Return to the Harlan Ellison Home Page
Diana <dleeg9@yahoo.com>
Cindy~
Regarding:
"BETTER TO BE an old man's darling than a young man's fool"
I agree. If the guys weren't listening we could get all graphic and tell Ms Zoe about some of the reasons one wants to sing the praises of older men. But you were preachin' to the choir as far as I'm concerned.
As for me taking on the lumber industry, leading a pack of hopeful and dedicated enviornmentalists behind me? Although the notion is an appealing one in fantasy, (I had a brief vision of me making like Joan of Arc in spandex & overalls...) in reality...heh heh.
I'm a natural
born second in command. I'm bright enough, and passionate, and enthusiastic. But I'm sometimes easily distracted by shiny objects and thunderstorms and such, and at the most inopportune moments too. In fact it's rare for me to ever be entirely focused in the moment. It takes a genuine emergency to get me to do that. And among
other things, a leader needs to
stay focused, and have
the ability
to keep his or her follower's focused. That's not something I'm good at.
Thanks for the compliment though. It was nice to have you thinking I could do somewthing like that.
It
definately sounds like you've had similar experiences with the Right To Life movement. That's another one of those subjects which, understandably, people feel strongly about. It's so easy to get carried away over things, but that
can end
up being counterproductive when
people let that happen.
Anyway, my PC is acting wierd, I think I need to turn it off and let it sort it's memory chips, or whatever it does.
Bye for now. :=)
Diana
DTS: Unh, isn't _Crisis in Time_ based on "Vintage Season" by either Catherine Moore or Catherine Moore and Henry Kuttner, and not anything by Cyril Kornbluth? Or is there another Jeff Daniels time travel movie that I'm confusing _Crisis in Time/The Grand Tour_ with?
Cheers, Jon
Diana,
I was thinking about that Earth First business and it sounds a whole lot like my experience with the Right to Life movement.
There came a point when I realized they had begun to foam at the mouth and lose touch with the purpose. I used to send them money-- now I shudder that I did. They are extremists with a tunnel vision view of how matters should be handled. People's feelings and lives are not their concern. Common sense took a back seat and the infliction of pain on others became the norm.
Once a group loses its ability to reason the cause is lost for them. Once others are hurt-- physically, mentally or emotionally the message becomes bleached and damaged.
Now when the time is right I try to hit the salient points on the issue as I see it.... but I do not align myself with the Right To Life Organization. It's overrun with lunatics and lunatics cannot be trusted with even a noble and viable message.
You clearly have resolve and purpose along with boundless energy. Did you ever think about forming your OWN group under a new flag? You might think about it... the best way to sit down with the powers that be in the logging industry is to find a common ground and you could do that on your own without having to wrestle with the cloud of conflict and violent aggression that hangs over Earth First.... the same way it does the Right to Life Organization.
:)
Get after it! You could do it!
Cindy
CHUCK..
I need rest and you aren't helping with bedtime stories like THAT.
:(
Cindy
Hey Brian,
You want me and Lynn to go through your list and figure out which ones are culls?
We would do that for you... if that mountain of information gets too overwhelming. We'll give 'em the gate so you don't have to.
yer pal,
:)
Cindy
ALEX JAY BERMAN,
Yer BEAUTIFUL!
In FACT were it not for your despicable.. uh I mean democratic predilection you'd be PERFECT.
ZOE--- HEY ZOE!!!!!! You seen this kid's picture? Hmmmmmm-- in about four years if he's still on the market you might think about lookin' him up.
This is the sort of guy who orchestrates birthday wishes for his buddy.... and COOKS... FRIGGIN' COOKS!!!! HE'S not gonna last long on the open market. HE'S BRILLIANT, WITTY, FUNNY, gifted AND HE COOKS GOURMET!!! What could your parents NOT like about him... so he's a little older.. BETTER TO BE an old man's darling than a young man's fool-- I got that from a 66 year old Mexican buddy of mine who got it from her grandmother.
It's right too.
AAAAAANYWAY... NOT that I'm pushin' anything here. For every hand a glove.. maybe it's Alex.. maybe it's NOT.. but you better make up yer mind quick 'cause he's not gonna last.
:)
Did you ever see Crossing Delancey? Amy Irving and Peter Riegert? I LOVE that movie.
Just call me Bubbie.
:)
yer pal, with only your best interest at heart.
>
Cindy
Brian,
Your posting about Strangelove and the parallels to real life reminded me of another item the movie got right: The Soviet doomsday machine. It was never built, but some ghouls acutally designed one. It was to take up the entire hold of a ship which would be perpetually at sea. It would have had sensors to pick up radiation and fallout in the air. The bomb would automatically detonate - humans would be permanently kept out of the loop when it came to that decision. The super-nuke would vaporize a huge chunk of ocean that would create a radioactive cloud that would kill everbody.
Premier Khrushchev killed the project while it was still only on paper. The idea horrified and repulsed even him. I remember a retired Soviet general quoted as saying he and his colleagues often wondered about the kind of people they were employing to design this stuff. I think he called them ghouls.
There, now doesn't that make you feel all nice and warm inside?
Pleasant Nightmares.
Mwahahahahaha!!
Chuck
LOFTUS: Bet the interview with Twohy was interesting. He also wrote "Terminal Velocity," which is a really fun thriller. And "The Grand Tour" (as it is now known again) is out on DVD -- I found a $7.99 cent markdown copy at a nearby music/video store last week. And watched it again for the first time in a few years. It's still a nicely done piece of SF work (based on work by Cornbluth, of course).
BEN: Hang on a sec...let's see...testicles, two of 'em (check and check!), one penis (check!), one TV remote with my name and (only!) my fingerprints on it (check!), and one list of reasons why I'm always right...taped to the refrigerator (check!). Yup, I'd say I fall into the male category. Glad you were "hipped" to the new Twohy flick, "Below." I like it so much I bought a copy.
--DTS
>Most did, and they were actually _friendly_. Now I'm worried about overextending myself, should these ever turn into actual _dates_<
Brian, go for it. You'll regret it if you don't.
Slow night tonight, so back into the Ellisonian fray...
I'd like to mention that Alex Berman came by this past weekend, and it was like finding a long-lost brother; we got on splendidly, and it was helped by his flabbergasting birthday gift for me. And if any Webderlanders come to Philly, we have a few local bistros that have been Berman-tested, Berman-approved.
Re the remakes of _Willard_. Why? The original was a mild curiosity, worth watching once, and it gave Ernest Borgnine and Bruce Davison some exposure. But really, they might as well remake _The Blood Waters of Dr. Z_.
As for attacking North Korea's nuke-making capabilities, here's my position: If it could be done without reprisals against South Korea, if the Chinese were willing to keep mum about it, and if Kim Jong Il could be taken out as well, I'd be in favor of it. Lots of ifs, of course.
Okay, as for Horrible Pics... well, I mentioned that I was using an online match service, right? (No? Well, I am.) I played around with my camcorder, and finally snapped a couple of pictures that don't make me look _absolutely_ horrible. The ones I got only make me look rough and unmanaged (I hadn't shaved that day), and in one I actually look a little like Stanley Kubrick circa _Strangelove_ (mostly in the eyes), which is a nice surprise.
I think I might've bitten off more than I can chew on the service, though. I sent a number of short notes to interetsing women, figuring that this'd work like real life: most wouldn't respond. I was wrong. Most did, and they were actually _friendly_. Now I'm worried about overextending myself, should these ever turn into actual _dates_. So I tell myself to stop worrying, this is just Internet chatter, and my romantic life will soon return to its usual arid self.
Remakes can serve a purpose if the material transcends its times. Shakespeare is consistently remade on stage and screen with success (and failure). So is Dickens.
Willard, however, was a cheap 70s horror movie that, while having a certain panache all of its own, hardly calls to be remade, except for the fact that retro-obsessed forty-somethings seem to be a huge market these days, and are willing to watch anything that cashes in on their past. I expect this trend to just get worse, as the greying of America continues.
The "classic 60s television" plunder seems to finally be dying out, as producers and writers realize there is only so much grist for the mill. The Brady Bunch project collapsed with the second flick, and The Beverly Hillbillies never got out of the gate. And I think they are starting to catch on that that great 60s sci-fi was great for a reason, and that you can't dump Gary Oldman into a wonderful Jonathan Harris part and expect no-one to notice. Boy, that stinker made the silly series look like Upstairs Downstairs.
But the new "old" movies and television (stuff made in the 70s now, it seems) are now fair game. We've had Shaft, Charlie's Angels, and now we get Willard. Blacula was basically redone as A Vampire in Brooklyn. They all sucked, or will suck, but they will never be short of actors eager to essay a role that brought them happiness in childhoold.
It's almost as miserable a scene as comic book movies, which hopefully the wretched Daredevil will finally sink as a long-term idea. Affleck's certain return to the drunk tank after six more months of J Lo's vagaries will help. Yes, we have to live with one more X-Men (gee, bet they explore character now!), and another cruddy Spider-Flick, but the end is near, fear not.
I've said it before: I think the Hollywood Century is over. Every art form has a half-life, and the full-length feature film, like the novel, is becoming less and less potent a means of delivering a message. It won't go away, of course, but the grand old days are way over.
I for one am looking for a renaissance of the short film. Of course, I've waited for the same thing for the novella, and with the exception of Jim Harrison, haven't seen much...
Following up on Eric's comment-
I wonder what can qualify a remake as a good remake, and a remake as a bad remake. It can be measured by sheer amount of pointlessness, I suppose. Burton's PLANET OF THE APES disappointed and enraged me, but not because it was a re-doing of a classic. It was because there was some genuinely wonderful source material to expand on in a remake (namely Pierre Boulle's novel) that was unforgivably ignored. Cronenberg's THE FLY worked so damn well because it GRABBED the concept from the original and RAN in the other direction with it. Werner Herzog's NOSFERATU was astonishingly similar, yet remarkably different, from F.W. Murnau's first tale.
Then there's the likes of GODZILLA, KING KONG, PSYCHO, and LOST IN SPACE to trash the positive prospect of remakes.
Is there a visible border between what makes a remake pointless and significant? Is it all an exercise in unoriginality, one way or another?
I personally believe that every remake has a chance to equal itself to -or surpass- it's predecessor. But the risks are too great, the criticism too heavy...not to mention they usually suck.
Lynn: Perhaps I am naive to wonder why Dubya is so silent about North Korea. Normally I wouldn't even ask such a question, but when the man goes off on some pissant desert dictator as The Great Evil, while Kim has the bomb and seems willing to use it, one HAS to wonder, doesn't one? It almost makes the whole thing seem absurd, no? Harping on the "threat" posed by Hussein, whistling Dixie about the nutball with the nuke?
So what you're saying is, we can't say jack about North Korea b/c we're afraid of China? Is that really the case? I would be surprised to see China getting involved in North Korea's posturing and threats. They seem to know better. Also, they really like selling us cheaply made stuff we don't need.
But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm naive. Maybe the thought of nuclear exchange makes me revert back to the age of 10, when I first realized that there was a possibility that I might die of radiation sickness, if I wasn't lucky enough to be vaporized.
PAB
DTS reported:
> I hope Twohy begins filming his rework of Harlan's
> "Outer Limits" teleplay soon after his current project.
> He's a terrific director and screenwriter.
He is also responsible for the decent "The Arrival," and the script for "The Fugitive." I met and interviewed Twohy briefly on the set of "The Grand Tour," starring Jeff Daniels, which went straight to video as "Disaster in Time."
> Speaking of Harlan: I can attest to the fact that he IS
> often embarrased by compliments; and that he actually eats
> his meals one bite at a time, just like the rest of us
> (okay, maybe not like me, 'cause I've been known to stuff
> two Hydrox cookies in my mouth at the same time).
Just as long as they aren't Oreos. . . .
To Whom It May Concern,
DISCLAIMER:
(Probably no one's even mad, but just in case...)
I 'm entirely neutral on whether or not Mr. Ellison is actually a pain in the ass. I have no real opinion on this matter one way or the other. Me writing that was extremely funny to all of us here at my house during the moments in which I was writing it, but maybe you had to be here to get it. Anyway, like the late great Sam Kinison often said "These are just jokes folks. They can't hurt anyone" I swear. (*sigh*)
Diana
Remaking "Willard?" There truly is no end to the dearth of imagination in Hollywood these days. What's next, a re-do of "Two on a Guillotine?"
And Frank, WHEN are you going to post your nude photos of Noam? Come on, we know you have them...
I finally got around to completing Stevenson's DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE yesterday evening. There was one particular topic in the book ('novella' is more accurate) that stuck in my head.
Many critics have cited JEKYLL & HYDE as an example of a schizophrenic mind, but on analysis I honestly don't know how Jekyll would fit into that category. For one thing, both Jekyll and Hyde share the same memories; the good doctor himself states such is the case. Real MPDs don't share memories all that well, if I recall correctly. Sometimes they can't get any further than small dream-like snippets and fragments. For another, the only mental aspect of Jekyll that truly changes is his temperament and outlook on everything and everyone around him. Could this still be classified as schizophrenia? In my opinion, JEKYLL & HYDE is more about spiritual duality than an extreme case of MPD, and Hyde serves as Jekyll's excuse for catharsis. A man seen through different filters, like a colour spectrum.
DTS,
I can't BELIEVE I haven't yet seen BELOW. I recall hearing about it ages ago, and I remember palying with the idea of seeing it...then it just kind of vanished. I needed that wake-up call. Thanks, man. (You are a man, right?)
Harlan,
My apologies. The last comment was merely in jest and not meant at all to be disparging. I've been in attendance on more than one occasion (e.g., Gaiman's surprise presentation of the Sandman statuette) to note that you speaketh the truth.
michael
ALL: Took an unscheduled break from my work day (my daughter was home with an injured hand -- she's learned NOT to punch the workout bag so hard for such a long time), and got a chance to watch "BELOW," the last movie out from David Twohy. It is an _excellent_ suspense thriller (with a lot of moody, supernatural undertones...and more) set on a WWII submarine. Yeah, I know: this type of thriller has been done before; but Twohy, and his cowriters Arronofsky (probably spelled that wrong -- he wrote/directed "Requieum For a Dream") and one other (whose name I don't have in front of me) did a bang-up job, adding a LOT of original stuff to this (by now) standard formula. I hope Twohy begins filming his rework of Harlan's "Outer Limits" teleplay soon after his current project. He's a terrific director and screenwriter. Speaking of Harlan: I can attest to the fact that he IS often embarrased by compliments; and that he actually eats his meals one bite at a time, just like the rest of us (okay, maybe not like me, 'cause I've been known to stuff two Hydrox cookies in my mouth at the same time).
--DTS
GRAND RAPIDS MICHAEL:
The disc arrived today. Susan has it. Thanks. (I guess.)
As for being embarrassed and unmanned by compliments, well, believe it or not, as you choose. I said it was so, and would have no reason to lie about such a picayune thing; but if it seems unlikely to you, there's not much I can do (or care to do) to convince you that I was telling a fact. You might ask those who know me personally, however, if it seems so improbable a concept.
Otherwise, all best, yr. pal, Harlan
Scott: I'd add _The Big Snit_ to your list of nuke movies, even though it's a short. Scrabble playing, indiscriminate sawing and nuclear war go together nicely.
Cheers, Jon
I know you all have missed this, so here you are. :-)
"The US has always been ambivalent about European unification. It has obvious advantages for US economic and strategic power, but there has always been concern that Europe might move towards an independent course. Furthermore, the social market system in Europe has always been regarded as a threat, rather in the way that Canada's health care system has been feared: these are "viruses" that might "infect" the US population, to borrow the terminology of US planners when they moved to crush independent social and economic development throughout the third world. These concerns have motivated US policies towards Europe (and Japan, and elsewhere) since World War II, constantly taking new forms. They were, for example, expressed by Henry Kissinger in his "Year of Europe" address in 1973, when he instructed Europe that it had only "regional responsibilities" within an "overall framework of order" managed by the US government. NATO was conceived, in part, as a way to ensure US control over Europe -- not without support from sectors of European elites, who despise the social market system, and fear European independence, for much the same reasons as their counterparts here."
---Noam Chomsky.
Earth First renounced tree spiking in 1990, so on to something else.
----------
Bern, forgive me for being pissy, it's just that I am not a happy camper when it comes to censoring speech. But it would be wise to re-think your position. Private property doesn't overstep the public good.
------------
Bombing the north Korean munitions factory would not be out of line, as long as full scale war could be averted.
------------
This weekend, Norman Mailer was on C-Span, speaking about his new book, The Spooky Art. Thoughts On Writing. He made a great point when he defended black basketball players who made millions of dollars, because if bad writers could make millions selling shlock, then why not give the same kind of cash to people who at least are the best in their given field. He made the point that writers who are the best at what they do are usually broke. Food for thought.
------------
They have re-made Willard, with the great Crispin Glover as the rat boy. Might be neat. Glover has been put on ice way too long. Ever since Back to the Future I've loved the guy. Eccentric people fascinate me.
You all agree that Harlan is a bit eccentric, right?
It seems very odd to be trying to hustle sales on a book when the country is poised to go to war (I just finished reading Kenneth Pollack's big old herky _The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq_, which didn't change my mind about the war but did teach me a lot about the geopolitical and historical context), but that's how the schedule played out.
I probably already told you guys this, but my do-it-yourself book tour starts tonight, at my neighborhood bookstore: Powell's Books of Portland.
I'll be talking about (and possibly reading from) _Watching Sex: How Men Really Respond to Pornography_ at 7:30 p.m.
This Saturday I'll be in Roseburg, Oregon at While Away Books at 2:00 p.m. (with a one-man show of songs, poems, and stories from and about Ireland in a community theater where I used to act, at 8:00 p.m.), next Saturday at Elliott Bay Book Company in Seattle at 2:00 p.m.
I speak at Southern Oregon University in Ashland on April 14, then back in town at the Multnomah County Library on May 6, 23rd Avenue Books on May 8. Coos Bay Public Library on June 14.
Still working on other potential venues and towns. Wish me luck, guys.
SCOTT: No, I disagree; the "Alien Day" is an excellent idea. Do you realize how much that guy's district benefits from Area 51 and Roswell tourism? Any more publicity he can drum up is all to the good and benefits his state. And, H&R Block and their slightly shady business practices aside, I am firmly FOR making money off the delusions of morons.
LYNN: I'll see your Carlin and raise you a Bill Hicks: "And that Gulf War. Well, it wasn't a WAR, really. Seems to me, and I may be wrong, but *I* remember that a "war" is when ...
...TWO armies are fighting."
(And Lynn--I sent Cindy my horrible pics, so when do we get to see the supervillainess costume?
[hey, I even found the nekkid pic from a few years ago of me that was floating around the Internet and which made it onto at least ONE semistalker's desktop wallpaper ...])
RICK: As always, we thank you mightily.
Jay~ Negotiations are underway. The first stage is invariably a prototype, which sets the basis for cost and time. The second stage is a second prototype, with improvements and refinements on the original concept. My bat wings are still in second prototype, as we've discovered a few more bugs as wear & tear take their toll. (Steel tubing next time for the cables, not aluminum, which are being eaten through, and things like that.)
And I'll hereby register my distress that the Gulf War (I & II) isn't a "war" by some messy last century standards. (A little ditty from Carlin springs to mind, the commentator doing the world conflict run down like the evening sports results.)
Cindy~ Natasha wishes she could approach the level of my super-villainy. Come on, sister, can we just get away from the little black dress and the cheesy accent? Costumes and cheesy accents are perfectly acceptable. Embrace your villainy. It will ultimately set you free. (Or get you a vacation in the Arkham Asylum, one of the two.)
Scott~ The link you posted isn't unusual for New Mexico. Remember, these people are second and third generation after nuclear testing. ::wink:: You have to take that into consideration. Plus, have you ever been to New Mexico? (No, offense, Mr. & Ms. Blum, but you do live in Albuquerque, the place forever immortalized by a cartoon's inability to navigate.)
No one in particular~ I'm gonna get a tshirt made, says "I'm subversive. Ask me how!"
L.
From what I'm reading, China's not so willing to get behind the antics of North Korea and certainly not supporting their threats of nuclear death. Perhaps because they know if NoKo goes nuclear China becomes a cauldron of liquid mag-u-muh, too. I just like saying "Mag-u-muh"
Troops, however...they won't mind replaying 1952 with manpower, but will if NBC weapons are deployed. China needs the world's support and they won't be seen as a criminal power. I think China is quietly telling NoKo to shut the hell up about that type of war if it wants help from the savage western hordes.
But the main reason NoKo is rattling sabre is that they know the US won't get into a land war unless it has to. Bush knows a war in Korea would be a political and cultural nightmare and his name would be forever linked to a war he was unable to avoid. His reputation as the negotiator of World War III would be set forever.
While using planes and troops to cross empty desert, level villages and pacify towns issomething relatively easy to manage, invading NoKo involves the death of tens of thousands of American troops and civilians. It's a WAR no different than 50 years ago.
YOUR TAX DOLLARS AND POLITICANS AT WORK:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-310aliens,0,4277442.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines
And folks wonder why I think our elected officials are all brain-dead idiots...
Scott
Nuclear War: (Homer Simpson: "That's Nu-cue-lar") I look at it more in the effect upon the people, rather than the issue of how it will be fought. "Dr. Strangelove" is truly magnificient, probably the best nuclear war film ever made (I've tried to like "Fail-Safe", but its self-righteousness somehow annoys me); not surprising that it found its humour out of the complete illogic and asinine childishness of the military machine that could trigger a headlong rush into oblivion for us all.
I might suggest "Webs", a good British production about nuclear holocaust, or the animated "When the Bough Breaks". While "Bough" does seem at times oversimplistic, it does detail how the collapse of community would occur in near perfect detail. I also recall Jane Alexander's strong performance in "Testament". The scene where Alexander displays the calm serenity of her character as she sews the burial shroud for her daughter chills me.
Martin Amis' "Einstein's Monsters" can still rattle me, especially its introductory essay..."Shadow on the Hearth" by Judith Merril.
Scott
Harlan:
Just returned from a much needed vacation and noticed your response to my March 3rd posting (50 Greatest SFBC). No problemo - glad to be of assistance.
I'd also like to follow-up and inquire whether you and Susan received the "electronic archives" CD disc? It was mailed several weeks ago and addressed to the HERC PO box. Just want to make sure that it was received. Hopefully it'll illustrate it's usefulness as another archival medium.
And by the way, you embarrassed?!! Yeah, right.
yours
mc
Tony~ And To Whomever Else It May Concern,
I'd hate to come off sounding like I support the practice of tree spiking. I don't, but...
And I'm not sure I can entirely explain my point of view the way I want to, but...
And I don't imagine I can change anyone's mind, but...
If you'll please pardon me for being gross, there's an expression I've heard that goes,"Don't shit where you eat". I think that's kind of a disgusting expression, but it says what I believe to be true pretty clearly.
We need air to breath, for starters, and clean water to drink, and unpoisoned earth to grow our food in. No air + no water + no food = no life. At least not human life. Most of the biological entities living on Earth will go down with us too, if we manage to render this planet unlivable.
With that belief in my mind, I figured I would try and deal with first things first. So I began looking into what I could do, and what organizations I could find that were really DOING something about what I saw as an increasingly worsening problem.
Earth First! isn't an accidental appellation. I'm convinced, and a lot of other people are too, that it HAS to be Earth first. We need to protect and defend the environment. It needs to be our primary priority, or all the other noble considerations, like human rights, and abortion issues, and similar such ills that are plaguing humanity will become irrelevant concerns. None of the rest of it will matter if we're all extinct.
Environmental issues are vital issues. It just seems obvious to me that they need to be addressed FIRST. Not exclusively, it's not like that's all that matters, but like I already said, nothing *else* will matter if we're all gone, choked to death or poisoned, or starved out of existence. See?
It seems to almost always be the rule that radical edges have lunatic fringes, so to speak. Earth First! is no exception. In this case though we can't afford to let the actions of a few nuts stop the work from going ahead. It's just too important.
Bye for now.
Diana
NATASHA--- ERRR, I mean LYNN WROTE;
"Oh and the next person that naively asks about North Korea needs to get out the big atlas and open it up to Asia. Then notice the proximity of CHINA, that really big mother-lovin' nuclear power with an axe to grind about us already, to North Korea. I have a friend who's deploying to the DMZ in less than a month as a linguist. I'll let you know if I hear any good recipes for roast long pig."
Well,
And didn't THAT just shut my mouth.
THAT is a conundrum I hadn't considered! I hadn't considered that the boil we were all itching to lance is on the ass of CHINA. THAT certainly puts a new spin on things. NO WONDER we haven't heard W. come back with any snappy repartee about the ass whippin' that is going to commence right after we take care of this first insignificant pustule.
THAT EXPLAINS EVERYTHING.
Which ALSO explains why I am relegated to cheerleader while YOU are the supervillainess who gets to dispense with the foes of production.
SMART choice Jay. Yer a peach for aligning me with my compadres in your future feature-- I don't know how much work we'll get done but we'll have one HELL of a time.
:)
Cindy
Hey y'all,
Did you see what was written by Tony in the Dining Pavillion?
The bar's been raised-- this one is lovely.
:)
Cindy
So what would Mr. Hatfield charge for a suit of female body armor?
Oh, one nice thing about the Sc-Fi network; they're not just doing Dune movies for TV.
On the 22nd, they're doing _Riverworld_.
Doesn't make up for giving us John Edward's Crossing Over, but it's neat.
[ignoring the war]
Jay~ That's alright sweetie. You just made my husband ask the very pertinent question, "Does this mean I get to make you black leather body armor with a cowl?" He's been wanting to make form fitted female body armor for awhile. I'm thinking, let me lose another twenty-five pounds and we'll talk. Meanwhile, I'm saving up for that Russian G-Suit down at Supply Sergeant Army-Navy Surplus in Hollywood. Imagine a corset that goes from your ankles to your neck, in a tasteful and provocative olive green. It really looks good on the manikin.
Signed Yours in Cosplay,
L.
[/ignoring the war]
Remembering what Barney said about "Don't Get Distracted" and what I know about magician's force or the power of misdirection, I have my own set of worries to ignore.
Oh and the next person that naively asks about North Korea needs to get out the big atlas and open it up to Asia. Then notice the proximity of CHINA, that really big mother-lovin' nuclear power with an axe to grind about us already, to North Korea. I have a friend who's deploying to the DMZ in less than a month as a linguist. I'll let you know if I hear any good recipes for roast long pig.
L.
PS. Jay, thanks. Now the husband is calling me "super-villainess." Just great. How's that for one to live up to?
To P.A. Berman: I think we're all worried about Kim Jong Il's ownership of nuclear weapons. But this is one of those situations where doing _anything_ runs a helluva risk. If someone were to assassinate Kim, the North Koreans would regard that as an act of war from the United States-- and if they can't hit the U.S. directly, they have Seoul and Tokyo within striking distance.
Don't suspect that they'd be glad to be rid of the little fuck. The country really _is_ as mad as he is, and they _do_ worship him as a religious figure. I can't _imagine_ what'll happen if the regime falls, and suddenly North Korea realizes just _how much_ they've been held back from the progresses of the century.
Fifty years of lives wasted for the greater glory of the Kims. Imagine having to face _that_. It'd be like living in Orwell's Oceania for all of your life, working for the Greater Good of the Motherland of North Korea.
Then you find out that the outside world is NOT a decadent hellhole, struggling in an existential void because it's deprived of Kim's benificence. You find out that everyone else has been living like pashas, with cars, vacations, unrestricted travel and so much food that _obesity_ is a problem. Their life expectancy is twenty years longer than yours, they have all their teeth and they don't have wracking coughs, they're better educated, they have access to the sum total of the world's great music, literature, and art, that their kids can design computers and paint and write and create new art forms like comic books and sampled music. And because YOU were born in this shitty little backwater country run by a squat little psychotic, your life, and those of all of your loved ones, has been a complete and utter waste.
God, I hate Kim Jong Il, and I sincerely hope that his death is protracted, intense, and so terrifying that even Dante couldn't encompass his despair. If there wasn't a risk of nuclear war, I'd applaud _any_ effort to destroy his regime, if only to give the people in that country a chance to have worthwhile lives. This is a monumental evil.
Re nuclear war: C'mon, guys, you have to take a much broader view of the propsect of nuclear armageddon. It's not for nothing that the greatest film ever made about nuclear war, the one film whose likelihood has never been seriously doubted and whose accuracy has only grown in the intervening years (as failsafe procedures became declassified), and which remains one of the great statements about the human condition, is also my very favorite movie of all time:
_Dr. Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb_. Outside of Steve de Jarnatt's _Miracle Mile_, it's still the best word on the subject.
Yes, it's a comedy, but it's _accurate_. Every fail-safe system described was used in the real world. Every theory of deterrence presented in the movie for laughs was exactly what nuclear-war planners were saying at the time. And all it took was a handful of crazed imaginations to turn the Extinction of the Human Race into one of the greatest comedies of all time.
The U.S. and the Soviet Union were ready to incinerate the world over political differences which, five hundred years hence, would seem as remote and meaningless as the issues behind the Wars of the Roses. And if the superpowers managed to keep the "balance," why, there's always some crackpot like Kim Il Sung who'll be handed the ultimate loaded revolver. If Douglas Adams can joke about whole alien civilizations being wiped out due to clerical errors and cosmic flukes, doesn't it make sense to joke about the eradication of humans from the planet?
>who else is giong to be injured by a booby-trapped tree than a logger<
The insurance company. And only then does anything actually change. Our world is run by premiums.
Cynically yours, Eric
Jay: Of course you're right, but I'm not being hyperbolic when I say that I have a phobia about nuclear war. I can remember the first time I ever seriously considered my own mortality, and it was during the early Reagan years. Remember The Day After? Fodder for nightmares for years to come.
Do we really think that Hussein has and plans to use nuclear weapons?
Why aren't we more worried about disarming North Korea?
PAB
"who else is giong to be injured by a booby-trapped tree than a logger?"
A very hungry beaver?
Paula,
All it took was the Return of the Reagan-Bush machine to the White House to restart the entire fear-of-doom-so-let's build up a wall and kill outsiders mentality.
Nice to know we have nuclear powers to fear again. Keeps the economy running with all those defense contracts and extra jobs building new and exciting explosives that kill lots of people from thousands of miles away. With our level of tech, nukes are somewhat outdated. Just drop a half-dozen daisy cutters and you have all the damage, but none of the radioactivity! Same civilian kills, same radius of devasation...same godly might flexed from on high!
Bush's speech... We MUST act against Iraqi aggression NOW! He's had 12 years to disarm... must act!
Wag Journalist: What about North Korea?
"We see this as a regional issue." WHAT?!?!?!?!?!
Lynn,
Let me put it another way... if *I* weren't married. And not asking you to wear it for business doesn't translate to my wanting you to never wear it or take it back to Whipsalot Fashions.
But hey, if you're game, I'll hire you to scare the hell out of the crew in a Batsuit. Let me see if I can rustle up the airfare. :)
*** Lorin O *** You might enjoy a novel by T.C.Boyle called A FRIEND OF THE EARTH. It has it's bias but it's a really good novel and most views are represented. T.C. Boyle has a really nice body of work. Try WATER MUSIC and the short story collections as well. I see I am currently two behind in the canon. If anybody has read DROP CITY or AFTER THE PLAGUE and wants to opine feel free. You're not free but go ahead and feel it anyway.
Eric,
An exploding logging machine when it hits a spike is not something to sneeze at. No matter how much these terrorists claim they are "warning" loggers by putting paint markings on trees, people will be injured by manevolence and by indifference. As for the analogy, it's an apt one - who else is giong to be injured by a booby-trapped tree than a logger?
Joseph
>Am I justified in vandalizing the company offices? Sabotaging any of their equipment? Burning their buildings when nobody's inside (I hope)? And if I regard their employees as no better than Nazis am I justified in endangering their lives in the course of my moral (by my perception) actions? Just wondering.
It's a matter of legality, Tony. If you find abortion clinics immoral, then by all means, picket them. Do whatever is available to you in the law. Burning buildings, trashing equipment...not legal. Spiking trees? Well, who owns a tree? Especially one that's 500 years old? That's where the tricky part of this question comes in.
I was arguing against the "poor little logger just trying to make a living" canard. Someone compared tree-spiking to putting bear traps in mailboxes, which is not apt: a bear trap in a mailbox is only intended to injure mail carriers. A spiked tree, if done right, should just trash logging equipment (illegal, but now it's indirect action...the tree didn't HAVE to be logged, and they are usually marked with paint after being spiked), and thus discourage harvesting trees that are centuries old.
I'm not advocating violence...I should have made myself clearer. Sorry.
Thanks, Ben, and pass the spiked Kool-Aid. That is a very depressing thought and I hope you're wrong. Fear of dying of radiation sickness is a phobia I thought I'd shucked off with the Reagan years; apparently not.
::shiver::
PAB
I've just had a terrible epiphany.
Many people consider it a miracle that nuclear weapons, genetically-engineered viruses, chemical warfare, and any other kind of massive genocidal assault has not yet been triggered by Mankind's inherent Beavis and Butthead-ness.
But it's all a matter of time. It's only been half a century since we've had this kind of malicious technology at our fingertips. The Cuban Missile Crisis will look like peanuts in the near future if we don't sit back and CHILL for once. And with George W. having set a March 17 deadline for Iraq to disarm, bad vibes may well become radiation waves in another week.
Hmmm --
>There's a huge gaping world of difference between loggers and soldiers in the wehrmacht.Which is not the issue. The issue is if someone is doing something you perceive as immoral, no matter what their own reasons may be (to feed their kids, etc), then you should not let their apparent innocence stop you from action.<
Am I the only one who finds this just a tad unsettling?
Suppose I perceive the activities of an abortion clinic as immoral? Suppose I perceive the activities of Greenpeace as immoral? Suppose I perceive the evil secular humanist education at the high school as immoral? Am I justified in vandalizing the company offices? Sabotaging any of their equipment? Burning their buildings when nobody's inside (I hope)? And if I regard their employees as no better than Nazis am I justified in endangering their lives in the course of my moral (by my perception) actions? Just wondering.
--tr
Lynn:
Cool...I always knew I had a bit of Goth in me...
"Take the Skinheads bowling, take them bowling..."
Yours Sincerely, Beautiful Nightmare (S.R.)
On the question of tree spiking, take a good gander at this:
http://bari.iww.org/iu120/local/Spike.html
I knew Earth First was in the clear, but thankfully have the goods.
And my Judi Bari info was from a Jello Biafra spoken word album. I never really followed the case much after that. Hope Brian has the right info.
------------
Brian, insects are pretty sleek creatures, so calling Coulter an insect is in a way a compliment. But good one anyway.
---------------
Liberal woman rule! I seem to have a crush on Katrina Vanden Heauvel. Yum.
My apologies, Eric; your statement about the loggers seemed vague enough about what kind of action you were advocating that I made a bad conclusion. Mea culpa.
But still, I think taking any action against individual loggers just seems to me to be fairly worthless. It's like harassing a worker at Starbucks because you don't like the company's policy on "organic" beans. Action against the companies themselves would seem to be more called for.
Regards,
Joseph
::mewl of disappointment:: Why the *fuck* would I have to be *single* to wear the black leather body armor and the cowl?! According to your world view, half my wardrobe has to go back!
::pouting now, and you know how dangerous it is to upset a super-villainess::
L. aka "Deadly Whispers"
{insert blatant plug for www.deadname.com here}
Zoe -
Oh, if I could, I'd have Lynn as Lex Luthor. Pretty much, it would be Cindy to cheerlead for the whole production, you to be super Production Assistant, information gatherer and facilitator and Lynn as the faceless demoness who swoops down in dark of night to make problem items and people disappear. Now, if she were single I'd suggest black leather body armor and a cowl. But that's just me being a sexist pig...even though I know it would throw fear into the superstitious and cowardly lot I would hire to work for me.
Of course it couldn't POSSIBLY be a Union shop.
>There's a huge gaping world of difference between loggers and soldiers in the wehrmacht.<
Which is not the issue. The issue is if someone is doing something you perceive as immoral, no matter what their own reasons may be (to feed their kids, etc), then you should not let their apparent innocence stop you from action.
I'd grant that the ACTION itself is mitigated; obviously one responds differently to Nazis than to loggers. But to not respond at all, because they're just "poor Joes trying to make a a buck" is dishonest.
And let's not get TOO weepy over the logging community. These guys are not dummies, and they've known for years, decades, that the actions of logging companies are some of the most unethical and anti-environmental in this country, second only to the oil industry. That they continue to work there is their problem. This "jobs over ideals" attitude is exactly the kind of short-term idiocy that gets us into trouble ever time.
Read Julia Butterfly Hill's book about her two-year tree-sitting stint in the redwoods for a fresh look at those hard-working men of the earth, and the wonderful companies that employ them.
Yours in tree hugging, Eric
Eric,
Really. There's a huge gaping world of difference between loggers and soldiers in the wehrmacht.
Joseph
Thanks to Scott for the news on loggers' conditions in the Great Whitish North.
Oh, I heard a decent joke the other day. Here it is.
Q: What's the hardest part of rollerblading?
A: Telling your dad you're gay.
Jay~ I prefer the term "Fixer." Or maybe "Cleaner" but that's not your line of work is it.
Zoë~ You wrote: "I think Lynn's an *excellent* choice for firefighter. And President. And perhaps the genius super-villian. She could play all three flawlessly, I bet."
You flatter me but my Illuminati contacts tell me I'm ineligible for the second post. Apparently my skills are needed behind the scenes. I'm still working up to the genius super-villain, but you know how it is in Corporate Amerika. Have to go. There are opportunities calling, and I have to be online, bring something to the table, get dialoging with the synergy, prove myself as a valuable resource, and generally, incent the project plan into the next phase.
Fnord,
L.
Brian:
Got many friends who work in the forstry industry, logging trucks and crews are usually running all over up here. Toppers and loggers are all generally unionized; full health benefits, the lot. As for safety, well, the Tories rolled back the Ontario Labour Health and Safety Boards, letting the owners and unions of the companies enforce the laws concerning employee safety standards rather than a government bureaucracy. The result is that injury rates are pretty much the same rate as it was under the process of government inspection, but we pay a bit less in taxes.
Companies generally use the logic that it's hard enough to keep skilled people around to do what is at times hazardous work, so pay well and make sure that compensation for time off injured is good.
Scott
>In other words, why go after (and potentially kill or maim) the poor guy out in the forest who's just trying to make a living? <
Never a good excuse for inaction. The German wehrmacht was filled with poor guys just trying to make a living.
Alex Jay: I couldn't access your picture. I guess Eric got the same message I did. Is there another way you could let us all see pictures of your gorgeous mug? I'm curious.
Joseph: I am immensely flattered that you think I'm a reasonable person.
PAB
Alex Jay - *pout* My computer won't let me see the link you posted... it sends me to a page that says it's expired or something. Hmph! I was getting ready to print a picture and post it around the base and towns. I was thinking of a really great ad, too...
Jay Smith - I get to be an ADVISOR?! Cindy, we're gonna rock. Hey, can we also hire and fire people too? ;) And I think Lynn's an *excellent* choice for firefighter. And President. And perhaps the genius super-villian. She could play all three flawlessly, I bet.
--Off to do my taxes,
--Zoë Rose
Actuially, Lorin's comment raises another interesting question. Lorin refers to the prospect that "the poor guy out in the forest who's just trying to make a living" will be killed or maimed because of the actions of tree-spikers.
Not a nad concern. But when I hear this sort of thing, I wonder: have we also been hearing about the risks imposed by the _logging companies_ upon these guys? What sort of health bennies do they get? Treetopping's a risky job-- what's their health coverage like? If they're maimed or incapacitated, do they have some kind of income security? How well-maintained is their equipment, and does the industry have a history of lobbying against safety standards? Does the company offer half-pay, or alternate-job training, for when the logging gets thin?
What about pollutants: do the logging companies dump their effluents into the local streams and ponds, contaminating the water table? Do the companies fight unionization, which'd help the loggers a _lot_?
CINDY
That's very kind of you...I still worry about that backhoe, though...like Uncle Otto’s Truck, I think it's a little closer to the house this morning…
To Lorin O, who wrote:
"In other words, why go after (and potentially kill or maim) the poor guy out in the forest who's just trying to make a living? How is that likely to sway public opinion to your cause? Why not go right to the source of the problem--the corporations, etc., that are responsible for the decimation of the environment? Why not take a look at our apparently insatiable need for these resources? To me, tree-spiking and other acts of that nature just seem counterproductive. I have plenty of respect for activists who put THEIR OWN bodies on the line. I have none for those who'd harm others for their cause."
I'm not cure I agree, because this argument sort of rests on letting the logging companies hold those "ordinary guys" _hostage_.
If an envirommentalist spikes a tree, he or she is effectively saying "If you cut down this tree, you risk destroying your equipment." And if the logging company doesn't cut the tree down, fine: the tree thrives.
But, if a logging company says, "You spike trees, you risk forcing us to hurt the livelihoods of dozens of loggers," that's a little different. Like I said, it's a bit like holding people hostage. And even if the tree-spikers desist, there's no guarantee that the logging company _won't_ hurt the lives of the loggers for some other reason (say, "No more trees").
Lorin D~
Since you may have missed it:
Alex Jay Berman
Philly, - Sunday, March 9 2003 17:56:35
"Large railroad-type spikes are driven deep into trees, the heads are cut off, and then the spike is driven dep into the wood with a punch to conceal it.
The aim of this is to ruin the log for commercial use and make it not cost-effective"
"Many tree spikers are careful to put their spikes high above where a logger would put his chainsaw, and
so only the saws in sawmills are destroyed by this practice, and still others will label the trees they have
spiked to warn loggers off
"Diana
- Sunday, March 9 2003 18:24:19
"...the purpose of spiking the trees and blowing up the earth moving equipment is to discourage and prevent
the cutting down of old growth trees, not to kill and maim the innocent loggers just trying to earn a living"
Diana
JOSEPH,
It's okay, JJF. You shouldn't take back your comment about my post being 'needless and rude', because, well, it was, and you were the first to really get the point across. I was shocked and somewhat enraged when you lashed back with such ferocity, but now I know we were on two COMPLETELY different planets at the time. I publicly declared my retirement from the 'Lil' Washu' moniker a little while ago and I made the boneheaded assumption everyone would recognize me off the bat. It's all about communication, communication, communication. Or lack of it.
And yes, I still own HULK: THE END, and I am still enjoying the hell out of it.
To me it's analagous to putting a bear trap in your mailbox because you don't like the way the U.S. Postal Department works.
In other words, why go after (and potentially kill or maim) the poor guy out in the forest who's just trying to make a living? How is that likely to sway public opinion to your cause? Why not go right to the source of the problem--the corporations, etc., that are responsible for the decimation of the environment? Why not take a look at our apparently insatiable need for these resources?
To me, tree-spiking and other acts of that nature just seem counterproductive. I have plenty of respect for activists who put THEIR OWN bodies on the line. I have none for those who'd harm others for their cause.
Just a thought!
Lorin O.
P. S. Oh, I know this topic has probably passed but I'm running at about a five-day lag on this board! Darn you prodigious thinkers.
>http://tinyurl.com/767x<
Dead link.
My dream is to one day have enough money to launch a full-scale film project and hire Zoe and Cindy as advisors. If there was money left over I'd hire Lynn as my firefighter.
Lynn~
So you're the one responsible for my internal injuries...I showed the joke to a couple other people already. Thanks for the laughs.
Bye for now.
Diana
Cindy~
Thanks a lot, I hurt some of my inner parts when I was laughing at that stuff.
I must say I admired Saddam Hussein's arguing technique in there. It's one I use all the time. It drives the other person crazy, and requires so little of my mind that I can usually do a couple of other things at the same time as I'm arguing with them.
