. (Probably intentionally, on a subconscious level; thus making it IMPOSSIBLE for me to withdraw, no matter how much I'd like to run the other way.) Up until I started accepting money from others to fight this fight, it was only me against them. I know to the core of my soul that this is a Good Fight and that SOMEONE needs to fight it, but I'm on the cusp of age 69, that's what many consider an old man. I have fought many such battles in my time, and I'd sorta figured my days on the battlements were over, let some other idiot run the gantlet of honorable effort. But here I am again, out there suckin' up the bullets. (Clearly the imprimateur of the unreconstructed recidivist asshole.) And since so many of you have sent your large&small
contributions, which I am honor-bound to repay when I prevail in this e.shootout.at.the.aol.corral, I CANNOT bolt and run. Not even if AOL came to us tomorrow (which they show no signs of doing, thank goodness) and said they'd make me financially whole again. I STILL couldn't abandon the field. Not until i have FORCED them to install the same software-at least--as Critical Path/RemarQ found it so unexpectedly easy to do when we won against that defendant in the earlier phase of this action. When AOL has accepted its responsibilities, when it stops treating copyright and the authors who live by its precepts as inconsequential, a mere nuisance that interferes with its money-grubbing...when AOL becomes a partner in shutting down pirates, thieves, selfish little grab-rats, rather than aiding and abetting their gimme-gimme turpitude by turning its head (like those who didn't WANT to know about 6 million Jews being killed, who turned their heads, and said "not my business") -- well, then and only then can I back off.
I am no hero. I'm dogged, and stubborn, and midwestern stiffnecked when it comes to ethical behavior, but I'd be empty of all commonsense if I didn't think, daily, of a time when all this was in the past, when the nest-egg I worked 30 years to collect was back in the bank.
Time grows shorter for me, as it does for all men. I don't plan on checking out just yet, but even if I weren't anthracite-hard committed to this crusade for writers' rights--even if the Noble Organizations that prattle on about "serving the creators' primacy of interest" ceased ignoring this landmark effort and gave us a litle recognition and aid--even if it all worked out to our total victory--even if--even if--well, I'd still have lost three years' worth of stories I might have written. I've been effectively frozen in terms of new work for much of that time...I think, what, three-four stories in the last three years? A couple of essay? A movie, maybe? Not what I'm equipped to turn out, or anxious to turn out. Not nearly.
They've cost me. I've paid in the dearest coin. The hours of life remaining to me. And even if the urge to bolt and duck and cover or duct&cover overwhelmed me, I am in this for the long haul. Not to mention the Herculean efforts of Charlie Petit, John Carmichael, Glen kulik, Bridget Connelly and Christine Valada before them. If I cut and run, why did they bust their humps? And what about all of you who sent contributions? How could I ever hold my head up in your presence? How would I explain to you, yes, they offered me a half a million to settle out of court, but no software, no protection...just money...how could I tell you that without drowning in shame at my unethical, self-serving behavior?
Do I want to live in peace? Yew betcha. Would I opt out for that simple reward. Oh dear, how I'd love to. but it ain't gonna happen. In for a penny is in for a pound.
I have no choice.
I've spent almost 69 years becoming a person who has no choice.
Wearily, yr. pal, Harlan
I have been told that the Canadian public school system is superior to ours here in the United States.
Children are required to learn three languages-- and in all other subjects they excell in comparison with other students world wide.
I have heard that the state run medical services are substandard to those of the United States because a large number of prominent Canadian physicians come to the United States to practise so they can make better money.
HOWEVER, I have a buddy who flew his plane up there and ended up sick. He said the care he recieved up there was superb.
What do y'all think of the schools and the medical care?
Hello to your Scott.
Cindy
Rich, my wife and I plan on attending I-Con, so if you need any help of any kind(ie the camera stuff, although my expertise would be more of the moving objects around variety), just let me know. We'd love to meet some Webderlanders.
Guys, I don't know why, but I am finding this Canadian politics stuff fascinating. How does local schooling(I'm thinking of the US grades 1-12 kind of thing) typically get paid for in Canada, any way?
THE TENTH LEVEL (starring William Shatner) was broadcast on CBS (in 1976), not PBS.