Diana
Alex Jay~
You look totally normal. I thought you were a really really tall old guy, with male pattern baldness, and a old guy's pear shaped body. And a scruffy little beard. And one of those annoying deep falsely hardy chuckles that those types of guys usually have. See how wrong a person can be? (not that if you were like that it wouldn't be normal too) Why would anyone laugh?
Good luck with your hunt for love...
Bye for now.
Diana
0
Cindy will have you fixed up in no time; you'll see.
Please don't be drinking anything when you read this:
http://tinyurl.com/7681
L.
CINDY: Just for you, darlin'.
(And just so everyone else can have a good laugh at my expense--hey, I'm treatin'!)
http://tinyurl.com/767x
(Click on "More Photos" for, well ... more photos.)
Dammmmit -
I just realized that Ben was good'ol Lil'Washu.
Scheisse.
Sorry abotu that, Ben. If I had known it was you, I would have restrained myself a bit more. You know I'm a good guy - who else sent you a copy of "Hulk: The End?"
Regards,
Joseph, who knows he's in the shit now....
PA Berman,
You, I was a little hard on Ben. Frankly though, I don't especially regret it. He made a mean-spirited comment about someone's personal appearance and linked it to his opinion of Ebert's show. It was needless and rude. Had you said it, I would have cut some slack, as you have a history here as a reasonable person. This Ben, though, made a mean-spirited comment that cut me the wrong way. So sue me.
Regards,
Joseph
Hey Washu,
Is that YOU????
I get IT!! Okay, Ben.. now that I know WHO YOU ARE!!!!!!
I must say that you threw me for quite the loop there. I was thinkin' "what"..... 'FIGHT'????? If y'all are fightin' you are SOME kinda that subtle.
HELL me and Diana tear up more turf than THAT when we're sleepin'!
Next time y'all throw down for a range war we want to see feet and fists and teeth!!!!! No more subtle SCRAPPING-- IT AIN'T NATURAL!!!
:)
You guys are great. Gentlemen the pair o' ye.
See why I love men?
Cindy
Alex Jay wrote,
"CINDY & ZOË: Hey, if you really DO want to beat the bushes to find me that lovely Levantine, I can point you to some pics on the dating service I AM on. (I clean up real good ...)"
YES!
Point me where and I will go to bat. I'll find you the perfect little bride... your mama will even approve.
yer pal,
Cindy MATCHMAKER Jones
JOSEPH,
It's late, I'm tired, and I have no time or patience for the inner asshole you've decided to unleash. I was genuinely apologetic in my previous post, and I can only assume you somehow failed to comprehend that. In any case, goodnight, and I hope morning sees the both of us a better person.
'Regards',
Benjamin A.A. Winfield
Alex,
Your idea sounds like a grand one-- but uhh, look closer at that picture.. I think "she" is a man! Check out that paw on her!
YIKES!!
Cindy
It was like a drug trip. Bad television about bad television...okay, maybe not "Galactica 1980" or "Earth Final Conflict" bad, but...
I wonder how Batman would've worked with episodes by Harlan.
Hey Gary,
Tell me this-- CASE, JOHN DEERE, NEW HOLLAND?
Go to the dealer tell 'em you lost your key. They have universal keys... at least I THINK they do... a Caterpillar key will start maintainers, bulldozers, track loaders-- pick yer poison.
Whoa, wait-- my husband just said if you steal it it's a felony and I am now an accessory- maybe it's not such a good idea at that.
Maybe when the bluebonnets head out here I'll gather you some seed for that bare strip you were talkin' about. Would that suit you?
:)
Cindy
Actually, call off the Webderlander Lonely Hearts Club Band!
I've had a brainstorm:
You know about Russian mail-order brides, right?
And you know how more and more people are finding spouses among the huge pool of singles in incarceration, right?
Well, why not COMBINE the two?
Here, take a look at the winner of this year's Miss Captivity Pageant in Lithuania:
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_709915.html
We could make MILLIONS brokering this stuff!
We could be as rich as, say, expat Nigerians with e-mail accounts!
DTS: Well, *I* am VERY offended at not getting onto your "intimidating women" list.
What's that you say?
... why, you SEXIST!!!
Ahem.
On another issue, wholly divergent from the usual film and politics discussions that hit this board--do any of you other guys out there shave with a brush and shaving soap, as opposed to shaving cream?
I just started, and I have to say, I rather like it. The motion itself brings something of a nostalgic feeling, and as someone prone to the occasional pimple, the feeling of soapy-clean on the skin is a good one.
(Yeah, I'm still just putting frothy chemicals on my face and scraping them off with a blade, but I like it nonetheless.)
CINDY & ZOË: Hey, if you really DO want to beat the bushes to find me that lovely Levantine, I can point you to some pics on the dating service I AM on. (I clean up real good ...)
Hi Cindy,
I'm glad you enjoyed playing dao ball.
Wisdom from the Tao! I got different messages, relevant to me. More along the lines of things like "A sage looks like: a block of ice at the point of melting, easily moved" & "A wise man (person) acts like a guest, polite in all environments" Stuff like that.
I don't think the spikes hurt the trees. It would make no sense for an environmentalist to spike them if the spikes hurt the trees. Right? No the spikes hurt the loggers when they try to chainsaw the trees and their saws hit the spikes. Not that that's a good thing, but the purpose of spiking the trees and blowing up the earth moving equipment is to discourage and prevent the cutting down of old growth trees, not to kill and maim the innocent loggers just trying to earn a living.
I found out about Earth First! when I was involved with looking into Paganism & Earth relgions and such. They advertised in Selena Fox's Circle Sanctuary newsletter. Maybe they still do. I believe they're international. Kind of like Green Peace with an edge and a bad attitude. They're activists. Meaning they are ACTIVE. They move. They try to DO something about what they see is wrong. They, literally sometimes, put their bodies on the line, like chaining themselves to various types of things to get in the way, and having parades and marches and demonstrations and putting on concerts to bring attention to all kinds of environmental issues.
Bye for now.
Diana
P.A. BERMAN: Damn, I KNEW I was forgetting lotsa names. You were intended to be on the list, of course. And you're welcome. My pleasure (I hope my efforts counterbalance those of less enlightened men).
CINDY: What's that OTHER email address of yours (I tried to email you at the one listed and got the "mailbox full" error.
--DTS
JOSEPH: Considering the fun defamations of celebrities that go on all the time in this here space, I think you were a smidgen hard on young Ben. Not that you weren't RIGHT, mind, but the reaction was a little much.
CINDY: Large railroad-type spikes are driven deep into trees, the heads are cut off, and then the spike is driven dep into the wood with a punch to conceal it.
The aim of this is to ruin the log for commercial use and make it not cost-effective--unfortunately, when a chainsaw band traveling at 13000 RPM hits a spike, it can literally explode. Many tree spikers are careful to put their spikes high above where a logger would put his chainsaw, and so only the saws in sawmills are destroyed by this practice, and still others will label the trees they have spiked to warn loggers off.
(Hardy trees can usually survive the shock.)
Not everyone is so benign, however. It's a very dangerous thing to do.
Interestingly, spiking is either being considered or is currently being used in Indonesia legally, by the government, to stave off the rash of ILLEGAL logging going on in their national forests.
(Spiking and caning and jails, oh my!)
With yer boy in the White House rolling back environmental restrictions and safeguards and wanting logging done in nature preserves and national forests, though, I can only imagine that spiking in America will soon be on the upswing.
(Though I have respect for those who treesit as protest, I have to say that human rights offenses right now take precedence over environmental offenses for me. Also, it's easier to prosecute a corrupt administration for messing with people than it is for messing with nature. And money's even easier than that ...)
GARY: Hotwire it? Feh! Sell it on eBay.
INTIMIDATING WOMEN: It's not that I don't find women intimidating because I'm such a great and charmingly open-minded Alan Alda kinda guy--rather, it's simply a benign effect from a larger personal stupidity:
I don't know fear.
At least not personally. Maybe it's tied into the stubbornness I've exhibited all my life, but there's nothing I fear of happening to myself. An example: Just had a colonoscopy. a week or so ago. Polyps were found. Someone asked if I was worried. I replied that I wasn't; if it was cancer, it would be too small and too young to have metastasized, and can be cut out with little muss and fuss.
As "cancer" is the dirtiest word which can be spoken in 21st-century America, my friend was shocked: "Don't you CARE what happens to you?!?
I replied that of COURSE I cared--but that I would face it and handle it and deal with it, whatever "it" might be. I'm stupid that way.
The only thing in life I truly fear is bad things happening to people for whom I care. And the strongest aspect of that is that I fear bad things happening to people about whom I care which are MY FAULT.
I USED to have a fear of rejection, but I've grown past that, really. I still have a HATRED of rejection, but that's entirely different, I fear.
Call me Matt Murdock or whatever, but I just don't have those feelings.
Oh, and Joseph: Any time I see a celebrity who looks weird, I don't go and do research to see if that person *happens* to have a dread disease. Give ol' Ben a break. Not everyone has time to research the drooping of a movie reviewer's lip.
PAB
DTS: Can I just say THANKS to you for your rebuttal to recil? I know you've already taken a lot of grief about it, but as an "intimidating" woman (who you left off your list, but I'm forgiving), it was nice to hear a man say that he could appreciate such things. Intimidating=too smart=bitchy for too many people, I find. As Bette Davis said, "When a man gives his opinion he's a man. When a women gives her opinion she's a bitch." Or intimidating.
I loves ya, Dorman.
PAB
There’s something dinosaurish about a backhoe in action, anybody agree? Sitting right outside my living room window, larger than life, chewing a surprisingly precise line through my yard.
I lost electricity around 10:20 this morning. A Mass Electric truck showed up in pleasantly short order and a gentleman started tinkering with the transformer at the foot of my driveway. Then another truck pulled up. And another. These babies are big and bright yellow.
It was after the sixth truck, when the backhoe trundled up, that I started to get really interested. I took a picture.
I soon had my power back, but my neighbors had a thornier problem. Turned out there was a nick in the buried line where it ran in front of my house. I stood on the spot for a moment, before they asked me to step away, feeling the thump in my feet at the fault, whenever they pumped a test through the line. I’m a percussionist. It felt good.
My neighbors are again juiced, all the trucks are gone, and they promised to be back come spring to seed the remarkably precise strip they carved. I’ll believe it when I see it.
They left the backhoe. Anybody know how to hotwire one?
Hey Diana,
You're right that IS fun!
Here's what I got...
"Intelligent people know others.
Enlightened people know themselves.
You can conquer others with power,
But it takes true strength to conquer yourself."
So TRUE-- SO true!
Thanks for sharing that one.
Hey! On that tree spiking thing.. how do they do that? Is it harmful to the trees? I have a fence that an Oak tree grew up around-- it's like it swallowed it. The fence doesn't seem to hurt the tree any but I would think a spike might not be so good.
Do you know anything about it? As I said I don't know much about Earth First either.. how'd you find out about them. Maybe it's a regional thing.
:)
Cindy
DTS WROTE;
"CINDY: Texas wimmen are such flirts. I'm gonna take you up on that hug next time I hit Baja Oklahoma. Think you can maneuver around my huge beer gut and man-titties? (Last time I checked the scale, I weighed about 212 and one-quarter pounds -- it's mostly muscle, of course). Thanks for the compliments, M'am.
--DTS"
Dorman,
You kiddin'?
NO problemo! My friends come in all sizes, shapes and colors. I'd think you were darlin' if you weighed 600lbs!
It's all about the charm factor. I still think Peter Ustinov has game.
:)
Cindy
An entertaining game, and related information.
http://www.thetao.info/index.htm
http://www.nawwal.org/jrgoff/dao/playGame.html
http://www.taosearch.com/
Bye for now.
Diana
Ben,
An internal monlogue...
"Hmmm...Ebert looks really weird this week. Maybe he's been ill. Maybe I should actually look at informed sources. Nah, I'll just make a mean unsubtantiated comment that had no connection to my opinion of him as a movie critic. That'll do the trick."
It has nothing to do with whether you knew or not, Ben - you just obviously made no attempt to educate yourself, resulting in an undignified & uninformed attack on someone who's never attacked you. And that's asinine.
Joseph
DIANA: Okeydoke. Gotta take a break from writing and get back to the real world anyhow. I WILL try to feel better about myself (don't know if I'll ever recover).
CINDY: Texas wimmen are such flirts. I'm gonna take you up on that hug next time I hit Baja Oklahoma. Think you can maneuver around my huge beer gut and man-titties? (Last time I checked the scale, I weighed about 212 and one-quarter pounds -- it's mostly muscle, of course). Thanks for the compliments, M'am.
--DTS
DTS~
Would you p-u-u-u-u-l-e-e-ze stop bothering me?. Whyn't you go read the nice stuff Cindy had to say to you and feel better? This always helps me.
Thanks
Diana
Good, Diana!
I wouldn't want to let you down.
:)
Cindy
Cindy~
Regarding:
"
WELLLLL,
As Harlan reportedly once wrote -- " It ain't brag when you-"
AW-- HELL Y'ALL , WHAT WAS THAT QUOTE OF HARLAN'S? SOMEBODY HELP ME OUT HERE?????
Cindy"
I believed you when you said it anyways,
And ha ha I KNEW you were going to say something like that (I'd have been disappointed if you hadn't, it was kind of the obvious response)
Diana :=)
HEY SCOTTY!
I thought your redneck definition was well thought out and accurate.
:)
Cindy
ALEX JAY BERMAN WROTE
"CINDY: Maybe it's me. But there's no such thing as a woman who's too intimidating. You put me next to a woman dressed as Ilsa the She-Wolf, and I'll strike up a conversation with her. Not because I'm hitting on her, per se, but just because I like to engage people."
Which explains your charm, Alex Jay.
:)
Cindy
BARNEY WROTE;
"*** Cindy ***
"You really are loading the deck by listing so many post-menopausal women you know. It looks like M. Albright might have had a helluva rack in her day and Janet Reno's uncontrollable shaking must be good for something in the sack, no?"
THAT, my friend is HILARIOUS!!
:)
Cindy
MEL,
Danielle, Joel and Cassandra are the lucky ones-- to have so much love and so much warmth at home.
You really did get the brass ring with Scotty-- whatever his past he has taken the pain and turned it into something beautiful and lasting.
:)
Kiss the babies for me
AS FOR YOU EDWARD--
What fun to hear your "voice"! Stay, STAY!!!!!!! You are among friends here.
:)
Cindy
OHH AND HEY BRIAN,
I really LIKE your vampire story! I think you should go back and re-evaluate it. It has legs.
:)
Cindy
RECIL WROTE;
"Most women, and I would emphasize the MOST here (not all), who are told they are too intimidating are really quite obnoxious. It's the polite way to say, "you really annoy me." It runs parallel to "I'm just shy" in the book of personal personality delusional affirmations. Some are really intimidating, though, and it's usually their looks, because some women are just too damned good looking to remain calm around."
Well, AAAACTUALLY-- it was that last thing you mentioned to which those I cited were referring.
Now my best Walter Brennan voice, " No brag-- jis' FACT."
:)
Cindy
DIANA WROTE;
"Recil~
Cindy's already told us how spectacular she is. She'll probably want to say she doesn't want to brag but...
But well she already has.
I'm sure it's all true.
Diana"
WELLLLL,
As Harlan reportedly once wrote -- " It ain't brag when you-"
AW-- HELL Y'ALL , WHAT WAS THAT QUOTE OF HARLAN'S? SOMEBODY HELP ME OUT HERE?????
Cindy
Finder
- Thursday, March 6 2003 9:4:56
Cindy - I'm in our Marketing group - ad copy, product planning, documentation format and publication; they had me there to see what the applicability of our product (wireless antenna packages and communication networks to carry the data) would be within the Homeland Security universe."
FINDER,
This sounds fascinating! You got to go out there and see everything first hand... I'm GREEN.
:)
Cindy
DTS WROTE;
"CINDY: I'll bet a LOT of men find you intimidating. (and the same goes for quite a few of the other women who visit this board -- LYNN and COOKIE come immediately to mind). Anyone as whipsmart and outspoken as you will always make an insecure man's testicles retreat back into his pelvis. Not to worry, baby. The rest of us guys know better.
Yrs in love of smart women and great (live) music,"
-
Dorman,
Yours is a sterling compliment made even more profoundly moving because it came from one as whipsmart and brilliant as YOU.
:)
Cindy
DIANA: Jeeeez lighten up!
-DTS
DIANA: By the way...I'M insecure about some things...sometimes. The WHOLE WORLD is insecure about some things...most of the time, and some of the time. It's only human. Not necessarily derogatory. You really should take things a little easier. You seem tense. Can I get you cushion or something?
Yrs. in obsequious groveling,
DTS
DTS~
Just in case I wasn't clear about it, I was NOT saying those nasty things about you, I was just giving you an example of the kind of so called "helpful" remark a person could make that is actually not helpful or truly meant to be helpful at all. (Kind of like prefacing something nasty that you're about to say with the phrase "No offense but..." Which translates to: "I'm about to say something offensive, and I don't give a shit if you're offended, and in fact I hope you ARE offended, but I'm saying "no offense but" before I say it so I can later say "But I SAID I meant no offense by that remark" so I can get away with it") (heh heh)
I realize this is pointless to go on about though, so I'm not going to past this. You didn't get the point. You're obviously not going to get the point. You obviously just want to start shit, and argue. But I DON'T. So I'm not going to. I will REITERATE that I wasn't actually saying those things about you, just trying to give an example of something. If you (or anyone else) instead choose(S) to take the remark as if I actually intended them for you, and thus get all offended, you're on your own as far as I'm concerned. I hope you understand.
Bye for now.
Diana
DIANA: Personally (even though I know you think we're not supposed to get personal -- which means I wont ask what sort of day you're having), I prefer unctious and step-n-fetchit as descriptive terms. On. Off. On. Off. Whew! My fingers are getting tired. Think I'll call it a day. (Is that okay with everyone -- CINDY? LYNN? ZOE? RECIL? BARNEY? LOFTUS? HARLAN? --not that I'm worried about disappointing anyone or anything -- can I get you guys a beverage, or an orange...how about a nice orange, while I'm out shopping for a backbone?).
Yrs. until I find a low-priced spinal column,
The Human Jellyfish (aka, DTS)
DTS~
Regarding:
"DIANA:..You seem a little insecure about some things"
The above would qualify as a PERSONAL and derogatory remark. But, as you've demonstrated already, this isn't the kind of thing you'd hesitate to do.
Which was pretty much my point to begin with.
If I were, for example to say, "DTS, you seem a little obsequious, and toady-ing about things; try to develope a little self respect and back bone and stop sucking up;life will flow easier for you then" or something similar, wouldn't you feel I'd made a personal attack on you?
But I'm not going to say anything like that, because I've reformed my evil ways.
Diana
ZOE: Thanks (he said, wiping sweat off his brow, remembering the lady in question is an airplane-flying, gun-toting, karate-trained wildcat).
DIANA: For a person who isn't interested in addressing or reiterating, you sure like to address and reiterate a whole lot. You seem a little insecure about some things. Relax. Get comfortable with yourself. The rest of life will flow naturally from there.
Sincerely,
--DTS (part-time yogi & guru)
Cindy & Alex Jay Berman - No older sister, sorry. But I DO have an older brother! My parents didn't do the rabbit thing, Cindy, but there are two of us, and my brother is smarter than I'll ever be. He went to college at St. Johns in Maryland, this tiny liberal arts school. Judging from his stories, it was HARD. Don't think I coulda made it through - things like writing a paper on some classic or another (Greek writers, etc) and then having to stand in front of a board of people and debate with them abou yoru paper, defending it. WHEW!
So, just me an' m'bro. And he's taken, sorry. ;) (I had to look up Levantine also, Cin. ;) )
DTS - I'll let it go this time.... ;)
--Zoë Rose
DTS~
P.S. All I was saying was that I felt your post got kind of PERSONAL. As I'm trying to refrain from turning my arguments into personl attacks from now on, and am going to, instead, try and offer reasoned arguments with those I choose to even bother to disagree with at this forum, I guess I'm just sensitive to a case where it looked to me like someone was being a little less scrupulous than I would want to be about their methods of debate. I wasn't really interested in reading a reiteration of your previous post. I didn't (and don't) choose to address the contents of your posts beyond the point I already have.
But thank you for taking the time to answer me.
Diana
DTS~
Regarding:
"DIANA: Perhaps I didn't type clearly enough. Obviously, everybody categorizes and judges to some extent. But what I was typing (and trying to get across) in the note below was that men who call smart, decisive women "intimidating" or "obnoxious" are threatened by them. (So the phrase you pulled out from my post should have, when kept in context, communicated that guys who categorize smart women as obnoxious -- as Recil did -- instead of intimidating, were just as threatened, if not more, as those who labeled them intimidating -- make sense now?) If you think I'm judging or categorizing Recil, yeah, you're right. I judge him to be threatened by smart, decisive women; I categorize him as insecure. And it's been my experience -- from the sandlots and footballs fields of my childhood, to the bars and construction sites of my young adulthood, to the barracks and training fields of my Army days, to the gyms and locker rooms I often inhabit these days -- that a great many men _are_ insecure, and DO feel threatened by a woman who knows more (even if it's on just one subject), or who are more experienced, or more capable than them. They don't always tell the women to their face, prefering to "joke" about it amongst themselves. But the insecurity remains. I'm sure it has something to do with the lizard-like, primal parts of our brain that tell us we must PROVIDE and PROTECT and PREVAIL. Nevertheless, I find it a base characteristic -- demeaning to the majority of women -- especially nowadays, when we should be so much more enlightened. And when more of us men should be happy to have a partner who is equal to us in so many ways. If she happens to be superior in others, so what? I say revel in it. Unfortunately, there are a lot of men don't necessarily feel this way. (Otherwise, we would've elected a woman to the office of President a long time ago).
--DTS "
'Kay.
Diana
Well, in spite of the looming war, the endless violations of civil rights, the never-ending round of rehearsals, and the incessant harping over bad movies, there is one bright spot on my personal horizon...
I'm off to the Fiery Foods Show today!
HARLAN AND SUSAN: hope you're resting up...want some HOT sauce?
Best to all,
Michael
Ebert's still a bad movie critic, lip or no lip.
BEN: You're right, our nation HAS gotten waaay to PC (I blame it on "Dubya" and the Republicans -- what the hell, they're in charge, so they gotta take the heat). But don't sweat it. As you said, we're only human. But if you try to engage in affable conversation with the checkout girl at the local SAM'S (a very skinny girl you've known, say, for several years), and say something stupid like, "when is yoour baby due?" only to have her tell you she's not pregnant, THEN you can kick yourself for weeks afterward (months even). And learn a lesson to never (EVER) ask a question like THAT (no matter how good the intentions) of any woman again -- as long as you live.
--DTS
HEY! THE WGA Awards were announced. "The Hours" and "Bowling For Columbine" took the movie honors; and episodes of "the Education of Max Bickford" (which canceled, of course) and "Band of Brouthers" (probably one of the finest miniseries ever) won some of the TV honors. Cool.
--DTS
For crying out loud, how the hell was I suppose to know Ebert had thyroid cancer? Every human being is cursed to be ignorant in one field or another. For all I knew, he could have been stung by a hornet right on the lip. Gawd, I hate this politically-correct anal-retentive world of ours. I recall some SENFIELD episode where George made an off-hand joke about a man's wife (in bad taste admittedly), only to be told that she was in a coma. I mean, HONESTLY, how was George suppose to know that?
I'm sorry, I'm just angry at myself right now. I'm gonna work on my term paper on BEOWULF and sulk.
JOSEPH,
Thank you, sir. I am rightfully and deservedly spanked.
Ben,
Hate to burst your mean-spirited comment, but that drooping lip on Ebert is due to his recovering from having a lump removed from his neck two weeks before as part of his thyroid cancer treatment. See? Information really is power!
Regards.
Joseph
DIANA: Perhaps I didn't type clearly enough. Obviously, everybody categorizes and judges to some extent. But what I was typing (and trying to get across) in the note below was that men who call smart, decisive women "intimidating" or "obnoxious" are threatened by them. (So the phrase you pulled out from my post should have, when kept in context, communicated that guys who categorize smart women as obnoxious -- as Recil did -- instead of intimidating, were just as threatened, if not more, as those who labeled them intimidating -- make sense now?) If you think I'm judging or categorizing Recil, yeah, you're right. I judge him to be threatened by smart, decisive women; I categorize him as insecure. And it's been my experience -- from the sandlots and footballs fields of my childhood, to the bars and construction sites of my young adulthood, to the barracks and training fields of my Army days, to the gyms and locker rooms I often inhabit these days -- that a great many men _are_ insecure, and DO feel threatened by a woman who knows more (even if it's on just one subject), or who are more experienced, or more capable than them. They don't always tell the women to their face, prefering to "joke" about it amongst themselves. But the insecurity remains. I'm sure it has something to do with the lizard-like, primal parts of our brain that tell us we must PROVIDE and PROTECT and PREVAIL. Nevertheless, I find it a base characteristic -- demeaning to the majority of women -- especially nowadays, when we should be so much more enlightened. And when more of us men should be happy to have a partner who is equal to us in so many ways. If she happens to be superior in others, so what? I say revel in it. Unfortunately, there are a lot of men don't necessarily feel this way. (Otherwise, we would've elected a woman to the office of President a long time ago).
--DTS
Hmmmm...
Alex: I know, the idea of our minds, so definitively different, converging in a moment of brilliance to sieze upon the same thought at virtually the same moment is indeed terrifying to me as well. What is more frightening is we're wasting this power in discussion of pitting pundits one against another, expecially when a Duh-Bull-Ya is loose, and who knows what nefarious deeds it is engaged in?
Brian: I've been running searches and have yet to discern whether the Coulter eats the male after mating. Will report any relevant results.
BTW, has your Clarke-Nova been talking to you again? Bill Lee is a solid exterminator of all rational thought...
Scott, who loves the tasty dark centipede meat...
Alex's comment re Ann Coulter and Elizabeth Wurtzel reminds me of something I'd been thinking of about right wingers. When you read a book like Eric Alterman's _What Liberal Media?_, you understand that the right wing is exceptionally well-organized and overwhelmingly in control of the news media. This means that thos eof us on the progressive/left end of things may have to be just as radical and uncompromising.
That is why, in order to maintain some balance against the extremism of the right wing, I have decided that most famous and influential conservatives are _not really human beings_. They are, in fact, a kind of strangely involved insect.
For example (I said to Alex), let's imagine that we have Ann Coulter in the dinner table here, right now, thorax exposed and properly restrained. If we where to make an incision in her stomach, I'm almost certain that a thick, yellow fluid would emerge, containing chunks of material bearing only the slightest resemblance to actual human organs. By this time, sensing danger, her head would be attempting to separate itself from the rest of the body, perhaps following an eons-old insect-memory to embed itself in some rotted wood where her egg-sac can be hidden from predators.
I understand that these ideas are not popular. But then again, I've never believed in blindly following the current fashion to gain popularity.
Looking forward to the Bug Hunt, Brian Siano
Just saw a segment of EBERT & ROEPER this morning. Is it my imagination, or is Roger's increasingly droopy lip making him look more and more like the Elephant Man?
In the meantime, I've begun to cease watching the show altogether. Too many times I keep finding myself saying directly to the television, "You know, guys, who gives a f*** what you think?" That can't be healthy.
Regarding:
"When a man says a woman is intimidating, what he really means is that she is too smart for him...when they meet a woman who is obviously intelligent..well, she automatically becomes "intmidating." Or, if the guys categorize like Recil -- obnoxious...In my experience, men who find intelligent women "intimidating" are often the same guys who categorize secure, assertive women as "bitches" ...always make an insecure man's testicles retreat back into his pelvis"
My god, that's pretty damned insulting and unfair to Recil DTS. Speaking of "categorizing". That sure looks to me like just what you were doing to him.
Jeez.
Diana
UM, before my big mouth (keyboard) gets me in dutch, I should say that it was (and is) fairly early, so if I neglected to mention lots of other (Webderland visiting) women's names below (like Zoe), it's only because I'm still sleepy. Gotta remember to get to bed a bit earlier. Now...I'm off to make blueberry pancakes for breakfast (before the wife and daughter wake up and start slapping me around for not delivering breakfast in bed).
Not at all whipped. Really (no, REALLY),
-DTS
If I may interject one more bit of information in the musician's union strike in New York (heh - I almost wrote "magician;" more coffee for me), that 25-person miminum is only for the largest theaters. There is actually a sliding scale depending on the size of the venue for what the minimum amount of musicians are in the union contract. From the NYT:
"For the last half-century, the contract between musicians and producers has dictated the minimum number of musicians required in each Broadway pit, ranging from 3 to 26, depending on the size of the theater. In 1993, the union agreed to grant some exceptions; producers apply to a committee composed of two union members, two producers and up to three people from an agreed-upon list of music directors and arrangers.
Shows that have been granted exceptions include "Chicago," "Aida," "Mamma Mia," "Movin' Out" and most recently, "Urban Cowboy." "
Sounds to me like the Union of American Musicians is being perfectly reasonable here. They know some shows don't require that many musicians, and they're willing to work with the producers on exceptions.
Also, speaking as a musical lover, the thought of a digital orchestra, or live musicians backed by synthesizers, sickens me. I go to theater for the joy and energy and the immediacy of LIVE work by everybody involved, not just the actors.
Regards,
Joseph
COOKIE: I hope the musicians in NY win...and win big. I don't have the exact numbers in front of me, but I recently learned that with most of the tickets to big Broadway shows averaging something over $75, a mere seven to ten bucks goes for the cost of the orchestra. Now, I know producers "need to make money" (as someone stated below), but, as is usual with big-money guys, I believe their greed outstrips their actual need.
RECIL: Respectfully, you are full of shit (as are a lot of other men, so don't take it too personally). I'm speaking of your comment about women (who describe themselves as "intimidating") being obnoxious. I can't tell you how many times I've heard women tell me that men find them intimidating. And -- in EVERY case -- these women turn out to be intelligent, witty and egaging. When a man says a woman is intimidating, what he really means is that she is too smart for him (and "too smart" for the average American male means any woman who refuses to always acquiesce to his point of view). Most guys -- let's face it -- always want to be right. And when they meet a woman who is obviously intelligent, and knows what she is talking about...and (worse!) dives into a conversational subject about which the man she is speaking to knows nothing...well, she automatically becomes "intmidating." Or, if the guys categorize like Recil -- obnoxious (don't you women know that you're supposed to hang on arms -- and every word -- nod your head in agreement, and tell us we are _so_ smart -- and later, scream our names in uncontrolled ecstasy, because every one of us men are such grrrrrreat lovers?) In my experience, men who find intelligent women "intimidating" are often the same guys who categorize secure, assertive women as "bitches" (especially in the workplace, when the women are in the drivers - or bosses -- seat); of course, men who know what they want and what is needed to get the job done are seen as decisive. Ah, the great double (male-invented) standard.
CINDY: I'll bet a LOT of men find you intimidating. (and the same goes for quite a few of the other women who visit this board -- LYNN and COOKIE come immediately to mind). Anyone as whipsmart and outspoken as you will always make an insecure man's testicles retreat back into his pelvis. Not to worry, baby. The rest of us guys know better.
Yrs in love of smart women and great (live) music,
--DTS
Regarding my last post I think that came out kind of bitchier than I meant it too. Sorry Cindy.
Also regarding Recil (and Cookie) and being sober...You guys should be proud of yourselves daily, I know it's not easy. I gave up my wild ways myself a number of years ago and am the better for it. And although I haven't been one to embrace the whole sub culture of recovery, I believe *whatever* it takes for someone to "just say no", they should do that. Whatever litanies, chants, mental processes of reasoning, whatever prayers it takes (some moments it takes all of that) to deal with your own (what I call) "Bullshit Factor" I'd say go for it.
One of the BIG reasons my friend Mark and are now JUST friends is because he's still steadily continued drinking and using cocaine and smoking dope like a rastafarian chimney. There are occasions when I get tired of him calling me a la-dee-dah little goody-two-shoes, I must say...other times I realize it's ridiculous. And of course I totally enjoy no longer waking up with that "Oh my GOD what the fuck did I DO last night?!?" feeling anymore. No more dry-heaving my guts out and swearing I'll never do THAT again. I finally decided being a drunk asshole really only seems funny when you're drunk, or maybe it seems funny to some people when they see it in a movie. Othewise it pretty much sucks.
Anyway, I've been meaning to mention all of this to Cookie for a while now and since I can't sleep and read that thing Recil wrote, and since one of the reasons I started drinking was I suffer from insomnia and a couple of glasses of wine helped me sleep, so I was remembering again tonight (this morning actually) how I got started drinking so much, as well as thinking about why I decided I needed to stop, I thought I'd say something about it now. 'Cause eventually the two glasses before bed ended up as being two cases and three-four days drunk as hell 'cause it also seemed to help me deal with the housework, and the fact that I live HERE (I really HATE this town) and various other things, until I'd end up wondering time and again where the hell did the month go, or those last two years for that matter. That was four years ago, and it's good to always know what day it is now.
Bye for now.
Diana
Recil~
Cindy's already told us how spectacular she is. She'll probably want to say she doesn't want to brag but...
But well she already has.
I'm sure it's all true.
Diana
Most women, and I would emphasize the MOST here (not all), who are told they are too intimidating are really quite obnoxious. It's the polite way to say, "you really annoy me." It runs parallel to "I'm just shy" in the book of personal personality delusional affirmations. Some are really intimidating, though, and it's usually their looks, because some women are just too damned good looking to remain calm around. Fortunately for me, I have historically been too drunk to notice my own inadequacies in these sitcheeashuns; now that I'm off the sauce, and with a permanent mate, there's no need to care any longer.
--recil
I think this article makes good points about both sides in the Broadway strike and explains the positions of both adequately:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/arts/theater/09LABO.html
Remember:this is Broadway. If millions of dollars are being thrown around in the name of Art and Entertainment, why shouldn't producers pay the piper. The people who play in Broadway pit orchestras are highly-trained professionals and among the best players in the country because the competion is very intense. It *is* about preserving musicians jobs and as a musician, I can't be anything BUT supportive of the union's position on this one. I am completely biased and I admit it. :)
AJ: The article said that the musicians' union has made exceptions in the past when the show doesn't truly need the minimum requirement. They're not being ridiculous (truly they aren't). The issue is the fear that the producers really would rather do away with musicians all together. That's the subtext.
Maybe some of you don't care as much whether your music is played by people or by machines. I'm kind of old fashioned in that regard and musicians are my people. I want to see them eat.
SCOTT: Interesting--your comment about a desird catfight between Ann Coulter and Naomi Wolf echoes something I said to Brian today, when we were talking about our disenchantment with those who take BOTH extreme sides of the issues--I said I'd want to take Coulter and Elizabeth Wurtzel, glue them to one another and trap them in an airtight latex sheath ... after filming it of course.
When your thought patterns begin to pace mine, it's time to run screaming toward the hills.
JIM: Ever hear Prine's duet with a young Bonnie Raitt on his song "Angel From Montgomery"? Heaven.
CINDY: Maybe it's me. But there's no such thing as a woman who's too intimidating. You put me next to a woman dressed as Ilsa the She-Wolf, and I'll strike up a conversation with her. Not because I'm hitting on her, per se, but just because I like to engage people.
Cookie: And what would the Musicians' Union have done with something like, say, the original run of Stephen Sondheim's ASSASSINS, which was staged in a room so small, they could only fit THREE musicans? I'm assuming there's a sliding scale with regard to seating areas ... or is it only Broadway, not the off-broadway halls, that they're taking to task?
Allow me to just write a little more about this. A 25 person orchestra isn't really all that large. Your standard big band consists of 15--20 players. For a pit orchestra of a show like say "Cabaret" or "Chicago," you need a big band (due to the nature of the music) plus strings and woodwinds (It may be possible for members of a sax section to double on other wind instruments thereby saving personnel). There are all kinds of arrangers' tricks to make smaller ensembles sound bigger than they are, but in the end, you need to have a certain instrumentation in order to achieve specific ensemble effects.
I've noticed that with the economic downturn, places that hire music locally have been hiring smaller ensembles. There are still occasional big band gigs, but they tend to be sponsored through institutions and grants. Where clubs used to hire quartets, they're hiring duos and solos: or rather, they're offering the pay that should go to duos or solos. Sadly, this pay is sometimes split by trios and quartets that are simply desperate to pay at all.
But we're not talking about upstate bar gigs here. We're talking about Broadway which is supposed to be the height of American musical theatre. These should be the best staffed plays there are. I enjoy seeing local productions of Broadway musical with scruffy local pits or just piano accompaniment. But if/when I go see a Broadway play, I want to see (and hear) something spectacular, even if it means paying A LOT for my ticket.
PS: that paragraph was excerpted from a NYTimes article.
Lynn: This paragraph explains why the issue of minimums is important: "The producers have argued that the minimums take the control out of the hands of the creative team. At the same time, most composers, orchestrators and music directors seem to favor maintaining the minimums. More than 40 prominent music people recently signed a petition in support of the union, including John Kander, the composer of "Chicago," and "Cabaret," and Don Sebesky, who orchestrated "Kiss Me, Kate," among other shows.
In this contract negotiation, the musicians are also seeking a wage increase of 5 percent; their current base salary is $1,350 per week."
The WRITERS, the people who orchestrate the notes the musicians play believe that they need the minimum of 25 players in order to write satisfying scores. That is the minimum human resource they need to have available to construct their musical visions. With 15 members in the orchestra, your choices are more limited. Can you make acceptable music this way? Yes. Can you make the sort of high-production value music expected by Broadway ticket holders with these resources? Maybe, but it's much harder and may involve using synthesized rather than real instruments. Synthesizers are really cool, but I don't believe they should replace real live orchestra players.
And yes, of course the producers MUST make money. I take no issue with that, but they shouldn't make it by replacing humans with machines.
Cookie~ I am glad to see the solidarity between actors & musicians, however, the 25 person limit seems an interesting reason to strike. (For those who haven't been following the story, the Musician's Union have a clause in their contract that puts a bottom limit of 25 players in an orchestra. The producers want this limit removed.)
You wrote: "...the producers need to think beyond profit margins."
If a business stays in business by making a profit, and if the profit goes away, doesn't the business go away as well? How are they supposed to pay any of the required 25 musicians if they aren't making a profit? Now if they're making a ton of money and are just being stingy, I could see holding the line, but if they have to choose between keeping a show open with say 18 people in the pit or closing the show, which is more fair to the production (and all the people on the production)?
Just curious,
L.
Cookie~
What are they striking for? I mean what are they asking for, what are their complaints and such?
Diana
Bravo for the Broadway musicians who are striking and for the actors and stagehands who won't cross their picket lines. IMO, a Broadway musical should have a full complement of LIVE musicians in the pit. A Broadway musical is supposed to be the zenith of production quality(I've yet to see one on Broadway, but I hope to some day). I think people who go to see them deserve to hear a full, professional orchestra. I understand that times are tough and it's hard to pay musicians, but I think that the producers need to think beyond profit margins.
Anyone else have anything to say about that? I'm not usually a big fan of the musicians' union, but I think this is an example of a local doing the right thing for the right reasons.
There is no doubt.
Cindy
P.S. Also, if I were being honest about things, I'd have to say that I would vastly prefer having Mr. Ellison respect and affection than his passing fancy. THOSE things,I think, would be way more worth having, and are no doubt, a great deal harder to come by.
Diana
Cindy~
Regarding that "no mere mortal woman" remark, it was funny but...
You want to know a part of that " extraordinary defenses" thing I mentioned? I've learned to never over-estimate myself.
Really, I figured THAT man was more than I could handle. I don't know what men think they see when they're looking at me sometimes, but I'm pretty sure I'm not that...whatever it is. This attitude works very well for me. Keeps me safe.
Bye for now.
Diana
Diana,
I LIKED your "no mere mortal woman" remark.
:)
Cindy
DIANA WROTE;
"Cindy~
All joking aside? I've been hit on so fiercely so many times in my life, and with such regularity and (sometimes) by so many truly amazing men, that I've had to develope extraordinary defenses. (My mom's told me for years I should think about growing a moustache or something) I can hardly even go to the
corner store for bread & cheese or something, but what some local lothario doesn't drive by and offer to take me for a ride in his truck, or out to dinner.
No offense to YOU but if this isn't the way things have gone in your life than you really wouldn't
understand."
AAAAAACTUALLY,
It really HASN'T been that way in my life at all.
I've been told I'm too intimidating.
:)
Cindy
And Cindy?
Just one more little thing, and I'll drop the subject if you do, I didn't say Mr E. hit on me (I didn't say he didn't either, I'm NOT saying) I can see how you might have infered that from what I wrote, but I didn't say it. I was actually just tweaking his nuts a little, metaphorically speaking, on account of his post in The Pavilion, which made me smile, 'cause if you used to want to see a commotion, you *shoulda* seen the man that he used to be..he WAS trouble in perpetual motion, and etc..."Those were the days my friend"
Bye for now.
Diana
Cindy~
All joking aside? I've been hit on so fiercely so many times in my life, and with such regularity and (sometimes) by so many truly amazing men, that I've had to develope extraordinary defenses. (My mom's told me for years I should think about growing a moustache or something) I can hardly even go to the
corner store for bread & cheese or something, but what some local lothario doesn't drive by and offer to take me for a ride in his truck, or out to dinner.
No offense to YOU but if this isn't the way things have gone in your life than you really wouldn't
understand.
Diana
P.S.
Just kidding about that "no mere mortal woman" thing.
CIndy~
I am no mere mortal woman
Diana
JIM DAVIS,
Sounds like you have exquisite taste in music. I've been a fan of Loudon Wainwright III too-- since I was a kid in Austin.
Have you listened to any Robert Earl Keene? My grown kids turned me on to him-- he's amazing... right up there with the other too.
For another one that'll knock you down-- Casey Chambers. But don't let your kids listen to her-- they'll rip off your CDs.
:)
Cindy
Diana,
ABSOLUTELY NO OFFENSE INTENDED-- but he musta been out of the notion.
On a Richter scale of irresistible-- he's a nine when he's not even tryin'.
I don't THINK there is a mortal woman in her right mind that coulda passed on the chance-- if sincerely offered.
Just my 2.
:)
Cindy
RICK: I double-posted in the Pavilion (is that like double-dipping?), so feel free to delete one of those suckers.
CINDY: John Prine's music gets a LOT of play here at the Davis Manse. His eponymous first album is my favorite folk-based-singer-songwriter-recording-NOT-by-Bob-Dylan, and the others I've heard by him aren't far behind. If you like JP, you may dig Loudon Wainwright III--he's another folkie who began his career in the 70's, and he shares Prine's knack for writing funny, poignant songs. ATTEMPTED MOUSTACHE or ALBUM III are good ones to start with, if you're interested.
Harlan Ellison:
Regarding:
"I used to fuck any female person who happened into my path..."
Well respectfully sir, not ALL of 'em, but god knows you did take a shot at it...
to paraphrase the late great Jim Croce, You used to be a terror.
(but now you are a tired (and happily married old) man...
Oh well.
Diana
BRIAN WROTE;
"But what I'm amused by is that both are blond and Nordic-looking, and that's always been a look I _never_ went for. Girls who had those features tended to be snobbish, contemptuous of weakness or the less desirable, unfamiliar with self-doubt, not terribly friendly to unattractive _women_ either, and frankly, sort of used to getting their way without having to cultivate any depth of wisdom or personality. "
Hmmmmmmm,
Brian that sounds like bias! I know you don't have a prejudiced bone in your body so I will ask you if you out grew this false notion about women of the type you depict in that statement.
It really is patently false.
:)
Cindy
Barney, writing:
Make that got "back" from...guess fingers are as tired as the legs.
Hey guys, got from an afternoon run and found a letter (and application/invitation) from the publihsers of WHO'S WHO IN AMERICA in my mailbox. Now, if I had published 35 or more books and written over 1700 stories and essays, I could see why they might extend the opportunity to include me in the next edition. Obviously, standards are lowering ALL over the country. Another byproduct of the Bush administration and those damn republicans.
MY LAST SILLY POST OF THE DAY (probably)
MADDOX FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004!!!!!!!
Brian,
NO BOYS ALLOWED!!!!
*** Melissa & Scotty *** I guess you folks are "aight". I'll be honest and say that I can't remember being baited by either of you, and on this board that counts for quite a bit. I would honestly have to go back through more archives than I have time to do today to discern where you stand with regards to my mutant political and philosophical leanings and then what would we achieve. Suffice it to say that as far as I recall you haven't pissed in my punch bowl. This simply means that you fall within the Frank/Cindy parameters. Like almost everybody this side of Hitler/Mr. Rogers.
To Joe: Sorry about misunderstanding your comment re Judi Bari. A lot of people believed that the bomb had been planted either by logging companies, and that the FBI turned a blind eye to that possibility. I assumed, made a small ASS of, well, me.
Barney:
Brian Siano,
*** Edward *** Welcome! And feel free to comment on the goings on in this country whenever you like. It's not as though most Americans don't feel as though it's their god given right to offer advice [and bribes and threats and kickbacks and flyovers and militia and military hardware] whenever the sunspot activity ignites our brainpans. With the parameters being Frank on the left and Cindy on the right with Harlan and Rick to cut the baby in half when things get dicey how can you go wrong?
Scotty's refereeing, and the kids are on March break, so I'm about out the door. I'll pass the word about rednecks to the husband, and see he speaks to it.
Duckman,
Jay wrote: "The Duck makes an excellent point."
The Duck makes an excellent point. The mall would be pretty stupid to prohibit someone from wearing something they purchased, something the mall endorses in commerce if not in philosophy...so again i wonder what exactly happened during that visit to the mall that we haven't been told? Slowly the "I was just sitting there and they beat me like Chick Corea on drums" image is eroding.
Todd: I should have dropped out of lurk and said this sooner, but you have my deepest sympathies for your loss. Words are inadequate, but if you were a mate and lived over here I'd either give you a manly hug or buy you a scotch off the top shelf, depending on your preference. You and your wife take care, man.
Regarding the t-shirt/mall kerfuffle, and I probably won't be thanked for bringing it up after the issue seems to have died down here, but I saw a posting of a Reuters article that stated the guy bought the t-shirt AT THE MALL where he wore it. Is this true? If so, it makes the actions of the mall even more egregious. But then again, it's not my country, so maybe I shouldn't comment.
"Also, to Frank and Joseph, who say that the FBI probably tried to blow up Judi Bari: there's considerable reason to believe that the explosive was placed not by the FBI, nor by Bari, but by an ex-boyfriend of hers trying to kill her. I don't have the reference handy, but check into it."
Oh, and what Brian said.
Well, I guess since Earth First! comes up, I feel like saying something anecdotal and generally pointless. I grew up in Scotia, CA (home of PALCO, largest redwood mill and all, yadda, yadda, yadda). My father just took an early retirement last month because the mill is disintegrating and he didn't want to hang around to watch it die. He'd spent half his adult life creating and revamping the town's modest power grid. He was fond of his lights (if you drive by you'll notice Scotia doesn't use Mercury Vapor lights, so they look bright white compared to most town's drab mercurial colors). It is a little wierd knowing that the town I grew up in will most likely not exist in any recognizable form a decade from now and that makes me wonder about the reasonableness of Earth First!'s assault on the lumber industry, but that's just nostalgia. I suppose I can understand the lumber industry's point of view because I grew up in the middle of it; I can also guess I can understand the Earth First! point of view because I grew up in the middle of the lumber industry. Whatever everyone's opinions about Earth First! tactics, it's nominally irrelevant now because it's worked very well. Eel River Sawmills is closed down, PALCO is out of logs for the year in a month or two (this would have seemed ludicrous in the 80's), and Louisiana Pacific said to hell with it long ago. I think even Simpson is thinking of packing up.
Diana,
Brian,
OK, so, Cito Gaston. Owner of two World Series managerial championships, which is more than geniuses such as Bobby Cox or Tony LaRussa can claim. Can't get a job as a manager, while non-winning retreads like Jimy Williams get second and third chances. Racism? Discuss.
To Todd: Nice Baseball print. Looks wonderful. One of these days, I'll invest in the woodworking stuff needed for frames, and then I can erally start to decorate my place. And that's on my list.
Harlan, thanks so much for the print! Perfect for this fan of the grand ole game who is a couple months away from decorating his brand new study (The frame went up this week, the frame went up this week! We can actually see the shape of the house for the first time since we went into contract 3 months ago!). I know I've seen this illustration before, I just can't recall where (maybe a sports science book or article?), and I've certainly seen Stermer's work on many a book cover and Sunday NY Times.
Frank~
Xanadu~
Alex Jay - Thank you, sir, for your gracious defense. I'm honored - but it was just Frank.
Alex Jay wrote;
Okay I just checked out that Washington Post story regarding Bush's comments on Mexico.
CINDY: Ah, but we have all the movie stars and recording artists. Beguiling though you may be, I think that offsets you.
Hey Scotty!
ALEX JAY BERMAN WROTE;
XanBern:
JAY: My sympathies over the sleep/child sitch, though I have to admit it heartens me somewhat: I think I'll be well prepared for children of my own, should I (I hope) ever have them--see, most nights I only sleep four or five hours, and most weeks, I only sleep five or six nights. I'm not one who's easily able to get to sleep.
BARNEY: Thanks for the link (below) to that NYTimes story about Bush & Mexico. I just wish more people in America would read and PAY ATTENTION to stories like that. But I think America has, for the most part, become a nation of cattle who are willing to wear bells around their neck and following the herd...content to let the guy wearing the big hat do the thinking and make their decisions for them. Bummer.
Frank,
Frank - Actually they're called SMART PILLS, and my rabbit makes a fresh batch every day. (gotta swallow 'em whole, though - they stick in your teeth if you chew 'em...)
Jay:
FRANKIE,
Waking from the sleep of the dead thanks to antibiotics and the love of a good woman and the giggle of a small child.
Actually, it's the Anarcho-Primitivists who are the nuts, not Earth First. John Zerzan needs to get laid.
Bern, do you take dimwit pills with your morning coffee?
"Let them hate so long as they fear." - Caligula
CIndy~
THE LATEST ISSUE of "BOOK" (Mar/Apr) contains an article entitled "A Brief History of the Literary World's Most Attention-getting Publicity Stunts, Most Audacious Hoaxes, and Most Memorable Tomfoolery." Writers mentioned include Mark Twain, Agatha Christie, Ken Kesey and...Harlan Ellison.
Mel, Cindy...
Jay:
jURISPRUDENCE INTERRUPTUS:
>Alfred Molina<
Today's 'irrelevant' comic book movie news. (Now cool down, Eric, this'll be reeeeeeal quick.)
TODD,
Bern -
Bermanator - We're going to have to agree to disagree, as far as I'm concerned, we're cool. I think we've each said what we can say about this - Those who've contributed, and those who are lurking can decide for themselves...
Bern: I know why Mr. Downs was arrested. Trespassing. He was trespassing b/c he was "causing a disturbance" and was asked to leave. This request to leave MAY OR MAY NOT BE LEGAL. The exact nature of the disturbance has not been adequate addresssed. I'd say the mall would have to prove a disturbance was caused, and I don't think it can.
Todd -glad to see you back, continued condolences on your loss - rest.
Todd:
Alex Jay - You can stand by your use of "beliefs" - it's not supported by law, and it's not particularly accurate - but it's your position to stake out.
Alex Jay~
XANADU: I stand by my use of "beliefs." To me, that's no all that far away from "religion": The Quaker religion encompasses peace in all its forms, after all. But even leaving aside religion, you cannot discriminate against someone for the beliefs they hold. If the mall ejected people who were openly Republican, don't you think there would be a shitstorm? What if a Libertatrian jobseeker were rejected (by a nonpartisan potential employer) solely on the basis of his party affiliation?
TODD: Good to hear from you. It sounds like you're going to be (mostly) okay.
Todd, I'm glad to hear you and Deb are on the mend, even after a trip to New York that would've been horrible and dispiriting without the awful weather. (And despite my arguing with Deb before, her reactions to the "last of the Cassels" stuff is a mark of a sharp and worthwhile woman. Remember, women have been the "last one with their last name" for centuries, and they've borne the end of the nameline pretty well.)
Todd & Deb,
Finally, after a very long day which brings to a close a very long week that began a very long month ago, Debbie and I are back in our newly adopted desert home. Gone for about 60 hours that seemed like 60 days.
Okay... I'm stuck working overnight at the job. A perfect end to a otherwise totally shitty day. Sorry if I was out of line earlier. As I reread ALL the posts, I don't think so, but who knows...
BRIAN,
JIM DAVIS WROTE;
Thanks for the votes of support, gang. I'll soldier on (what else can I do?), and I'll avoid watching that show which shall not be named. It could be a good show, it could be the best thing on TV since _Saturday Night Live's_ first three seasons... but I won't let it shape what I'm doing.
Brian,
P.S. I'm trying to reform my evil ways. Really I am.
BRIAN: What's the TV show, if you don't mind my asking?
WELCOME HOME, WEARY WARRIOR.
Regarding
Safe trip CEP--God speed.
LYNN,
Brian - I agree with Eric. I'm sure we could find several precedents to the TV show which explored similar territory - it's the nature of creative effort. (I cannot tell you how many times I've been writing screenplays - only to find I've been beaten to the punch - it sucks, but it happens all the time.)
Guys, I wouldn't expect to hear from Harlan for a few days. The Internet is probably the last place he wants to be right now, and I can hardly blame him. I'm sure as soon as he gets a moment, he'll fill us in on the whozzits and whatzzits. In the meantime, didja hear what Charlie said? Six weeks to eighteen months. ::sheesh:: I wish my deliverables schedule was so kind.
Diana - Thanks, I was wondering when I'd get into the FOS club... I have no particular hidden agendas, but I'm willing to consider offers if the pay is good.
Brian, soldier on and don't worry about it. There hasn't been a truly original plot since the Greek myths. We all paint with the same palette.
Okay, I know we all want to hear how Harlan's day in court went, and there's still stuff to argue about regarding the notoriuous Peace T-shirt. But I have a small problem, and I'd like to ask the advice of those of us who write.
Regarding:
CINDY: So, the Crossgate management charged Downs with trespassing because . . . his t-shirt would embolden Saddam Hussein, and help to plunge the U.S. into war with Iraq?
CINDY: Concerning your last post: You definitely could've gotten work as a "disinformation" specialist for the current adminstration. Oy! Go, now, and sin no more (to be read in your best, Charlton Heston-cum-Ben-Hur-cum-Moses voice). (And for your penance, you are required to actually hug a liberal democrate during the next election).
Diana, at the risk of starting another napalm battle royal, I'll point out that FAQ never directed his comments about people getting off their asses specifically towards the posters to this board. You did, quite blatantly, several times, without knowing what we all may be doing that you don't know about. He was agreeing with your sentiment only. It is the criticisms directed at people who post on this message board that I was addressing, not your sentiment in general, with which I agree wholeheartedly.
Regarding:
Bern: Could it be that we agree underneath it all? The question then becomes, is it legal for the Crossroads Mall to abridge Mr. Downs' right to wear this t-shirt? This, as I see it, is ambiguous.
Just a quick update on the argument in Harlan's appeal this morning:
Regarding:
Bern: It doesn't really make me feel better, but thanks for trying. I didn't express myself clearly. The mall has a policy posted that apparel "likely to cause a disturbance" is prohibited. In itself, this is fine, but I ask of you: can you, or the mall, or anyone say (with a straight face), that a 60 year old man in a "Give Peace a Chance" t-shirt was really likely to cause a disturbance? One idiot running to a security guard to whine about it does not constitute a disturbance. If it did, then anyone could get anyone else kicked out of the mall by merely complaining about the other's apparel. If the mall is going to point to its policy about disturbing apparel, it should then be able to point to some actual disturbance of regular mall activities justifying a charge of trespassing, no?
Bern~
Bermanator - reading your recent comments to Andrew, I suspect you may have missed one of my posts from yesterday - go back and read it, and then tell me I'm being particularly unreasonable here...
David - You wrote, just last post, "so why is he upset that she's freely exercising that right?"
David: You are eloquent as hell, man. Your post was right on.
Bermanator - You wrote, "What I find disquieting is your willingness to characterize a "Give Peace a Chance" t-shirt as offensive."
>This is feels like waiting for delivery of a baby-- I keep wringing my hands.<
Xanadu:
Diana,
P.A.,
FAQ~
Anybody heard from Harlan?
A few things:
Diana,
Remember, Jay: Don't use flame or extreme heat to stave off frostbite. Rub some snow on them first.
AND FURTHER MORE: (y'all can pretend you're ignoring me but I know you're reading this stuff because you keep quoting me, and reiterating, and rephrasing what I already said first, but that's okay, so as long as some people ARE saying it and some other people are HEARING it. Who knows, maybe the truth will set some of you free)
A few points to keep in mind:
Sorry, Frank, but the courts don't agree with you. The US Supreme court ruled that free speech is not protected in a private enviroment, and the Minnesota Supremes agreed in State V. Wicklund:
Malls are public spaces. Private property does not have the same weight when it comes to public spaces. Malls are also subsidized by tax money as well. I see them the same ways as public parks. Teen gangs sure treat them like parks. Jeez.
Alex Jay (Bermanator and Brian have something here, too) - You listed, "race, ethnicity, gender, OR BELIEFS", as protected classes under civil rights codes, the emphasis on "BELIEFS" was yours.
Scenes From My Local Mall (1997-2003) (or, "Why I Stay In My House Most Of The Time These Days) (aka: "Will Someone Please Get Me The Fuck Out Of Here? But Where The Hell Else Could I Go? It's Pretty Much Like This Everywhere (also aka, "WAKE UP AND SMELL THE FASCISM!!!")
COOKIE: uh, in addition to typing too fast and ocassionally mispelling wurds (maniacally), or just leaving them out (know), I often put my foot in my mouth. Speak (or type) without thinking things through first (I know, I know). I should've said a bar of chocolate, not a bottle of wine (WHAT?! You thought I was gonna take back the offer of a night of debauchery and ssssssin? Get outta here!).
COOKIE: I'll send you my address. And I hope you're planning to charge me for the tape -- if not, you should that I WILL pay you for the recording. Support your local (or non-local in this case) artist. Just that kinda guy. (P.S. it wouldn't have been a REAL runaway -- just pretend -- a room at the Ritz, good wine, flowers, moody jazz music...but if you don't wanna play). Looking forward to the music already.
Hey guys...
COOKIE: Could I get a tape, too?
DTS: I can't run away, but I can send you a recording. Please email your address again. I'm so embarassed that I didn't do it when I said I would! :)
DTS: And I bet you thought the First State was boring. Hah! Hah, I say!
JAY: Oops, I was aiming for your head. Sorry, buddy!
COOKIE: See! See! It's me that understands you! It's me that really loves you! Wanna run away togther and play with my block of ice? (Still waiting for that tape you said you were gonna send me ages ago).
Jay: I'm confused, so I want to try and figure out.
JIM DAVIS: since Jay's not gonna post any more, I HAVE to ask: do you guys from Delaware USUALLY enjoy having cold water splashed on your testicles? And does it actually feel good? Is that some sort of wild, erotic fun that the rest of us should pick up on? Let me know, 'cause I'm all set to have the wife pick up a block of ice on the way home. Hey, honey? We're gonna have soooome kinda fun, tonight. Uh-huh.
Jim, you're right.
Did you read mine? Or did you miss stuff rolling your eyes? Do I think the mall blew it out of proportion? Yeah, but this happens every day. You just don't see it on the evening news. Funny that when people see it on the news they think it's the first time its ever happened. Some people don't turn off the news ENOUGH.
Not that I want to infringe on anyone's right to free speech, of course.
Jay, give it a rest. You're starting to sound hysterical, and you *COMPLETELY*, *UTTERLY* failed to get the gist of Cookie's post. (We Delawareans have to represent, after all.)
JAY: Are you SURE your read Cookie's post carefully? Man, you are wearing some thickly shaded glasses, son.
COOKIE: Good point...too bad the guy couldn't have gotten a "picture" of the King James version of Christ on the back of his shirt. Now THAT would've really confused the hell out of the current adminstration and their strange, soma-fed backers.
COOKIE! I LOVE YOU! YES!!!!!!!!
JAY SMITH: See P.A. Berman's posting below. Read twice. Turn off the Fox News Network for one whole day (and no listening to Rush Limburger or any other "brave" spouter of right-wing propaganda on the radio). Come back to Ellison Webderland. Read P.A. Bermans post AGAIN. And if you STILL don't get it...well (to be read in Foghorn leghorn voice), theah's, I say, theah's NO HOPE for yuh boy!
OOps.. "in the US, of course.) If so, then never mind that "
Am I the only one here who thinks that the true "problem" in the teeshirt thing is not the wearer, not security, and certainly not the police, but the intolerant asshole who had to bitch about it in the first place?
Damn it...there goes my sarcasm meter again.
This business about how this guy "knew" that he'd be causing trouble strikes me as a _really good example_ of how even the best people can hold submissive, obedience-to-authority mindsets.
JAY SMITH: Yeah, I mean, YEAH! NOW I see what you've been saying. Damn, that Downs _is_ a sly motherfucker. He probably KNEW that the eagle-eyed security guards (at abosolutely no one's prompting, certainly not the mall owner's) would be watching for folks having t-shirts made up with anti-war slogans. And he _certainly_ knew that they would make a big fuss over his wearing that shirt (even if he did just walk around a bit and then sit down to have a bite to eat in the food court). He KNEW IT! That fuckin' media-monger KNEW that the security guards would call the cops...and he KNEW that he'd be arrested for wearing that outrageous piece of clothing. I mean, he could've gone through the trouble to find out about the rally the night (or was it week?) before; but no, the late-ass sumbitch finds out about it on the news. Then, publicity hungry-mongrel that he is, he comes up with the plan to get some attention ('cause we ALL know that every judge and lawyer in the world is just like Judge Judy, chompin' at the bit for kudos, applause, lights, cameras and action). And THEN the sneaky old weasel makes sure that the poor ol' security guards (who were just doing their duty, like the guys who loaded cattle cars in germany) and the poor, poor, owner of the mall (who's only trying to make money hand over fist from self-centered, t-shirt wearing, consumers) will have to pay the price for all of this. Yeah, that Downs is a Machiavellian mutherfucker, ain't he? Hell, I bet he's even responsible for this ongoing act of stupidity and deceit that the Bush Administration is peddling as a "just," "god-inspired" war. I bet Downs prearranged the whole damn thing so he could eventually get himself a little publicity at that there mall. Uh-huh...and pigs will fly out of Harlan's butt at precisely 4:30a.m., PST, on Friday.
Jay: I respectfully feel you're missing the point. The T-shirt guy is not attempting to make the same "statement" as the student protestors, nor is he even seeking to stop the war per se. What he was trying to do, as far as I can tell, is raise awareness about just how intolerant today's climate is towards voices of dissent. No, of course wearing a t-shirt that says "Give peace a chance" is not going to change the world; neither is it offensive, inflammatory, or worthy of legal censure. He *should* be allowed to wear it. He was *not* allowed to wear it. That fact highlights a very significant shift in people's attitudes that is definitely attention-worthy. I think eliding the idea of protest for the purpose of stopping a war and the rights of people to express opinions about the war obscures the real point.
"I, Robot: FilmJerk has details on the storyline of the Alex Proyas-adaptation of the great Isaac Asimov story. Here's just a taste: "This motion picture (most recently revised by Akiva Goldsman, dated January 31, 2003) will concentrate on Detective Del Spooner, who, with the aid of psychologist, Dr. Susan Calvin, will investigate the death of Dr. Miles Hogenmiller, a brilliant scientist who worked at US Robotics. Initially labeled a suicide, Spooner has other ideas, convinced that a robot may have taken the doctor’s life. Isolated and eccentric, Dr. Hogenmiller appears as a hologram of himself, summoning Spooner to his side after his death. He was working on a very special project when his life was cut short. He had created something quite extraordinary – a robot with a living brain, code named “Sonny.” Spooner goes to Hogenmiller’s boss, Dr. Lance Robertson, with his suspicions. Incensed that Spooner wants to charge one of his robots with murder, Dr. Robertson maintains Dr. Hogenmiller took his own life. Terribly weary, Robertson knows full well that the future of his company would be snuffed out should the press get wind of the idea that a robot would, under any circumstances, kill a human being". Thanks to 'Edward'."
Alex Jay -
Faisal's news story reminds me of an odd project I wanted to do a few years back. It was to be called "Evil magazine," and the ideas was that the magazine would promote the "evil lifestyle," i.e., investing in horrible companies, paying attention to "intellectuals" like Charles Murray, and worse. It would look and read like _Newsweek_ or _Forbes_, but its stance would be, well, evil.
XANADU: Realize, this is more than simply a freedom-of-speech issue.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/64879p-60446c.html
Cindy - I'm in our Marketing group - ad copy, product planning, documentation format and publication; they had me there to see what the applicability of our product (wireless antenna packages and communication networks to carry the data) would be within the Homeland Security universe.
DTS-
CINDY: But you're a religious zealot who's willing to take her t-shirt off in a public mall...that makes ALL the difference.
Harlan (whoops, 'scuse me, I meant-)
Harlan,
Oh, and I'll give my belated congratulations on the trademarking of your name. For some reason, that "Happy Fun Ball" commercial on SNL from a decade back comes to mind:
HARLAN:
Harlan,
Harlan Ellison,
Good luck tomorrow, Harlan.
Somebody didn't read the fine print...
JAY WROTE;
Zoe,
Finder,
CINDY - Thanks for the compliments... but I _still_ don't believe that children are "stripped of their rights" to pray to the deity of their choice in school. They are simply not invited or forced to, as you were at your conservative Lutheran school.
(sigh)
Harlan,
Harlan, Susan, Charlie: Delurking again (wow, twice in one week!) to add my wish for a great outcome tomorrow. I'll be thinking about you.
Re: Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
Harlan, Susan, CEP and the rest...
Harlan,
It's not the content I'm worried about. To me, sentiments like "Give Peace A Chance" and "No War" are about as new and fresh as "Don't kill people!" or "Don't walk off a ledge." So my problem with "Ra Ra" is that he's not exactly nailing his protest to the door of the cathedral. I agree with the statement. But the statement could have been "Merry Christmas" it doesn't change the true nature of the case.
Cindy,
Jay,
LOOK, IT'S VOO DOO!!!
One angle of this that hasn't been discussed is the sudden return to prominence of the lowly t-shirt. Back in the days of my yout', the t-shirt was a very big deal, and my own mall had TWO t-shirt shops where you could have anything put on, your own message or a selection of hundreds of lurid decals.
An interjection:
Jay: Why is Mr. Downs making a "rah-rah bullshit statement"? Is "Give peace a chance" really accurately characterized by your assessment?
First and foremost: I will be eagerly awaiting Mr. Ellison's update tomorrow on the outcome of his date in court. I'll be thinking of you.
To me, and this is just my impression based on what I've seen and how this guy mugs for the press, I THINK:
Diana - what I said twasn't a "thusly" - as you have described them - it was a statement of fact - on private property, the owner **does** have the "right", ability, support and blessing of the US Constitution to regulate people's behavior on that property. Not other visitors, not passersby, not people peeking in from a orbital observation platform - the owner.
A lot of the discussion about the mall and T-shirt incident rests on the claim that, since the mall was "private property," and that there were signs posted about wearing clothing likely to cretae a disturbance, the rent-a-cops were within their rights.
DTS,
Frank asked:
Bern~
BERN: One last thought and then I'll be quiet: You said (paraphrasing here) that it was your "fundamental right" to disagree with Downs and his t-shirt (you were using yourself as an example, I know). But...in disagreeing with someone, do we have to go as far as calling the cops and having them arrested? (unless, of course, they're waving a knife, sporting a gun, or being menacing or loud and intolerably obnoxious). I mean, if a guy says (or wears a t-shirt that says) something you disagree with, and then goes on about his quiet way, does your retort have to include an arrest? And, if so, where does that sort of thinking lead us?
ANDREW: Okay, hold it: I DIDN'T see the version of the story (too many versions I guess) that said there WAS a sign put up by the Mall owners. And, yes, they are allowed to decide which (or what) apparell will "cause disturbances." Still, the majority of us (even with knowledge of the previous peace protest, during which, if I'm correctly informed, no one complained and no problems arose, even with knowledge of that event, most of us wouldn't think someone would claim a t-shirt bearing an anti-war slogan would be deemed an article that would cause disturbances. Especially if you wore it without raising a ruckus.
Cookie said:
DTS - "Do YOU get the concept of 'relatively' free nation in which we can walk around without getting harrassed for wearing a particular t-shirt, having a certain shade of skin, or for disagreeing with those in government offices?"
DTS,
>Do It With Faith" or "Shit Happens" or "Republicans Are Weasels" <
I salute the flag when it is carried in a parade by veterans (people who actually *did* fight under it), but I refuse to say the pledge as part of religious ceremonies (as the fundies I was raised by sometimes did. They also had a pledge to the Christian Flag). I don't want the state in my religion. I felt the fundies were claiming to be the "national" faith. And I feel that's wrong whether I'm in a believing mood or a non-believing mood. I also choose NOT to pledge in public school but I've spoken of my reasons for that I think a couple of times on this board in the distant past. It basically comes down to the fact that I can *choose* to remain silent as well as *choose* to speak. I prefer to SHOW my allegiance by being a good citzen rather than parrot some words at the appointed time each day.
ANDREW: I believe Downs when he said he wore the t-shirt "hoping" nothing would happen. He didn't hop on his lunch table and do the cha-cha. He didn't play loud music. He didn't recite the Gettysburg address at the top of his lungs. He put on the shirt. He ate lunch. The guards (and later, the police) made the ruckus. By your reasoning, I shouldn't go to my local mall and shop while wearing a t-shirt that says "Priests Do It With Faith" or "Shit Happens" or "Republicans Are Weasels" because someone will take offense, call a cop, and say that _I_ was starting trouble. I get the whole "private property" thing. Something that should be decided in court. Do YOU get the concept of "relatively" free nation in which we can walk around without getting harrassed for wearing a particular t-shirt, having a certain shade of skin, or for disagreeing with those in government offices?
The police badges are much more offensive than any damn peace t-shirt.
Everyone hopped on this t-shirt story; and I thought I was going to have to bring it up just to start the convo, as I am want to do. Thanks for saving me the time folks. I bet this brings on a rash of t-shirt wearing mall pinkos. Hoorah.
DTS,
ZOE (dot-dot): Once again, I'm upstaged by smarter human being. And, in this case, a prettier one. I'd ask you to marry me, but I'm afraid Dom (and Marcia) would disapprove.
On prayer in schools -
DTS wrote:
Brian,
LOFTUS: regarding your retort to CINDY: well put. You are a much smarter, and much more eleoquent, man than I.
ANDREW: I agree about the communication failure -- I STILL don't understand how anyone can say putting on a t-shirt and walking around in it is "looking for trouble." Unless, of course, you're living in a society with a society that advocates and allows a tyrannical government.
ERIC: Yeah, I'm glad it's getting airplay on CNN. And I hope it sheds MORE light on the atmosphere this administration is engendering -- one of tolerating intolerance, and the abuse of civil rights. There's a great essay by Anna Quindlen in the
To David: I'll admit I liked the songs, too, mainly because I had the soundtrack album and listened to it so frequently that I could probably sing "Cu Chi Face" even today. (And let's not forget "The Roses of Success.")
Don't say it...
Brian,
Todd & Deb:
Good luck to Harlan and Charlie tomorrow!
Andrew writes:
FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH...
DTS - You are the latest in a long line of people who seem to proceed from what I think is at least one erroneous assumption - that the Right of Free Speech includes with it a "Right to Freedom from Consequence". You are certainly not alone in it and I have to admit, I'm curious as to where and when that particular assumption derived...
Brian,
I've been thinking about tomorrow a lot.
To Andrew and Jay: I'm amazed. If the guy was "looking for trouble," don't you think he'd have done something that was _unquestionably_ egregious? Like walking around in a NAMBLA T-shirt? Dragging red-painted baby dolls on a string?
Now it begins...bet they regret their little arrest now...
Jay:
From Reuters, repeated here: "Downs is the director of the Albany Office of the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, which investigates complaints of misconduct against judges and can admonish, censure or remove judges found to have engaged in misconduct."
Brian,
And once again, GOOD LUCK, Charlie and Harlan and Susan and all of you at the courthouse.
Here's an interesting problem that I'd like to draw to your collective attention. It's about writers and pseudonyms.
TO ALL:
Speaking of peace, is anyone here actually involved in one of the jillions of peace groups that populate the Net? If so, which ones, and what are they up to? Any opinion on which ones are effective, or which ones are bogus?
To Jay: I don't think there's any chicanery here. The guy who bought and wore the T-shirt may have been wondering what might happen if he wore it. That's fine: we all wonder about that when we wear something a little out of the ordinary.
>But it sounds like a great place to engineer some news.<
No, I'm defnitely not a Reagan baby.
JAY SMITH: Unless I read the story wrong, you got at least _some_ of your facts twisted (you aren't by any chance a republican, are you?). Downs wasn't invovled in the "mall walk" for peace that was mentioned (in which people wore similar t-shirts). (And by the way, when did "mall walking" become trouble -- have you seen the folks who are usually doing such exercise?) He merely went to the same mall wearing a t-shirt that expressed similar sentiments. If he raises a hue and cry about being forced out of public place of commerce because someone wanted him to take off the shirt, good for him I say! What's wrong with protecting your basic civil rights? And when -- somebody TELL ME -- WHEN did it become an act of subversion and chicanery to do so? Man, Jay, you sound like Reagan-era baby. (Most of those people have a "love it or leave it," "don't question authority" attitude).
I like this...
So, if I can put it together from various sources...
Ahh, Crossgates - my once-favorite Albany haunt, before they buffed Colonie Center to a high shine again...
LYNN: when you read the post below, make that blase (with an accent on the e), not blaise (which is mix of blase and paisley -- that typo must've been caused by a flashback -- if only I'd gotten to actually do the drug -- you know, since I'm reaping the after effects).
Michael Reagan was discussing the pros and cons of legal torture last night on his radio show. Seems like if you dress something up nice, you can make any horror sound good.
Harlan, Susan, and CEP:
LYNN: Didn't read the version (you supplied below) of the story until this morning. You know what (in addition to whole, This Smells of Tolerance For a Semi-Facist Administration's Agenda) really stood out? That the OLDER guy was courageous enough to stand up for a basic right (as someone said earlier on this board, it was a Mall -- not a house -- where the public is invited into to engage in matters of public commerce). Reading how the 61-year-old stood up for his (and, in turn, OUR) rights, and the 30ish son immediately rolled over, gave me cause for dismay. Are ALL younger people so eager to give up their rights? I ask, because you seemed a bit blaise about it. And CINDY said she would've just taken off the t-shirt, choosing to fight a different battle (what more IMPORTANT battle could there be than the Fight for Freedome of Speech?). (by the way, Cindy, if you're headed to a the mall of which we speak in NY, and plan to wear a peace t-shirt, let me know and I'll be there with ya --I'll help block the view of others while you remove your t-shirt -- what are friends for?). Here's hoping most people under 60 aren't so eager to give up and play dead when a storm trooper points his(or her) weapon.
ERIC: I was a bit tired and overlooked responding to your post last night. Your idea to have Bush and Saddam take dancing lessons is classic. I'd be all for it. Only they'd have to spend _at least_ a year that way, with only food, sleep and toilet breaks. As for what DTS stands for, how about Doesn't Take Shit (from smart asses)? Don't Try Starting anything with me, sonny boy. You wanna take a Dangerous Trip Straight into fist city, huh? Huh?! (Please place image of Wishbone-style, cartoon terrier standing here with chest puffed out and veins bulging). (actually, you can search for, and find, the answer in the portion of this site that contains reviews of Ellison's work).
Hi~
Lynn,
Yeah, I have no problem with Minghella. It's just English Patient that stinks up the joint.
LYNN: But if we use your logic, people with dark skin, dark hair and funny accents could be detained (for little or no reason) by the U.S. government because they fit the profile...oops, we've "been there done that." Sorry, the "excuse" that a disturbance had taken place the week (or weekend) before and the owner was "afraid" this guy in a t-shirt might start some trouble is flimsy at best. Next time it'll be someone with a peace logo patch sewn on his or her jeans. Or someone that flashes a peace sign (you could almost fit the "first they came for the Jewish guy, but I didn't say anything; then they came for the Polish guy, but I didn't say anything;....then they came for me" analogy into this scenario). At what point should we draw the line? When does it become unacceptable to drag away a law-abiding citizen?
DTS (and what does that stand for, anyway: delirium tremens? Doesn't Take Salt? Can we have a contest to find out?) -- take satisfaction in knowing that once again, the censors have broadly publicized the very message they hoped to squash.
Dorman and Lynn,
DTS~ A smidgin of perspective, if you please.
LYNN: Yeah, it _shouldn't_ hold up in court...but then again, some of the judgements that the current, conservative Supreme Court has handed down give me reason to wonder. Besides, what REALLY should give everyone here (and around the country) some pause is not whether this will hold up in court, but THAT IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED AT ALL! The guy was sitting in a food court, minding his own business, wearing a t-shirt that read "Give Peace a Chance" -- hell it didn't even say something like John Ashcroft is a fascist, bible-thumping moron -- and he was arrested. Not for yelling and screaming about shitty customer service and generally making a public nuisance of himself. Not for playing music out of car speakers that are amped so loud they make cars and houses around them vibrate. He was arrested for wearing a t-shirt with a slogan that expressed his dissenting point of view about a policy that the current adminstration is pushing. He wasn't arrested while marching in front of the white house or some other government building; or chaining himself to some public structure. He was SITTING DOWN, eating lunch (or supper) with his son, when the goose-stepping morons who slapped him cuffs came to take him away. The idea that such an act has actually taken place in our country should give any cognizant being reason for outrage and anger.
As we were finishing up our ballroom dancing lesson tonight (the 7th in a series of 8, thank God), I commented to my wife that Bush and Hussein should be forced to do the same--take 8 weeks of basic foxtrot, waltz, swing and mamba in our local high school gym, from 7:30 to 9:00 pm, with each other as partners.
Reichsfuhrer Ashcroft
DTS~ Here's a link to your story: http://tinyurl.com/6vi5
HOLY SHIT: You guys payin' attention to what's happening in the rest of the country? I mean, given that John "Torquemada" Ashcroft is shepherding the judicial system, and Donald "Thou Shalt Speak No Evil About the Administration" Rumsfeld is getting away with telling people they're unpatriotic if they don't support the upcoming, prescheduled war (can you believe this? America is _scheduling_ wars for chrissake! 'Course calling it by its real name, invasion, wouldn't be prudent)...given all that, it probably shouldn't come as a surprise, but...a lawyer in Guilderland, NY was arrested at a mall after purchasing and wearing a "Give Peace a Chance" T-shirt. Unfuckinbelievable. (I bet Ashcroft wont even consider bird-doggin this case the way he has the Pledge of Allegiance case in CA).
Nothing to add on the _Road to Perdition_ movie, as I haven't seen it. And, since its script cast share nothing with Sam Mendes' previous movie, _American Beauty_, I can't hold _that_ meretricious film against this one.
JIM IS RIGHT...
"...there's also the irritating self-congratulatory glow of every scene - he basks in the "beauty" of his "perfection" and shouts his genius to the world in every frame until it becomes deafening and tedious."
*********RICK*********
Chris,
Road to Peridition is a flawed film. I wanted to like it and nearly did but something just kept locking me out of it. I'd have to read the graphic novel as the film seemed more style then substance and, I feel, really wasted Jude Law's talents.
**One of the most beautiful pieces of *cinema* I've seen since THE ENGLISH PATIENT.**
**I'm with Chris L. on "Road to Perdition." It's gloriously beautiful, but something about the chemistry between the various characters left me cold. There is a chilly interior beneath the breathtaking cinematography. I went to see it with a young film student and when we left the theater both of us talked about the beautiful visuals, attempting to convince each other we liked it. We descended into mumbled incoherence about the rest of it and ended up agreeing, "something's missing..." **
HARLAN: I'll keep my fingers, toes and balls crossed in hopes that all goes well and the Judge rules the way she (or he) should on the 6th.
HERE'S A RECENT QUOTE from our esteemed Secretary of Defense that could have taken from the cutting room floor of "Dr. Strangelove": "There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know." (Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld clarifying U.S. policy on the war on terror during a recent briefing at the Pentagon).
Road to Perdition: The very funny movie 'reviewer' on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show had a great bit about the title kerfuffle. During his review, he noted that the title had a difficult word in it that should be defined for the viewing audience.
LYNN,
Frank,
WHICH courtroom. I meant to say WHICH courtroom.
The answer to my question about what courtroom is:
Hey. I had to go look it up. I had a loose idea in my head, the barest threads of the connotation, but I wanted to see it on the page. Ruination, damnation, and a town in Illinois. I was more familiar with the word in colloquial terms.
I'm with Chris L. on "Road to Perdition." It's gloriously beautiful, but something about the chemistry between the various characters left me cold. There is a chilly interior beneath the breathtaking cinematography. I went to see it with a young film student and when we left the theater both of us talked about the beautiful visuals, attempting to convince each other we liked it. We descended into mumbled incoherence about the rest of it and ended up agreeing, "something's missing..."
Frank,
What I got the biggest kick out of during Road to Perdition's release was all the jokes people were making about the title. One reviewer even quipped "Don't worry, I don't know what 'Perdition' means either."
**Chris, I think you just hate all movies; admit it?
Chris, I think you just hate all movies; admit it?
Todd, hang in there man. Your Mom is folded into the bosom of the dawn. And with a dreaming whisper, she will always be in your heart and soul. Be good.
Todd & Deb: I'm sorry to read of your loss.
Todd & Mrs.,
TODD:
Scott -
When I heard the news that Madonna was writing a children's book, I figured there would be _far_ too many jokes one could make about it. It's just too obvious: variations on "Heather has Two Mommies" would have been a natural.
Children's books and Madonna...
CEP or Susan:
Whoah! What happened? My Webderland Sarcasm Meter just went berzerk! Holy crap, it's broken! Do you know how many filters and surge protectors I have to use just for THIS site? It takes 1.21 gigawatts of pure sarcasm to kick this baby over so it MUST have taken at least a 3 Gig hit!
I KNOW I said, but...
TODD: My deepest sympathies are with you and yours.
"Mommy, what's a ball-gag? And why is Mistress Lascivia the Rabbit hitting poor SlaveBottom the Duck with that whi--"
MY LAST POST AND/OR APOLOGY FOR TODAY (I promise)
P.P.P.P.P.S.
P.P.P.S.
YET ANOTHER NOTE REGARDING MY RECENT POST ABOUT MR ROGERS:
Where are we going and why are we in this handbasket?!
Todd -
Todd and Debbie,
P.S. LEST I UNINTENTIONALLY OFFEND:
NOTE TO READERS REGARDING MY LAST POST:
I ALWAYS THOUGHT MR ROGERS WAS KIND OF CREEPY.
Ben saith: "is it foolish to still look forward to THE HULK movie?"
CRYPTOGRAMS
THE ROAD TO PERDITION
DANGEROUS VISIONS on another greatest list. I would LOVE to have been alive when it came out to witness it's explosion on the scene. Alas, I was ten years too late, and even more by the time I arrived at the party. Sigh...
Todd & Deb:
Dear Mr & Mrs Cassel
Todd & Debbie~ Our sincerest condolences to your family. If you need anything, as Scott said, you have but to ask.
Todd,
Road to Perdition was a cliche-riddled, self-important bore by Hollywood's worst non-Schumacher director but Hall's photography was beautiful. I'd rather see the award go to Ed Lachmann for Far From Heaven but Hall would be a worthy winner as well.
Todd,
Delurking to add my sympathies, Todd. Like others on the board, I went through a similar experience with my own mother (cancer, hospice) a couple of years ago. I know how hard it is to watch someone in that kind of painful, slow decline. I'm sorry for all of your suffering and hope the coming days will bring some measure of peace to you and yours.
Todd, I am so sorry to hear of your loss. You and your family are in my thoughts.
Todd and Debbie: My deepest condolences for your loss.
TODD,
Todd,
And not that it matters, but I meant to say "condensed" not "annotated".....and I meant to say she lasted 21 hours past the phone call.
TODD: You have my deepest condolences. Losing a parent is one of the hardest things a person will ever face, even with twelve years to prepare for it. My mother died from from ovarian cancer almost six years ago, and the loss is still as sharp today as it was then. But though things don't necessarily get BETTER, they do get easier--especially with the love of your family and friends to help you along.
Todd: My condolences to you and your family. My thoughts are with you at this sad time.
Todd (and Deb),
Todd:
Todd, my sympathies and best wishes to you and Deb. (It sounded like your mother's end was a lot like my mom's.) And remember, if you need to vent over the next few weeks, this board's as good a place as any.
TODD: Real sorry to hear of your loss, my friend. I hope that you and Deb are holding on to each other and getting through this together. If there's anything we can do, please, don't hesitate to email or call 505-242-2984.
My mother died early this morning. Here is the obit we are having published in The Arizona Republic:
REGARDING:
ROAD TO PERDITION, if there is a higher power, should walk away with the Cinematography prize. It's sad that he won't be there to receive it after dying in January, but Conrad L. Hall really hit a grand and terrible level in his painting-like colors and lights.
M. Ellison, writing:
William Rotsler's film _The Godson_ has been released on DVD. The Onion reviews it at
ROAD TO PERDITION IS IN THE HOUSE
OH, AND A P.S.:
MICHAEL of GRAND RAPIDS:
EARL: My apologies; I was wrong. It's Ternan, as you said, and Dr. H.H. Goddard (who revised the Binet-Simon test into the Stanford-Binet) who were both members of the American Eugenics Society and who served as Advisory Members.
SERENDIPITY
For anyone interested in reading the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003" (or "Patriot Act 2") that DTS (and Alex before him) mentioned, it's available as a PDF on the web from multiple locations. Here are two URLs: the PBS pdf is a converted text version/reformat of the 1/9/03 document; the University of Missouri version is a PDF of a scanned version of the original. PBS is easier on the eyes, U of M is one generation closer to the original hard copy.
Alex Jay Berman:
TO ALL OF YOU WEBDERLANDERS WHO "LEAN TO THE RIGHT": I don't know how many other papers used it as front page news (which it should be), but the KC Star reported that Pres. George "Dubya" Bush (the man who desperately wants to be King) and his Administration (guys like John "lets have another inquistition" Ashcroft) have been drafting a "Patriot Act Part Two." (You, of course, remember part one, in which our heroes used the tragedy of 9/11 as a blank check to write all sorts of laws and legislation that bled a lot of the meaning out of the Bill of Rights, among other semi-sacred documents forged by our forefathers -- not to mention using the event to roll back environmental and economical gains a good twenty years -- I keep expecting to see Ronnie Raygun, Mr. bobble head, nodding his melon on the CNN newscasts). Guess What? "Patriot Act Two" (86 pages of the current draft of that legislation were leaked over the weekend) would allow King George and his Right Hand Henchman, Ashcroft, to "wiretap a person for 15 days without a judge's approval; to demand personal information such as credit records without judicial oversight; to keep arrests secret until criminal charges are brought, no matter how long that takes; and to strip Americans of their citizenship if they even unwittingly help a group the Justice Department determines to be terrorist-related." Now, I know that P-One already did some similar damage in a few of those areas (but since it was mostly to folks with darker skin and funny accents, a lot of us aren't too worried -- right?). But that last part of P-Two ought to give any of you folks who voted for Bush just a whooooole lotta reason for pause...and concern.
Rich, writing: "I may not know you, but your posts indicate someone who does not slow by an accident hoping to see the body covered by the sheet and I had a feeling that curiousity of the mission itself was your motivation to seeing the video."