Velvet:
Now, when I'd read your post, I read a lot less about the NDP than I did about a corrupt and rudderless leadership, be it Hargrove or Clark, or any of those throughout Ontario who voted the NDP in as a repudiation of both the provincial Liberals, and the then federal Conservatives (Mulroney is a name still often bracketed by profanities), rather than voted for thier policies. Rae was doomed to failure; he couldn't introduce core policy due to growing the growing designs of neo-conservatism, as well as a global recession.
You blame the party, not the men. An all too common mistake. But, should we talk about the men, let's discuss Tommy Douglas, the NDP premier of Saskatchewan; the one who fought for national health care, even at the cost of losing his job governing the province. You forget that the CCF, the NDP's forerunner, was at the front of the battle assisting unions and farmers to organize, to make sure that the families of these men and women could earn a decent living wage.
You see the NDP as irrelevant: Think of how often socialists were the ones behind other government's policies. Mackenzie King introduced the Old Age Pension program only after socialists reminded him that his weak coalition government would fall to the Conservatives without their support. Child care, increased medical benefits for seniors, welfare, disability pensions, all were the brainchildren of socialist and NDP thinking, then co-opted by more mainstream parties who were less interested in human welfare than they were in maintaining power.
You mention Campbell's mistake, very human I'll admit, but what about his draconian law to undermine the right of health care professionals to bargain collectively, or the cuts he has made to education or social housing, in order to favor the wealthy with sizeable tax cuts? Hardly Liberal, if you don't mind my saying.
I support the NDP as a left or center party, the only true left of center party in Canada. I do see the need for a strong voice for liberal values, especially when I see the tide of neo-conservatism sweep away many of our poorer and less fortunate souls, cutting needed social progams which could assist the poor in bettering their lot in life by providing an equalization of opportunity. Not all of those at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder are there by choice, and I do believe there must be a voice to speak for them, especially in this "Greed is Good" age of neo-conservatism.
Don't worry, I more than handle my own against that libertarian I'm married to. After making his churlish little smartass comment, he found that a quiet, peace-loving NDPer can still pack a pretty good punch.
Love to all, Melissa
Gary,
I have lost much of my family these last two years, but that pales in comparison to your loss. I honestly don't know what I would do if my wife was no longer with me and I can only marvel at your fortitude and offer my sympathy. "Turd in a punchbowl"? Hardly, but feel free to drop them as often as you like.
And, when you get to ICon, the first drink's on me.
Todd,
And that second drink will be to you and your family. It may not relieve you any iota of pain, but we're thinking of you.
Harlan,
And dinner's on me when Charlie argues like Darrow on crank and wows 'em all.
Seriously, you mentioned maybe possibly sorta if it works out kinda maybe getting together with the Webderlanders. I haven't heard anything regarding whether I really can tape you or not since my last post on the subject so I'm going to assume it's a bit more of a pain in the ass that you probably don't need right now and will leave the camera at home so...If you are able to get together with some of us (I know Jim is going, Bill?, Gary, and probably a couple others I'm forgetting) I hereby offer to buy you and Susan dinner at the establishment of your choice. No strings attached. And, even if you don't have the time to get together with us Webderlanders, the offer still stands for you and Susan to have a cozy dinner together sans the slobbering fans.
And, for those of you who may think I have ulterior motives, let me just say this: I do. I don't live in CaliforNI-A and my opportunities to see The Man Hissownself are limited so it's not everyday that an opportunity to give back to an author whose work you admire comes along.
So who else is going to ICon? And, no, I'm not buying you dinner.
Brian:
Yes, THE TENTH LEVEL was based on Milgram's experiments, fictionalized. The reflexivity was Shatner's character himself making the subjects suffer in the name of the authority of Science and Publishorperish--that he was himself no better than the Nuernburg defendants. It's that whole "ends and means" argument again.
PAB:
It's late. I gotta get to bed. But I did see "Igby Goes Down." The local critics went nuts over it. I enjoyed it, but maybe not quite as much as they did. Here's my writeup for AllWatchers.com:
"Igby Slocumb (Culkin), 17, has been thrown out of just about every elite private school on the East Coast. Aside from his hatred of school, Igby is trying to deal with his feelings about his father Jason, who's locked away in a mental asylum (Pullman, in a small but powerful role), and his hatred for his mother Mimi (Sarandon, marvelously irritating), a domineering bitch having an affair with his godfather D.H. (Goldblum, terrifically smarmy), who incidentally is married and has other chippies on the side, and for his older brother Oliver, a Conservative Republican A-student at Columbia (nicely underplayed by Ryan Phillippe). Igby manages to ditch the military academy his family dumps him in and becomes Holden Caulfield loose in Manhattan, where he hooks up with some Warhol-group style characters: Rachel, the gorgeous but razor thin heroin addict (Peet) who sleeps with D.H. in lieu of paying rent on her artist's loft, and her smack-dealing boyfriend Russel (Jared Harris). Luckily, a luscious and wry Bennington dropout named Sookie (Danes) takes a shine to our hero. Maybe these people are privileged snivelers and not terribly likable when you come down to it, but the dialogue is fast, witty, and crackling -- the film is like "The Royal Tenenbaums" with a more bitter edge to it -- and the acting extremely delightful."