Speaking of DANGEROUS VISIONS, there's a small article in this week's issue of THE WEEK in which Neil Gaiman lists his "Best Books." Out of the six chosen, DV is first.
BRIAN: Ahh, you've hit upon my passion--food.
Harlan,
Brian saith: "In the meantime... any recommendations for ribs or steaks in the Philly/NYC area?"
BRIAN SIANO --
Man, finding the Great Rib Recipe's a bitch, ain't it? My best is the use of Stubbs's marinade and an hour at 400: it's convenient and tastes pretty good, especially when used with Stubbs's sauce. And it's a lot better when cooked over a Weber grill, which are just _ducky_ for fire-cooking.
To see some pics from my recent sojourn to Vegas (home of the original Capitalist Victory Dance®), copy & paste this link:
Nah, youse guys don't know cooking....CINDIANA, marinate the ribs for 24 hrs, THEN cook 'em in a covered container at 200 degrees for 12 hours. They'll melt right off the bone.
re: Easy Recipes Difficult to Screw Up
Scott,
Cindy~
To Cindy:
Brian,
Remember those "human shields" who journeyed from Britain to Iraq to protest the war? They're coming back-- because the Iraqi Government, apparently taking them at their word, ordered them to station themselves in places most likely to be _attacked_.
Re Alex Berman's culinary abilities. I just decided to _not_ eat at the new Olive Garden in town, and come home to eat some home-cooked ribs. The "recipe" for ribs involved a) marinating them in Stubbs's Marinade for 24 hours, and b) popping them into an oven for an hour or so. It's perfectly fine, but if only the line at the Olive Garden wasn't so damn long...
ALEX JAY BERMAN,
JOSEPH: They're the "winners" of "Joe Millionaire" and "The Bachelor," respectively.
Alex Jay,
Rich:
Alex,
Dennis,
CINDY: Hmm. Tortilla soup is something I've made a few times (at first to get the now-ex to eat SOME vegetables), but you're too late--I decided on a nice easy recipe: Chicken Roulade with Red Clam Chowder stuffing. Maybe some Fontinella cheese; I dunno--we'll se how the stuffing smells; if it seems as if it would be improved by cheese, then whatever.
ALEX JAY BERMAN,
Couple of things:
Alex: Yes, I did see the video, such as it was, but it gives precious little information as to the cause of the catastrophe.
Ah, the joys of donning the zebra stripes, and refereeing Atom level hockey games. I really enjoy it; the kids haven't mastered enough of the skills to create in their parents any false pretense of believing their little ones are the latest incarnation of hockey greatness. So, a splendid time is guaranteed to all; no pressure, no resentment from both parents and kids alike.
CINDY: Now there--Brian's hit exactly what I was getting at--no matter your actual intention, the first thing you said sounded very like you wanted Big Gummint to step in and say, "I'm sorry--you've been reproductively irresponsible. Now we're going to HELP you." It didn't sound very voluntary at first.
Alex Jay Berman,
Mr. Finn:
First of all, I have to clarify something with Cindy. I went back over the chain of messages, and I'm afraid that I made an assumption about Cindy's position that is not supported by her posts. She has not _explicitly_ advocated forcible sterilization of women who've had "too many" abortions.
Alex Jay Berman wrote;
Cindy: Six weeks? I have friends who didn't even KNOW they were pregnant after only six weeks. If you have irregular menstrual cycles (as MANY women do), you could easily go that long without a period naturally. Six weeks is a bit of a harsh line to draw. First trimester would be my rule.
And HimsElf wrote, "So now, I offer this (really small but nifty) gift to s/he among you who can convince me by Your Best & Boldest Anecdote, concisely related, WHO AMONG YOU IS THE TRUEST, MOST DESERVING BASEBALL FAN. Winner will be announced
XANADU: The use of "voluntary compliance" is something of a misnomer, and I really wish they'd stop using it.
Alex Jay - re: Your last reply to Cindy. Sure it does! The same way we have a "voluntary" Income Tax system. You "volunteer", or we put a serious hurting on you.
The new Daedalus catalog nudged me to check out their website
Chris:
CINDY: Perhaps I misunderstood. But your "There SHOULD be a point at which the government says, if you are incapable of helping yourself then we will help you" didn't quite have the ring of "voluntary" about it.
Re: Tom Leher
Fellow comics nuts, I need a helping hand in remembering something. There was a mini-series or one-shot from Marvel, about 5-10 years ago, about the N.Y.P.D. in the Marvel universe. I remember it because (a) it was painted and (b) it had almost no men in tights - just one half-glimpse by a cop of Spider-Man scuttling away that really gave you an idea of just how creepy he could be. Anyone by any chance remember the title of this?
Well, the Circle Jerks can still put on a terrific live show.
I wrote:
I'm betting on a hunch here. I read this article http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/28/1046407753895.html and thought it might appeal to the group. It's a new interview with Tom Lehrer. This is the only group of people I could think of who would a) know who Tom Lehrer is and b) be interested in a new interview with him.
SEZ BRIAN...
I forgot to mention the scene was even more hilarious with Arnold's pathetic attempt at taunting the creature:
JOSEPH,
Couple things stood out as I thought over what I said to Deb about freedoms being lost:
CEP,
One of the reasons I gave up comics in the early 1980s was the absolute uncritical acceptance, as if comics are like pizza and sex (all good, some better). OTOH, I firmly believe in something Our Patron has called a "built-in shock-proof shit detector" as a necessary foundation for civilization, let alone the arts. Taking prisoners is an occasionally necessary evil in the arts, although one I don't subscribe to (I shoot the wounded).
BARNEY: They don't keep secrets well.
Well, I'm feeling much better. I've got dinner in the oven, and an extra $160 bucks in my pocket. (I cashed in a laundry-soap-container's worth of loose change, and that was the total.) For the board's resident left-wing bombardier, I'm kind of swimming in loot right now.
"*** Melissa & Scotty *** I guess you folks are "aight". I'll be honest and say that I can't remember being baited by either of you, and on this board that counts for quite a bit."
Much thanks, and allow me to say I'm not one for baiting. Mel is of the same attitude; we'd rather challenge a perspective out of real belief, rather than some form of poseur that serves to antagonize or merely irk. One of the reasons I come here is that most that frequent here are of the same ilk as we. Yes, Frankie, liberal sweetie, you too, although you seem to give real creedence to that good ol' label "loony Left". There are too many folks across the internet, the televison, the media in general already who argue to be clever rather than instruct or learn.
Rednecks: Cindy, I mean the dyed in the wool conservative or liberal thinkers who would repeal gravity long before they see a Republican or Democrat as anything less than saints. Those who say they voted for their party of choice because that's the way their fathers voted. Folks who support policies which have long since gone to extinction (segregationalists, homophobes as examples). Redneck, to me, means closed mind and no desire to change.
Xan/Bern: I don't have the voting demographics before me, so I cannot say without any certainty whether or not the redneck (see my defintion above) vote is of any consequence. I do grant that the more cagy voters can be duped by a well fashioned campaign. Hell, how else would you explain Duh-Bull-Ya, or Clinton, or Bush pere, or Reagan?
Now to as to physical attractiveness in the women of conservatism. Pretty faces spew bullshit just as readily as ugly ones. My problem with the neo-conservative bimbo fest is how Coulter et al seem merely to repeat the regular spate of Republican rhetorical inanities, partial truths and coercion that Bush is somehow the second coming; Duh-Bull-Ya is perfect and right, his limitations not to be questioned, his policies not to be challenged. Brian is right when he pegs the coming of the Cosmo Cover Conservatives as a means of better packaging of the same old sloganeering crap. Besides, how many would masturbate to a picture of Limbaugh, or Bill O'Reilly?
Might open a interesting battle within feminist thought if Coulter were to engage in open attack against NOW, and its supporters. Besides, I know many guys who would pay to see a catfight between Coulter and Naomi Wolf...
Just kidding, kidding!
Scott
DTS <none>
- Saturday, March 8 2003 12:30:55
DTS <none>
- Saturday, March 8 2003 12:29:35
--DTS
Diana
- Saturday, March 8 2003 11:11:39
http://maddox.xmission.com/cnn_sucks.html
Diana
Diana <dleeg9@yahoo.com>
http://simplycosmic.homestead.com, - Saturday, March 8 2003 10:52:8
http://maddox.xmission.com/limits_to_freedom.html
Diana
Joseph J. Finn
Chicago, - Saturday, March 8 2003 10:4:25
Hell, there was also a theory that an estranged boyfriend of Bari might have planted the bomb. The FBI agents involved totally botched the investigation, so we may never know.
Regards,
Joseph
Diana
NEW & IMPROVED - Saturday, March 8 2003 9:52:34
aka A TOTALLY CUTE DESKTOP THEME
Speaking of frivolous things, I just downloaded what has to be one of the cutest, and well made desktop themes in the land, it also has a great screensaver, with Harry Connick, Jr singing L.O.V.E.
http://themedoctor.com/reviews/o/oblove.shtml
""L" is for the way you look at me...Take my heart and please don't break it...LOVE is made for you and me.."
Bye for now
Diana (Now With A Pourable Plastic Spout, & Improved Flavor {But The Same Rich, Creamy Goodness}) Graham
Barney Dannelke <dannelke01@enter.net>
- Saturday, March 8 2003 9:38:25
*** Brian *** The attractive conservative brunettes seem to be functioning as "news anchors" at the moment. I have to put that in quotes because whatever your leanings, if your catching your "news" from CNN/MSNBC/FOX/CNBC your not seeing much in the way of news. Factor out the commercials, sports, weather and sentences that start with the phrases "I think you are wrong..." or "I *feel* that..." and what are you left with.
For myself, I can no longer differentiate between what I am seeing on TV and the way anchors are depicted by Frank Miller in his 2 Dark Knight books. "Tonight, nuns head nailed to church door, film at 11, and can your local news kill you? We'll tell you more..."
But the rise in pretty conservative women is simply the rise in pretty women [and pretty men] getting all the face time on television, period. I'm sure the first part of every TV vetting process now is "can we get a super-model to do this, and if not, what's the least compromise on this we can make and retain any semblance of credibility?"
On the other hand I'd rather direct my arguments and small rations of rage and contempt towards someone who looks like Coulter then stare at Limbaughs ugly moon pie features on any given day so I am no better.
- Barney
Brian Siano <brian@briansiano.com>
- Saturday, March 8 2003 7:54:34
To Barney, re attractiveness of conservative women. One new development is the rise to prominence of young, physically attractive conservative women like Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter. It's obvious that their babe-ness is a part of their success. But what I'm amused by is that both are blond and Nordic-looking, and that's always been a look I _never_ went for. Girls who had those features tended to be snobbish, contemptuous of weakness or the less desirable, unfamiliar with self-doubt, not terribly friendly to unattractive _women_ either, and frankly, sort of used to getting their way without having to cultivate any depth of wisdom or personality. (And guys who went ape over those particular looks tended to be pretty self-centered, too-- Patrick Bateman's buddies.) So it sort of fits.
Thanks to all on the writing advice. As I said, I'm avoiding the TV show just to stick with my own widdle patch'o creativity. (I'll admit to seeing a short clip of one episode, and I'll also admit that the show's production, writing, and even its acting are actually very good. But I'll avoid it.)
This reminds me of another odd bit of similar-idea, different-execution I had. Back in college, I wrote a short story about a fourteen year old kid who was a vampire. He spent his evenings enticing the local girls for a quick drink of blood and feeling them up. (I was proud of one scene, written from the hallucinatory p.o.v. of the girl, while the kid vampire used his powers to get her out of the K-mart and into the woods.) The story ended with him developing a crush on the school's Unattainable Girl, deciding to make her his "vampire bride," and a few days later, learning that she'd since turned her real boyfriend into a vampire-- and now Our Hero was back to being the Class Geek again, emotionally arrested for eternity.
Doesn't hold a candle to _Buffy_, but I wrote it in 1983, and back then it was a neat parody of Anne Rice.
Melissa
- Saturday, March 8 2003 7:41:41
God, that was funny! So, what are your thoughts on myself and Scotty. He's a libertarian, and rather conservative in many political perspectives, and I've been a defender of liberal thought for years.
Scotty and I agree on the issue of the man and the mall. Protest takes its form where and when those who dissent want, and the objective is to draw attention to oneself in order to press an issue of merit, ensuring the public pays attention. Legitimacy of dissent is determined by the motives and actions of the dissenter, not by the society's response to it. I do add a caveat, that violence taken against a person or propertyas part of dissent is out of bounds, and any who do whould face criminal chargesd where warranted.
What dismayed me here was reading how all tried to discern the legitmacy of the society's response to the act of protest, instead of arguing what the man was shouting about. Remember, Thoreau's intention was to get arrested, to purposedly break the law. He refused to pay his taxes to protest slavery; a criminal act. The wrongness of slavery was the point, not the issue of the arrest. Mr. Downs is little different, in my opinion.
Love to All, Melissa
Joseph J. Finn
Chicago, - Saturday, March 8 2003 7:20:41
No, no, no! I never said the FBI planted that car bomb. I said: "The FBI acting like assholes (and they did in this, as noted in Bari vs. the FBI), does not justify a deliberate attempt to harm an innocent human." Basically, what I meant by this was the false arrest and refusal to clear Bari and Cherney. The FBI did not plant that car bomb, as far as anyone knows.
Regards,
Joseph
Barney Dannelke <dannelke01@enter.net>
Allentown, PA - Saturday, March 8 2003 7:10:17
Great point about where the shirt was purchased. Will all future t-shirt sales be vetted by mall security? At somewhere between $5.75 and $8.00 I'm sure they all have degrees in Constitutional Law and are simply hiding their lights under a bushel.
*** Cindy *** It has certainly been my experiance that conservative women are less attractive their ideological counterparts but that's all a matter of taste. I think most sane people would rather fuck someone who thought like they do rather than someone who "looked good" but who's thoughts were diametrically opposed to their own. But it's a steep learning curve and mileage may vary, as they say.
You really are loading the deck by listing so many post-menopausal women you know. It looks like M. Albright might have had a helluva rack in her day and Janet Reno's uncontrollable shaking must be good for something in the sack, no?
Happy Sunday Morning - yours in Christ,
Barney Dannelke
Melissa Reeston
- Saturday, March 8 2003 6:11:4
We have three: Dannielle, 10; Joel, 7; Cassandra, 4; When they're not driving Scotty and I nuts with their incessant sibiling tiffs or small acts of child-sized miscreancy, they are an absolute delight. The three best decisions we ever made.
I was stunned by the desire and ease of Scotty's efforts to see to the babies care, but my mother has suggested it had much to do with how he was treated by his own parents. Scotty was the caretaker in the household as a very young child; he had to take on the burden of his younger brothers and sister because his parents simply wouldn't.
Love to all and Give Peace a Chance; www.moveon.org
Melissa
Jay
- Saturday, March 8 2003 5:22:1
At least they didn't opt for "Scroogemic"
Edward Duck <howardtduck@mail.bigpond.com>
Kogarah (Sydney), NSW Australia - Saturday, March 8 2003 3:10:36
Duckman, if you please. And it's actually my real name. One of my parents wanted to name me Donald and I can't find out who because they each blame the other.
Jay
Saturday Rant - Nervous About Production Meeting. - Saturday, March 8 2003 2:26:6
NO MORE ON MALLS, I PROMISE!!!
But the real reason for my visit tonight is my totally screwed sleep schedule. Last night I spent in the print shop doing a large run for a client ... and there is something I bring up here in the hope that it will indirectly filter to the rest of the universe in some way; through conversations outside webderland and in your own business dealings as you travel the world seeking document management solutions.
Get a Quote Before You Commit To A Job.
Please.
Especially you wonderous suits with corporate credit cards who have EVER uttered the phrase "Ah, I don't care...the company's paying for it" regarding how you spend. I'm talking to you specifically. More than once (many times, actually) I've seen you whip out an Amex card like it's Green Lantern's ring and expect it to magicaly reolve a crisis. But when it comes time to actually sign for the bill...oops. "I had no idea it'd be so much! Why is it so much? What was the unit cost on that? Holy god, they'll never approve that!" And it ain't because I don't offer it. I do with every big job, but I don't want to insult you by saying "It might be expensive." Nevertheless, even Fortune 500 clients have come back to pick up work from me and dropped bricks in their tailored trousers after fair warning.
Even when we adopted the "quote up front" policy after a particularly messy executive meltdown there are still numb-nuts out there who don't want to be bothered and won't wait for the quote. Don't let this be you. Please.
Case in point: last night. Big Client(r) needed it. I delivered it. Stayed up all night and despite revision changes at the last minute, extra pre-press work and the fun of watching the sun rise twice without so much as a nap between, put it together.
I was dreaming about winning GoldenEye (the estate, not the movie) from a contest in a box of cereal and moving to Jamaica when work called. The client was having fits because of the bill. While the man who placed the order didn't have a problem with the bill, the poor sod picking it up had no way of paying for it. Apparently the project cost exceeded his department's operating budget for the entire first quarter of 2003. We couldn't discount it any further because of the cost of keeping me there to do it and the already cut price of the product by volume. It was the corporate version of dining out and discovering your debit card won't cover the linguini and scallops.
So the solution, which I cannot mention, was one that let me peek behind that psychological firewall that prevents sane people from becoming raving lunatic firebombers. It wasn't pretty. Let's just say we bend in order to promote good business relations.
So I ask you all again, politely and calmly, as you become great successful and rich people, or you begin to manage them, Get A Quote. Thank you and God bless.
Edward Duck <howardtduck@mail.bigpond.com>
Kogarah (Sydney), NSW Australia - Saturday, March 8 2003 2:13:49
Harlan: (Speaking to the great man his own self. Eep.) I hope the case is resolved in the only way it would be resolved in a decent world - you win, because right is on your side. And thanks for Deathbird Stories. Also, the rest of your work, but with Deathbird Stories, even though I'm probably too thick to truly "get" what you're saying, I have the feeling of being in the presence of greatness.
To Brian: As someone who began his magnetic octopus (magnum opus) at the arse end of 1984 and spent the next 10 years trying to whip the damn thing into a shape I was comfortable with, I can only say that you shouldn't let external events stop you. Keep writing. It's obviously important to you since you've been working on it since school and that sort of dream doesn't die easily. I know. The best response my script ever received from one of Australia's major production companies (Crawfords) was "mediocre story wrapped up in very good presentation" and a suggestion I rethink the execution of the concept. I haven't worked on it much in the last seven years because I've been slowly rebuilding my life, but the desire, the dream is still there and one day I will return to it. Write, Brian, write. Whatever vague similarities there may be with anything else, the ideas will be filtered through you and it's your mind, your thinking, your personality that will inform them. Roll the dice and let the chips fall where they may and any other cliches and mixed metaphors that are your personal favourites. Never give up. It's clearly too important to you. (Sorry if that's OTT but I'm on my third scotch on an empty stomach.)
Diana: I'm glad you sorted everything out with that imposter posting under your name. I like the real you better.
The Board: I like lurking here at this board. Even during the dark times there is a feeling that the people here, though flawed, (this lurker here probably worse than many) are adults trying the best they can, occasionally disagreeing but realising when they've crossed the line, and constantly trying to do better. I've seen some of the best of humanity here and I hope people don't think that's worthless hyperbole. This is definitely the most intelligent of the forums I lurk at (only about 5 or 6 altogether, but still...) and I thank you all for it.
Encomium to Rick Wyatt: A couple of years ago my life was literally changed by some of the essays Rick has placed on this site and their effects are still resonating. I let him know at the time and I want to let you know. He's one of the good ones, and I appreciate the effort he puts in setting up this site and moderating this forum. And always remember, words matter. Words count. Words can change the world, even if only in a small way. Rick helped save my soul that night, and that means something in this world.
(I'm a maudlin drunk, Webderlanders. Please forgive me.)
Edward Duck <howardtduck@mail.bigpond.com>
Kogarah (Sydney), NSW Australia - Saturday, March 8 2003 1:5:35
Edward Duck <howardtduck@mail.bigpond.com>
Kogarah (Sydney), NSW Australia - Saturday, March 8 2003 0:56:56
The FBI blew someone up? I can't believe that Mulder and Scully would have ever belonged to such a disreputable organisation.
All sarcasm aside, and without knowing the details of the event, for what it's worth, I'd say the ex-boyfriend theory is all too sadly believable. But the method... the method....
recil
- Saturday, March 8 2003 0:30:40
--recil
recil
- Saturday, March 8 2003 0:24:34
Anyway, one thing to be said is this: Earth First! weren't terrorists, and I think the label is extremely ridiculous. Mainly, I mean, terrorism requires (obviously) terror, and Earth First! monkeywrenching was not anything remotely resembling suicide bombers, death squads, etc. Generally, protestors were far more afraid of rednecks (with cause) with chainsaws, gas, matches, and a twelve-pack of courage than any of the lumber crews were afraid of spiked trees. Terrorism just doesn't apply, though this is a fairly unique form of civil disobedience. I mean, didn't Ms. Butterfly's vigil in Luna represent a dramatic resolve for nonviolent intervention? I don't know that Ghandi could've done any better. I have a number of mixed feelings about the death of my home-town coming at the victory of environmental zealots, but I (and a lot of the workers at PALCO, truth be known) always had a great deal of respect for Earth First!'s committment. What is becoming of them now that all their dragon's (in Humboldt Co. at least) have been slain is another thing, but I don't think they should ever be somehow compared with terrorists.
That's all.
--Recil
Chuck
- Friday, March 7 2003 23:25:7
"P.S. I'm trying to reform my evil ways. Really I am."
You don't know the POWER of the dark side. Join with the dark side, and we'll rule the Webderland together!
Chuck Vader
Chuck
- Friday, March 7 2003 23:20:17
Another word of advice from someone who found himself in a similar writing quandary. Watch the show when it comes on. It can be a guide to what NOT to write in order to avoid too many similarities. That should be taken with the proviso, "As long as it doesn't make the writing process too drawn out".
Chuck
Jon Stover
Canada. Baseball, eh. - Friday, March 7 2003 23:0:37
Cheers, Jon
Brian Siano <brian@briansiano.com>
- Friday, March 7 2003 21:28:25
Re Democrats and Babes: Okay, Madeline Albright and Janet Reno are trucks, and Janet Reno's history of prosecuting Sanat-abuse bullshit cases in Florida is pretty revolting. But hey, Hillary cleans up real nice, and the Democrats gave us Jackie Kennedy, too.
Anyways, you Republicans gave us Phyllis Schlafly, and no amount of cardboard babeage of the Laura Ingraham/Ann Coulter sort can make up for that ghastly visage.
Okay, tree spiking. I think there's a small miscommunication here. Most of the groups known for tree-spiking do NOT do it to ruin sawmills or injure loggers. They put signs up SAYING that the trees have been spiked, in order to prevent them from being cut down in the first place. It's never intended to hurt loggers or sawmill personnel.
I have no doubt that there are misguided tree fans who don't perform this necessary step. But by and large, tree-spiking is intended to keep the trees from going to the sawmill in the first place. (And loggers can use metal detectors. Even woodworkers use those to find nail bits in found wood.)
Also, to Frank and Joseph, who say that the FBI probably tried to blow up Judi Bari: there's considerable reason to believe that the explosive was placed not by the FBI, nor by Bari, but by an ex-boyfriend of hers trying to kill her. I don't have the reference handy, but check into it.
Okay, now for Scott reeston's lengthy note, which begins with "The rednecks get to vote, right alongside those who work their covert Machiavellian machinations. The rednecks are also easily swayed by the simplistic images that the clever will weave into their slogans and images, soliciting their support for the products that would be leaders."
Scott, I've heard stuff like this before, and frankly, I can't agree. For one thing, while "rednecks" may fall for jingo bullshit, I haven't seen any evidence that edumacated people are any _less_ likely to do so. And given that there's a substantial sentiment out there that's anti-war, suspicious of Bush, and desirous of better government action, I think you may exaggerate the power and the incorrigibility of "rednecks."
And if your appraisal is true, then us educated people with the Right Thoughts ought to eliminate democracy, so the "rednecks" don't overwhelm us. I can't agree, for obvious reasons-- the most likely being, if we hand power over to some elite, then they'll act in _their_ best interests, _not mine_.
Todd Cassel <TheDoh@prodigy.net>
AZ USofA - Friday, March 7 2003 20:52:43
Webderlanders, I feel like I'm gloating or something, but I figured why not share the surprise (since Harlan never hinted at what this would be). As you can tell from above, itsa print. Itsa print that will be soon framed and hanging near another prized print of mine that currently resides in storage (the complete "One Life, Furnished In Early Poverty" shaped into the thoughtful mug of Harlan).
If you're interested, check it out (this doesn't really do it justice, but you get the idea): http://www.goodnaturepublishing.com/images/baseball_detail.jpg
Thanks again, Harlan!
-TODD
Diana
- Friday, March 7 2003 20:49:17
You must reform your evil ways as I have. Alex Jay is correct when he says making a personal attack upon someone who's opinions you disagree with is counterproductive. I am going to try and not do it anymore. Join me in the light my dark souled brother, before it's too late. :=)
Also, I don't support the practice of spiking trees and blowing up earth movers, and other ways of violence & destruction. I think such methods of protest are abominable.
Bye for now.
Diana
Diana
- Friday, March 7 2003 20:30:17
Regarding the 39%, at least one of those votes was for Ralph Nader, so don't be blaming *me* for Dumb Bush bein'the prez. :=P
Alex Jay~
You could try one of those internet dating services, let Cindy write the ad for you. And let ol' Xanadu write you a few jokes to put in it. You'll be inundated with luv letters in no time, I'm sure of it. :=)
Diana
Xanadu <X_a_n_a_d_u@yahoo.com>
Thanks and Replies - Friday, March 7 2003 19:57:54
Scott - As Cindy alluded to earlier - rednecks don't vote - they make up a heck of a vocal majority - but jawin's about all they do.
Actually, it doesn't seem like much of anyone votes down here - according to stats, something on the order of 39% of voting age citizens cast a ballot in 2002. Think about that - just 18.5% of the adults in this country selected the man who's sitting in the oval office right now. 18.5% - jesus, the mind boggles.
Bern
Cindy <IAMCINDIANAJONES@netscape.net>
TEXAS USA - Friday, March 7 2003 19:40:57
"And as for the marriage thing ... what--you going to find me someone? Some lovely lissome Levantine lass? Maybe Zoe has an older sister?"
THIS is embarrassing but I had to look up " Levantine"-
I just KNEW you did't mean "Laviathan".
Offhand I can't think of one-- but I'll keep my ear to the ground. I'm pretty sure our Zoe is a one of a kind with no siblings...which is unfortunate- people that have babies like Zoe should have MANY children... and so must you.
:)
Cindy
Cindy <IAMCINDIANAJONES@netscape.net>
TEXAS USA - Friday, March 7 2003 19:27:30
That Paul Krugman is one brilliant man-- but he got this story all fucked up... somehow. Maybe he was filtering the information through a haze of emotion-- as I frequently do.
SOOOO I wanted to get the real skinny-- the low down, the SCOOP and I called this "Copely News Service" Krugman references as his source.
Spoke with a sweetheart of a guy out there (Copley News Service is located in California) and he sent me links to not only the original story that Krugman was referencing but also the actual TRANSCRIPT of the reporter's interview with George W.
Also Ari Fleischer's response to the brouhaha that ensued.
See if y'all don't spot the twisting of some words and the blurring of actual intent.
Oh and ah, Alex Jay?
I don't know about all those Democrat movie stars and such but I'm pretty dang spectac... and no, not "for a republican"
Just look at what the guy at the Copely News Service wrote-- LOL
> > >
Cindy,
I forgot how much I miss Texas until I heard your voice and accent. I
think
I'm going to have to hit Fiesta in San Antonio in April, especially the
river parade, where the floats actually float, just because of you.
Here's
text files of the stories and the links to the San Diego Union-Tribune
Web
site.
--Ven Griva
Copley News Service
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20030303-1705-cnsbush.html
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/thu/news/news_1n6trans.html
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/thu/news/news_1n6mexico.html
Okay, truth is the first thing the guy says is " First tell me where you're from."
He's lived in Texaas before like our DTS--as has his wife and two of this three children-- which explains why he wrote such pretty things to me. Texas people who live other places miss home... but he says there are NO BUGS in California and they don't have to run their airconditioners all night long out there either.
Which IS, I suppose, the reason our Lynn and her Bill won't be moving home in the foreseable future-- much to our dismay out here.
:)
Cindy
Alex Jay Berman <alexjay@earthlink.net>
Philly, - Friday, March 7 2003 17:58:15
And as for the marriage thing ... what--you going to find me someone? Some lovely lissome Levantine lass? Maybe Zoe has an older sister?
Cindy <IAMCINDIANAJONES@netscape.net>
TEXAS, USA - Friday, March 7 2003 17:51:58
We've been enjoying the company of your Melissa.
Tell me one thing-- what is your definition of a redneck? Most real rednecks don't vote. They don't think that much.
:)
Cindy
Cindy <IAMCINDIANAJONES@netscape.net>
TEXAS USA - Friday, March 7 2003 17:46:48
"BARNEY: It's okay, big fella. Come over to the Bright Side. We'll take care of you.
(Remember--liberals have the better babes.)
Alex JAY!
You really should stop the propaganda machine before it pulls Barney's leg outa socket-- seriously the liberals have better babes??? You mean like Janet Reno, Madeliene Albright and Hillary Clinton?
The conservatives have ME.
;)
YOU ALSO wrote;
"JAY: My sympathies over the sleep/child sitch, though I have to admit it heartens me somewhat: I think I'll be well prepared for children of my own, should I (I hope) ever have them--see, most nights I only sleep four or five hours, and most weeks, I only sleep five or six nights. "
".. aaaaannnnd just to get off the subject of politics and world affairs for a moment, dinner tonight was the second half of the previously-cooked Chicken Roule, which I doctored up (lightly marinated in Triple Sec liqueur and spices) along with a big batch of homemade Brandy Creamed Spinach with wild mushrooms and onions.
Mmm mm good, and took almost NO work to make."
FER THE LOVE OF ALL THAT'S HOLY-- I can't BELIEVE a man like this isn't MARRIED!!!
As for your " better to know where they are" point-- damn straight-- especially if it's in the ground. But wouldn't it be nice if he left Iraq so we could quit with this chest pounding KONG exercise? I'd rather hunt him on the run than flush him out among innocents. Somebody would turn him for the bounty. He'd be handed over just like they handed us Khalid Shaikh Mohammed last week.
:)
Cindy
MELISSA WROTE;
Jay:
"I've been there many a time; it's a good thing I had a man who sleeps incredibly lightly, and had a sense of responsibility about him when it came to care for the kids. I swear, Scotty would get up when the babies would turn over in their sleep. I'd often get a full night's rest myself."
Melissa,
Hang on to him. I've never had a husband who would get up with babies. I did it all! Of course that is the price one pays for not using bottles.
How many babies do y'all have?
:)
Hug Scotty for me.
Cindy
Now I'm going to find that story on Bush and Mexico--but I shudder to think what it might devulge that I won't WANT to see--- but probably NEED to.
Scott Reeston
- Friday, March 7 2003 16:3:29
Mostly agree with your sentiments, except for one salient point:
The rednecks get to vote, right alongside those who work their covert Machiavellian machinations. The rednecks are also easily swayed by the simplistic images that the clever will weave into their slogans and images, soliciting their support for the products that would be leaders.
As a result, the voice of those who remain vigilant are stilled by numbers, their reasoned voices silenced by what is truly a dull(ard's) roar. Even more, it seems to be fashionable once again to ridicule those who would ask for dissent, hiding the attack upon the voice of dissent behind the oversimplifed logic being presented in what Wilde called "a virtue for the vicious" - patriotism. "If yer not fer me, yer agin me", n'est ce pas?
You trust in courts; ones selected by the products that would be leaders, who act with their self professed righteousness created at the behest of the rednecks' vote. As a result, vigilance at times doesn't hold much strength there either, as the leaders fellow travellers create a country in their own image.
All the while, the rednecks smile: "It's morning in America, again..."
March 17th. Rumoured date where the US will unleash their revenge far less upon Hussein, who will leave after the opening bomb bursts, absconding with billions of oil revenues. The Iraqi people probably won't fare as well, and they've not done a fucking thing to harm a single American.
Hopefully, there will be a veto by one of the big three dissentors in the Sceurity Council, so Canadian boys can simply serve the UN in Afghanistan and keep out of this one.
Have a Happy War, America!
Scott
Alex Jay Berman <alexjay@earthlink.net>
Philly, - Friday, March 7 2003 15:55:23
(And I can't have too much caffeine anymore (doctor's orders)... I MISS caffeine. I STILL say I like the taste of Jolt Cola better than the others out there.)
But Hour 37 can be interestung, yeah.
Just wait until you get to Hour 100.
(My record is just over five days without sleep, over a weekend's trip to Baltimore some years ago.)
BARNEY: It's okay, big fella. Come over to the Bright Side. We'll take care of you.
(Remember--liberals have the better babes.)
And don't worry--even though we're happy they're doing the right thing NOW, it's still okay to hate the French.
FRANK: ...
BACK THE FUCK OFF.
Though Bern may be arguing a position we may not like, he has been doing so in an intelligent manner, using reasoned discourse. Even if his reasoning is, by our lights, wrong, that does not excuse personal attacks.
Further, ad hominem attacks only mar the credibility and appearance of the one MAKING them. In other words, you're queering the pitch, boy. If you are angry at Xanadu's posts, fine. But say so in a manner approaching debate, not insult--and COUNTER his arguments with actual points. Attack the argument, not the man.
("Hate the sin, love the sinner"?)
(And further, tell a lumberjack just trying to make a living that it's OKAY that the tree he was sawing was spiked and the chainsaw blew up in his face, injuring and disfiguring him--because the harassment the government has inflicted on him more than makes up for it.
Oh, wait--you might not be able to--he may have died froim his injuries, after all.
Hmm; what's that saying about two wrongs ...?)
CINDY: If our enemies go on the "nomadic tourism plan," that'll be a bad, bad, BAD thing--just look at Carlos the Jackal or any of the other successful terrorists of the last, um, ten centuries. It's better to KNOW WHERE THEY ARE rather than worry about with what disparate cell they may be meeting with this week. A man without a country or fixed abode is a dangerous man.
(Though your closing of "I wish he'd just leave now" put me in mind of Hughes Mearns' "The Man Who Wasn't There" ...)
... aaaaannnnd just to get off the subject of politics and world affairs for a moment, dinner tonight was the second half of the previously-cooked Chicken Roule, which I doctored up (lightly marinated in Triple Sec liqueur and spices) along with a big batch of homemade Brandy Creamed Spinach with wild mushrooms and onions.
Mmm mm good, and took almost NO work to make.
DTS <none>
- Friday, March 7 2003 14:56:43
--DTS
Joseph J. Finn <josephfinn@mac.com>
Chicago, - Friday, March 7 2003 14:31:40
"Diana, agree on Earth First. We must remember that the occasional tree spiking is no match to the constant harrassment over the years by the FBI; especially the car bombing of an Earth First activist's car."
Right - deliberate murder and maiming is justified. Even Mosaic Law didn't justify these kinds of terrorist tactics from either side. The FBI acting like assholes (and they did in this, as noted in Bari vs. the FBI), does not justify a deliberate attempt to harm an innocent human. No how, no way.
Regards,
Joseph
Xanadu <X_a_n_a_d_u@yahoo.com>
Advice for Frank... - Friday, March 7 2003 14:16:57
Now, since I promised two things, one - not to argue with you anymore, and two - not to post again on the recent topic here, I'm going to couch this in the form of friendly advice.
You guys are worried about the wrong people and the wrong things. Free speech isn't in danger from a bunch of rednecks and mall owners, no matter how loud, obnoxious and stupid they get - they can't change it. Those things will be won or lost in the court system, and it'll take a long time... But rednecks are easy to rile and they flutter around convincingly enough that many progressives get distracted.
Don't get distracted.
Your real targets are more than happy to let you wander around malls in t-shirts, chanting slogans. They're ready, willing and able offer any number of small and ultimately meaningless distractions while they unveil the real stuff under cover of darkness...
Don't get distracted.
This war will be fought - do not doubt it. The prez has invested too much of his cowboy machismo to back out, and I don't think Mr. Hussein is capable of backing down either. War is a fait accompli.
Don't get distracted.
Ask yourself who's really strip mining your rights, privileges and privacy in the name of "national security". Answer that question, solve that problem, and all these other concerns will vanish like morning fog.
I'm telling you something. You're being distracted.
Bern
Melissa Reeston
- Friday, March 7 2003 14:16:37
I've been there many a time; it's a good thing I had a man who sleeps incredibly lightly, and had a sense of responsibility about him when it came to care for the kids. I swear, Scotty would get up when the babies would turn over in their sleep. I'd often get a full night's rest myself.
The joy you'll have when they can get the spoon moving themselves; all that will be left to do is potty training.
Love to all, Melissa
Cindy <IAMCINDIANAJONES@netscape.net>
TEXAS USA - Friday, March 7 2003 13:39:8
Are you tryin' to be bad again?
It's too late, you know-- we've all seen the kinder gentler Frank Church. You've been outed and we NOW know you're just a big sweetheart under all that bluster and bravado.
I'm not pro-WAR-- silly man ( Harlan's RIGHT it IS a useful word) I am pro-innocent life! Which means I can support a military effort to take the legs out from under a murderous despot-- aaaaaaaaand if oil is a sidedish with that meal then bring on the lower gas prices.
:)
Sadam is a bad man and he has too many evil toys-- so we will take them away and either send him into the same type of nomadic tourism plan that Bin Laden is currently enjoying or we can whack him... either way works for me as long as he is neither showing his face openly nor terrorizing the people of his country.
He poses a threat-- might not be an imminent threat but a threat nonetheless. I believe that the only GOOD rattlesnake is a DEAD rattlesnake-- but in a pinch a GONE rattlesnake will do.
I wish he'd just leave now and save us this ghastly situation.
There now, was that clear?
your pal,
Cindy
rich
- Friday, March 7 2003 13:34:57
***TODD***
As usual, I am a bit late on matters such as these, but you have my deepest condolences and sincere wishes that you and yours are doing well. The pain will never go away, but it'll get a little better each day.
Funny. I received some mail last week from an old friend of my mother. She did not know my mom had died and had just heard about it so after tracking down my address sent me a nice note and some pictures. Apparently, they had been close and these pictures were taken during a vacation my mom had taken with this woman and another friend. So I'm going through these pictures of these three women in their thirties (they were taken in '78) and groaning at how ridiculous they looked as they mugged for the camera or did touristy things and I felt sad that my mom couldn't see these pictures and tell me the ridiculous and touristy stories behind them, but...I felt kinda glad, too. I mean, here was my mom at age 33, still young and swingin' apparently and I'm glad I got these pictures. They were a nice surprise and I hope, Todd, that you get some pictures of your mom in the mail someday and I hope that you'll smile, and remember, as you look at them.
And if you wanna get kicked out of someplace for wearing a t-shirt, be sure that that t-shirt comes from here:
http://www.tshirthell.com/
Frank Church
- Friday, March 7 2003 12:29:9
Frank Church
- Friday, March 7 2003 12:23:20
The case, if you agree with property rights or not, is bad because of what it implys: That freedom of speech is not taken seriously in this society. You seem to side with the anti-speech side, using a flimsy arguement about property ownership. They wore a peace t-shirt!! It is a scary world when peace is considered controversial.
------------
Diana, agree on Earth First. We must remember that the occasional tree spiking is no match to the constant harrassment over the years by the FBI; especially the car bombing of an Earth First activist's car.
Diana, didn't realize you were so smart. Radical is the only way to be baby.
-------------
Cindy, how can one be "right to life" but be pro-war? You tell me that, ok Twinkie spinner? Lol.
----------
Brian, better to write a charactor study; that will insure you don't rip off someone. But I do hope you have improved on your dialogue. ;-)
Barney Dannelke <dannelke01@enter.net>
Allentown, PA - Friday, March 7 2003 11:57:29
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/07/opinion/07KRUG.html
First he backs me into a corner where I have to agree with the liberals and the Soviets and the Chinese and the Germans and the Pope and the French. And the FRENCH! Now this. Because I needed more reasons to despise our appointed president.
- Barney
Diana
- Friday, March 7 2003 11:56:42
Regarding:
"Cindy
DIANA,
That was very kind of you to say.
:) "
Oh pshaw...like you said yourself once to me about something or other, "I calls 'em as I sees 'em"
:=)
Regarding:
"As for your association with the organization you mentioned. I haven't heard of them before-- but I've seen similar situations many times. It sounds alot like the right to life zealots that come out of the woodwork and do horrid things in the name of an important cause.
I wince when the militants fly the banner of right to life because they are criminals, thugs and people devoid of conscience. The message and all ability to reason with the opposition is scrapped when those who participate and vocalize are miscreants.
I would never want to be linked to those who could scream hateful things to women who are already in pain-- or murder physicians and bomb clinics.
I believe what I believe and if ANY positive change is to take place it won't be through the misguided efforts of the barely sane.
I understand that there can be and usually is a mixed bag in a broad ranging group.
Cindy"
Exactly. I couldn't have come up with a better example of what I meant if I'd thought for weeks.
Bye for now.
Diana
P.S. Earth FIrst! is an organization of radical environmental activists. Some of it's members have been more rabid than radical, and "hyper-active" to the point of criminality. Some of them would qualify as terrorists in anyone's book. People like that make me wonder who's side they're really on.
INFOMAN
- Friday, March 7 2003 11:9:0
Informationally yours, the man.
Jay
- Friday, March 7 2003 11:3:35
I am so fried right now, it took me a while to get the whole vacuum thing. You don't want to know what went through my head. I'm on hour 37 or so...voices sound hollow and music tastes good...except rap. Rap tastes like soggy eggs...
It's okay. Mommy's got the baby. Just in time, too. He seems to have grown three heads. All of them are hungry. Beware.
Jay
Melissa Reeston
- Friday, March 7 2003 10:42:24
Cindy's right, vacuums work fine to settle a testy little one, but Scotty and I used another humming vibration to soothe a baby's fussiness: put the clothes dryer on the delicate cycle, then set the child on top in a car seat or a small bassinet. Works like a charm, and the noise isn't that loud.
Remember; on top of the dryer, not inside.
Hoping all went well in court for the Ellisons, Melissa
Cindy <IAMCINDIANAJONES@netscape.net>
TEXAS USA - Friday, March 7 2003 9:54:6
JAY WROTE;
" I return the baby to bed and hope to Allah he sleeps at least two hours of a nap before mommy gets home."
Two words-- vacuum cleaner.
When my oldest, Miranda, was a baby I discovered by accident that the sound of a vacuum cleaner will put a baby out like a light-- if they are fussy or have colic and can't sleep. Don't leave the thing running in the room alone with him ( I worry about fires) but if you're there and he can't sleep and is crying-- crank the vacuum and see the amazing and startling effects it has. Some babies will fall asleep and you can turn it off-- others tend to wake up the moment you flip the switch and things get silent.
It worked like a charm on all of mine.
Hope it helps,
:)
Cindy
DIANA,
That was very kind of you to say.
:)
As for your association with the organization you mentioned. I haven't heard of them before-- but I've seen similar situations many times. It sounds alot like the right to life zealots that come out of the woodwork and do horrid things in the name of an important cause.
I wince when the militants fly the banner of right to life because they are criminals, thugs and people devoid of conscience. The message and all ability to reason with the opposition is scrapped when those who participate and vocalize are miscreants.
I would never want to be linked to those who could scream hateful things to women who are already in pain-- or murder physicians and bomb clinics.
I believe what I believe and if ANY positive change is to take place it won't be through the misguided efforts of the barely sane.
I understand that there can be and usually is a mixed bag in a broad ranging group.
Cindy
TODD,
I missed you.