Harlan,
I will have to also plea to being ignernt and uneddicated when it comes to legal matters, so I had no idea just how important this next phase in the legal battle was. To you and Charlie, best of luck and Good Hunting. I hope you bring back the bearskin.
Gary,
When I read your second posting, I was not dumbfounded.
I said, "Jesus! Jesus! Jesusjesusjesus!" Eloquent things like that. Your posting was, however, not a 'turd', though. Actually, I found it rather life affirming. I'm glad you decided to de-lurk.
Todd,
I hope your mother and your father in-law beat the odds. As Cindy pointed out, the fate of patients is not as predictable as some doctors think they are.
Chuck
TODD WROTE;
"And my mother, who could actually be counting her days now; who states that the doctor said he would try to give her another 5 years with chemo.....and that was 5 years ago this spring. He kept his promise, and nature now keeps hers."
Todd,
My brother, the neurologist said when he was in school they taught them not to ever put a time limit on a person's life.. they said it was wrong to do so. He said the bottom line is
"they can't know". They can quote statistics til the cows come home but they can't tell for certain. To put a number in a person's mind can result in their giving up and bringing the end more quickly than necessary.
I hope you are all right. I'm sorry about your mom and your father-in-law. You're a good man- she raised you right and I'm sure she gets a great deal of comfort from having you close by.
We're around too if you need to talk.
Cindy
Oh, yeah, like everyone else, here I am, after shooting my mouth (or my foot, one can never know about these things until after the shot is heard) off at the topic of my lungs (heh) on my own personal buttonpushings, and then appending an apologetic little note to the end to say, "Hey, I read that post, and I thought, WAY TO GO HARLAN ON THE 6th!"
Let me echo other sentiments preposted, and say best of luck, and to the lawyer: You're hunting for bear here, Charlie, and it looks like you've realized that. Bringing the anti-Napster people in on this one is like hunting for bear with a Tunguska-sized pit. Go get 'em!
Velvet
Scott!?! She's a card-carrying member of THE NDP?! Run, man! RUN! RUN WHILE YOU STILL CAN!! I'LL COVER YOU! RUN! RUN! RUN, SCOTT, RUUUUUUNNNNNNNNN!!!
Heh. For anyone who thinks the NDP is "libertarian", I would just like to say here and now that the NDP is just about as libertarian as the Chinese government was on the eve of the Tiananmen Square massacres. The NDP (what there is left of it, thankfully) is the only socialist party in North America. Their stronghold was, for many many terms, the province of British Columbia, where the voters finally got tired of all the scandals that they knew of (just imagine what else went down that the media WASN'T allowed to publicize), tired of their local government and the local unions being parasitic appendages of each other, and tired of the New Democratic Party's (Yes, that's the full name. The sheer oxymoronicity of the name is why it is almost always acronymized.) unofficial policy of "Lifelong welfare and unemployment for ALL!" (All excluding the uncivil servants and the union members, of course. I can remember teachers driving Porsches and Jaguars and dressing fit to kill on the salaries they made, while the education they provided the barely-lower-class-income kids was reprehensible, to say the least. And they STILL held strikes for more. Meanwhile, the government just gave them whatever they wanted, thanks to all the back-room deals between union leaders and NDP politicians that passed for an economy out there.)
Of course, now that the last, best hope for preventing the province from going bankrupt has fucked up, but good, I would be very, very surprised, if the voter population in BC voted Gordon Campbell's Liberals in for another term, instead of restoring the NDP to their former overglorified and self-important status. To their everlasting short-sighted and narrow-minded detriment and regret, might I add. (Gordon Campbell, in my opinion, is the best political leader I'VE seen come along out West in a long, long, time, as he actually had the moral courage to stand up and ADMIT that he did wrong, and say "Screw you if you think I'm not human and can't mistakes.")