:)
Cindy
HARLAN ELLISON
- Friday, March 7 2003 9:45:39
Lynn is correct. I DON'T want to be around for a few days. Come, maybe, Sunday, I'll sit down and type out a few words about the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals festschrift.
Lynn, I'll call you.
Love to all, yr. exhausted pal, Harlan
Eric
- Friday, March 7 2003 7:46:29
After his incredible turn as the drug dealer in Boogie Nights, it's high time he got the big check.
Ben
- Friday, March 7 2003 7:18:8
Alfred Molina (the guy who got lucky with Natasha Henstridge in SPECIES - or not, depends on your POV) has been OFFICIALLY cast as Doctor Octopus in the next SPIDER-MAN movie.
I have to admit I'm somewhat depressed Larry Drake (L.A. LAW) wasn't even considered for the role, but oh well. What can ya do..o
Ben
- Friday, March 7 2003 7:14:8
Well, since I've suffered my own 5-hour airport purgatory, I can only offer my symptahies.
Jay
- Friday, March 7 2003 7:11:28
Cheer? Shit, that was a WAVE of people around the stadium.
Having now been up over 34 hours thanks to some shithead job at work, I return the baby to bed and hope to Allah he sleeps at least two hours of a nap before mommy gets home.
Jay
Xanadu <X_a_n_a_d_u@yahoo.com>
PAB's Most Recent - Friday, March 7 2003 6:1:21
With this note, I've made two posts on this subject that have not addressed any new point of discussion. That's a sure sign to me that I've said all I can - I don't think I can rely on the good graces of the rest of the Webderclan to support my posting further on this subject.
So with that, I think I will stop posting about mall t-shirt politics...
Bern
(I heard that cheer!)
P.A. Berman
- Friday, March 7 2003 5:19:4
I think you must have skipped my post entirely where I discussed the legality of curtailing free speech in malls. The US Supreme Court has ruled that, if a state wants to, it can extend free speech protection to people in malls and other privately owned places. The Minnesota ruling is not germane. So before you rant at me, please read what I wrote earlier. The law MAY NOT be on the mall's side in this and it's up to a court to decide. As such, I still maintain that Downs' removal from the mall by police could very well be illegal AND actionable.
As for my brother and his free speech rights, and his wish to curtail others' rights, again, I have a feeling you didn't really read what I wrote. He is not just shooting his mouth off-- he is opening wishing that people like Eddie Vedder be deported to another country, or arrested. So sure, my idiot brother can say whatever he wants; who am I to censor him? However, when enough people say stuff like this, goose stepping down Main Street is sure to follow. THAT is what bothers me about his sentiments.
Jay: I applaud Mr. Downs for calling the media. That was his right. If you can give the mall a pass on calling the police, then you should give Downs a pass on calling the media. They were both asserting their rights under the law, right? If you want to dish it out, you gotta be able to take it.
Brian: Keep writing. Finish it, and then watch the piece that's similar to it. You will probably find they aren't much alike after all.
PAB
Xanadu <X_a_n_a_d_u@yahoo.com>
Something completely different - Friday, March 7 2003 4:58:6
Bern
Scott Reeston
- Friday, March 7 2003 4:49:40
Well, I'm pleased to hear from you, especially in a time like this, and it's good to know you're bearing up under what is for you a very onerous period. The pain ends, mon ami; you get valued memories in trade.
Now if all will excuse, I'm going back to my piloting manual and will leave you to mall or not to mall...
Perhaps that should be to maul, or not to maul. Whatever.
Scott
Xanadu <X_a_n_a_d_u@yahoo.com>
Put a Fork in Me... - Friday, March 7 2003 4:30:31
What I have apparently not said well is that "public places" that are privately owned CAN make silly rules like NO REPUBLICANS, **it's legal** - and yes, there would be a shitstorm, and yes, it would be challenged in court - which is where such things are decided. (Thank you, Jim)
And in that court of public opinion - I side with the property owners - even if some are making asses of themselves. They have the law and precendent on their side to do this. And I see a newly codified requirement to tolerate speech on **my** "public space" property as the beginning of a bad direction - the assholes will **love** it and they will use it - 'cause they're assholes. The lawyers will **love** it, cause it's a new legal playground - and you **will** see family planning clinic filled to the brim with people wearing oh-so-subtle t-shirts and filling up the seats - even if they have to use the planning services to do so, because the "public space" owners **have** to allow it. (You can suspect I'm overreacting, but I think I have a pretty good handle on how well-intention laws are highjacked and used to club society over the head...)
Since there is very little more I can say without simply repeating myself, and I think we've thrashed out all the broad outlines, and since the catalysing case for this discussion is already over - I'm all for listening to endless baseball stats for a while...
weary,
Bern
Diana
- Friday, March 7 2003 2:26:36
I will NOT be sarcastic & say something like "Gee, no one's ever mentioned that some Earth First! members have spiked trees and blown up earthmovers before! Now I've seen the light and shall shun them entirely forever more! Thanks"
Nope I will not say anything like that. I know some members of Earth First! have done some monsterous things. Some haven't. I haven't, and wouldn't. (I also won't attempt to site examples of the activities of the fanatic fringes of many other organizations which come quickly to mind, such behavior usually being atypical of the general membership of these organizations It wouldn't be fair of me to tar them all with the same brush, and would be beside the point) I wouldn't dream of defending the kinds of activities by such Earth First! members as have been guilty of horrendous excessiveness. I mentioned my involvement with them simply as an example of a specific occasion when I got up off MY ass and did something, instead of just ideating and sighing, and complaining. That particular endeavor was pretty risky. Some dramatic things occurred. I thought it was an interesting example. And that's pretty much all I had in mind when I mentioned it. I hope you understand.
Bye for now.
Diana
P.S. No further mention of you buttock-al area will be issuing from my keyboard regarding your political activeness or inactivness at this time.
Alex Jay Berman <alexjay@earthlink.net>
Philly, - Friday, March 7 2003 1:39:12
And what about the HUAC? Wasn't that wrong?
As for your public place/private property quibble, consider: Crossgates is open to the public. To me, that means "open to the Capital-P Public." As such, it and other malls must be considered quasipublic areas under private ownership and operation. If they were a private club or even a BJ's or Sam's Club (note to nonAmericans: The two places are huge "Big Box" discount retail outlets who charge a yearly fee--usually about $35--to their members for the privilege of shopping there; visitors have to get passes and usually have to pay 10% above the regular discounted prices), then fine; they'd have a leg to stand on.
On your topic of "bad guys" getting hold of such tactics? Remember, the American Nazi Party got a permit to march through Skokie. And it was correct that they be granted one, however abhorrent I find them.
JOSEPH: The Mall of America case is not an appropriate precedent here. The MoA's "code of conduct" prohibits UNAUTHORIZED petitioning or distribution of handbills--even if you want to protest in a public park, you still need a permit, after all.
(A side note: Am I weird to think that Downs should have asked who complained?)
DIANA: I'm sorry, but I now hold Earth First! with the same regard as I do PETA: Organizations which started with noble aims but who lost my respect when they allied themselves with terrorists. No matter what the FBI may have reported or fabricated about your acquaintance, Earth First!ers HAVE taken responsibility for the blowing up of earthmovers and the spiking of trees. To me, this shows a blatant disregard for human life (know what happens when a chainsaw hits a spike?), and that I cannot countenance--especially when coming from an organization devoting to protecting life.
And please--you don't know where my ass has been; I'll thank you not to presume its activities, whether I'm on or off it.
CINDY: I'm sorry--but I cannot see a "Peace" shirt as a match in a gas can. No fucking way.
If you're talking a "Saddam is Right" shirt, okay--maybe that could be judged as an incipient incitement to riot. But if the tenor of the country is that just WANTING peace is bad, then what chance is there that anyone will actually VOTE for it? And then how would this be even a marginally free country?
BRIAN: Just write it. If you let it flow organically, it will become its own being, separate from anything else out there.
(And after, all, there really aren't any new ideas under the sun ...)
I could state you a million examples of books or shows or movies out there which are similar to one another but distinct and successful on their own terms.
Now, I have a sneaking suspicion that a part of you is just worrying about this problem simply because it's just the easiest route to procrastination. I'm thinking this simply because I've been there myself, so please don't take it as any sort of aspersion on you.
Just set YOUR stage, tell YOUR story, and don't worry if someone else's shares the same backdrop. It's the play, after all, which is the thing.
(And my own first novel, you'll recall, has the same problem--but still I'm printing it out this weekend and sending it out again)
Jim Davis
- Thursday, March 6 2003 23:1:33
JAY: Just for the record: I didn't think you were out of line earlier today. It just seemed that your usually-thoughtful posts were creeping into illegability, especially with your response to Cookie. I certainly don't have the right to tell you, or anyone else, not to post about a topic of interest. But it was like riding with someone who's been up for two or three days, and watching as they s-l-o-w-l-y glide across the center line into oncoming traffic. I decided to yell, "WAKE UP!", is all. Kapeesh?
And, yeah, I suspect there are details about this little imbroglio that the public hasn't been privy to. Doesn't mean that Downs did anything more than wear a t-shirt while eating a meal . . . but who knows?
Night, all.
Brian Siano <brian@briansiano.com>
- Thursday, March 6 2003 22:51:11
Stuff yerselves fulla comfort food. Your mother wouldn't have wanted you to go hungry on her account.
Diana
- Thursday, March 6 2003 22:29:49
I was JUST wondering about you guys, and now there's your post. Welcome back.
Diana
P.S. Thanks Cindy for your kind words. That's so like you, the worst wounded and the first to forgive.
Bye for now.
Diana
Todd Cassel <TheDoh@prodigy.net>
AZ......FINALLY! USofA - Thursday, March 6 2003 22:10:5
We both want to thank all Webderlanders for their kind thoughts during the week I lost my mom. Your responses were greatly appreciated. It's been rough for me.....and I don't want to forget my two sisters as well....Loretta, who was the one who dragged my mother out to Phoenix 15 years ago, and Devy, who flew from Sarasota, Florida to Phoenix 3 times in the past 3 weeks, only to head up to NYC to meet us for the burial. But Debbie has been slapping me around whenever I state "I'm an orphan now" or "We're the last of the Cassels" (since we have no children.....but of course, Debbie's response of "Oh, ok, then let's have a kid now that I'm in my mid-40's!).
Being the last of the Cassels isn't really that depressing, being that the name Cassel only existed from the days of my father's father (who died before I was born) who changed the family name from Cohn to Cassel because Cohn was more representative of a Sephardic Jew when he was an Orthodox rabbi.
Being out in the Westchester area in shitty weather to bury my mother next to my father reminds me why I'm glad as all hell that we made the move out here to Phoenix. Wednesday, burial day, was rainy and chilly and the old Sharon Gardens cemetery in Valhalla, NY was pure mud and old slush.....even the good Yankee spirits of Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig and Billy Martin, who lay at rest in the gentile section of the Kensico Cemetery, were not about to come out to play a game of ball in this weather.
Today? Snow, sleet, and if you are familiar at all with the Westchester area of NY you know that the damn roads and highways are curvy and treacherous WITHOUT snow. Then on to JFK for a 12:40pm flight that waited and waited. And waited. And waited....and then when the weather broke waited some more because we needed a new battery. Yep, we couldn't even get a jump....needed a new battery. Finally took to the skies 5 hours later....finally landed 5.5 hours after that....and finally returned to the great civilized (?) desert where we now prepare to make our home.
At least we received some good news....our builder called to say our foundation was finally poured and the house frame is going up. Months ago I told Debbie that my mother would probably never see the house, and though right, we made sure to show her the lot and the blueprints and everything else to make sure she knew that we were going to be happy out here. And, after all, that's all she really wanted of us.
So we're back, and my sister is back with us and she has just called me to say one of my mother's friends was confused and thought everything was taking place here in Phoenix and she has been trying to deliver us massive quantities of food from Chompies Deli, our only real NY Jewish Deli here in Phoenix, for the past two days and the bagels and loz and whitefish and egg dishes and cream cheese and lord knows what else is on it's way over to her place tomorrow.
So we're back in Phoenix, short our mom (in body, not spirit) but soon to be heavy with some of her favorite foods.
Once again, thanks to all for your thoughts. You're all a buncha mensches.
-TODD and DEB
Jay Smith
- Thursday, March 6 2003 22:0:48
You all have put a lot of data into the debate and its general civility and thoughtfulness defines why I enjoy coming back here. Anyway, to distill the rant from earlier, and clarify my point to cookie, let me put it this way.
ISSUE 1.
I cannot say for certain what, but there are things not being explained in the press including the nature of the complaint by the third party cookie mentioned, the level of confrontation between Downs and security and what, exactly, Downs was doing to irritate someone in the mall to the point of complaining. But my opinion is as biased as making the assumption that security had it in for the guy, broke their own rules and singled him out for abuse.
ISSUE 2.
Since a mall is private property and operates with a code of conduct. rules and regulations, security was within its rights to ask Downs to refrain from whatever behavior was causing a disturbance. What, exactly, this was, refers to the first Issue. Do I think the mall was wrong? If all Downs did was put on a shirt, then yes. If there was an altercation or demonstration contrary to the rules set by the management, then No. Downs says all he did was sit there. We DO know there was a complaint from a customer about Downs. The mall, itself is not talking and wants to drop the whole issue. There are no further witnesses to explain it. Since malls typically overlook the transgressions of its clients (the money-spenders) in the name of sales and cusomter service, I believe something had to be said or done to provoke this type of action.
ISSUE 3.
At one point, someone called the media. It wasn't the mall. It could have been a witness or just someone on the scanner at the local news. If this guy is protesting, then he or his son or an ally did this when the cops took him to jail. The charge was Trespass, not for expressing what was on his shirt. A. He wore the shirt. B. Someone complained about it or him. C. Security responded giving him the option of removing the shirt or leaving. D. Downs refused both options. E. He went to jail.
To me, putting it on the line means you have something to lose. I don't see him as heroic. I see him as a guy who got caught in a spotlight and now represents something bigger than he is, or someone who picked an easy safe protest in a town where jail was not even a joke of a possibility. To me, if it was intentional, the man would have taken the protest somewhere it mattered, like a courthouse or the capitol, where the people who actually deal with this work. I don't protest McDonald's by disrupting the sales floor at K-Mart. What good is that? You protest racial injustice by sitting in front of the bus or sitting down at the all-white lunch counter. You attack animal abuse by picketing a fur store.
So maybe he wasn't intending to cause a stir at first, but his conduct after seems to indicate he is inflating himself larger than he really is.
I deal in a lot of political and social projects. Many of these show up on my sales floor and, sometimes, they get nasty. Election time is usually amusing, but there are times when I have white supremacists doing jobs alongside black customers or even someone who is doing work for a company some customer doesn't care for, like Exxon or Enron. I've had customers go after a tobacco salesman and had to eject everyone involved. Who loses? Me. I love customers and the reputation of my business suffers. If someone came into my store wanting to protest the way I do business, there would be room to negotiate and discuss, but the protest itself is inappropriate since there are rules to follow when you come into my store. Because I am liable for the insurance and maintenance you either do business or get out. Get a permit and picket outside. But it is pointless and destructive to come to my store to protest Microsoft or the plight of children in Rwanda. I can't help you and I can't conduct business properly.
Cindy <IAMCINDIANAJONES@netscape.net>
TEXAS USA - Thursday, March 6 2003 21:51:56
Add my name to that list.
Do better than they did and you have nothing to worry about.
We all know you have it in you.
:)
Cindy
Cindy <IAMCINDIANAJONES@netscape.net>
TEXAS USA - Thursday, March 6 2003 21:49:48
"CINDY: Well, I'll agree with you on this: it's all a moot point now, as we are probably days or even hours away from attacking Iraq. I only hope Hussein's officers grow a collective backbone and slit the sonofabitch's throat, saving us ALL a whole lot of grief. "
From your lips to the ear of God, Jim.
:)
I love Pen and Teller-- AND John Prine... and Andrew Prine too.
Cindy
Brian Siano <brian@briansiano>
- Thursday, March 6 2003 21:47:19
Cindy <IAMCINDIANAJONES@netscape.net>
TEXAS USA - Thursday, March 6 2003 21:46:36
DIANA,
You're doing fine.
:)
Also I wanted to thank you for wishing me a happy Texas Independence day.
That was very thoughtful and I appreciate it.
:)
Cindy
Tony Rabig <arabig@par1.net>
Parsons, KS - Thursday, March 6 2003 21:40:48
Many moons ago, when Malcolm Lowry was trying to find a publisher for his last revision of UNDER THE VOLCANO, Charles Jackson published THE LOST WEEKEND. More rejections for Lowry followed because the publishers assumed that Lowry was just trying to capitalize on material made popular by Jackson -- even publishers who had rejected earlier versions of VOLCANO, publishers who knew Lowry had been there before Jackson's book was published, sang the same tune. Lowry finally found a publisher.
All you can do is write your book. The tv show problem will go away. Or maybe it won't. Doesn't matter. Write it anyway.
Best of luck with it.
--tr
Diana
- Thursday, March 6 2003 21:38:2
Jim Davis
- Thursday, March 6 2003 21:33:47
CINDY: Well, I'll agree with you on this: it's all a moot point now, as we are probably days or even hours away from attacking Iraq. I only hope Hussein's officers grow a collective backbone and slit the sonofabitch's throat, saving us ALL a whole lot of grief.
Personally, I think we should forget about this f*cking t-shirt, and whether private ownership trumps freedom of speech, and if a Black Panther carries a portrait of George Lincoln Rockwell into a Lower East Side jewelry store and an Arabian Rabbi feeds Quaker Oats to a Priest (thank you, J. Prine), what will happen? and instead discuss the TERRIFIC pro-skeptic program on Showtime, PENN & TELLER'S BULLSHIT! It runs every Thursday evening at 10pm, and oh, boy, is it a honey of a cable show. Tonight's expose of the John Edward/James Van Praagh-style psychic industry may have been their finest half-hour yet. It was passionate, funny and elucidating, with a explanation of cold reading so clear that NO ONE watching it could possibly swallow for one more second the crapola these mendacious shit-souled scam artists shovel out regarding the afterlife. I LOVED when they revealed the contracts the audiences of Edward's show are required to sign, with disclosure clauses so massive, the possibility of getting straight, unadulterated info about what actually goes on in these tapings is on par with my sprouting wings in the next five minutes and flying to Mardi Gras to down a Hurricane.
In other words: GO WATCH IT, ALREADY! YOU'LL LOVE!
Cindy <IAMCINDIANAJONES@netscape.net>
TEXAS USA - Thursday, March 6 2003 21:27:57
Your people salute you!
:)
Cindy
Diana
- Thursday, March 6 2003 21:22:38
"Your observations were accepted without question, Ms. Graham, if I had wanted to call you a liar, I would've"
Okay.
"But those observations are scattered across how many trips to the mall?"
87
"Ask yourself how many people you passed who were NOT accosted quietly and asked to leave"
No.
"See if you can figure out how great a percentage of the overall mall "population" this group of people who were "discriminated" against"
No.
"One in a hundred... a thousand... ten thousand?"
Like I said, I refuse to count...because I think that's all irrelevant.I'm not sure why you would think it would matter how many trips to the mall these incidences covered, or how many people *weren't* discriminated against. Except for you wanting to make proof of your own claim that such incidences are rare, which even if they were rare (which they're not) wouldn't make such incidences acceptable.I've observed many occasions where people were discrinated against, or treated like they were less than human. The few I mentioned came readily to mind because I'd made note of them specifically in a little book I have for noting things that I call a "notebook". I'm not sure where you think my "sensibilities" entered into things.
"something that wasn't being debated"
Maybe they were. Or maybe they weren't, until I brought them up. Now they're being debated I guess. By YOU. Ha ha.
Being asked to leave is not "persecution" -
Yes it is.
"I think that covers everything for you - I'm finding the bright lights are hurting my eyes and I think my sense of smell is coming back - time to return the head to a dark, unsanitary place..."
Ha ha. I didn't specify a particular "dark place". You could have had your head stuck in a nice clean place for all anyone knows. Or not had it stuck anywhere. I was only speculating.
Thanks for the laughs, you're kind of funny. Even when you're WRONG. (which you are) :=)
Bye for now.
Diana
Cindy <IAMCINDIANAJONES@netscape.net>
TEXAS USA - Thursday, March 6 2003 21:22:12
:)
Cindy
Eric,
You were right-- it's not over 'til it's over.
Still wringing my hands,
Cindy
Cindy <IAMCINDIANAJONES@netscape.net>
TEXAS USA - Thursday, March 6 2003 21:19:7
Thanks for the update. I'm glad you were there for moral support-- I can't think of anybody I'd rather have backin' me in a similar situation.
You over your cold?
Cindy
JIM DAVIS WROTE;
CINDY: So, the Crossgate management charged Downs with trespassing because . . . his t-shirt would embolden Saddam Hussein, and help to plunge the U.S. into war with Iraq?
Okay, did someone step off the Path while we were away? Is that a dead butterfly on your boot, Eckels?
(You know I love you, Cindy. But comments like that make agoraphobia look very good to me right about now.)
Yeah, you know I love you too, JIm.
:)
The point is it's all a tempest in a teapot. The demonstrators haven't changed the course of Sadam OR W. and slappin' an ungodly amount of english on the incident doesn't make it any more justifiable. MOST folks are going to think what they think... and trying to make someone see your point by acting like an asshole is guaranteed to be every bit as effective as trying to producing a water errosion moustache on Mt Rushmore's Lincoln's with an eye dropper and a bottle of evian.
Ain't gonna change a DAMN thing.
Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum were stirring up the old ugly soup and the Mall provided all of the necessary rancid ingredients and fixin's.
But YOU are a darlin', Jim.
:)
Cindy
DTS WROTE;
"CINDY: Concerning your last post: You definitely could've gotten work as a "disinformation" specialist for the current adminstration. Oy! Go, now, and sin no more (to be read in your best, Charlton Heston-cum-Ben-Hur-cum-Moses voice). (And for your penance, you are required to actually hug a liberal democrate during the next election).
--DTS "
YES, sweetheart I COULD!
I spin gold from flax-- five days a week! That's what I do for a livin'. Put ME on Meet the Press.
Do you KNOW how hard it is to come up with " news" on a day to day basis in a place where the cows out-number the people? Hell- slim pickin's is TALL COTTON to me.
But you got me on that one.
I'll hug you when I see you.
:)
yer pal,
Cindy
Xanadu <X_a_n_a_d_u@yahoo.com>
Brian's Lament - Thursday, March 6 2003 20:46:47
Buck up, and write your novel - the TV show could tank and 150 years from now your novel could be sitting next to "Frankenstein" on someone's shelf... (yes, it's a ever-so-slight reference to the Nook's recent thread.)
Bern
Lynn
Now in DSL Surround Sound - Thursday, March 6 2003 20:37:20
Back to fiddling with the new connection,
L.
Xanadu <X_a_n_a_d_u@yahoo.com>
Hang On, Parts of This Are a Little Bumpy... - Thursday, March 6 2003 20:33:20
Your observations were accepted without question, Ms. Graham, if I had wanted to call you a liar, I would've. But those observations are scattered across how many trips to the mall? Ask yourself how many people you passed who were NOT accosted quietly and asked to leave. See if you can figure out how great a percentage of the overall mall "population" this group of people who were "discriminated" against. One in a hundred... a thousand... ten thousand? Your observations may be completely accurate, but they are not particularly useful in the debate, because you have not placed them within a context. They are a crafted sample, heavily weighted and designed to make **your** point. They also reflect **your** sensibilities - something that wasn't being debated.
But even if I accept your data, it still doesn't change the facts at hand. That a mall asked people to leave is **not** a violation of anyone's civil liberties, despite your intrinsic "sense" that someone was being wronged by the act. Being asked to leave is not "persecution" - no matter how much you might like to make that argument. If you don't like it, **change the freakin' laws** - but expect me on the other side defending 'em. (That being said - beating the crap out of someone was criminal, and I would have intervened had I thought it was unwarranted...)
And yes - I just seriously slammed **your** little "thusly" - which was titled "WAKE UP AND SMELL THE FASCISM!!!" - you didn't establish your case, you didn't prove your case and you haven't convinced me of jack shit.
I think that covers everything for you - I'm finding the bright lights are hurting my eyes and I think my sense of smell is coming back - time to return the head to a dark, unsanitary place...
***
Bermanator - You wrote in one of your responses to me, "of course no one wants the KKK wearing lynching t-shirts in Harlem, but I also don't think anyone is suggesting that. Don't extrapolate or hyperbolize-- "Give Peace a Chance" *is not an inflammatory statement*."
I wholeheartedly agree - but when you suggest that **the right thing to do** is to abridge the property owners' right to make the rules on their property just because they invite the public there, then you ARE opening the doors to enterprising shitheads who WOULD do something like that, because Harlem shops are "public spaces", as are Jewish shops, and abortion clinics and movie theaters and so on and so on. We are closer than you think - I'm just defending a different principle here.
[GENERAL RANT]
For the last time... Mr. Downs was NOT arrested for wearing the damn t-shirt. He was asked TO LEAVE for wearing the damn t-shirt. (It's a stupid reason, but I could invent a thousand others, only some of which would any damn sense at all.) He refused. At that moment - and ONLY THEN - was any law, either in spirit or letter, broken. And HE broke it. The police were summoned, and THEY ARRESTED HIM - for breaking the law. The only law that was broken. It is NOT the job of the police officer(s) to interpret the law - they are responsible for enforcing it. (I'm getting very tired of the constant references to the nazi's and loading them there jews on the trains, by the by, it's a inaccurate metaphor and it's insulting...) If the police officer had FAILED to arrest him, he would have been derelict in his duty, and should have been fired. After the fact, Mr. Downs suggested it was a free speech issue. He was wrong. If he had left the building, he could have continued to wear the shirt all day long, through the night and into the next day - despite the fact that the owners of the mall didn't like his message - that is free speech. He chose to defy the law.
[/GENERAL RANT]
(Sorry, I just had to do that)
Now, on to the fact people are expressing a "disturbing" desire to "curtail the free speech and expression of people who are anti-war and anti-Bush." - Sorry, it's their right to say stupid things... Freedom of Speech, you know.... If they break a law to **act** on it, give me a call, and I'll be standing right next to you...
But seriously, the world IS full of blowhards - even in our own families - what you do is gently remind them of the relevant rights, and then move on. You can only control a very small part of the world - do your best to be a level head within it. And don't, don't let the bastards get you down.
Bern
Eric
- Thursday, March 6 2003 19:30:19
Finish your book, and if it gets published, let your publisher worry about lawsuits.
Brian Siano <brian@briansiano.com>
- Thursday, March 6 2003 19:22:26
There's this novel I've been working on for a while. It's sort of been an on-and-off thing for a long time, and bits and pieces of its elements go back as far as my high school and college days. But only over the last three years have I actually worked out a semi-decent plot, and applied myself to writing the thing.
I won't spill the details, but that's mainly because it sounds like mush when it's stated baldly and flatly. Here's what's bugging me.
I just heard that there's a Tv show on the air on one of the cable channels, and the description of the show has a lot of elements that are, well, a tad similar. So I'm worried that I'll have a harder time getting into print because of this-- or having to have people wonder if one influenced the other. There's no connection, and no issue of plagiarism at all. It's just the grumble I have that someone else pitched their tent next to some territory I'd had my eye on fo a while.
So, apart from pushing on and getting my work done, any advice?
Diana
- Thursday, March 6 2003 19:6:14
"P.A. Berman
- Thursday, March 6 2003 18:33:49
Diana, at the risk of starting another napalm battle royal, I'll point out that...."
You're so brave. :=)
Bye for now.
Diana
Jim Davis
- Thursday, March 6 2003 18:53:24
Okay, did someone step off the Path while we were away? Is that a dead butterfly on your boot, Eckels?
(You know I love you, Cindy. But comments like that make agoraphobia look very good to me right about now.)
DTS <none>
- Thursday, March 6 2003 18:38:4
--DTS
P.A. Berman
- Thursday, March 6 2003 18:33:49
With this I retire for the night. I hope. I've been taking those Nyquil gelcaps and funny thing is, they give me insomnia. And hyperactivity (notice all my recent posts for evidence). So wish me luck and good night.
PAB
Diana
- Thursday, March 6 2003 18:33:16
"Is it not every bit as un-American to deny the property owners their right to do what they consider to be the politically responsible thing ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY-- as it is to say that Frick 'n Frack had the right to intentionally cause trouble by wearing tee-shirts guaranteed to drop a match in a gas can?
Cindy"
Honestly, I have a problem with it because it happened in a public place, even if the public place was private property, it was still a public place. And also, I don't know what all the laws are concerning such matters, but things I've seen taking place in public arenas, for all the world to see and consider, regardless of who owns the public place such acts were perpetrated on, have been distressing in the extreme, because I can't think it's right that a wrong act, even if it's somehow technically a legal act, should go unprotested. For a couple of examples, I'm sure the German soldiers loading those victims on the trains and hauling them to the concentration camps, and exterminating them, weren't, technically, committing crimes. Slave owners had the right to beat and even kill their slaves, it was perfectly legal to perpetrate all kinds of atrocities against their "property". No "crimes" were being committed in these instances either, except that they WERE crimes, against humanity.
I think some serious civil disobedience was called for in those situations too.
Diana
P.A. Berman
- Thursday, March 6 2003 18:27:34
First, the relevance of the Minnesota Supreme Ct. ruling being bandied about: the reason the trespassing charges were allow to proceed against the protestors in The Mall of the Americas was that they were attempting to persuade shoppers not to make purchases at Macy's. As such, this is "protest speech intended to be provocative" and was not protected speech.
Was Mr. Downs t-shirt "protest speech intended to be provocative"? Certainly that is open to debate. I say it was not. I say it was a tired old hippy platitude that barely warranted a second glance. He was not interefering with normal use or causing a disturbance. I don't think State v. Wicklund applies here, even if it *could* apply.
BTW, "the US Supreme Court ruled in 1980 that California could interpret its state constitution so that free-expression rights were protected even on private property. In some states, therefore, free speech *is* protected in malls, so this Minnesota state ruling should not be held up as the final word in this case. Much of the State Supremes' decision hinges on the gaps b/w the US Constitution and the Minnesota state constitution and this ruling should not be generalized to cover an incident in NY, which could have a very different outcome.
Let me know if we agree and I just don't know it. It's possible.
PAB
PS--Diana, I agree with you. There is ALL KINDS of discriminatory crap that goes on all the time under the radar. Someone like Downs has the means and ability to make a big stink about it, which is why I think it's great that he did it. Most people can't, and those who are in no position to make a stink are the ones who get screwed with the most often, I find.
CEP
Ellison Wonderland, - Thursday, March 6 2003 18:18:22
Overall, the argument went well--although I've learned over the years that trying to predict an outcome on the basis of "how the argument went" is about as accurate as predicting stock-market prices using chicken entrails. (Lyn saw the last of the argument--as I suspected would happen, one of the cases in front of us was taken off calendar.)
Basically, the panel allowed me to get through my initial 13-minute presentation with little interruption. They did interrupt when Don Verelli, on behalf of four record companies who shared our argument as amici for reversal, was speaking, but he still got to the end in good order, leaving me a short period for rebuttal.
Things began to get interesting when Dan Schecter, counsel for AOL, got up, and droned on for four minutes of his introduction without really saying anything. The panel's questioning of Mr. Schecter was much sharper, particularly from Judge Thomas (the youngest of the three judges). At the end, I took my minute to correct a few misimpressions that may have been left by Mr. Schecter's comments.
Sorry that's so sparse, but oral argument on appeal comes down to one thing: DON'T LOSE THE CASE. Particularly for an appellant, one cannot WIN the case without lots of help from the opponent in losing it. An appellant wins a case on the briefs. I can be reasonably certain that I did not lost this case for Harlan at the oral argument. Everything else is up to the judges, who will issue their written decision in from six weeks to eighteen months (on no predictable schedule). I would anticipate much closer to six weeks than to eighteen months... but it's not worth counting/betting on.
Back to Chicago on a redeye tonight, then Chambanana on the train tomorrow night.
Diana
- Thursday, March 6 2003 18:15:17
"I...don't think it's fair of you...I'm in the trenches every day. I do my part"
I would hate to have been unfair to you. If I was I apologize. Really.
(I should point out though that I think it's unfair of *you* to not include FAQ in when addressing this possible unfairness, since I was just agreeing with him)
Diana
Cindy <IAMCINDIANAJONES@netscape.net>
TEXAS USA - Thursday, March 6 2003 18:4:24
Any of y'all see Meet The Press over the weekend? During the program it was mentioned that the worldwide anti-war protests have served Sadam's cause well because the show of support across the world has bolstered his resolve to stand his ground. The reasoning behind the idea was that without outside interference the situation could have resolved itself once the United States began to assemble its troops and artillery for military strike.
The thought was that Sadam would have backed down because he was alone against a mighty giant... as he did before... and that the demonstrators (no matter how lofty their intentions) have-- by their protestations of the impending " illegitimate" war that the United States is waging against poor Sadam for his oil-- have all but guaranteed a war.
They estblished that Sadam is a narcissistic despot who loves to be the center of attention even more than he loves power and control. What would inspire him to leave the limelight-- now that he has a starring role on the world stage-- as the good guy attacked by the evil Capitolist United States while the world-- (even OUTRAGED AMERICANS) cry out with contempt against his enemies. He FEEDS on this.
NOW imagine if you will for a moment-- that the owners of the Mall are among those who believe that these protests are having a deleterious effect on the chances of a peaceful resolution in Iraq.
Consider that the owners of the property subscribe to the theory that the demonstrations against the war have only served to escalate a dire situation and that they-- DETERMINED TO HAVE NO PART IN IT-- chose to disallow demonstrations of that sort on their property. A march held earlier ON THEIR PROPERTY was disbanded, its participants sent packing. Now two Assholes-- a 61 year old man who is educated and well versed in the law and KNOWS BETTER and his THIRTY ONE YEAR OLD SON... who is also a big boy and should know better-- but has his Daddy with him just in case he doesn't... show up on the property of the Mall Owners, their manifest purpose to cause a confrontation by flouting the property owners edicts... which they ultimately succeed in doing.
Is it not every bit as un-American to deny the property owners their right to do what they consider to be the politically responsible thing ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY-- as it is to say that Frick 'n Frack had the right to intentionally cause trouble by wearing tee-shirts guaranteed to drop a match in a gas can?
Cindy
P.A. Berman
- Thursday, March 6 2003 17:59:1
The way I see it, Downs' t-shirt was not interfering with normal use. The case that Joseph Finn cited, the Minnesota Supremes judgement, pertains to protestors actively distributing anti-fur literature and attempting to interfere with shopping. This is not the same situation at all (older dude eating tacos in a John Lennon t-shirt), and I think Downs might receive a different ruling should his case make it that far.
You talk about consequences. No, of course no one wants the KKK wearing lynching t-shirts in Harlem, but I also don't think anyone is suggesting that. Don't extrapolate or hyperbolize-- "Give Peace a Chance" *is not an inflammatory statement*. It didn't mention the president or Hussein or anything remotely topical. Downs' consequence for wearing the innocuous t-shirt was arrest; the mall's consequence for being stupidly restrictive is embarrassing bad publicity. That's fair, isn't it? Both are exercising their rights.
And that idea that this is just one incident so why make a big deal... I disagree. It's happening everywhere in little ways. I have heard MANY people express, in casual conversation, a desire to curtail the free speech and expression of people who are anti-war and anti-Bush. My brother and I, over Christmas, were talking about Eddie Vedder. My brother asserted that Mr. Vedder should damn well move to another country if he persisted in his anti-war statements. I mentioned that Mr. Vedder was exercising his rights under the First Amendment, and that abridgement thereof could be considered fascist. To this my only brother retorted, "Yeah? Then maybe what this country needs is to be a little more fascist!" My own flesh and blood. Don't think he's alone in his sentiments either. Not by a long shot.
This incident is a sign of the times, and we ignore it at our own peril. Sorry to sound melodramatic, but that's how I feel.
PAB
Diana
- Thursday, March 6 2003 17:42:23
Repectfully, I wonder what you're agenda is? What you said about such incidences being rare is so not true. The reason the vast majority of these incidences don't make the news is that they're unreported, and they're quietly accepted, often even by the people who are being discriminated against. No one gave a shit about those teenagers in the mall, for example. Not even the kids themselves. That gay couple just left, that black man just took the shit he was dished out, same with the woman I mentioned. The one person who made anything in the way of a real objection to being persecuted was just some crazy Native American who'd come into town off the reservation for the day. Hardly anyone cared what happened to him. HE had the shit beat out of him for his courage.
Saying what you did looks to me like an instance of someone who's got his head buried somewhere where the light don't shine. Or an instance of someone who's deliberately makng light of civil liberties violations that are rampant in this country for some reason.
Or maybe you're calling me a liar? Because I'm saying what I saw, reporting just a glimpse of some of the many things I've seen, time and and time again. Never mind the things I've been subjected to personally that I've just walked away from. You're wrong. Plain and simple you're just wrong, and/or blind. Or maybe something even worse.
Diana
Xanadu
Damn, I'm High Verbal Today... - Thursday, March 6 2003 17:41:2
It was posted: Wednesday, March 5 2003 16:42:36
Bern
(Who promises to go away for a while and let all of your headaches subside...)
Xanadu <X_a_n_a_d_u@yahoo.com>
David's Thought... - Thursday, March 6 2003 17:31:54
Because the same right that allows her to protest, allows him a response to her "message". As I wrote earlier: "Disagreeing with 'the message' is as fundamental a right as making it to begin with."
_Freedom of Speech_ doesn't mean there are no consequences, because there are - and I have a hell of a lot of respect for someone willing to accept them to stay true to their principle...
Bern
P.A. Berman
- Thursday, March 6 2003 17:22:9
Diana: When you said
"What makes this case so terrible and frightening is the fact that things have gotten so bad that an act as innocouos as walking around in a public place in a tee-shirt with a slogan like, "Give Peace A Chance", could cause such a fascistic, tyrannical "over-kill" kind of reaction."
you said the same thing I did. The innocuousness of the slogan is what makes the reaction so idiotic and wrong. The innocuouness of the slogan throws the absurdity of this case into sharp relief. We are not in disagreement at all.
Respectfully, I also don't think it's fair of you to assume that no one on this board has or will or does get off their asses and tries to make a difference. I'm in the trenches every day. I do my part, and I'm sure many others here do too. Going to jail isn't my way, though.
Andrew: Just because you *CAN* kick someone off your property doesn't mean you *SHOULD*. There are lots of things we can do by law but should not because they are just plain wrong. Adhere to the letter of the law and defy a greater truth, if you get my drift. Also, a mall is not the same as your house. You can forbid any damn thing in your house, but if you open that house up to everyone and anyone for the purpose of commerce, you have to be pretty tolerant. If you're not, fine, you're legally in the right, but then don't be surprised when you are publically embarrassed as someone calls you on it. You want to have absurd, overly-restrictive policies? Go right ahead, but then don't cry if there's a backlash. That's the price you pay when you take a stand, right?
So Andrew, to answer your question, no, obviously it's not out of our systems, but that's OK. That's what we like around here, and if I do say so myself, it's all stayed highly civil. Yay us.
PAB
Xanadu <X_a_n_a_d_u@yahoo.com>
At least there aren't any flames... - Thursday, March 6 2003 17:16:58
I never did. Go ahead, look. I did say "I AM supporting the owners' right to do so. Even if I think they are being big, stupid, dumb-asses of themselves in the exercise of that right." (which, upon re-quote, should have substituted "making" for "being")
They were complete, and total asses for having a problem with the shirt, period... There, does that make you feel better?
I've been trying to make a point that the private property rights of the owner do, in fact, supersede the rights of free speech by visitors to that property while **on** that property (and according to Joseph Finn, the Supreme Court agrees with that) - it is THAT principle I am defending - because if we abridge that right - I can assure you, we will be heading toward that unpleasant America you were talking about on greased skids.
I also have to add this... You guys are arguing about one incident, in one mall - in a country with freakin' tens of thousands of malls and millions of standalone businesses - and are calling it a totalitarian crackdown. It's ONE incident, gang... And before you write about how many times this is happening unreported - let's at least agree on one thing - if it was happening to any degree at all, don't you think it WOULD make the news? The one incident did. And now that we have the catalyst, don't you think the media and oppressed people around the country would be salivating at the opportunity to present the public with a conspiracy of speech bigots? I think it's pretty safe to assume this kind of thing isn't happening in large numbers. Small numbers, yes, but not large. Based on that kind of percentage - it would appear that mall owners seem to have their heads screwed on OK, at least as a group.
Of course there are idiots and bad people out there - and yes, they are going to use whatever methods available to shut their opposition down - but realistically, the numbers are tiny. And to protect the rights of all, we have to tolerate the few idiots in every group... Based on this incident, you guys want to abridge an existing, well defined right, to reinforce another "right" that never actually existed.
David - thank you, and I tend to agree with your thoughts - but I didn't say both sides were equally intolerant - I just noted that the general intolerance level was rising on both sides...
Bern
Eric
- Thursday, March 6 2003 17:5:16
Get ready for a long labor. Court decisions aren't handed down the same day. This one will probably take 6-8 weeks.
David Loftus <dloft59@earthlink.net>
SUBJ: tolerance and open-mindedness, - Thursday, March 6 2003 16:42:11
> I see an intolerance from both sides. This war is
> causing passionate response from both sides. To
> expect to make a clear "statement" either way,
> without anticipating a pitched response, and then
> feigning surprise and anger at the other
> side for such intolerance is just amusing to me.
> Both sides are becoming more "intolerant" of the
> other - the "prowar" side happens to enjoy an edge
> right now...
I disagree that both sides are equally intolerant. Liberals and peaceniks certainly have their stupidities, blind spots, and orthodoxies, but the "pro-war" contingent comes from a side that is traditionally less tolerant, because less liberal.
The dictionary definition of "liberal" (or you may try the alternative "humanist"), includes the meaning "tolerant of the opinions of others." Though liberals are just as prone as anyone else to get self-righteous and presumptuous about "facts," we do have a tendency to give other points of view more credence than I think folks who favor war, capital punishment, banning of abortion, prayer in the schools, and similar positions, I believe.
Anyone catch this past week's news story about the female basketball player from Manhattanville College (where is that? Kansas?) who has been turning her back on the U.S. flag all season during the playing of the National Anthem? CNN interviewed some Marine vet on the street who trotted out the tired old shibboleth about how "thousands of people died for her right to protest." Damn straight, they did; so why is he upset that she's freely exercising that right? Shutting her down would make the sacrifice of those thousands of lives meaningless. It's especially appropriate that the college has been having its best season in 20 years, though to which reason one may attribute the sold-out crowds in the stands, one can only guess.
Andrew <drew71@hotmail.com>
San Diego, CA - Thursday, March 6 2003 16:40:53
I really do see what you (and everyone else on "that" side of the fence) are getting at.
I *DO NOT* condone, support, or agree with the Mall's response to this issue. But, I do know that their response was well within their legal rights. I'm with Jay on this. If Mr. Downs was really trying to test the waters of free speech he should not have tested them in a facility where free speech was *not* guaranteed.
Test it on the courthouse steps.
Test it front of a federal office building.
Then you'll know.
-Andrew
Who has posted way too much in the last two days....
Andrew <drew71@hotmail.com>
San Diego, CA - Thursday, March 6 2003 16:28:1
In Bern's defense, I don't think that he found the shirt to be offensive, he was pointing out that the Crossgate folks did. That it was their right to ask him to leave the premises, and that, like it or not, the management of a privately owned facility often creates rules (as allowed by law) that some people may find unduly strict. Keep in mind that Federal law prohibits a business from discriminating by race, ethnicity or gender.
Look, if you don't like the way a business is run, hit 'em where it hurts most.... the pocket book. The law that this particular property owner will, most certainly, hide behind, is the same law that protects you and me from silly things like unlawful search and seizure.
I for one do not want someone telling me what I can or cannot allow on my property. I still reserve the right to ask you (generic "you") to leave and call the cops if you won't. I would hate to see what would happen if they took that from me.
BTW, have we all gotten this one out of our system yet?
-Andrew
Diana
- Thursday, March 6 2003 16:16:18
Thanks for your kind words to me, and I agree that it would be inspiring if even a few of the brilliant and well-educated people who post here would get up off their arses, and ACTIVATE...I expect they might find themselves well suited for battle, and feeling better about themselves and their place and purpose in this world than they've ever felt before in their lives. They can only imagine this feeling until they've tried walking the walk, not just talking the talk.
Regarding:
"It is the very innocuousness of the slogan that makes this case so egregious and infuriating"
I respectfully disagree. What makes this case so terrible and frightening is the fact that things have gotten so bad that an act as innocouos as walking around in a public place in a tee-shirt with a slogan like, "Give Peace A Chance", could cause such a fascistic, tyrannical "over-kill" kind of reaction.
It's even more distressing to see how even well-educated and caring people like the one's who post in here can be so blind to, and unaware of, how bad things are. They're just not getting it. I wish even a few of you, or even one of you would wake, and take a real look around outside. Spend some time in a place like the mall in my city. See the kind of things I've seen. Examine some facts. Make some inferences and deductions.This isn't abstract. This stuff is going on, it has been going on for a long time, and is only going to get worse,
Bye for now.
CINDY <IAMCINDIANAJONES@netscape.net>
TEXAS USA - Thursday, March 6 2003 16:15:32
This is feels like waiting for delivery of a baby-- I keep wringing my hands.
I hope all is well,
Cindy
P.A. Berman
- Thursday, March 6 2003 15:41:28
Bern: What I find disquieting is your willingness to characterize a "Give Peace a Chance" t-shirt as offensive. How...utterly...absurd. No one in their right mind considers giving peace a chance to be an aggressive or hostile or disturbing phrase. It didn't say anything about Iraq or Bush or any particular war. People were *projecting* all kinds of meaning on it and overreacted. It is the very innocuousness of the slogan that makes this case so egregious and infuriating.
What I find troubling is this idea that business owners can eject patrons from their establishment on the basis of such trivial irritants. Don't like the guy's t-shirt? Don't look at him. Simple as that. I see offensive stuff every day on people's autmobile bumpers. Does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to park their cars in the mall parking lot? I think this road, which starts with business owners refusing service to people based on their disagreement with a banal t-shirt slogan, is the devil's road that leads to nowhere good. Down that road lies an America I don't recognize and certainly don't like.
Jay: Mr. Downs is not a coward b/c he knew that he would not go to jail. What he was doing was making an important point that other people cannot afford to make. Like me, for instance. I'd love to wear a t-shirt with a picture of Bush that says "International Terrorist" on it to the mall, but if I get arrested, I can kiss my career goodbye. Mr. Downs was able to put himself in harm's way (with a much less inflammatory slogan) by virtue of his position, and actually make the point without any harm coming to anyone. I think that's excellent.
PAB
PS--Still no word from Mr. Ellison?
Faisal A. Qureshi
Manchester, UK - Thursday, March 6 2003 15:9:42
For your last set of comments concerning your duties to make the world a better place, I sincerely salute you. Now, if only there were a few more folks who'd get off their arses and do the same.
FAQ
Jim Davis
- Thursday, March 6 2003 15:8:17
XANADU: Not much to add to your post, other than it's mostly on target.
Diana
- Thursday, March 6 2003 15:5:16
In the case of Christ Valentine, I called some Native American rights organization, I forget the name, they have an office in Yreka, or Eureka, somewhere like that (I fforget now, it's been a while) They told me they would need to see a petition, or have had X number of complaints
from this county in order to justify taking action, and besides this county was really out of their jurisdiction, and blah, blah, blah. The local ACLU never did return my calls. (Someone called me weeeks later asking me to join the ACLU but I was disillusioned with them by then.
When the fuckers take to kicking in YOUR doors for even daring to post your objections on a message board like this one (and except for one of you who mentioned having at least sent some letters to protest that mess in that mall, that's ALL any of you seem willing to do) maybe THEN you'll want to finally fight back, but it will probably be too late at that point unless you're rich and/or famous and/or charismatic enough to get other people to give a shit.
As for me, I think I'm somewhat less FOS. I organized a benefit concert for Earth First a while back (in the process of which I was arrested, and spent three days in the county jail, and that's how I first met Christ Valentine. He was in the holding cell next to mine. He started talking to me through the wall. I was freaking out because I was locked up and worrying about my son, and he started asking me questions, and he introduced himself, and he called me "little sister" and he started singing to me, and saved my sanity on that day.
It ALWAYS ends up being about attempts by the-powers-that-be to curtail the people's right to assemble, and protest and speak freely. THIS IS NOT...*N*O*T*, NOT a free country. The Earth First! West Coast co-ordinator for that concert I was organizing was "accidently" blown up and reduced to basic chemical elements by a car bomb three days before the concert. FBI reports say he and another person in that car were carrying this bomb around , with the apparent intention of setting it off someplace. As I happen to know that this is bullshit, and as I was arrested on that same day, I got the crazy idea the concert and the car bomb and me being arrested for the first time in my life, might be all connected. But maybe it was all just some mad coincidence.
Diana
Jim Davis
- Thursday, March 6 2003 14:54:49
1) Crossgates DEFINITELY overreacted, make no mistake. On Dec. 21, MORE THAN TWO MONTHS AGO, a group of approximately 20 people, wearing t-shirts that read "Peace on Earth," wandered around the mall; security told them to leave, and they did. That was it. There were no arrests, no smash-and-grabs, no burning or looting, no tussles with police, no nothing. This wasn't Seattle during the WTO protests by any reasonable stretch of the imagination, so the notion that Downs and his son presented ANY threat to public property or the other patrons is absurd in the extreme. When mall security got the complaint, they should've laughed it off. End of story.
2) This is an interesting case for one reason. It addresses a clash between two inviolable rights, a clash that's becoming increasingly common: first, the right of property and business owners to protect the integrity of their establishments; and second, the right of the individual to exercise her or her free speech. As more and more public space is privatized by business, and as corporate culture extends its reach into almost every aspect of our daily lives, incidents like these act as the canaries in the coal mine. That's why, when this stuff happens, I never piss and moan about lawyers getting involved. Folks, that's WHAT THEY'RE THERE FOR, and we should all be glad for it. Laws by themselves are meaningless; they're only words on a page. It requires the hard work of the men and women in our courts to give them flesh, and make them truly applicable to our lives. Again: COURTS ARE WHERE THESE THINGS GET FIGURED OUT. So even if Downs WAS hoping for a legal battle to result from this, it doesn't bother me in the least. It's an important issue, and I hope something comes of it.
3) And to link it to our estimable patron, that's why Harlan's fight should've gotten more official support than it did. Even if the various writers' organizations didn't agree 100% with his suit, they should've helped out anyway. As we march into this Brave New Disneyland of our making, there are some serious questions remaining: What are the responsibilities of corporate ISPs regarding the protection of copyright? Should they be more proactive? Are newsgroups and websites "private property", even if they can't truly exist without the software created and marketed by large, subscriber-based ISPS? And so on, and so forth. That's what certain critics of KICK never understood: in issues like these, there ARE no "frivolous" lawsuits. (Sorry, Harlan's been on my mind a lot today. I'll leave the legalese to CEP and others more qualified than myself.)
4) FINALLY . . . if you haven't done so, run to your nearest video outlet and get Volume 3 of the complete FATHER TED on DVD. Any britcom that features a show with the title "Kicking Bishop Brennan Up the Arse" needs to be seen by EVERYONE, forthwith.
Joseph J. Finn <josephfinn@mac.com>
Chicago, IL UNITED STATES - Thursday, March 6 2003 13:48:25
http://www.mnclu.org/nr_moa.html
One thing that is important to note in this case is that the Mall of America was not supported by state money, but by local government monies. In particular:
"The court ruled that $186 million in public financing from the City of Bloomington and the Bloomington Port Authority did not constitute state action, so the Mall of America is not under the same obligation as the State to respect Minnesotans’ freedom of expression."
Interesting case, actually.
Regards,
Joseph
Frank Church
- Thursday, March 6 2003 13:30:17
Xanadu <X_a_n_a_d_u@yahoo.com>
Stepping in it Again - Thursday, March 6 2003 13:18:46
OK, I'm gonna call you on that. Please cite relevant code to back that statement up. (you can probably tell I'm setting you up - I was surprised at your statement, did some research, and unless you mean religion, you misspoke.)
According to what I found, at the US EEOP web site, was this: "race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age."
The relevant laws follow: "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older; Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments; Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government; and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination."
OK, with the exception of religion - everything else on that list is a permanent, unchangable characteristic of a person - and religion is probably "unchangable", too, when you think about how seriously we cling to our philosophical frameworks. This is precisely correct - we should not tolerate discrimination based on unchangable characteristics. But, if you notice - speech is NOT on that list.
I did some further research, and I came up with this site:
http://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/civil_rights_law_ada/
And in the handy FAQ they provided, I plucked this link: "WHAT DISTINGUISHES UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION FROM LAWFUL DISCRIMINATION?" And they said this: "Decisions become unlawfully discriminatory when race, creed, national origin or ethnicity (and, in some cases, gender) are factors which cause one person to be treated differently than another. Some states have laws that also protect against discrimination on the basis of marital status or sexual preference."
Again, speech is not on that list. Think about it - your worldview may get spun around a bit.
Speech is NOT protected against discrimination.
Let me phrase it another way - you can face consequences for your speech. Not from the government, mind you - that is covered by the First Amendment - but from your fellow citizens. And private property owners have the further "right" to ask you to leave their property if you continue to exercise speech they do not like. According to Chuck - as long as they are consistent in asking people to leave who make the same "speech", they are allowed to do so. (The mall can show consistency - they had several people removed the previous week for exactly the same reasons - and actually, given that circumstance, Crossgates Mall was going to be facing a lawsuit even if they had left Mr. Downs alone - it just would've come from one of last week's protesters.)
Bermanator and Brian - Your mixing of "public property" and "in public" as interchangable concepts is disquieting. If private property owners are legally forced to allow offensive speech on their property, just because they allow the public - I can see a time, very shortly, where "bad guys" are going to get ahold of it and you're gonna see the KKK in black-owned stores wearing provocative t-shirts - you're gonna see anti-semites camping out in Jewish neighborhoods, your going to see pro-life "warriors" filling the chairs of clinics. Basically, you're gonna see any asshole with an ax to grind causing sparks. What you are asking for is a significant abridgment of property owner rights - it is dangerous precedent - and I respectfully disagree.
cookie - (I really owe you an email, I'll get one out soon...) When you say, "I'm really frightened by the increasing intolerance of patriotic rhetoric.", I have to laugh. (and I'm using your statement just 'cause it was recent...) I see an intolerance from both sides. This war is causing passionate response from both sides. To expect to make a clear "statement" either way, without anticipating a pitched response, and then feigning surprise and anger at the other side for such intolerance is just amusing to me. Both sides are becoming more "intolerant" of the other - the "pro war" side happens to enjoy an edge right now...
Bern
Diana
- Thursday, March 6 2003 13:12:26
One day there was this bag lady pushing her shopping cart full of her scruffy wordly goods who was quietly asked by the security guards to leave the mall because her appearance didn't fit in with the image of such an upscale
mall. Another time I saw this floozy looking girl, with amazing legs tottering through the mall in stiletto heels and a mini skirt, with her décolletage overflowing and her wig a mite askew who was quietly asked by the security guards to leave the mall because her appearance didn't fit in with the image of such an upscale mall. Another time this group of local "alternative" school kids were in there hanging out & styling
in their varied "gangsta" gear outfits, who were not so quietly asked to "break it up" and "take it outside" by the security guards because their appearance was causing consternation amongst some of the more upscale patrons of the mall, ("there've been complaints") Once I saw two pretty gay boy-toy looking guys (up from up from L A maybe?) who were dressed
to the nines, all done up "fancy" in speedos and spangles and long silk scarves.They were giggling, and holding hands and brushing shoulders with each other, and just generally carrying on as some people newly in love are inclined to do,
who were not so quietly asked to leave because their appearance and behavior didn't fit in with the image of such an upscale mall. And then there was the time this young Native American man (who's known by the street name of, "Christ Valentine", because he's sublimely and openly mystical, and a sweetheart
of a guy) who was meandering around the mall with his hands in his pockets chanting softly to himself, with his shirt open ( but still ON) with his gloriously chest covered with "native warrior" tattoos exposed for all the world to see, who
was "escorted" from the mall in handcuffs, arrested for loitering. Later he was thrown naked, and with his face beaten nearly past recognition, and still in handcuffs
into a cell at the local police station, after some officers had for some reason shaved his head (he was still chanting, by the way, as he often does, when we bailed him out later that day) (his bliss is nearly unperturbable) One time I was shopping in the mall branch ofThrifty PayLess or whatever they hell they called it, no one was paying me any mind, then these youngish looking two black guys came in and all the silent alarms must
have gone off somewhere, because they were suddenly pretty much totally being helped by three different burly looking store clerks, all at the same time while these black guys were just trying to by an alarm clock with a radio in it for their sister. I actually felt so sick and ashamed by that particular scene that I had to go buy my cigarettes elsewhere where they cost a dollar extra, but I just couldn't watch that shit anymore.
Bye for now.
Diana
DTS <none>
- Thursday, March 6 2003 12:45:11
--DTS
DTS <none>
- Thursday, March 6 2003 12:33:30
--DTS
Yeah, I know...
- Thursday, March 6 2003 12:30:53
Sorry. Had a really bad morning. Took stuff a little too personally. I agree to disagree and I'll try to reign the hyperbole ..wait...oh it's not getting better.
I'll address Cookie's very valid points later when the ice melts off the testes.
Jay
Jim Davis
- Thursday, March 6 2003 12:29:7
cookie <cookiecoogan@yahoo.com>
- Thursday, March 6 2003 12:28:0
Jim Davis
- Thursday, March 6 2003 12:24:15
Jim Davis
- Thursday, March 6 2003 12:22:54
I've worked in a few small businesses myself, so I'm VERY sympathetic to some of the points you've raised. But the thing about this incident that concerns me most is the idea that the national dialogue over this invasion has become so debased, a simple slogan like "Give Peace A Chance" can cause this kind of a ruckus. That there was a asshole who complained about it isn't surprising; that it actually progressed to the level it did astonishes and depresses me. I OWN t-shirts like that. My clothes-sense is rudimentary enough as it is--now I have to worry about some rent-a-cop hassling me about it?
Of course, as someone who's actually been arrested for acts of civil disobedience, I'm probably more ready than most to take a rubber-bullet or two.
DTS <none>
- Thursday, March 6 2003 12:16:32
Manically yrs.,
DTS
cookie
- Thursday, March 6 2003 12:8:8
What you're saying is that the tee-shirt wearer KNEW that it was the mall who would suffer the consequences (not himself nor the person who complained) and you view this as wrong because it is opportunist and obscures more important civil rights issues. Are you saying this guy SHOULDN'T have made a media-driven stink over this because he should know it's insignificant and that he won't really have to deal with the consequences?
Is that it?
So then me--playing the role of Joan Q. Publique--comes in and says that I see the problem as being the intolerance of the complainer (not the message of Peace which is probably ubiquitous in the mall @ Christmas nor Security, who were trying---however ineptly---to enforce ill-defined guidlines, nor the Police, who were simply responding to the call). I think PA Berman's post is right on. I'm really frightened by the increasing intolerance of patriotic rhetoric.
I don't understand why there was any complaint in the first place.
DTS <none>
- Thursday, March 6 2003 12:7:2
--DTS
Jay - Last Post of the Day
- Thursday, March 6 2003 11:59:16
Cookie said, "Am I the only one here who thinks that the true "problem" in the teeshirt thing is not the wearer, not security, and certainly not the police, but the intolerant asshole who had to bitch about it in the first place?"
Right, but as a business...what do you do? Sorry, sir..that's his right. Where do I, as a businessman, define what is proper and what is offfensive? THAT sounds judgemental and biased to me.
I'll give it a rest now. Thanks, Jim. I needed the cold water on the balls.
Jay
- Thursday, March 6 2003 11:56:33
Try pulling this shit in a courthouse, or in the lobby of a corporation and see how tolerant and supportive the security force it. Please, someone with actual balls and time on their hands - recreate what RaRa did where it matters and see how fast your civil rights are violated. THEN we can have a discussion about civil liberties.
Jim Davis
- Thursday, March 6 2003 11:56:7
Jim Davis
- Thursday, March 6 2003 11:53:15
So how are Pam and the baby doing?
DTS <none>
- Thursday, March 6 2003 11:45:44
--DTS
DTS <none>
- Thursday, March 6 2003 11:44:23
--DTS
Jay
- Thursday, March 6 2003 11:43:23
YES YES YES!!!! Sad that when two different viewpoints get together, the private sector has to deal with it by making one out to be the asshole, make a judgement call that might be politically unpopular. The business has the obligation to deal with it. Now I wonder what hasn't been reported - was there some sort of altercation? Some disruption that the mall (no comment) or RaRa (I was just sitting there and they mall nazis came to get me!) haven't mentioned.
DTS <none>
- Thursday, March 6 2003 11:40:39
Without even a touch of sarcasm,
--DTS
Jay Smith
- Thursday, March 6 2003 11:40:21
Rather, if "NOT". And sorry my typing gets worse when I'm excited. :)
cookie
- Thursday, March 6 2003 11:36:33
I saw a picture of one of the teeshirts today. "Peace on Earth." I'll bet at Christmastime the mall had peace symbols everywhere. Guess it's okay to promote peace in December then forget about it in the muck of March.
Jay Smith
Another trip to Radio Shack for parts... - Thursday, March 6 2003 11:32:9
Well, DT's, yes. He did know. If you account for the fact that this was a protest then YES, he was a sly Moe Foe. The fact that he has contacts on every level of law enforcement in that town pretty much gives him a cozy, warm blanket in case there's an arrest. Now the mall is dropping the charges because 100 protesters are disrupting commerce at the mall. Big surprise there. What a success. The war goes on, but people can't get to the Bon Ton today because some cranky liberals think RaRa's rights were violated. How effective a protest was that?
So are we saying that. if you own a business and someone comes is wearing a shirt (NEVER MIND WHAT IT SAYS) and it causes a problem with another customer and disrupts your ability to do business, are you saying you don't have the right to regulate that activity? ...in your own business? In your own home? You can't throw out someone for pissing in the punch at the cookout? That's ridiculous. Never mind if you agree or disagree with the politics; that's not the point. The point it that private citizens and businesses have the right to execrize control over their property when it threatens their safety and security.
Does that extend to middle-aged ex-hippies in t-shirts pissing off a few warmongers looking for batteries at Radio Shack? Stupid as it sounds, yes. If I were having a good time at, say, an ice rink, drinking beer and spouting the every-so-often F-bomb in front of a family with kids does that mean my free speech makes me immune to the proprietor's code of conduct? If Scott comes to me and asks me to shut up or leave (but in a nicer way) is he violating my Constitutional rights? (assuming the rink were in the US, of course.) If so, then never mind that you're disrupting business by holding your White Power march in my food court...you're protected by the Bill of Rights.
None of the charges against RaRa were free-speech related. The business made a decision about the situation, it gave the customer a choice - remove the offending material or leave. The customer refused either option so the mall made good on the threat. I doubt the mall had any intention of pressing charges. Security is just designed to act tough and threaten people who violate the rules of conduct; code of conduct designed to keep 15 year olds in line when ADULTS aren't around to make them behave.
So at WORST, RaRa is a coward, knowing full well he was never at risk for any punishment to these ridiculous charges. At best, he's a well-intentioned man who couldn't risk anything more for his cause than to put on a shirt at the mall and was caught in the spotlight and hailed as some sort of folk hero like some modern-day suburban Billy Jack. Bullshit. If he were a real protest-hungry Joe, he would have taken it to a public building, not a private one. Laws regarding conduct on private property are far different than in public. Sadly, the media and the public have a hard time distinguishing between them.
Brian Siano <brian@briansiano.com>
- Thursday, March 6 2003 11:5:44
Look, gang. It doesn't MATTER what the guy "knew" or not. It just _doesn't_. The basic issue here is what the guy _did_, and whether we live in a society where such innocuous actions can and will be _punished_. THAT is FAR more important than any insinuations about the guy's bad faith.
If I walk into a mall, or a McDonald's, or a movie theater, wearing a T-shirt that reads "Give Peace a Chance," I shouldn't _have_ to worry about security guards swooping in to escort me off the premises. It is an abuse of power, an act of intimidation and coercion, and should not happen in a civilized society.
And let's say I repeated that man's experiment, and wandered into the King of Prussia Mall wearing the same kind of T-shirt. I'm going in wondering _if_ someone'll give me shit. And if it happens? So WHAT if I "knew." The point is that nobody SHOULD give you shit for that sort of thing.
So what is Brian saying about "submissive, obedience-to-authority mindsets?" Simple. Anyone who raises this "he knew what he was doing" bullshit is buying into a cowering acceptance of power. Here's why. This "he knew what he was doing" places all the blame on the guy behaving out-of-bounds-- and not only avoids, but DISMISSES the far more important question over whether such behavior _should_ be punished. It is a cowardly defense of power, made even worse because it presents a pose of hard-eyed realism.
I remember when the Ayatollah Khomeini issued the _fatwah_ against Salman Rushdie. A lot of people disgraced themselves in that controversy-- religious figures faulted Rushdie for failing to consider the sentiments of crazed religious fanatics, for example. Several people actually advanced the idea that Rushdie "knew what he was doing." Bullshit. There was NO precedent for the Rushdie case, and even if he DID know what the maniac Khomeini would do, how does that knowledge make the _fatwah_ any less evil?
Imagine this. Imagine if your loved one-- girlfriend, boyfriend, child, whoever-- wandered into a 7-11 in a rough neighborhood to buy oragne juice. Suddenly, in walk a bunch of thugs who start firing bullets at all the witnesses-- and your Loved One now faces a lifetime in a wheelchair, slurping food through a straw, as he or she struggles to regain speech and hearing and maybe even their entire left side. Fix that image in your mind. Now. Imagine someone telling you that your Loved One "must have known what he or she was doing" by risking life and limb by going into that horrible place. Imagine telling the Loved One that as well.
DTS <none>
- Thursday, March 6 2003 10:35:26
Yrs., in vigilance over sneaky MFs,
--DTS
P.A. Berman
- Thursday, March 6 2003 10:30:59
PAB
PS--Any word on how Mr. Ellison did in court today?
Jay
Another Rumor from Dark Horizons - Thursday, March 6 2003 10:11:36
Jay Smith
- Thursday, March 6 2003 10:8:14
But it wasn't so much about the war than about "I'm being oppressed!" which is NOT the case. The media only picked up on it because it looked like the mall is pro-war and didn't like the anti-war Ra Ra so it kicked hiim out. That's not the situation. By the time you get to a third-person account, it seems like some official police body restricted his free speech under threat of prison.
I see the other side of it. I appreciate the fact that the man wants to protest war. But the down side is that he did it in a destructive way. He used the mall, its security and management and the media as tools. he didn't come out and lead a bigger protest from the night before, he came out and started his own shit at the expense of the security officers and the mall. So for his fifteen minutes of unoriginal and uninspired protest, the mall gets to spend its time and money reversing the bad PR, the security department gets tossed around dealing with copycats who are going to show up in shirts and start shit...the people who pay the cost of this guy's actions have nothing to do with the war.
I understand the slippery slope you pose, so how about this; it would have been a more effective protest if he had done the same thing in a federal building. More risk, more glory, and he would actually protest at a site that is at least partially responsible for the politics of war.
Brian Siano <brian@briansiano.,com>
- Thursday, March 6 2003 10:8:12
I have an old PDF of test layouts, but I could never settle on the right satirical "voice."
Alex Jay Berman <alexjay@earthlink.net>
Philly, - Thursday, March 6 2003 9:42:1
If private entities were allowed to eject ehmever they wanted for whatever rerason, then fine. But that's not the case. Any place of business which discriminates against someone because of their race, ethnicity, gender, OR BELIEFS--those "We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service" signs aside--will get spanked, and spanked hard. Look at the Denny's incidents some years back. Texaco. The current furor over the Augusta Golf Club. And many, many others. It is not so much a case of the clearly-defined issue of freedom of speech as it is a case of discrimination. And if the plaintiffs are smart, they'll play it that way.
And so what if the man went in with the realization that he might be accosted? Selma. Washington. The March on the Pentagon. Even if it was a manufactured event, it was simply a case of the most civil of disobediences.
BURNING THE FLAG: I'm fer it.
And you know why? Because it simply pointsup the hypocrisy and ignorance of those who would make it illegal via Constitutional amendment.
Why's that? Well, I was a Cub Scout for a good while (got up to Webelo before I realized it wasn't for me), and I learned to respect the flag as a symbol--and that the only approved ways to dispose of a tattered or soiled flag is to bury it--or BURN it.
(I'm also for the dumping of "The Star-Spangled Banner" as our national anthem and replacing it with, say, "America the Beautiful" as performed by Ray Charles. Not just because "SSB" is a paean to the flag and not the country, but because it's neither melodic nor really anthemic--that English drinking song to which Francis Scott Key's poem was set is nothing more than a collection of arpeggios which frustrate most singers. Hell, I'd be willing to bet that of the people here, only Cookie and I and amaybe a few others can sing the whole song and not have it sound reedy or cracked or like crap.
And damnit, an anthem should be something you can SWAY to.
Of course, lyrically speaking, Woody Guthrie's "This Land is Your Land" would be best, but I simply prefer the musicality of "America the Beautiful.")
LYNN: Ah, the restriction on wearing gang attire is a little lessfascistic in nature, if you take the "could cause a disturbance" part into account.
When someone runs the risk of inciting gunfire simply by wearing a red or blue bandanna, then more than just the wearer's rights are at risk. However sad a commentary this may be on our society, this rule is far less arbitrary and far less inappropriate.
JAY: Part of your distaste stems from your belief that this was a calculated act. But you know what? I have no problem with that, and I'll explain why.
You also seem to feel the offense is too dinky to merit a brouhaha--"NOW - tell me when a cop picks him up off the street, throws him in jail and makes the charge Treason or Sedition."
Well, I'm seeing this hue and cry as an attempted antibiotic to stave off that possibility. This was, I believe, meant to be a wake-up call to call attention to the overly nationalistic and wrongheaded tenor of the nation at present. Imagine Rev. Niemoller standing up BEFORE they "came for me." Or think of an antibiotic used to get rid of a small inflammation before it becomes a raging infection.
Also--the whoile IDEA of civil protest is to make it PUBLIC. You cannot then fault a protester for seeking publicity.
(A side note: There's a star high school basketball player from this area who has of late been showing her dissent for the war buildup by turning to face the other way from the flag when the anthem is played. Shee's been booed and jeered and, on a few occasions, threatened, but is sticking to her guns. I'm proud for the kid. She has silently found an public avenue to express her beliefs and isn't backing down.
[and for those of you who say that sports aren't the place for airing one's political feelings--well, fine. Then stop playing the national anthem at them. You do that, and political stuff'll cease.])
FAQ
- Thursday, March 6 2003 9:19:17
ROTFLMAO!
Finder
- Thursday, March 6 2003 9:4:56
Seeing big vans with huge antenna packages that will do everything - from establishing satellite uplinks to providing a nifty conduit for Colossus to ring up Guardian for the purposes of global domination - I realized my company was WAAAAY out of its league...
Cindy <IAMCINDIANAJONES@netscape.net>
TEXAS USA - Thursday, March 6 2003 7:18:0
LOL!!!
You devil.
:)
Cindy
DTS <none>
- Thursday, March 6 2003 6:47:26
;)
--DTS
Forrester
- Thursday, March 6 2003 6:12:57
Ha®lan: Today's events bring back memories of one of your appearances. The way you described the studio's & Cameron's legal counsel and "feeling like Billy Batson walking thru the subway, past the statues of the Seven Deadly Sins."
May we soon hear you proclaiming, at the top of your lungs, head flung back, arms open wide, "I'm the king of the world!"
-Forrester
Hodge <NODKIN3@aol.com>
San Diego, CA USA - Thursday, March 6 2003 1:52:54
Give them hell in court tomorrow! We're behind you all the way! Hodge
Jim Davis
- Thursday, March 6 2003 0:20:11
It's Harlan®!
It's Ellison®!
It's Harlan Ellison®!
Warning: Harlan Ellison® may suddenly accelerate to dangerous speeds.
Harlan Ellison® contains a liquid core, which if exposed due to rupture should not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
Ingredients of Harlan Ellison® include an unknown glowing substance which fell to Earth, presumably from outer space.
*sigh* I'm getting loopy. Time for bed.
Jim Davis
- Thursday, March 6 2003 0:19:6
I'd wish you luck in court tomorrow, but that's a horribly inadequate phrase. The truth is, if you win this bastard ("*WHEN* you win," I meant to type), it won't be due to anything as ephemeral as chance; it will be because your voice was clear, your arguments were sound, your preparation was thorough and your cause was more-than-just. So I'll just share my fervent hope that the presiding judge has ears to hear and eyes to see, and this fucking thing is put to bed before any more all-too-precious time is wasted (time that we all know can never be regained). When you let slip last month that you'd only finished a few stories in the past couple years . . . well, that's when I got a real inkling of the toll this battle has exacted on you.
Enough is enough. Go out tomorrow, and take back the only thing that matters: the right to live your life and do your work--because the work is the ONLY thing we have to show for our brief time in this "muddy vesture of decay"--ON YOUR OWN TERMS. In the end, that's all there is. So fight, and don't worry about the financial cost, because as long as I and other people who care about you have anything to say about it, you won't be moving out of Ellison Wonderland anytime soon. (Shit, with the Ackermansion taking a fall, SOMEONE'S got to pick up the slack, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk. I'm joking, of course--though if you charged for admission, it WOULD defray some of those legal fees . . .)
Chris L
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 23:16:4
Give 'em hell. I've told you before I think what you're doing is damned important. I'm proud to know you're fighting the good fight.
DAREDEVIL:
Just gave in and saw it.
Words fail. Words fail.
I can't believe this film ever got made.
I can't really say much more than that.
Words fail.
Diana
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 22:28:23
No doubt you've sensibly gone to sleep by now so as to be zippy and peppy in the morning for your next legal onslaught against AO-Hell.
I want you to win Sir.
I want you to be cool with it if you don't.
At least you're actually making an effort, not just running your mouth, and typing out melodramatic rhetoric, and whining about how much what they did sucks and then going off to take a nap or watch a movie, or something else abstract and cerbral and whimpy like that. I think you're so tough. It nearly gives me the faints just thinking about it. You've spoiled me for other men.
Bye for now.
Diana
For some reason I didn't post the whole answer The I Ching gave me to my question so I'm doing it now.
"Waiting. Have faith. Bright success. Perseverance brings good fortune. Crossing the great river brings benefit.
Nourishment, strength in the face of danger, patience; certainty of reaching a goal
Waiting. If you are sincere, you have light and success. Perseverance brings good fortune"
Jon Stover
Canada - Wednesday, March 5 2003 22:16:23
...
So on a dare, a friend of mine's getting a tattoo of Carrot Top on the back of his calf. That and misremembering the title of a Mordecai Richler novel as _Solomon Grundy Was Here_ have had me in stitches all day. Come to think of it, a novel about a Jewish kid from Montreal who also happens to be a grey, eight-foot tall synthetic humanoid supervillain might make for a good CBC children's series...
Cheers, Jon
Lynn
Bombs? Nobody said anything about *bombs*! - Wednesday, March 5 2003 22:15:32
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=1807
L.
Cindy <IAMCINDIANAJONES@netscape.net>
TEXAS USA - Wednesday, March 5 2003 21:49:16
"Like the human shields! They're leaving because the Iraqi government is putting them at potential industrial targets that MIGHT ACTUALLY GET HIT! They wanted to go to schools and hospitals and mosques, but credit Saddam's minions for actually putting them to good use at targets that the US will strike. If it's so important, please STAY! Strap yourself to the bridge north of Basra or handcuff yoruself inside a utility closet at the power plant. GO FOR IT! Martyr yourselves for the cause or don't get on the damned bus!"
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!
IS THIS TRUE?????????
It's HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!
THANKS FOR SHARING!
:)
Cindy
Cindy <IAMCINDIANAJONES@netscape.net>
TEXAS USA - Wednesday, March 5 2003 21:42:35
I hope you told the little bastard to shut the fuck up and mind his own beezwax.
He should have.
You're probably right-- I'm just a religious zealot anyway what the HELL do I know about fairness?
:)
Your friend,
Cindy
Cindy <IAMCINDIANAJONES@netscape.net>
TEXAS USA - Wednesday, March 5 2003 21:38:26
I enjoyed your post on Crossgates Mall, it was very enlightening.
Also on your Homeland Security Summit in DC-- fascinating observations... and sadly not surprising.
What sort of job were you there for?
Cindy
Zoë Rose
CA - Wednesday, March 5 2003 21:29:49
If someone wants their kids invited or forced or encouraged to pray at school, well, simple answer: send them to a religious school. Then there's DEFINITELY no danger of someone different, either.
I disagree - I've had the actual experience of being stopped, because I was absent-mindedly singing a song I'd learned in temple the night before. It was in Hebrew. I was told (by another student) that they didn't want to have to listen to whatever crap I was singing. Granted... it could just have been my voice. We may never know.
--Zoë Rose
Jay Smith
And Another Thing... - Wednesday, March 5 2003 21:23:56
I just don't get it.
From the website: nyspc.net
"Student Strike for Books Not Bombs!
The Bush administration is intent on plunging America into an illegitimate and pre-emptive war that will only increase danger for Americans and the world. At the same time education, healthcare, and the economy are being neglected. Its time for youth and students to take a stand for America’s future! "
Hmmm...Skip class to protest the war. BOOKS, not BOMBS...so if this is about education, WHY SKIP CLASS?!?!?!?! Hold the damn rally on a Saturday! The university isn't promoting war (most of them, anyway) so why use this as an excuse to cut a few classes? Want to protest? Toss out the surplus BDU pants and bomber jackets, chuck the infantry boots that look so cool, skip the kegger that weekend and go to a LIBRARY or rally or edju-ma-kate yerselves! Browse a few pages of history you might-a missed waxing clever about Oliver Stone in your Vietnam History class.
Protest! Protest this expansionist, evil war, but don't be frigging stupid about it. What does it prove to Bush if you skip class? It proved you skipped class to go to a rally. BIG incentive there! Another empty gesture.
Like the human shields! They're leaving because the Iraqi government is putting them at potential industrial targets that MIGHT ACTUALLY GET HIT! They wanted to go to schools and hospitals and mosques, but credit Saddam's minions for actually putting them to good use at targets that the US will strike. If it's so important, please STAY! Strap yourself to the bridge north of Basra or handcuff yoruself inside a utility closet at the power plant. GO FOR IT! Martyr yourselves for the cause or don't get on the damned bus!
(takes a breath)
Look, the world is getting very weird and very ugly quickly and dark like the onset of clouds at twilight. It is not the time for nice nice suburban gestures of John Lennon slogans. Those are nice and fluffy, but in order to convince the government that this is a wrong, potentially destructive path to follow, it will take the combined intellect in this forum and some creative politics.
Examples like this are empty gestures to me. People will still die unless those with more intelligence and style than I come up with something a little more meaty than Mr. "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"
Reservists are going to die. ten times as many Iraqis are gonna die. We're getting into the same trap thinking we can colonize the Middle East (or a more modern, revisionist term - Reinvent the Middle East) If North Korea makes the wrong move, turn the clocks back a half-century and give the NoKos nukes cuz it's a UN jamboree across the DMZ. I'm just looking for a little more inspiration than a damned day off school or suburbanite trying to reunite with his inner hippie.
Cindy <IAMCINDIANAJONES@netscape.net>
TEXAS USA - Wednesday, March 5 2003 20:43:0
DTS,
ACTUALLY I much prefered your post to David's.
Yours was less abrasive and I thought you did a much silkier job of making your case... but then perhaps it is because you said something sweet about me personally before you gave a dissenting opinion.
You're a jewel.
:)
Cindy
David,
You ARE such an ARTICULATE adversary. If only we could get you to say something lovely before you go for the jugular-- it would be so disarming! But maybe that wouldn't be such a good idea at that.
PLEASE Br'er Fox don't throw me into the BRIAR patch!
;)
Cindy
Cindy <IAMCINDIANAJONES@netscape.net>
TEXAS USA - Wednesday, March 5 2003 20:27:1
ZOE,
You really are an amazing kid. You made your points beautifully. I suppose my inability to relax over the issue is because I went to a conservative Lutheran school from Kindergarten through the fifth grade. I treasured my religious moments in school so that must be why I am so reluctant to see any child stripped of the right to acknowledge the deity of his or her choosing (or not) at school.
And nobody would tell any child to "shut up" if his prayers differed from those of any others on MY watch.
But I would put that 1 minute limit on the moment.
Again, that WAS eloquently put, Miss Zoe.
:)
yer pal,
Cindy
Smith
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 20:22:43
A wish for good fortune and style and grace on your behalf tomorrow.
Shine.
Jay
Lorin O.
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 20:16:58
Best,
Lorin O.
lonegungirl
Los Angeles, - Wednesday, March 5 2003 20:8:40
I was always sort of lukewarm on it, until one day it happened to be on in the background and I suddenly realized I know virtually all the words to all the songs. Now I feel somewhat obligated to like it, as it is invested with nostalgic affection. Besides, how can you not like "You're My Little Choochy Face?"
Plus I get a kick out of mimicking the female lead's overly-precise enunciation.
HE:
You go guy. Try not to leave too many scorch marks in your wake...
Xanadu <X_a_n_a_d_u@yahoo.com>
Break a Leg, or Whatever it is Laywers Wish Themselves... - Wednesday, March 5 2003 20:7:33
Gird yourselves well, and return victorious. Our thoughts are with you.
Bern
Chuck
CAPTAIN ASBESTOS TO THE RESCUE! - Wednesday, March 5 2003 19:39:55
In answer to Lynn's question, I talked the situation over with a friend of mine who was once a lawyer. He cited two principals. The first was called Estoppel, which essentially stops a place, even a shopping center, from disallowing a behavior with one person when others are allowed to do the thing being disallowed. (I'm afraid I may have mangled the explanation a bit.) It depends on how consistently the mall enforces any prohibition on certain T-shirt slogans.
The other principal says that a place, like a mall, for example,
can post notice that such-and-such is not allowed in this establishment, such as wearing gang-related clothing. As long as the rule is posted and enforced consistently the mall management is within their rights.
There you have it. I hope I got it right.
Harlan,
Bring home the pelt, baby! Make it into a vest. It'll make a great conversation piece. All legally speaking, of course. (You never know who may be reading this)
Chuck
Bill Gauthier
New Bedford, MA - Wednesday, March 5 2003 19:23:49
Good luck tomorrow.
Bill
Jay
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 19:9:14
He was on private property where there was a vague and almost impossible-to-enforce rule about slogans on shirts.
A customer complained about the shirts to security.
Security poorly managed the encounter OR Ra Ra intentionally complicated the issue, it escalated and police were summoned.
Now, the issue is Trespass,not "can Ra Ra say this in public?" So the court will have to decide NOT if Ra Ra can give peace a chance in public, but if he was trespassing. Obviously, it will be laughed out of court (even IF this guy wasn't a judicial overseer/overlord, whatever).
The only difference between this case and a hundred across the country is that the shirt was topical, the guy was an important citizen in the community and he knew how to work the press.
THAT's what pisses me off. The trivilization of the issue of civil liberties in this case. Ra Ra is not being censored. He was kicked off the property by morons who are stuck with a policy that restricts kids from wearing stupid slogans on their chests to the mall. Since it has to be enforced "fairly" Ra Ra was confronted with it.
He's on TV interview after TV interview holding up the shirts with his kid and talking trash "Oh I'm so proud of him," his son says. Fine. If he's so frigging great, let's see his solution. Anyone can take a side and slip on a shirt, but what's Martin Luther's solution to this crisis?
NOW - tell me when a cop picks him up off the street, throws him in jail and makes the charge Treason or Sedition.
Faisal A. Qureshi
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 18:52:36
I know so little about the case that I can't add any substancial comment.
Best.
FAQ
Cindy <IAMCINDIANAJONES@netscape.net>
TEXAS USA - Wednesday, March 5 2003 18:46:54
I'd almost bet Downs was the one who called the press.
I'd also near wager that he's in it to make some money. We'll ALL know the story when he files suit against the Mall, the Security Officer and the Police Department. This was just a little too on the nose for me.
What do you say Faisal? I'd give it a 2-- it lacked realism.
:)
Cindy
Diana
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 18:42:12
I consulted the I Ching, check it out:
QUESTION: "Will Mr Ellson win his case in court tomorrow?
HSU - Waiting.
If you are sincere, you have light and success.
Perseverance brings good fortune. It furthers one to cross
the great water. Persevere. If the leader is refined, good fortune. No blame.
Legge interpretation:
Hsu intimates that, with the sincerity which is declared in it, there will be brilliant success. With firmness there will be good fortune; and it will be advantageous to cross the great stream.
Hsu means waiting. Strength confronted by peril might be expected to advance boldly and at once to struggle with it; but it takes the wiser plan of waiting till success is sure. This is the lesson of the hexagram. That ‘sincerity is declared in it’ is proven from the fifth line in the position of honor and authority, central, itself undivided and in an odd place. In such a case, nothing but firm correctness is necessary to great success. ‘Going through a great stream’, an expression frequent in the Yi, may mean undertaking hazardous enterprises, or encountering great difficulties, without any special reference; but more natural is it to understand by ‘the great stream’ the Yellow River, which the Lords of Kau must cross in a revolutionary movement against the dynasty of Yin and its tyrant. The passage of it by King Wu, the son of Wan, in BC 1122, was certainly one of the greatest deeds in the history of China. It was preceded also by long ‘waiting’, till the time of assured success came.
Bye
Diana
Eric Martin
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 18:33:40
They kind of faded out in the 80s. Even rock concert merchandising these days goes for more upscale apparel, like golf shirts or windbreakers.
But hey, the t-shirt is now back as the messenger of the moment! Maybe I'll get one that says "Saddam is great in the sack," or "Osama does bongs" and see what kind of rise that gets.
Lynn
Splash goes the gasoline - Wednesday, March 5 2003 17:53:17
What about restricting people from wearing gang attire, a widely practiced restriction here in Southern California?
L.
P.A. Berman
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 17:18:4
Why is getting media attention for such absurdly oppressive behavior as censoring the word PEACE reprehensible media manipulation? I think the mall's policy *should* receive media attention; Mr. Downs felt he was in a secure position to do so. I might want to do such a thing, but I GUARANTEE you if I got arrested for such a thing, I wouldn't get tenure at my job. Kudos for Mr. Downs for confronting the mall's stupid policy and calling it to public attention. More people need to be aware at how far the paranoia has progressed.
P.A. Berman
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 17:3:47
Now, this t-shirt thing: I can't believe a person who is just sitting down eating can be considered to be causing a disturbance. What harm was he causing? Is PEACE such a subversive word these days? I do think this is a sign of the times. Whether Mr. Downs was hoping for a reaction or not, he shouldn't have gotten one. The fact that he did will at least call attention to the weird climate of our post-9/11 America.
Jay
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 17:2:48
He intentionally manipulated the situation to make a political statement. He is neither a man unique of vision nor some poor soul who's being oppressed. He is in a position where there is NO CHANCE he will be imprisoned for his "crimes" and while I appreciate his point of view and support his philosophy that the war looming against Iraq is stupid and bad, I cannot condone someone manipulating the mall and the media to make some rah-rah bullshit statement. I have more respect for the shitheads who went to play human shield in Iraq than this guy.