Here's the way I see it: The only way the BC voters will vote the Liberals back in, is if the party has a different leader at the helm, but sticks very closely to the fifteen-year-plan that, it was estimated, would be needed to reverse the nearly two decades' worth of damage done to the economy and the infrastructure of the province by the NDP, and its bastard stepsister, the Social Credit Party. Yikes. That run-on sentence should be punishable by death by caterpillars or something, shouldn't it? Anyway.
(I forget what the deadline from the federal government is for the provinces to have their budgets completely balanced and to be running deficit-free, but if BC cans the Liberals now, they're looking at declaring bankruptcy when the clock strikes midnight on that deal. Or did the feddies back down on that ultimatum? Haven't been keeping up with the news as I should....)
No way they'll vote the Liberal Party back in with Campbell still in charge, though. And don't be surprised if the unions mount a concerted effort to try and get him to resign. Look forward to BC being the star of a very bad near-future spec fic novel, either way; the federal government probably WILL come through with the funds to keep the province going at the eleventh hour, but it'll be on the taxpayer's backs, and most of the rest of the country wants BC to separate and Quebec to stay, while the respective governments of those provinces want the diametric opposite.
If the federal government can't pony up enough to bail out BC, though? Look for them to either be annexed to the US (Everyone In Silico, anyone?), or sold off to the highest bidder in an auction between Pacific Rim countries.
Yes, folks, it's all here! It's wild! It's weird! It's Stranger Than Fiction! It's Politics in British Columbia!!
Velvet
(Oh, yeah. Hi, Melissa. Lest you perceive any of this to be a personal attack, fear not, it isn't. My prefacing comments were entirely tongue-in-cheek, as I'm sure Scott's were regarding his horror at being married to "a stinking pinko", as a girl I know used to label herself. So, no personal affront intended, and none taken, right, Mel? Good. Second note, to any who wants to reduce my post down to its component parts for shipping and yell that old saw at me about "informed opinions", I grew up in BC, and you can't get much more informed about socialist dictatorial rule in Canada than by living under it while growing up. In my opinion, of course. Thirdly, yes, I do take great glee in the fact that only about five people who read this board will understand more than six words of this overly-long post.)
I just finished watching Deacons of Defense.
" God made us men-- Samuel Colt made us equal." I don't know where that quote came from originally but it's right you know. So was that film. It never missed a lick.
Right down to the white yankee boys thinking that rules were still applicable in the South. They wanted a non-violent resolution and believed it to be a possiblity.
Down here, rules frequently do not apply.
Watching the children clubbed by cops-- chewed on by dogs and burned with tear gas.. all I could think of was the South bloated and swollen and pregnant with the horrible way it allowed people to be treated--- finally brought to its knees by the labor of something long over due.
It was only through unflinching bravery, blood, pain and steely resolve that the transition was made.
I was struck by the bravery of the white boys that came down from the North to a foreign country where people's minds could NOT be changed, their behavior only channelled by deadly force and threat of violence.
But even more brave-- the black men who rose up against everything they had been raised to believe was right and acceptable.
Things are still not right down here- but I believe that every generation dilutes the poison by a fraction. Raising kids together-- side by side in school really was the true solution. They get to know one another. Little kids don't see the differences that their parents saw. Their parents see less than their grandparents. Eventually the hate will be filtered like toxins working their way through soil to be dissipated by the time it hits the ground water.
My only objection to Deacons of Defense was the rating... 14 and over. I thought the film was perfectly appropriate for my 9 year old and my six year old. The content was so much more important than any offensive language or violence- -none of which was gratuitous. My kids asked questions. " Mama why did they treat those people like that?" " Why did those men wear costumes and cover up their faces?"
I thought the film was a wonder. The director was gifted in the extreme. The casting was flawless and the dialog right on the money.
Thanks to Harlan for mentioning the film would be aired tonight. He is entitled to be proud of having a hand in the real way things worked out down here. As I said--it was long over due.
Holy Sheepshit, Batman, I just read through the past few days of postings (as I've really been falling behind on keeping up) and I saw Harlan's posting on the big March 6 event. After all this time, it comes to a bit of a head: though I don't understand law enough to know if the result of this hearing will be known immediately or will take some time for a decision.
This posting came at a time when I was about to ask the following of Harlan: Do you ever want to just get out of it? Though you