If he decided to sit on a pole and not come down until the war was called off, okay. If he wanted to pull some fool publicity stunt that is CLEARLY meant to be human interest, I'd give him a pass and a nod, but turning it into a Civil Rights or First Amendment issue is like saying a hangnail is a mortal wound.
Again, I wonder who called the press.
Xanadu <X_a_n_a_d_u@yahoo.com>
Probably the Last Time on THIS Subject (I hope) - Wednesday, March 5 2003 16:42:36
Let's put it this way - Let's imagine I'm a strict Southern Baptist, I live in a state that allows for the purchase and public consumption of "adult" beverages by those who have celebrated sufficient natal day anniversaries, and I own a "public" gathering place. I am not licensed and I don't sell alcohol on my premises. Do I _have_ to allow people in who are legally drinking? (Remember, the state allows it - the people are breaking no laws.)
Of course I don't - it's my property - and _on_ that property my stricter regulations supersede the more lenient state laws. I am **entitled**, in fact, to make any darn stupid regulation I wish. Everyone has to wear blue socks - of a certain cerulean shade particularly pleasing to my colorblind dog. They have to wave their right hand the way the British Royals do during one of their public appearances. Men and boys can't spit or cuss within 63.6 feet of a lady (ladies can spit and cuss all they want, 'cause my wife does it and she always gets HER way).
The Constitution has nothing at all to say about this. _My_ regulations are my business (as long as they abridge no laws) - and enforcing them on _you_, a visitor to my property, is my **right**.
Now - whatever are we to do about this? We could make a law that forbids stupidity, but I've heard you can't regulate it. And besides - I'm not particularly eager to outlaw my brand of thinking **just** yet.
A better choice is this - we can, as potential visitors and consumers, make our opinion of that damn stupid regulation a sticking point and make it a condition of our even visiting the place. We can write to the owners - or visit them directly - and tell them, in no uncertain terms, we will never visit any of their shops or businesses again until they rescind such idiocies as what occurred at Crossgate. Likely, they won't listen to you - stupidity is still legal, remember. So now you go and visit all the managers of the various shops you frequent in the mall and you tell them that you're not coming back until the political climate is a tad less, shall we say, authoritarian. Tell them you plan on visiting any other branch of their particular chain for your needs, and if they value your spendable dollar, they might consider putting a word in to the landlords...
I suspect THAT would make a far greater impact than hollering about non-violated civil rights in the media...
DTS - I'm not supporting everyone having the "right" to call the cops if they don't like the t-shirt, I AM supporting the owners' right to do so. Even if I think they are being big, stupid, dumb-asses of themselves in the exercise of that right.
Bern
Brian Siano <brian@briansiano.com>
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 16:40:35
I think this is more than a tad simplistic. First of all, there are limits to the restrictions one places on private property. It ain't soveriegn, and storeowners can't deny entrance to people on the basis of their ethnic background or religion or what-have-you.
There is also the matter of what's commonly understood to be a "disturbance." In this case, it's a bit shocking to learn that simply wearing a peace T-shirt is enough to get you busted. That's part of what makes the mall's actions so appalling. It's not that they toss people out for wearing disruptive clothing-- we wouldn't object if they busted someone wearing a Gestapo uniform, for example. It's that their standards for what _is_ disruptive are very different from those of most people. And in that sense, they've violated a presumed social agreement.
Obviously, this isn't a legal standard to invoke, but it does illustrate why such things offend us. And it's especially important because so much _more_ of the space we inhabit is owned by the private sector. We hang out in malls more often than, say, public parks, and if you wanted to circulate a petition, you'd have to make sure that the malls' owners are willing to tolerate it. That's an awful lot of speech-filtering to place in the hands of people.
Frankly, I think there ought to be a formal definition of what people _cannot_ restrict in private property that's opened to the public.
Andrew <drew71@hotmail.com>
San Diego, CA - Wednesday, March 5 2003 16:1:17
I know, information overload...
I really do agree with you in essence. What the mall cops did was pretty shitty.
I just was gettin' cranky because this event was beginning to get a pretty unsavory spin put on it. As far as I'm concerned, nobody’s civil rights were trampled. You disagree....
That's cool, I can live with that. :)
-Andrew
Chris L
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 15:39:9
**Chris, did you like, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon? If not than we may have to box.**
It was a good movie but I vastly prefer the "real" Hong Kong martial arts flicks to this one which was obviously designed to appeal to American tastes. That's not a criticism at all - just a description. It was good. But I'll take the Legend of Fong Sai Yuk or Drunken Master any day.
Diana
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 15:18:10
You thought no one was going to notice you slipped this bogus "thusly":
"Nor is it an abridgement of his speech right if the mall asks him to leave their property if they don't agree with his **chosen** message"
in amongst the right stuff?
Nah...it didn't work...responding to someone expressing themselves some way or another, with your own opinions or expressions pro or con or unrelated to the aforementioned, is not the same as trying to stifle them or intimidate them into shutting the hell up because you didn't like or agree with what they had to say. The latter is called censorship.
Posting signs to the effect that people aren't allowed to express themselves peacefully in a public establishment if the management of that public establishment doesn't like or agree with what someone might decide to say or express doesn't actually give them the *right* to curtail that individual's right to express themselves...no more than those signs on the doors of restaurants in the Old South saying "No Coloreds Allowed", actually gave them the right to discriminate against people of color...You can't be allowed to blithely deny people their civil liberties just by posting signs saying you're going to. Simply posting signs about how and/or why you'd LIKE to deny people their civil liberties doesn't change the laws and amendments stated in the Constitution. Or if it does we're in a whole shit load of trouble.
Diana
DTS <none>
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 15:15:46
-DTS
DTS <none>
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 15:10:10
XANADU: Yeah, I there are laws and there are laws (I've heard tell that in some states there are old laws on the books stating you can't wear a top hat on Tuesdays). It's easy to get stupid laws on the books; the problem is getting them abolished later on, once common sense has set in. In the meantime, it is our duty -- all of us, civilians, police officers, soldiers and politicians alike -- to deal with each other in a level-headed, sensible way, to NOT trample on each others basic rights. Whether we're on private property or not. (The argument that other people may have felt their rights were violated, 'cause they didn't want to see the message on the guy's shirt, doesn't quite wash, 'cause they can look away, avert their eyes -- they weren't stuck in small room with him -- again, if he had been playing loud and obnoxious music, then I could see the argument -- and by the way, how come people don't RIGHTFULLY complain about the obnoxiously amped up automobiles? Inact some more strict noise laws? There's an enforcement I could get behind: mandatory headphones for idiots who feel the need to share their noise with the rest of the world). I guess I hold the Sheriff (or Chief of Police, or commissioner) ultimately responsible in this case (in which officers arrested the man) -- because whoever was in charge should've said this is bullshit, and Im not gonna enforce it. But, as you mentioned in your post below, the climate for people acting like the mall owner did is being set by Bush & Co. More's the pity.
--DTS
Diana
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 14:57:16
"The flag is more than a blood-stained rag. It is also the symbol of what I still idealistically think of as one of the greatest experiments in democracy yet. At the same time, it isn't an "idol" either. The flag represents a diversity of conflicting ideals. I think many Americans have deeply *personal* and individual ideas about what the flag "stands for." The cool thing is that in this country, you're allowed to. Without that, I might be in agreement with Frank that it is nothing but a blood-soaked rag. The flag itself stands (in some part) for freedom of expression (something worth standing for, even fighting for)even as it's being burned in outrage"
I agree. "Burning it in outrage" is part of what people can still do in this country, or should be able to do...burning the American flag can be a symbolic act too. It isn't an idol. Like I said, it's not about the material it's made of, but about what it stands for. Part of what it stands for is the idea that the U.S.of A. is still a country in which some of us are so passionate about defending freedom of speech and expression, that we'll even fight for the right for someone to be free to burn it's symbols. Or wear tee-shirts with annoying or even offensive expressions on them in peace when they're walking around in a mall, or sitting down in one eating lunch. Or the right to go around dressed like a "gangsta", and still being allowed to shop in the same store you've shopped in since you were five and didn't dress like a "gangsta", without now being followed around by the shop clerks acting like they they think you're going to steal shit all of sudden, like they don't know you anymore because they don't like your new style of clothes...or whatever.(okay, just ignore that last part if you want. I have new issues. People have started to harrass my child lately)
The more I learn about Mr Downs the more I admire him. If he went into that situation with a better than average knowledge of what the consequences of his actions might be, all the better. He was aware of what he might end up having to deal with for choosing to stand on principle, and he did it anyway? That took guts and courage.
Bye for now.
Diana
Xanadu <X_a_n_a_d_u@yahoo.com>
Mall Rats - Wednesday, March 5 2003 14:41:2
Not the same things - not at all - not even close, and if you mix 'em up too much - the ones you REALLY have a beef with are going to do a major end run around you.
Dealing with the concepts in reverse:
You have expressed major misgivings with the behavior of the current administration. I share them. This administration has a disturbing love of "secrecy", a habit of "interpreting" existing law in the most punitive possible way using "national security" as a universal excuse, and showing an extraordinarily dangerous desire to roll back HUGE sections of civil liberties using that same nebulous excuse. I'm with you, man - there IS a major problem brewing here. This is a (generally) democratically elected government - they are answerable to us, and we should demand that accountability - and distrust it when we don't have it.
Next... To judge a person because of their skin color is wrong, because it was not a choice. We cannot change our skin color (unless you're MJ) - and it reflects nothing at all of the person we are. Bias and prejudice based on unchangable factors is inherently WRONG.
Finally - not getting harrassed for wearing a T-shirt... He **chose** that message, that shirt. As innocuous as the message was, he was making a public statement. _My_ free speech rights mean I can respond to that statement - by agreeing with it, disagreeing with it, making public comment, or posting a long internet rant. That is not harrassment. Nor is it harrassment if every single other person reads his message and responds similarly. Nor is it an abridgement of his speech right if the mall asks him to leave their property if they don't agree with his **chosen** message. Tomorrow, if he returns with another t-shirt, _my_ free speech rights allow me to respond to that **chosen** message again, as I desire. Disagreeing with "the message" is as fundamental a right as making it to begin with.
Bern
Andrew <drew71@hotmail.com>
San Diego, CA - Wednesday, March 5 2003 14:0:11
Yes, as a matter of fact I do get it. I also try and play by the rules whenever possible. This gentleman did not. I'll quote from the MSNBC article;
"Signs posted at entrances to the mall say that "wearing of apparel... likely to provoke disturbances... is prohibited" at the mall. "
Granted, this pretty ambiguous, but the rule was posted.
Should the mall "Nazis" have called the police? No, I don't think so either. But, they were well within their rights.
I admit, it's a sticky wicket, and I'm pretty disgusted by the behavior of both parties. The mall for being draconian, and Mr. Downs for trying to grandstand. Thankfully, the local folks are making a stink about the Mall's behavior, and that is a good thing.
-Andrew
Eric
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 13:59:16
I still think your first one "Ashcroft is a fascist, bible-thumping moron" is the best.
You should start a line! But don't insult the weasels. Use the word "scum" instead; always gets a rise...
cookie
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 13:37:38
The flag is more than a blood-stained rag. It is also the symbol of what I still idealistically think of as one of the greatest experiments in democracy yet. At the same time, it isn't an "idol" either. The flag represents a diversity of conflicting ideals. I think many Americans have deeply *personal* and individual ideas about what the flag "stands for." The cool thing is that in this country, you're allowed to. Without that, I might be in agreement with Frank that it is nothing but a blood-soaked rag. The flag itself stands (in some part) for freedom of expression (something worth standing for, even fighting for)even as it's being burned in outrage.
DTS <none>
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 13:29:58
--DTS
Frank Church
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 13:24:54
------------
Chris, did you like, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon? If not than we may have to box.
Frank Church
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 13:19:31
----------
The flag is merely a rag--a rag dipped in the blood of slaves and jews and gays and woman and people who chose to speak the truth; even when that truth lead to a true road of perdition. I have no sympathy for our waving diaper Uncle Sam uses because he has loose bowels.
--------------
Does that make me radical? Chortle.
-------------
I was against the Napster stuff, but good going Sir Harlan.
Andrew <drew71@hotmail.com>
San Diego, CA - Wednesday, March 5 2003 12:59:6
The only trouble I have with that argument is (as Xan pointed out) the fact that this guy was on private property. Change the venue, and make it a public space and I'll join you, the ACLU, and anyone else who happens to be there, in protest. Fact is, the guy went in to a privately owned facility with the intent to make a scene.
Did he have every right to do so?
You bet.
Did the mall have the right to have him arrested for trespassing?
Right again. (whether or not they should have is another matter)
-Andrew
DTS <none>
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 12:59:4
--DTS
Zoë Rose
CA - Wednesday, March 5 2003 12:56:31
Cindy, you said you'd like to see a time for kids to pray in school. Um, well - in high school I went to school from 7:30am to 3:40pm every day, and I could pray during all 8 hrs and 10 minutes if I wanted (though I suspect if I'd prayed out loud or in a way other than the mainstream I would have been stopped). In my personal opinion, prayer is between the person doing it and whomever they are praying to. So - why do we have to make it public?
"Everyone, go ahead and pray for five minutes."
OR
"We'll now have a moment of silence." (Same thing, really)
Kids can pray at church, at home, in the car, on the playground - no one says they can't. But there ARE ordained places for it where everyone is expected or invited to do so (again - church, home, etc). There's no need to "allow" five minutes of silence for kids to do so. If you're really going to pray, you're going to do it - invited or not.
That, and I'd like to say again - if someone's praying method is different than the mainstream, for example a Jew who mutters/sings their prayer aloud, I'd be willing to bet they'd be asked to stop.
There's not a way to be fair about it, and ordained prayer time doesn't belong in school anyway.
Lastly, the flag - Diana, I don't think anyone's hinted that the flag isn't a symbol. Of course it is. What it is NOT is a life, a soul, anything more than a symbol of our country. To burn it is not to burn our country - it is to use the rights the country affords you. The flag is an important symbol - but people don't fight for the FLAG. They fight for the country that the flag represents.
--Zoë Rose
David Loftus <dloft59@earthlink.net>
SUBJ: hi prays, - Wednesday, March 5 2003 12:51:26
> LOFTUS: regarding your retort to CINDY: well put. You are
> a much smarter, and much more eloquent, man than I.
I agree . . . on occasion . . . when I stop long enough to think ahead . . . and I'm feeling good . . . and the wind is right . . .
Andrew <drew71@hotmail.com>
San Diego, CA - Wednesday, March 5 2003 12:47:38
I don't feel like I was slammed, so don't apologize. My frustration is due to my own inability to convey my intent using the written word.
-Andrew
The Gnat....
DTS <none>
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 12:43:53
Adieu,
--DTS
DTS <none>
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 12:41:16
--DTS
DTS <none>
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 12:36:45
Mar. 10th Newsweek (which also contains and interesting article on Bush & God, and how his administration is the most "faith-based" in modern times -- a dangerous thing, I believe, for a democracy). Quindlen writes (in part) that a democratic nation must "live up to its principles, not down to its enemies. The danger in having enormous power is that the ambition to use it for good can so often be subverted by the temptation to use it for dominance." Every signal I get (from televised speeches, news stories, etc.) has thus far led me to believe that Bush and his Administration are abusing their power, using the tragedy of 9/11 as a blank check to do so. The question is: when will the citizens of America stop paying these debts he continues to amass...with no _real_ thought to the future.
CINDY: You're a sweet woman, but, obviously, we were born on different sides of the universe (atheist, fundamentalist; liberal; conservative). So I wont belabor the points you made...much. I HAVE talked to WWII vets (I wrote an article about those in the KC area and completed it just before 9/11 -- then tacked on a new opening and ending at my editor's request). My finding was that some of them were mad dogs about the flag; others weren't. One of the guys, a black man, recalled fighting for America (and the ideals in the various documents our forefathers created) when he, and other black men, still weren't allowed to be near (or fight alongside) the whites. And how his acts of bravery went unnoticed (medal-wise, and otherwise) until years later when he made noise about it. My father, who got in at the tail end of WWII, and served in Korea, had no problem with demonstrators using the flag during demonstrations (even if they decided to burn it as a "shock" statement). Being a wise man (like many others out there who served and fought in various wars), he realized that he was fighting for ideals, not symbols. And that the respect we show toward our ideals -- more importantly toward EACH OTHER -- was the sort of tribute we should give him and other veterans. Not some words recalled and repeated by rote (the Pledge); not a silly salute to a piece of material; and certainly not holding that piece of material in more esteem than another person's rights. To do any less (for me, and for others like my father) would be taking all of his (and the other men's) sacrifices for granted. (And, though I didn't do it during a full-fledged, "hot" war -- there _were_ terrorists like the Red Army Faction -- I served four years in the military -- and, for what it's worth, I'd defend -- to the death -- another person's right to burn a flag in protest against our government). "I have sworn eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." -- Thomas Jefferson. "When a nation is roaring Patriotism at the top of its voice, I am fain to explore the cleaness of its hands and purity of its heart." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Yr. friend,
--DTS
Brian Siano <brian@briansiano.com>
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 12:35:50
To Andrew: Apologies for slamming you too hard. But, "using a battleship to kill a gnat" has some precedent here. (No, I am not calling you a gnat. It's just an expression. You're definitely _not_ a gnat.)
Andrew
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 12:27:31
"Ah well, I think I'll just go poke at *a* bee hive with a sharp stick..."
Andrew <drew71@hotmail.com>
San Diego, CA - Wednesday, March 5 2003 12:25:14
What we have here is a failure to communicate (mine, not yours).
I guess my intent was lost in a jumble of bad grammar and poor logic. I should probably quit while I'm (not) ahead.
I must admit, I don't communicate well via the written (as opposed to the spoken) word.
Ah well, I think I'll just go poke at bee hive with a sharp stick...
-Andrew
David Loftus <dloft59@earthlink.net>
SUBJ: catching up with loose ends, - Wednesday, March 5 2003 12:22:43
My deepest sympathies. We all have to walk down that road alone, but we've all been there. Just know that others have taken that road and we survived, however uneasily. The world is a badly diminished place in the absence of my father, taken suddenly and too soon by a drunk driver, but having experienced my wife's father's lengthy and lingering death from various ailments, I have to say there doesn't seem to be any preferred method of having to give up someone you love.
Harlan:
Go get 'em, Tiger. Best of luck tomorrow.
Brian:
It's been a long time since I've watched "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang," and I suspect the syrup runs thick and over-rich, but I'm still very fond of the songs - "Me Old Bamboo" (which I was pleasantly surprised to see turn up in that 1972 beauty pageant satire "Smile" when I saw it recently), the lullaby "Hushabye Mountain," "Posh," "Truly Scrumptious," "Up From the Ashes" and luscious Anna Quayle singing "You're My Little Choochy Face."
Cindy:
I don't get overly sentimental over men dying for their country or the flag. As DTS explained, people don't die for the flag, however much they might like to think about it that way, but for this nation's ideals for which it stands. Holding up the flag as some sort of sacred object for whose protection you are ready to violate this nation's civil liberties strikes me as a form of idolatry - like saying a little statue of God is more important than your faith in God (or His/Her/Its in you).
War is a terrible, godawful thing, and it manufactures monsters at least as much as it makes heroes. That may be a big part of the reason veterans are loathe to talk about their experiences, because they don't like to think about what they and their comrades did and had to do. I think it would make as much sense to protest against the upcoming adventure in Iraq just for what it's going to do to fine young American men and women, as it would to worry over innocent Iraqi civilians. (I'm really looking forward to reading _Jarhead: a Marine's Chronicle of the Gulf War and Other Battles_ by Anthony Swofford, and all the rest of you should too.)
I don't see what the heck prayer has to do with a sporting event - particularly one in which dumb brutes try to bash one another's heads in. Are we praying to have our sins on the field forgiven in advance?
As for prayer in schools, you may have it as soon as evolution is taught in your churches on Sundays. God gets plenty of attention in the houses devoted to His/Her/Its worship; school is where we need to get on with the education of productive, healthy citizens.
cookie
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 12:15:26
Brian Siano <brian@briansiano.com>
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 12:9:47
"BTW, I'm not condoning the behavior of the mall security folks, nor do I feel that Mr. Downs' behavior was egregious. I'm just saying that Mr. Downs knew what he was doin' when he got himself arrested."
Well, if you're not condoning the behavior of the security folks, or think that Downs' behavior was egregious... then WHAT relevance does this "he knew what he was doing?" have at ALL?
The _only_ way it could be relevant is if one thinks that his "knowing" somehow shifts the blame onto his shoulders. Otherwise, why raise this pseudo-argument at all?
And no, claiming that you were "just saying" doesn't wash: you obviously thought it _was_ a significant issue, but now you're saying that it's not.
Let's use this logic in another context. Let's say we were talking about a black man sitting at a segregated lunch counter in the early 1960s. And let's say that the lunch counter owners begged with the guy to please leave, please, and that way we can all avoid bringing in the law, or having the Klan burn the place down. The black man refuses, and is arrested.
Now, sure, one could say "He knew what he was doing." Fine. He did. Maybe our hypothetical black man is actually a lawyer or a judge, maybe even Thurgood Marshall, and therefore he _really_ knew the law and _really_ knew what he was doing. The fact that he "knew what he was doing" has _no_ bearing on the justice of this kind of situation.
Diana
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 12:0:14
it sounds to me like Mr Downs is a patriot. He said he was hoping nothing would happen. I can believe he meant that. That he was afraid something WOULD happen I can also believe.
I've said, and I've been saying for years, that this is NOT a free country. Not free enough to suit me, and not equally free for everyone.
BUT,
it bothers me that this is not really a free country because I believe in the concept and the ideal of liberty. I suspect Mr Downs might be of a like mind.
I expect he was, as someone described it, testing the waters for toxins. Hoping things would be right, knowing and fearing they probably weren't. They aren't.
If there's something wrong, and we learn about it, we can hope to fix it. And keep fixing it, and keep trying to improve the situation. Carrying on about the lack of liberty in this country is not the act of an anti-American. People like Mr Downs do what they do because they want the idea of America to be more than a sentimental notion. The right to protest is part of what we should be fighting for. And the fight to keep/make our country free needs to begin at home, or what will our soldiers be fighting for in foreign lands? Notions?
We can't take our liberties for granted. We can't, or we'll be bound to lose them.
I happen to agree with Cindy about our flag, by the way, it is a symbol. For as long as it can possibly represent the concepts and ideals of liberty I want it to be protected, and respected. It's not about the stuff it's made of, but about the things it stands for. I should think that this was obvious, but maybe not. But I want the flag to KEEP standing for something. And to actually stand for something. I want it to represent more than than just notions and sentiment.
If Mr Downs is a little bit more of a "somebody" than the average man in the street, if he's gotten himself to a position in life where what he does has the potential for having a little impact, and he has the power to bring attention to things that need to be paid attention to, and then he's goes ahead and does something noble with that power, I can't understand why anyone would want to do anything but applaud and support him.
He's the kind of American that makes me feel a little better about being one too.
Bye for now
Diana
Xanadu <X_a_n_a_d_u@yahoo.com>
Free Speech? - Wednesday, March 5 2003 12:0:7
Freedom of Speech protects us from governmental oppression, not from the repercussions of the general public to what we've said. If you say something solidly mainstream, expect little response - if you venture from mainstream opinion, expect greater response - and if you're pushing the envelope, expect a loud, vehement response. To think you can drop shit in someone's soup without getting called on it is, frankly, insane. (And despite significant numbers of protesters, polls indicate mainstream opinion on the war is solidly behind the prez. Being a "peacenik" is not mainstream speech.)
Secondly, there is this matter of the definition of a "public space/place". Even though lots of people are walking around, stores are selling things, people are eating their burgers, or even watching movies - a mall is not public property. It is owned by a private entity. As such, they are allowed to set rules of behavior that are far stricter than the government's. They can enact regulations severely limiting or even forbidding perfectly legal, even innocuous activities (Note to Finder: since they're not governmental codes, they're not called "statutes"). And this is the kicker - they don't have to be completely consistent, either. They can forbid an activity in one circumstance, and allow the same or even a more serious one in another - as long as none of the activities involved are illegal.
Of course, The Crossgates Mall went way beyond what anyone here (I'm guessing even us "right leaners") would consider reasonable - hell, most people wouldn't even have remembered the damn T-shirt if asked about it five minutes later - but, it was within the mall's "right" to ask him to leave. Mr. Downs' "Right to Free Speech" was not infringed. The mall indicated he could continue to wear the shirt - somewhere else - or, if he wanted to stay on the premises, he could remove it. It WAS their right to do this - whether it was a "Peace" shirt - a "bare breasts" print shirt, or a damn Smurf suit. That he argued with them, refused a legal request from both the owners and then the authorities and got himself arrested indicates this was not about "Freedom of Speech" - more like a "Freedom to do ANYDAMNTHINGIPLEASE" - which is something I don't subscribe to.
Bern
Andrew <drew71@hotmail.com>
San Diego, CA - Wednesday, March 5 2003 11:38:43
Sometimes, in addition to choosing one's battles, one must also choose the battleground. I found Mr. Downs "battleground" to be a poor choice, and he would have been better served by choosing a "public" venue rather than a "private" one.
BTW, I'm not condoning the behavior of the mall security folks, nor do I feel that Mr. Downs' behavior was egregious. I'm just saying that Mr. Downs knew what he was doin' when he got himself arrested.
-Andrew
Cindy <IAMCINDIANAJONES@netscape.net>
TEXAS USA - Wednesday, March 5 2003 11:18:20
Harlan shows us what it must have been like to watch DAVID approach Goliath with only a slingshot, a rock and utter confidence in the righteousness of his task.
The heart of such a man must give God boundless pride in the hand that he had in its creation.
May history repeat itself in this instance.
God go with you all; Harlan, Susan and Charlie.
Cindy
Brian Siano <brian@briansiano.com>
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 11:11:40
Instead, Jay Smith cites the guy's powerful position as some kind of evidence of his bad faith. Look, Jay, I'd say that the guy deserves more respect for _not_ pulling rank with those rent-a-cops. He went made sure he was treated like _any_ citizen would be; and you're saying that, by _not_ throwing his weight around, he did something bad.
(Tell me: If the guy went in, got hassled, and and THEN announced who he was, wouldn't you have _contempt_ for him because he was using his position to put himself above a situation the rest of us have to face? Wouldn't that be like a city councilam weaselling out of a speeding ticket?)
The guy tested the waters, and found them to be toxic. Now you're attacking him for having tested them in the first place. If you havem't read Ibsen's _An Enemy of the People_, now may be a good time.
Cindy <IAMCINDIANAJONES@netscape.net>
TEXAS USA - Wednesday, March 5 2003 10:54:19
DTS WROTE;
"CINDY: I'm trying to ignore your post, because it reeks of wrong-headedness, and I'm tired enough to type the wrong thing. If you actually believe that one should roll over and remove an article of clothing because someone says you have to, but that you should fight to your last breath to protect a piece of cloth because it's colored red, white and blue, you need to reexamine your ideas of freedom and patriotism. Men on the battlefield don't fight for a piece of cloth. They fight for the ideals that allow us to treat that piece of cloth any way we choose
And freedom of speech should allow a peaceable adult to wear any sort of t-shirt he wants to. (By the way, if someone in a public school tells your child _not_ to say the pledge of allegiance, or not to pray, or not to salute the flag, will you advise him or her to do as they say? If so, good for you -- but if not, then why the double standard?)
G'night.
--DTS "
Aw Hell, Dorman,
I FREQUENTLY reek of wrongheadedness. That's why I hang around these parts-- to steep in new perspectives.
I think in life we must pick our battles wisely. "Give Peace A Chance" is a pretty diluted message. The idiots with badges were making a mountain out of a benign mole by demanding that the two (GROWN) men take them off-- but I wouldn't go to jail over a tee shirt reading, "GIVE PEACE A CHANCE." I would have simply told the cop that I was on HIS side and the message was a sarcastic one... as in " We've given peace a 12 YEAR chance."
Discovering that one of the men "happened" to be an attorney explains a lot. I think the good attorneys should gang up on jerks like this swinging stockin's full of LAVA soap. They give them all a bad name that they don't all deserve. Shouldn't there be entrapment rules that would apply to attorneys who set up stupid security guards and moronic cops?
If this happened in Texas and I worked for Texas Monthly they'd all four end up with Bum Steer Awards at the end of the year.
But I understand your point, Dorman. It IS about rights and this IS America. A person HAS THE RIGHT to wear any slogan he likes on his shirt-- and shouldn't have to worry about arbitrary molestation at the hands of the law.
But in THIS case I'd say it's just a handful of assholes looking to stir up some shit
Over the flag? Yeah-- they'd have to arrest me. I'm old fashioned enough to look at the flag as an emblem of America and everything she stands for. Men HAVE fought and died beneath it. The concept that it is only cloth with swatches of red, white and blue is a fairly modern one. Ask any old soldiers you know what that flag means to them and you'll understand what I mean. Ever watch old men who fought in WWII at flag ceremonies? I have two Uncles who fought in that war and they will tell you that the flag itself is a sacred thing and YES they would have died to protect it-- in fact they both nearly did die. One tells of his only tour of Paris from the back of an ambulance. As long as one soldier lives who put HIS own life on the line for OUR freedom-- as long as emotion wells up within him when he looks at that flag we need to give it the respect that THEIR blood earned for it. The rent for our freedom is pricey--blood and courage the only tender. To those who pay or have paid OUR WAY for this ultimate luxury-- we owe an inestimable debt of respect and gratitude. The least we can do is to honor THEM by treating the flag they hold sacred with the reverence their sacrifice has earned for it.
Over the Pledge of Allegiance? Yeah-- I'd tell my kids to do it anyway and tell the principal to call me.
The reason for my double standard on The Pledge of Allegiance is along the same lines as that of flag... it is emblematic of more to me than the corny " Give Peace a Chance" of the sixties. It's a personal thing.
I DO feel that it is wrong to disallow children prayer at school if they wish to do so-- to the God of their choosing-- or to have a moment of silence to reflect on whatever.
Prayer at Football games is a tradition here in Texas-- we've been cut off from it.. I'd like to see it re-established.. but I would open the mike so that anyone who would like to say a prayer of any kind to any deity-- or to make a supportive statement for the team of his/her choice could be at liberty to do so. I'd give 'em each 60 seconds across the board... other peoples prayers (Christian included) can get damned tedious after about 45 seconds so that ought to be adequate.
Thank you though, Dorman- for making me think it out.
You're a good egg.
:)
yer pal,
Cindy
Eric
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 10:18:54
http://www.msnbc.com/local/wnyt/m276307.asp
Scott Reeston
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 10:9:38
Got to differ, mon ami, with the thought of Thoreau asking Emerson why he wasn't in jail as a rejoinder to Emerson's similar query.
It's those who consciously look to attract attention who are generally those who are the strongest forces of change. I'm sure the guy looked to stir things up, the same way blacks in the south looked to stir things up by sitting at lunch counters, or folks who protest environmental or pacifist concerns chain themselves to fences or passively resist. Yep, he was sucking around for the cops to do something, in order to get the press involved, but isn't that how the game is played?
Yep, he's a pain in the ass, but from a perspective of how much government seems to be stripping away the right of dissent with laws and coercion by an intimidated "silent majority" who haven't learned the adage of those who trade freedom for stability soon finding themselves with neither, I'd rather have to deal with his chicanery than that of the powers that be.
Scott, the Libertarian Harlequin (Getcher own damn jellybeans: These are mine!)
BTW, to M. Ellison: Bonne Guerre, good sir! Give 'em hell!
Jay Smith
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 10:9:21
Now TELL me a man in this position would say that mall cops "ordered" him to do anything without wanting to manipulate it for the press. I wonder who called the press on that; certainly not the mall, who are refusing comment on the issue.
You're absolutely right, the man shouldn'thave been ejected - but I wonder how much of it was because of what his shirt said and how much was how big a pain in the ass he was being.
Andrew <drew71@hotmail.com>
San Diego, CA - Wednesday, March 5 2003 9:53:43
I'm with Jay on this one. Downs even admitted to it (in a roundabout way);
"I think it was in part to just see what would happen if I put a T-shirt on that said, `Peace,' and walked around in Crossgates," Downs said. "I really hoped that nothing would happen because if something did happen, it would mean that I was living in a country where you really don't have free speech."
And then there's this;
"Stephen Downs, 61, and his 31-year-old son, Roger Downs, had the peace T-shirts *made* Monday night at a Crossgates Mall store and wore them in the mall, *atop other clothes*." (the emphasis is mine)
Granted, mall security was way outta line on this. But, c'mon, this guy was lookin' for trouble. I think he's probably disapointed that things happened as quietly as they did.
-Andrew
Brian Siano <brian@briansiano.com>
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 9:47:24
Brian Siano <brian@briansiano.com>
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 9:45:44
As you all know, writers have many reasons for using pseudonyms: the use of "house names" in magazines, barriers against one's background (women using male names), personal preference, etc. And one of those reasons can be to keep the writing separate from other aspects of one's life.
Some of us are writers, and like most writers, we have to get other jobs to pay the bills. There may be times when our paper trails may work against our getting jobs-- say, if we're trying to get a temp job, we might not get a place at a pharmaceutical company if we've done articles about such companies. Or, if we write fiction, some hiring officer might not want to hire someone who writes Poppy Brite-style goth fiction in his or her spare time. Some bluenose out there might complain that the company hires blood-drinking pre-verts.
So putting pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard) has an element of risk. So many writers may have to resort to pseudonyms-- and thus keep their job life and their creative life separate.
But, this is the odd little question: why is it that we may have to disguise our creative work under a fake name, but the work we _have_ to do-- the stuff we don't care about-- has to be done under our real name?
Why can't we get jobs under pseudonyms, and use our true names for what we care about?
I know there are _reasons_ why this may be so-- it's a rhetorical question, after all-- but it does help illuminate the relationship of writing and the arts to the demands of the everyday world. For one thing, it gives the arts a nice "outlaw" feel, where merely by expressing one's ideas, one risks being exiled from the cozy structures of the modern world. (It might also be a measure of social tolerance: more pseudonyms = more oppression. It'd be interesting to use this as an index.)
Thoughts, gang?
HARLAN ELLISON
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 9:45:19
Charlie Petit has arrived in LA. John Carmichael & Bridget Connolly (and, presumably, Glen Kulik) are primed to enter the fray. The "amicus" attorney who won the Napster case is in town and in link-up with the AAAA-Team. Chris Valada and a few Webderlanders will be in Room 1 at the Federal Courthouse in Pasadena. Susan and I will be there. Perhaps not the final battle of this war, but a major outing, nonetheless.
My deepest thanks to all of you who have wished us well.
yr. pal, Lochinvar Ellison
Eric
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 9:36:20
Brian Siano <brian@briansiano.com>
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 9:33:50
But what we shouldn't expect is that a T-shirt with such a simple and not-terribly-offensive message will get us into trouble with the authorities. The fact that times are pretty tense these days, and that the guy was even _thinking_ that he might attract trouble, is more an indication of the current political climate than any bad faith on his part.
Here's a useful thought experiment to make. Imagine if we were having this conversation in the Soviet Union, and the subject was a low-level Party apparatchik who decided to sit in a cafe and read a book by Aleksandir Solzhenitsyn to "see what would happen." The fact that he'd probably be picked up by the NKVD is far more important that looking for tell-tale signs of his bad faith: in this context, saying "He knew what he was doing" isn't very different from saying "He deserved what he got."
Whatever the guy's intentions, he should not have been bothered about his T-shirt.
Eric
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 9:28:16
That's what it's all about. As long as the goons continue to be so butt-stupid as to play into your game (and they will continue to be so forever), work the room!
Who care if Downs was "involved" in previous ballyhoo? Who cares if he comes off as some rage-ready Abbie Hoffman type? Point is, the mall-droids hit their marks better than any director could ever dream.
If it continues to be this easy, DTS, to generate nation-wide anti-war press, look forward to a long year of successful ruckus. I think this is the best news I've heard all week.
Jay
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 9:17:4
But I do know a staged, manipulated political ambulance-chase news story when I see it.
DTS <none>
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 8:45:11
OY!
--DTS
Jay
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 8:33:7
"I was in the food court with my son when I was confronted by two security guards and ordered to either take off the T-shirt or leave the mall," said Downs.
"ordered" - What are they, Mall Nazis?
Jay Smith
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 8:14:59
Steve Downs knows his game. He's used to dealing with the public and press. He stirred up trouble the night before, so the rentacops were ready for him at the mall the next day. Expecting him to start some shit, they ejected him - just what he wanted. So he calls his pal Chet McChin at the local McNews station and says, "oh, they got all mad cuz I wore this shirt!" Chet gets an erection, grabs Jimmy Ohlson from the water cooler, heads down to the scene and turns it into America's Fight to Protect the First Amendment.
Sound about right? Now, I'm not saying the guy's cause is wrong. But it sounds like a great place to engineer some news.
Finder
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 7:17:54
Cindy - Crossgates Mall security will always call the Guilderland PD for back-up after a refusal by someone to leave; it's standard operating procedure. It has nothing to do with a threat assessment or anything along those lines; mall security simply isn't empowered to physically eject or arrest anyone.
The story from the Albany Times Union on the arrest had a little more info, the best part being that Steve Downs (the arrested/accused) is chief attorney in the Albany office of the state's Commission on Judicial Conduct; I don't see him backing down, even if the mall drops the charge (Trespass. If they give Downs anything but a gentle chiding, I'd be surprised.)
Also according to the Times Union report, after arresting him, the cop talked to him for an hour in an effort to get him to take off the shirt and drop the whole thing, to no avail. So it's not like they ran him in without a second thought; but it's not like Downs didn't expect the possibility, either (the quote in the AP story - "I think it was in part to just see what would happen if I put a T-shirt on that said, `Peace,' and walked around in Crossgates" - pretty much says he was looking for a response of some kind, which - while making the fact of an abridgement of rights no less disturbing - paints Downs in less of a shade of Victim.)
This has the possibility to turn into a very interesting First Amendment case. Is freedom of speech protected in a privately owned place of commerce? Downs wasn't doing anything illegal in wearing the shirt; there was no warning that displays of peace slogans would not be tolerated; there is no statute saying he can't express his opinion on his clothing. He didn't run afoul until he refused to leave (the request for which was within the mall's rights - regardless of how wrong-headed it was in this instance, the mall has the right to refuse service or restrict access if it feels it has cause; but the onus is on the mall to demonstrate that cause.)
How happy will malls nationwide be if they wind up having to post long disclaimers about what is and isn't permissible in terms of personal appearance, dress, topics of conversation, and so forth at all of their entrances so the public can behave appropriately while on the mall's private property? And how would they uniformly enforce such criteria? And how many merchants would care to stay in a mall with strict shopper screening criteria that potentially impacts their sales and bottom line - or to be associated with such a place in the long term?
And they wonder why internet shopping has such appeal...
***********
I spent yesterday at the Homeland Security Summit in DC, sent there by the job; and I'm not sure which was worse: the Congressmen who provided self-aggrandizing rhetoric while imploring those in business to support the United States and its efforts to provide the best technology to the Department of Homeland Security's efforts (and not so subtly equating Al Queda with Iraq in discussing the threats from those who would kill us all and destroy our way of life); or the head honchos of several companies who did everything but dance jigs over the money they've made since 9/11, carefully couching it in statements about how the opportunities they had weren't important, because it was more critical for them to show support for the government's needs and the needs of the people. Uh huh. Didn't hear anybody talk about contributing for free, either.
They all think the American public is wholly comprised of idiots who take what the nightly news spoon feeds them as gospel truth and never explore any alternative media at all. Not a quote, but a definite sense from the way they said what they said.
I think the quote that killed me, though, was from Bill Hoagland, who is director of Budget & Appropriations, Office of the Senate Majority Leader, and who said with regards to what we would have to cut from the budget for the massive undertaking of protecting the nation from terrorist threats (and I quote): "It's a time of guns, butter and Homeland Security."
(Runner up: Darryl Moody, from a company called Bearing Point, who made an offhanded remark at the start of his comments about needing a "drool towel" after hearing all the opportunities that the DHS would afford business. Apparently, no one clued him in that it was very un-business-PC to sound like you wanted to be a profiteer in paranoia, panic and war. Okay to INFER, bad to state outright...)
Walt Kelly and Pogo were right - the enemy IS us.
DTS <none>
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 6:44:16
--DTS
Jay Smith
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 5:35:32
If the metal is sterile and a judge signs a paper ordering it, it's okay to put needles under the fingernails of those who are suspected of various crimes. Is it any worse, he asked, than what those bastards did to us on September 11th?
So much for the presumption of innocence.
Earl Wells
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 5:33:19
Tomorrow, may the spirit of Lou "The Toe" Groza, patron saint of KICKers, smile on you as you boot one through the uprights.
DTS <none>
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 5:11:28
--DTS
P.S. DIANA: I know it may not sound like much, but I'm firing off letters to my State & Federal reps -- congressman, senator, etc -- complaining of the USA Patriot Act, and the draft for a second Patriort Act, and I'm mentioning this recent, egregious trampling of a citizen's rights -- not to mention all of the crap that happened after Ashcroft was turned loose. I'm also sending letters to my local newspaper, and even USA Today (I know, I know -- McPaper -- but, hey, it DOES have a wide reach).
DTS <none>
- Wednesday, March 5 2003 4:54:31
--DTS
Diana
- Tuesday, March 4 2003 23:59:28
I read the news story about that man who got arrested in that food court in the mall, after refusing to remove his shirt or leave, when he was asked to. From what I read it seemed like the security gaurds were the ones who approached him and his son. It made no mention of any particular store owner being involved.It doesn't say where the guards got the idea to address this man and his son that day. It also doesn't say exactly what this man was doing when they approached him. The article quotes him as saying he was just walking around, and that he put the shirt on to see what would happen, which he hoped would be nothing at all.
There is also a quote from one of the "protestors" who were asked to leave a few weeks earlier, who said the group they were with weren't protesting at all. Just walking around together with their "objectionable" shirts on.
I've been saying for a long time that this country isn't really a free country. I'm not going to go into a whole diatribe on what exactly I mean by that statement, but I will say that that incident in the mall is NOT UNUSUAL. But maybe in this instance a whole new group of people is beginning to have to deal with the kind of shit some other people have had to deal with for a long long time. It might start out as a huge shock to be faced with such things. It does NOT get any easier to deal with no matter how long it goes on for, one just begins to develope an "attitude" and a veneer, and one learns to pick their battles.
If some of you find this incident shocking, and/or disturbing, my question to those of you who *are* disturbed is what if anything are you going to do about it? And when? (if ever) This time, or the next time, or the time after that? How long are you going to wait? How bad is going to have to get? How close to your own front door will it have to get before you try and call a stop to this kind of outrageous tyrannical behavior?
But maybe it's already too late.
Diana
Chris L
- Tuesday, March 4 2003 23:19:16
While I admit to the superficial logic of your statement, I fear that opens the door to incredible potential abuse. What if they decide they don't want black men in the mall? They can go up to the black man, ask him to leave and then, if he refuses, arrest him for refusing to leave private property. They could say he wasn't arrested for being black, merely for not leaving when asked to, never mind the reason he was asked to leave was for being black.
On the other hand, I WOULD defend a private homeowner's right to discriminate against anyone he wanted to it - if a KKK member doesn't want blacks in his house, well, it's his house. The question, then, is should the mall be considered private property in the same way a person's home is?
Chris L
- Tuesday, March 4 2003 23:8:46
It's the type of film that serves a function though. To me, that kind of movie (along with films like American Beauty, Forrest Gump and, well, many many others) seems so shriekingly loud and obvious, it can be described as little more than pandering. I find it both insulting and dishonest. But many people don't see that way. For me, it's just LOUD cinema. For many people, it's at just the right volume level. I admit I can't understand how people can't be damn near deafened by this stuff but plenty of perfectly bright people aren't so I think it's just a chocolate/vanilla kind of thing. And, of course, nobody but nobody can tell you what you like or don't like. That's up to you.
And, just for the record, I think Road to Perdition is an OK movie. At least not a bad one though Mendes' first movie is so bad it almost demands the second film be punished for its sins.
Just saw GERRY, Gus Van Sant's latest effort. I liked it a lot but wouldn't argue with a person who despised it. It is a ruthless and narrow exercise in aesthetics and creates a vast empty space which permits the viewer to fill in what he or she wishes. I dug it but it won't be for everyone or most people and that doesn't mean I think it's some sort of "smart" film either - it is not profound, just intensely focused. Has to be seen on the big screen though.
DTS <none>
- Tuesday, March 4 2003 22:10:12
CINDY: I'm trying to ignore your post, because it reeks of wrong-headedness, and I'm tired enough to type the wrong thing. If you actually believe that one should roll over and remove an article of clothing because someone says you have to, but that you should fight to your last breath to protect a piece of cloth because it's colored red, white and blue, you need to reexamine your ideas of freedom and patriotism. Men on the battlefield don't fight for a piece of cloth. They fight for the ideals that allow us to treat that piece of cloth any way we choose. And freedom of speech should allow a peaceable adult to wear any sort of t-shirt he wants to. (By the way, if someone in a public school tells your child _not_ to say the pledge of allegiance, or not to pray, or not to salute the flag, will you advise him or her to do as they say? If so, good for you -- but if not, then why the double standard?)
G'night.
--DTS
Eric Martin
- Tuesday, March 4 2003 21:1:20
Time and again, the bluenoses of this country bring to everyone's attention the otherwise marginalized subversions of occasional individuals. How many people knew of Mapplethorpe before the flapdoodle over funding the NEA? And now how many know of our humble food-court patron, casually crunching tacos with his son and John Lennon t-shirt. Hell, I bet he's had six calls from lawyers offering to sue the mall pro bono. Talk show appearance to follow, new clothes, a studio haircut, and maybe even a hottie or two...
And as Lynn said, this mall had just seen a big fracas. For all we know, this guy was part of that fracas, maybe even a recognizable face to mall management, and maybe his intentions on showing up the very next week were to provoke some more. Point is, he made his point, he's getting press, the mall will look stupid...you should revel in this. It's not every day that lone peaceniks get copy. Usually you need massive numbers to get the news to even blink at you.
Cindy <IAMCINDIANAJONES@netscape.net>
TEXAS USA - Tuesday, March 4 2003 20:54:19
Naaaaah surely not!
I mean it defies common sense... but then as uncommon as common sense is these days there are few surprises.
In the end-- they should have taken off the shirts-- who CARES if somebody tells you to doff your peacenik duds it wouldn't exactly be akin to ordering you to take down the American Flag.
On the other side of the fence the security guard was fortunate that there was a cop stupid enough to get tangled up in such a non-issue.
I'd say it boils down to the tee- shirt brigade was comprised of a couple of assholes and the security guard and his cop friend were idiots with badges.
Geeze what passes for news these days.
YIKES
Cindy
Lynn
Crossgated - Tuesday, March 4 2003 20:50:43
He was in a mall that had, the previous weekend, had rowdy protesters that had to be bodily removed from the premises. He was only arrested AFTER he was asked to leave the premises and REFUSED. Now, I wholly respect his right to be in a public place and expressing his views, but he choose this battle. He wasn't arrested for wearing the shirt. He was arrested because he refused to leave the premises of a private landowner who (for reasons that can be linked to previous instances of, shall we say, undesirable behavior) was nervous about his presence while wearing a shirt that represented previously mentioned undesirable behavior.
If I owned a shop where the KKK had been protesting the previous weekend, and some guy showed up in a shirt with David Duke's face on it, I might get a bit antsy when he refused to leave after I asked him to.
Although I agree with you that somebody overreacted, this isn't quite as fascist as you make it out to be. And overreacting on the other side isn't going to make us out to be any more rational when it comes time to fight the real offenses, like the kid who got interrogated by the Secret Service because he had a poster in his dorm room (private domicile) of George Bush with an unsavory caption. (I can't precisely remember if it was crosshairs or something like International Terrorist or something stupid like that.)
Yours on the side of protected speech,
L.
DTS <none>
- Tuesday, March 4 2003 20:38:45
--DTS
Eric Martin
- Tuesday, March 4 2003 19:7:12
It sure couldn't hurt.
Eric
- Tuesday, March 4 2003 19:2:24
Reichsmarshall Rumsfeld
The similarities to Himmler and Goering, respectively, give one pause...
Lynn
Seig Heil, Crossgates - Tuesday, March 4 2003 18:54:13
It'll never stand up in court. Even if he was on private property.
L.
DTS <none>
- Tuesday, March 4 2003 18:34:59
--DTS
Brian Siano <brian@briansiano.com>
- Tuesday, March 4 2003 18:28:25
I will say one thing good about Anthony Mighella. I liked _Truly, Madly, Deeply_ a lot.
I can report on a small disappointment. TMC ran _Chitty Chitty Bang Bang_ tonight, and I haven't seen it since I saw it in its first theatrical run 35 years ago. I loved it then. I was five. But my GOD, it's awful. The naked lust to create another _Mary Poppins_, down to casting Dick Van Dyke and a Julie Andrews soundalike. The sugary Edwardianness of the script. Those two little kids, with precious little voices that'd make dogs' ears bleed. The only decent things in the movie were the car (all hail Ken Adam) and the arrangements for the dreadful music. I didn't stay put to see how Anna Quayle, Gert Frobe or Benny Hill stood up in memory. I just wanted to go off in a small corner somewhere and read porno.
Really _evil_ porno.
Diana
- Tuesday, March 4 2003 18:1:47
Jee-ZUS. Go take a look...Mad Spammer Attacks Guestbook.
Bye for now.
Diana
Ben
- Tuesday, March 4 2003 17:54:32
THERE you go! The problem of mainstream 'art' movies in one sentence, encompassing THE ENGLISH PATIENT, BRAVEHEART, and (to a lesser extent) ROAD TO PERDITION!
In my personal philosophy, something is only truly art when you've SUFFERED YOUR GODDAMN ASS FOR IT. Terry Gilliam's debacle with THE ADVENTURES OF BARON MUNCHAUSEN comes to mind, not to mention David Lynch's eternal shooting of ERASERHEAD. You know, people who go through HELL ON EARTH to create their 'masterpieces'!
I'm not saying that making mainstream flicks can't be just as nightmarish, but if you want to film a movie about Jesus Christ, complete with an ancient dialect unspoken for centuries, minus any kind of subtitles whatsoever, AND your name happens to be Mel Gibson, the odds are SOMEWHAT more in your favour.
Jim Davis
- Tuesday, March 4 2003 17:8:27
Check the guestbook page. Some imbecile is having a field day there.
Faisal A. Qureshi
Manchester, UK - Tuesday, March 4 2003 16:16:54
I'm with you on The English Patient. It's not due to my grudge against Anthony Minghella (along with Emma Thompson, Danny Boyle, Robert Carlyle... FOOLS! YOU SHALL ALL PAY FOR CASTING ME INTO THE ABYSS!) but because it is a dull movie.
Minghella did direct, I feel, a pretty good adaptation of The Talented Mr Ripley. Well worth having a look at.
FAQ
Faisal A. Qureshi
Manchester, UK - Tuesday, March 4 2003 16:13:33
I will defend Daredevil though. Again, flawed and seemingly mucked around in the editing and scoring (where'd they dig up that Gangsta rap "Top of the Morning to ya" track!?!), it still had a raw feel that I appreciated. An enjoyable comic book adaptation though one that felt interfered and rushed through. The same problem that the first X-Men film had. No Stick. No Hand. No Greek Elektra but some enthusiasm still held the whole venture together.
Just got back from a research screening of The Life of David Gale. What a godawful bad movie. So professionally put together but following the mechanics of development executives and other film makers who were coked out of their skull whilst attending a Robert McKee three day seminars but proudly point to a barely read copy of Story on the shelf to any writer who complains about their imbecilic suggestions. I have to do a report on this film to the distributor, what the fuck can I say? Thank god there won't be a sequel? How many times do we have to see a good cast commit career sodomy for a crappy venture like this? Heck, maybe they should have re-ran The January Man for people, it'd have the same effect.
Yeah and I absolutely loved Solaris. After the union meeting tomorrow, its Confession of a Dangerous Mind. Now I hope that movie doesn't stink.
FAQ
Chris L
- Tuesday, March 4 2003 15:22:6
Now now, it's only insulting to Road to Perdition to compare it to the sterile, pallid dreck known as The English Patient.
Chris L
- Tuesday, March 4 2003 15:20:28
For me, part of what's missing is anything that ISN'T beautiful and perfect. That's what turns me off to so much Hollywood faux art fare - the goal appears to be make every film polished so perfectly smooth and frictionless there is nothing left for anyone to grab hold of. This is why I find Peter Jackson's work so much more appealing than Spielberg - Jackson embraces roughness. Spielberg seeks to eliminate it at all costs. Same for most Hollywood fare that gets embraced by Academy types. It's rehearsed and "perfected" to the point it ceases to be alive. And in Mendes' case, there's also the irritating self-congratulatory glow of every scene - he basks in the "beauty" of his "perfection" and shouts his genius to the world in every frame until it becomes deafening and tedious.
A film with the same "time worn themes" can be made wonderfully by embracing a roughness, a spontaneity, a joie de vivre utterly missing from most Academy-embraced material. Personally, I wouldn't subject my worst enemy to a film festival of Best Picture Winners.
DTS <none>
- Tuesday, March 4 2003 15:14:33
--DTS
DTS <none>
- Tuesday, March 4 2003 15:12:31
This is the guy Bush (take your pick, they're interchangabe) chose to run the Armed Services. 'Nuff said.
--DTS
Jon Stover
Canada - Tuesday, March 4 2003 14:48:29
He then read a dictionary definition of 'road.'
As to Max Allan Collins -- it's too bad his run on Batman got truncated by what appeared to be editorial interference and indecision about what Batman was supposed to be post _Year One._
Cheers, Jon
Cindy <IAMCINDIANAJONES@netscape.net>
TEXAS USA - Tuesday, March 4 2003 14:41:15
WHICH WHAT-- Tomato Tomahto we knew what you was sayin'.
:)
Cindy
Oh, ps
This is the FIRST time I have seen a film on the BIG screen first. The Road to Perdition was sublime-- beautiful beyond words and haunting. It BROKE MY HEART but I loved it.
Cindy <IAMCINDIANAJONES@netscape.net>
TEXAS USA - Tuesday, March 4 2003 14:36:58
You made me cry.
Your message to Todd was profoundly beautiful.
Cindy
L.
- Tuesday, March 4 2003 14:35:22
L.
Lynn
Hearing - Tuesday, March 4 2003 14:34:48
Courtroom 1
Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
125 South Grand Avenue
Pasadena, CA
Time: ??? (Harlan's previous post indicated sometime after 9am.)
L.
Lynn
Subj: ROAD TO PERDITION - Tuesday, March 4 2003 14:28:47
I just got to see it this past weekend for the first time and I frankly think it was one of the best movies of 2002. I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to see it on the big screen. One of the most beautiful pieces of *cinema* I've seen since THE ENGLISH PATIENT.
Chris, there's a difference between time-honored themes and clichés. Recognize the difference and you'll open yourself up to a whole new world of stories.
L
R.Wilder
- Tuesday, March 4 2003 14:26:5
Joseph J. Finn <josephfinn@mac.com>
Chicago, - Tuesday, March 4 2003 14:23:51
Man, you're so far left you're right.
(Sorry - I really couldn't resist that!)
You know, I actually watched an hour of Oprah last night, simply becuase it was a re-run of Moore pushging "Bowling for Columbine." At first it was bizzare to see him on Oprah, but she seemed to really dig having him on the show, and had darn nice things to say about the movie (nothing terribly insightful, though). And hey, it was an opportunity to see some great clips from the movie (my personal favorite being the gun nut who argues for no limitations on guns at all in favor them being used in a possible revolution, and when Moore references Ghandi as using peaceful means to defeat the British Empire, says "I'm not familiar with that.")
Regards,
Joseph
Chris L
- Tuesday, March 4 2003 13:53:5
WTF? Are we in such a desperate situation that 'Perdition' is considered some rare, high-brow word?
I wonder if Dubyah knows what it means.
Chris L
- Tuesday, March 4 2003 13:49:9
**
Nonsense, I only hate 90% of movies. :)
Sturgeon's Law, you know.
Frank Church
- Tuesday, March 4 2003 13:33:46
Road To Perdition is is wonderous. Not everything has to have deep metaphors.
Frank Church
- Tuesday, March 4 2003 13:30:29
--------------
Brian, I am the far-left mentor on this board, and don't you soon forget it toad. Lol.
Alterman was downing Chomsky on C-Span as well. See, wishy washy liberals bore the fuck out of me.
Jon Stover
Canada - Tuesday, March 4 2003 13:7:12
Take care, Jon
Joseph J. Finn <josephfinn@mac.com>
Chicago, - Tuesday, March 4 2003 11:57:33
My sincere condolences in this time of troubles.
Regards and best wishes,
Joseph
HARLAN ELLISON
- Tuesday, March 4 2003 9:40:31
Susan's and my condolences. There are no words that can close the door through which that chill wind blows. But take small joy in having had her with you for more than seventy years. As one who lost a parent very very early in my life, and who has sustained the chill of that vacuum for a lifetime since, I promise you "the small joy" is no mean gift. Again, from us to you, condolences. You are not alone.
Harlan
Jay Smith
- Tuesday, March 4 2003 8:45:34
Yeah yeah...tried that, but one off-the-cuff by Frank and the damn thing fried my motherboard.
Brian Siano <brian@briansiano.com>
- Tuesday, March 4 2003 8:28:40
I figure, whatever she works up, it'll probably be a bunch of feel-nice-about-yourself themes that wouldn't be out of place on Oprah, and there might be a detail or two that signifies the Madonna we all know and tolerate. Probably won't be as bizarre as, say, Michael Jackson's _Moonwalker_.
I just wish that she'd keep her damn mouth shut on the matter, so that more deserving children's book authors would get a shot at the market. You know how it'll be: millions spent promoting the works of a multimillionaire, while authors who could use the money watch as their works get passed by. (As awful as Oprah Winfrey is, she tried to direct attention to writers who could use it.)
Scott Reeston
- Tuesday, March 4 2003 7:44:19
The title "Where the Wild things Are" is taken, and showing nude pictures to children is a definite no no...
Jay: I told you time and again, sarcasm meters always require firewall protection; a simple result of the massive effort required to incorporate one's malaise at the imbecility of someone's thought or act. Might I suggest Norton's Sarcasm Buffer 5.0?
Scott
Lynn
SUBJ: Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit - Tuesday, March 4 2003 7:42:12
Do you know what room number you'll be in tomorrow?
L.
PS. I am refrring to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 125 South Grand Avenue, Pasadena, CA, (http://tinyurl.com/6u36)
Jay Smith
- Tuesday, March 4 2003 6:26:50
Diana
- Tuesday, March 4 2003 1:58:49
Look, I've just realized something...this whole Madonna writing children's books thing is going to take a LOT of pressure off of Robert Blake. My GOD, think of the jokes people (most of which will be too gross to ever make it past Jay Leno's censors, but still...) It's a wonderland of hilarity. I can't stop laughing...Someone must write to Ms ???, anyway HER, and thank her for this incredible gift she's given us all...
Diana
Alex Jay Berman <alexjay@earthlink.net>
Philly, - Tuesday, March 4 2003 0:47:37
As for "getting her life out wherever you can"--well, friend, you do that every time and every place you draw breath. Her life is forever wrapped in yours, and vice versa. Hold her tightly when you need warmth, and know she would never begrudge it you.
And don't you dare apologize--rather we should thank you for sharing.
(Really, though, where better could you find to air this? Here you're with people who care despite any differences had--and you're in a place where the titular host has eulogized his own parents in several of his books, after all ...)
Count me as another e-mail or telephonic ear, should you need.
ON THE SUBJECT OF CHILDREN'S BOOKS: Lest we forget, some of the best children's books in history have been written by truly dysfunctional people: Lewis Carroll, who had trouble relating to people and formed a perhaps unnatural attraction to little Alice Liddle, and ALICE IN WONDERLAND; Roald Dahl, something of a racist who wrote the excellent CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY (Willy Wonka) as well as the truly weird back-to-the-womb vaginal excusion JAMES AND THE GIANT PEACH ... the list goes on.
(And let's not forget my favorite children's book: THE COLOUR OUT OF SPACE, by H.P. Lovecraft.
... you're all staring at me ...)
Jim Davis
Re the news of Madonna writing children's books . . ., - Tuesday, March 4 2003 0:10:37
(Damn you, Lynn. Now I'll NEVER go to sleep.)
Diana
- Monday, March 3 2003 23:56:59
I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to any Madonna fans who I may have unintentionally offended with my last post.
I was wrong to judge.
Diana
Diana
- Monday, March 3 2003 22:48:9
Leave me alone Mr Ellison. I KNOW I misspelled "consciousness". I was giggling while I was typing. I got distracted.
DG
Diana
- Monday, March 3 2003 22:44:15
Madonna's still alive. Would anyone be offended if I made fun her at this time?
SHE'S writng a children's book? With full centerfold drawings of where the babies come out? Oh UGH...
What's next? "Annie Sprinkles Guide To Breastfeeding"?
I could say some really disgusting (but funny) things right now, but I'll control myself.
But I'm thinking them.
All I will say is:
E-E-E-E-W.
And:
YUCK.
Diana
Diana <dleeg9@yahoo.com>
http://simplycosmic.homestead.com, - Monday, March 3 2003 22:33:3
P.P.S. I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to any of you who may still be in deep mourning over the death of the beloved (by some people anyway) Mr. Rogers, and were thus perhaps offended by my recent remarks about him. I was just kidding around about things in my usual puckish and whimsical manner, but sometimes, some people don't think I'm even a little bit funny (even though I really am)
I mean, I actually did always think Mr Rogers was kind of creepy, but maybe I could have waited a while to mention it. Perhaps in a week or two, when your pain was less raw, my comments would have seemed less insensitive. (they would still have BEEN just as insensitive, but they wouldn't have hurt you so much)
(and I really do think LaVar Burton is kind of hot, by the way, but that thought was somewhat irrelevant My bringing it up was more in the way of being a "stream of consciosness" sort of thing which I could just as well have left out of the post entirely if I'd thought about it longer, but oh well, what's done is done)
Anyway I didn't mean to come across as laughing at your pain. I wasn't laughing at your pain. I'm sure your pain was real, so laughing at it wouldn't be right. I realize that. I hope you'll be able forgive me eventually if I've offended you in anyway by my recent post in regards to this matter.
Besides, I'll bet he really was a very nice person. In his own eery way.
Bye for now.
Diana
Lynn
Madonna to write children's books - Monday, March 3 2003 22:8:16
http://launch.yahoo.com/read/news.asp?contentID=212463
L.
Jay Smith
- Monday, March 3 2003 21:35:52
A toast to you, your wife, your family, and the spirit of your mother, whose life no number of lines, graphs or pages could possibly capture.
- Jay
Chuck
- Monday, March 3 2003 21:27:19
My deepest condolences for your loss. Take strength in each other and keep everyone you love close.
Chuck
Diana <dleeg9@yahoo.com>
http://simplycosmic.homestead.com, - Monday, March 3 2003 21:18:24
IRONY:
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. i·ro·nies
1a. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning. b. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning. c.
(****PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING DEFINITION***)
A literary style employing such contrasts ***for humorous*** or rhetorical effect. See synonyms at wit1.
ETYMOLOGY: French ironie, from Old French, from Latin rna, from Greek eirneia, feigned ignorance, from eirn, dissembler, probably from eirein, to say. See wer-5 in Appendix I.
Diana
- Monday, March 3 2003 20:44:38
"permanently traumatized for life" is redundant. Please change that in your minds to either,"permanantly traumatized" or "traumatized for life". Your choice. Thank you very much.
Bye again.
Diana
Diana <dleeg9@yahoo.com>
http://simplycosmic.homestead.com, - Monday, March 3 2003 20:33:57
I know one is not supposed to speak ill of the dead, but this is what I truly thought.I felt that there was an eery quality to the tone of his voice. The very blandness of
his persona spoke to me of something not quite true. And his puppets and his co-hostess seriously freaked me out.
While I'm on the subject of hosts of children's programs, I personally thought LaVar (sp?) Burton was a poor choice for that kind of thing, because I think he's rather attractive. This seemed to me to be a confusing, and inappropriate kind of feeling to be having while I was sitting there watching Reading Rainbow with my toddler.
Speaking of rainbows, and kiddy show hosts, I think someone should give Paul Williams his own children's program. He's at least as nice as Fred Rogers, but not creepy. He's not at all attractive, but he's very funny, and small, and unintimidating. Nothing to confuse Mommy there. Nothing to scare the kiddies. And he could write clever songs for the program. Plus he knows all kinds of famous people who might act as guest hosts from time to time as a favor to him. (I would NOT recommend inviting Mr Ellison on in this capacity, by the way. He would no doubt
insist on taking any episodes he showed up on down such avenues as would be likely to leave the children permanently
traumatized for life) (not to mention their parents) (And it's not that the idea of The Harlan Ellison Kiddy Hour, doesn't have a certain dark appeal for me, but I have a somewhat twisted sense of humor)
Bye for now.
Diana
Mitch <mitch_3737@yahoo.com>
Hazlet, NJ - Monday, March 3 2003 20:2:13
No, but I would be leery of the screen version of "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen".
Mitch
Diana
- Monday, March 3 2003 19:22:4
Diana <dleeg9@yahoo.com>
http://simplycosmic.homestead.com, - Monday, March 3 2003 19:4:39
I was disappointed with this movie. It was kind of boring (I started doing crytograms while I was watchng it) and like Chris L said, one could see the end coming well in advance. I will forget about having watched this in no time.
Diana
Bill Gauthier
New Bedford, MA - Monday, March 3 2003 18:46:19
Bill
Bill Gauthier
New Bedford, MA - Monday, March 3 2003 18:44:20
I'm truly sorry for your loss.
Bill
Diana <dleeg9@yahoo.com>
http://simplycosmic.homestead.com, - Monday, March 3 2003 18:11:49
I'm sorry for your loss. I hope your love for each other keeps you strong and gives you comfort through this sad time in your lives.
Diana
Lynn
For Todd & Debbie - Monday, March 3 2003 17:41:28
Lynn & Bill
Chris L
- Monday, March 3 2003 17:29:10
Your pain is yours and nobody can truly understand it but I lost my mom to cancer a while ago too and, well, I'm still nowhere close to being over it. I suppose if I ever get "over it" that's when I stop really being alive. You have my sympathies. And if you're going through anything similar to what I did, make sure you don't feel guilty if you feel some sense of relief as well. It doesn't mean you don't miss her, it means you know she isn't suffering anymore.
Chris L
- Monday, March 3 2003 17:27:1
Cindy <IAMCINDIANAJONES@netscape.net>
TEXAS USA - Monday, March 3 2003 16:43:43
I hate it that you're going through something like this. Your Mom sounds like a fascinating person and it's all our loss that one more person who really did matter is gone.
It had to have been a wonderful thing for her that you and Debbie moved out there. She must have been awfully proud of you. She raised a kind and remarkably intelligent man who has his priorities all in order-- with his family first. You know she was probably also very proud of your flawless political leanings and of the titanium steel spine that allows you to hang out here with the pinkos and liberals.
I'll bet you she was the sort that nobody pushed around either.She must have been somebody special to have had a boy like you.
Hello to your Debbie--she's pretty sparkly herself. Give her a hug from me.
Oh, and get back here soon- I'm losin' ground with that new Homeland security document. I've been reading it and it ain't lookin' so good for our side.
Take good care, sweet Todd.
Truly your pal,
Cindy
Lorin O.
- Monday, March 3 2003 15:51:3
I've found that losing a parent can leave one feeling a bit "untethered." I hope that the words of the folks on this board help alleviate that a bit, help you feel "connected" in some small way.
Best,
Lorin
Pam <venkmans_girl@hotmail.com>
Central PA, - Monday, March 3 2003 15:15:48
Pam
P.A. Berman
- Monday, March 3 2003 15:1:58
PAB
Ben
- Monday, March 3 2003 14:44:12
There's no real way to describe the pain of losing someone so close without ultimately becoming banal. I can only personally compare it to the passing of my grandfather. The next few days were like a bizarre, twisted, desolate void. He was gone, but it took a while for full comprehension (or acceptance) to kick in.
People sometimes say life's a bitch, then you die. I look at my Grandad, and I disagree. I hope it's the same case with your mom, Todd.
HARLAN,
I'm not familiar with Max Collins' work, (or maybe I am and no one's told me yet), but ROAD TO PERDITION was indeed fantastic in all departments, with the exception of the ending, which, well, I DID see coming a mile away. That's the honest-to-Father-Son-and-Holy-Ghost truth. I don't know how else to put it. I saw the finale coming before they even got to the beach. Still, I loved Tom Hanks' method of restraining almost every single move, every single breath, his character made to the point of obsession...as if an invisible giant gauntlet was silently crushing him. Paul Newman was on top of his game too, representing an alternately proud and wretched man.
I'm not going to argue with you about DAREDEVIL. I suppose we could start off by saying that the narrative was screwed to hell, or the head-banger soundtrack destroyed any sense of drama and impact, or Elektra seems eerily comatose on closer examination...but that would be an exercise in futility.
I hope this icky venture doesn't dampen the winning streak Marvel seems to be on at the moment.
Nevertheless...is it foolish to still look forward to THE HULK movie? (I'm kind of asking myself at this point.)
Faisal A. Qureshi
- Monday, March 3 2003 14:17:43
Sincere condolences on your loss.
Faisal A. Qureshi
Todd Cassel <TheDoh@prodigy.net>
AZ USofA - Monday, March 3 2003 14:7:53
As usual, my typing always beats out my brains when I don't re-read what I sent.
Thank you all for your kind wishes.
-TODD
Jim Davis
- Monday, March 3 2003 14:4:35
Take care,
Jim
cookie
- Monday, March 3 2003 13:58:7
Xanadu <X_a_n_a_d_u@yahoo.com>
Condolences - Monday, March 3 2003 13:58:3
Be strong for each other - our best hopes and wishes to you during you and your mother's journey to Valhalla and beyond. (That is a wild thought to type...)
Bern
Scott Reeston
- Monday, March 3 2003 13:55:2
On behalf of Mel, the children and myself, our sincere sympathies for your loss. If there is anything we can do, you have but to ask.
Scott
Brian Siano <brian@briansiano.com>
- Monday, March 3 2003 13:48:33
Michael <leftearpro@hotmail.com>
- Monday, March 3 2003 13:45:57
best,
Michael and Alia
Todd Cassel <TheDoh@prodigy.net>
AZ USofA - Monday, March 3 2003 13:40:51
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sima Cassel, 75 of Peoria, AZ passed away March 3, 2003. Sima resided in Phoenix for the past 15 years. She had been a long-time resident of Dover, New Jersey, where her late husband Louis was rabbi at the Dover Jewish Center.
Sima had always been active with synagogue life, Sisterhood, Hadassah, and Brandeis, as well as religious school teaching. She was a volunteer docent at the Heard Museum of Phoenix, and volunteered at the Challenger Space Center in Peoria, Arizona. She was a lover of music and the arts, and of people.
Sima is survived by daughter Devorah & son-in-law Gerald Castor of Sarasota, Florida; daughter Loretta & son-in-law Jim Meeker; son Todd & daughter-in-law Debbie Cassel. Sima was blessed with four grandchildren: Sidra and Ari Castor, and Jesse and Haley Meeker. Sima’s brother & sister-in-law Milton and Elaine Sincoff reside in Mamaroneck, New York. She also has a nephew Brian Sincoff and Niece Amy (Paul) Tamiso. Sima will be missed by all of her family and many good friends.
Please send donations to Hospice of Arizona, 2222 W. Northern Ave., Suite A-100, Phoenix, AZ 85021.
--------------------------------------------------------------
That's it. 75 years wrapped up in a few newspaper lines.
Thanks for all your good wishes over the past week or so. She was certainly a fighter: 12 years of cancer, 2 congestive heart failures in 2 weeks, the pulling of the respirator tubes (on a Wednesday I will never forget....full of goodbyes and tension), and then the final 24 hours where the hospice called us with word that the inevitable was minutes away, and yet she still kept that heart and those lungs pumping for another hours.
We'll be heading to Valhalla, New York (yes, that's a real town with a real cemetary) tomorrow for her burial Wednesday next to my father, who died in 1981.
Sorry for the unrelated posting. I just thought I would get her annotated life out wherever I could on this day.
-TODD
Diana <dleeg9@yahoo.com>
http://simplycosmic.homestead.com, - Monday, March 3 2003 13:30:35
"Scott Reeston
- Monday, March 3 2003 12:0:49
M. Ellison, writing:
"Embarrassed by my niggardliness of spirit"
Nothing niggard about...showing justified pride in accomplishment...It ain't brag if you can do it."
Regards, Scott"
That's right. If you've got, flaunt it, bay-bee!!!
Diana
Joseph J. Finn <josephfinn@mac.com>
Chicago, - Monday, March 3 2003 13:26:37
Scott Reeston
- Monday, March 3 2003 12:0:49
"Embarrassed by my niggardliness of spirit"
Nothing niggard about being successful, or showing justified pride in accomplishment. You yourself borrowed from Ali, in the intro to the reissue of "DV": "It ain't brag if you can do it."
Regards, Scott
Brian Siano <brian@briansiano.com>
- Monday, March 3 2003 11:59:55
http://www.theonionavclub.com/avclub3907/video3907.html
Figured someone here might be interested.
Diana
- Monday, March 3 2003 11:43:53
I rented it yesterday, I'm going to watch it later today. I'm just saying...
Diana
HARLAN ELLISON
- Monday, March 3 2003 11:17:58
Today, I called Max Alan Collins. The writer. Friend of mine. An exemplary stand-up guy. If you don't know his books, his movies, his commentaries, his comics ... well, among his credits are ROAD TO PERDITION, a film I can recommend wholeheartedly. (That Tom Hanks, and the film itself, have been so egregiously overlooked in the Oscar nominations is, as we say in mafioso, an "infama.") I called to tell him what I'd missed telling him months ago: that the film is one of the very best I've ever seen, and he should be proud as punch. It may well be, I said to him, the single best translation of a graphic novel to screen ever made. And that takes in a lot of territory. I assure you, had Mr. Collins written the screenplay for DAREDEVIL, it would not have been the crip now making so much money off a generation of filmgoers whose taste has been so blunted and lamed they don't even suspect what marl they wallow in.
And then I wished him a happy 55th birthday.
You might want to do the same, if you're a fan of his excellence.
Yr. pal, Harlan
HARLAN ELLISON
- Monday, March 3 2003 11:2:38
Thank you for the SFBC "50 Greatest" list. I would've missed it.
As an aside: I know it is petty of me to note such a thing, but I must confess to (what I hope is a merely human weakness) a smug modicum of pleasure that I have TWO books on that list, while many another of my peers and contemporaries and newcomers, who have dismissed my work ... do not appear on the list at all.
Embarrassed by my niggardliness of spirit, I remain,
Grateful for the advisement, yr. pal, Harlan.
Alex Jay Berman <alexjay@earthlink.net>
Philly, - Monday, March 3 2003 10:23:37
You can tell Doctor Binet I apologize for defaming him, if you like. It's just that his work became so mixed up with the eugenics movement that I tarred him in my mind rather than those who came after.
Diana <dleeg9@yahoo.com>
http://simplycosmic.homestead.com, - Monday, March 3 2003 9:43:59
To quote my son, "Rules Of Attraction totally kicks ass!" I had no interest in watching this movie. I only rented it as an act of loyalty. (I knew Paul Williams had a small scene in it, playing a somewhat deranged ER medic {completely hilarious}) but that was the only reason I rented it, so seeing this was just another happy accident...
Anyway, if you're seriously bored (like I am and have been for a long time) by the usual predictable, pointless, formulaic,and ultimately forgettable make-work that Hollywood keeps churning out for the masses, and if you, instead, prefer movies with a "twist" like Ghost World, or Pumpkin, or Johnny Darko, you'll probably enjoy watching Rules Of Attraction too.
Bye for now.
Diana
Finder
- Monday, March 3 2003 8:48:34
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/patriot2-hi.pdf
http://foi.missouri.edu/domsecenhanceact/domsecenhanceact.pdf
A lot of it amends language in existing acts and codes; but it's still some disturbing reading. Both files include the 33 page summary that preceeds the actual language of the bill (a shade under 90 pages).
Earl Wells
- Monday, March 3 2003 7:53:52
Regarding Alfred Binet, can you give me a source for your post that he was a proponent of eugenics?
I know that other pioneers of intelligence testing, such as Lewis Terman, advocated eugenics, but I've never heard that about Binet. I thought Binet had a more benevolent goal: the identification of students needing special attention.
DTS <none>
- Monday, March 3 2003 7:5:57
I certainly hope commonsense will ease back into your hands and heads come the next presidential election.
Yrs. in Patriotic Vigilance,
DTS
Scott Reeston
- Monday, March 3 2003 6:28:36
Correct, about not rubbernecking, but I think you missed the intent of the video that NASA released, with the families' permission. If the tape had been somehow pirated (a few did try to hawk some of the wreckage as souvenirs), I'd not only passed, but found which authorites to report the pirate to, and then watched in glee as the scum got his.
I think you go too far in blame for the media in this case. Agreed, there are far too many times when they languish over the misery of others, manufacturing drama from human suffering with callous disregard for the feelings of those in close proximity to the tragic events. In this case, however, I was impressed with the decision to release the tape. The thirteen minutes of video gave me a glimpse of the seven astronauts that left me impressed with them as people, and much more respectful for the job they did. The Columbia crew were calmly ebullient; I'd had the sense that they were happy to be going home, yet saddened to leave the experience I'd often wished I could do. There was for me a sense of true joie de vivre in these men and women, who joked and commented on the actions going on in and around the spacecraft.
I was left feeling that the tape was a good memorial to these folks, who walked at full clip into fate, not breaking stride in so doing.
Scott
Alex again
- Monday, March 3 2003 5:54:26
Alex Jay Berman <alexjay@earthlink.net>
Philly, - Monday, March 3 2003 5:52:14
For steaks, your best bet is Georgine's in Bristol. On a five-star scale, this place is easily four stars--and on two-star prices. My recommendation is the Steak au Poivre, a HUGE pepprcorn-encrusted steak in brandy sauce. I think it's sixteen bucks. You might, for I think a buck more, try their Steak Neptune--a steak of the same size (we're talking the size of a small london broil here) stuffed with crabmeat.
The service is excellent, and the eating area is nice--ask if you can get a table in the back room, where the second level looks out over a stone waterfall.
As for the food itself--well, the portions are Alex-sized, so unless you're me, you'll be taking food home. They serve the meal with some excellent fresh-baked bread and their own garlic butter and cheese spreads, and the table's entrees are served with a shared pallet of roasted potatoes and steamed vegetables. Best to call for a reservation (I think Saturdays are walk-in days).
If you've any room for dessert, I HIGHLY recommend you get the strawberry crepes--for one three-dollar dish, you can feed four.
They also have a banquet hall and a comedy club off the bar, but you'll just want top be there for the food.
Here are driving directions from 30th and Market: http://tinyurl.com/6rby
It may SEEM like a long trip, but the twenty-five minute drive isn't that hard. Toward the end, there's awinding road or two, but you ought to be able to find it okay. There's a lot of parking, so that's okay, too.
A little less chintzy and a little easier to get to is the Great American Diner and Pub--actually, there's two of them; one in Bensalem just outside the city line, and one in Langhorne. Their prices are a little less than Georgine's, and their portions and quality are a little less as well, but they're still very good. The place may LOOK like a T.G.I. Fridays with better wall art (sports fans and pop culture fans will spend some time just looking at the decorations, which HAD to have set the owner back several hundred thousand dollars), but the menu is better than you would expect. I recommend the Cajun Blackened Prime Rib.
michael <mlrcurtis@attbi.com>
grand rapids, mi - Monday, March 3 2003 5:32:47
Congrats with the inclusion of Deathbird Stories and Dangerous Visions in the top 50 Most Significant SF/Fantasy books (1953-2002) by SFBC.
http://www.sfbc.com/doc/content/sitelets/FSE_Sitelet_Theme_2.jhtml?SID=nmsfctop50&_requestid=91827
Mitch <mitch_3737@yahoo.com>
Hazlet, NJ - Monday, March 3 2003 5:28:53
Depends how much you're willing to spend. I've tried about half a dozen high-end steakhouses in Manhattan, and the easy winner is The Palm. The food is incredible, the service impeccable, and the place drips with atmosphere. Caricatures and cartoons cover the walls, from the days when local newspaper guys would contribute to the decor in exchange for lunch. If you're OK with dropping $35 for a fine hunka meat, you can't go wrong.
As for ribs and other BBQ goodness, go to Virgil's. A little pricey, but oh my God. Food to kill for. Be sure to make reservations.
Mitch
Gunther Schmidl <gschmidl at gmx dot at>
Linz, Austria - Monday, March 3 2003 1:1:29
you're misrepresenting the news about the human shields, at least according to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2812677.stm
I think the USA should send human *bombs* -- drop Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Ari Fleischer, Donnie Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft and, of course, Dubya on Baghdad.
From a great height.
Brian Siano <brian@briansiano.com>
- Sunday, March 2 2003 22:18:50
But I'm always on the lookout for a fine rib recipe. Only requirements are ease of making, spiciness, and no need for those full-day cooktimes that REAL barbecue requires. (I'd love to be able to do that, but I just ain't got the resources... YET.)
Maybe someday I'll take a road trip to one of those massive cook-offs in the South or Midwest. In the meantime... any recommendations for ribs or steaks in the Philly/NYC area?
Lynn
Neon Jellyfish and the Benificent Hand of Lenin - Sunday, March 2 2003 22:7:43
http://www.digitalcarrion.com/mandalay_bay.html
If you like neon art, you'll groove on this big time. And the link to the artist is included. More tomorrow when I can catch up on all your tasty ramblings.
L.
PS. Suggestion. Hit F11 to expand your browser to full size to enhance your viewing experience.
Michael <leftearpro@hotmail.com>
finally out of performance for a few weeks!, - Sunday, March 2 2003 20:36:1
But the main reason I dropped in after all these (incredibly busy) months was to wish Charlie and Harlan all the best this coming Thursday. In the parlance of my profession, "Break a leg, guys!"
best to all,
Michael
...with a sleepy wave from Alia
Zoë Rose
CA - Sunday, March 2 2003 18:51:44
I like to cook - I don't always like to eat what I cook. Heh - I figure I'm a 50-50 cook. Half the time it comes out edible and even good. The other half, well... I /really/ need to get a dog.
HOWEVER! There is a recipe I haven't yet managed to mess up, try though I may. A friend taught this to me recently: Lowry's Chicken. Take two frozen chicken breasts (I use boneless, skinless), two cans of green beans (or frozen, and of any veggie, really), turn your oven to 350 or 375 degrees. Put cans of veggies (water and all) into a coverable dish, put the chicken breasts on top, sprinkle heavily with Lowry salt, cover the dish, and put it in the oven for about an hour, maybe hour and a half. DON'T uncover it at all while it's cooking.
When you take it out the chicken is wonderfully tender and everything tastes just delicious. Even better if served with mashed potatoes. It takes no time to prepare and is very difficult to ruin - I left it in for two hours once (darned movies are too interesting!) and it still turned out fine.
--Zoë Rose
rich
- Sunday, March 2 2003 18:32:7
My post about not wanting to insult you actually stems from my own inability to adequately convey the distaste I have for the media without tarring someone like yourself with the same brush. I may not know you, but your posts indicate someone who does not slow by an accident hoping to see the body covered by the sheet and I had a feeling that curiousity of the mission itself was your motivation to seeing the video. I fear that the decent people like yourself (and the other Webderlanders) are few and far between and others' motivations are not quite so innocuous.
Brian,
Olive Garden? Olive Garden?? Surely, there's something better than that in your neighborhood. Like a McDonald's. Or, a garbage can.
(Yes, yes, I know you were joking. Just couldn't resist.)
Diana <dleeg9@yahoo.com>
http://simplycosmic.homestead.com, - Sunday, March 2 2003 18:31:44
HAPPY TEXAS INDEPENDENCE CINDY!!!
Diana
P.S.That goes for anyone else posting here who's from Texas, or wishes they were...
Brian Siano <brian@briansiano.com>
- Sunday, March 2 2003 18:1:52
I did 400 degrees tonight, and it worked out OK. Most of the goodness is in the marinade anyway. (BTW, Stubb's is _in_ Texas, so perhaps you could drive for a coupla hours and get it done right.)
As for roast chicken, I just coat he inside with pepper, dust the outside with pepper and seasoned salt, and put it in the rotisserie for three hours. Again, no big deal.
Cindy <IAMCINDIANAJONES@netscape.net>
TEXAS USA - Sunday, March 2 2003 16:21:43
Your ribs recipe sounds like something I couldn't screw up-- what oven temp?
Cindy
Brian Siano <brian@briansiano.com>
- Sunday, March 2 2003 16:20:12
This is usually where Tina Fey and Jimmy Fallon go into a "joke-off."
Brian Siano <brian@briansiano.com>
- Sunday, March 2 2003 16:15:59
(I never developed a terribly varied palate. But I can do a decent Roast Chicken and Roast Beef, and I usually do the mashed potatoes from scratch.)
Cindy <IAMCINDIANAJONES@netscape.net>
TEXAS USA - Sunday, March 2 2003 14:55:44
I think you deserve the moon and stars.
:)
Cindy
Alex Jay Berman <alexjay@earthlink.net>
Philly, - Sunday, March 2 2003 14:45:38
And no; I never watched the shows. This is what I get for my compulsion to read the ENTIRE newspaper.
(In the newspaper's defense, both are from around this area, but still ...)
CINDY: First off, it's actually Chicken Roule rather than Roulade--one roll is easier to make than a bunch of cute little Martha Stewart overgrown hors d'oeuvres.
But I've always been a good kitchen sink cook--show me what's in your fridge, and I'll make you a gourmet-ish meal. It won't always LOOK great, but it'll taste just fine.
As for "how that woman let me get away" ... well. It was a lot of things. I'll admit to growing slightly complacent. But there were issues a-plenty. There was abuse. There were money problems and other problems (i.e., I'll never be rich; i.e., she felt, since moving in, that it was too much "Alex's home" and that her presence was an addendum taken for granted; i.e., she wasn't doing enough in the home or in the relationship; i.e., I wasn't home enough because I work nights; i.e., that my life objectives (working where I currently do, writing for pay, raising a family) weren't ambitious enough).
Still, we're good friends now, and that's very important to me.
I just wish I were in a social environment where I COULD meet someone. Someone worth it, that is; I'm not so much an egotist to think that I deserve the moon and stars, but if the woman's intelligence doesn't match my own, I'm not there.
Doubtless this will improve in a few months when I have my car and will have more mobility, but it's frustrating.
Cindy <IAMCINDIANAJONES@netscape.net>
TEXAS USA - Sunday, March 2 2003 14:28:37
Casually whipping up Chicken Roulade with Red Clam Chowder stuffing. Don't ever ask me for dinner suggestions again-- you are AMAZING!
How DID that woman ever let you get away?
I'm not much of a cook (except for my tortilla soup)--my husband married me for my sparkling conversation.
:)
Cindy
Scott Reeston
- Sunday, March 2 2003 14:22:58
Don't let me hang you up on something, mon ami, have at it. I agree it ain't news, but I will admit to watching out of innate curiosity and interest in the space program. It's no crime to see the inside of the shuttle on such circumstances; hell, others who have landed safely have taped the same activities, and I've gotten the chance to watch a couple of those. The odds are quite long against my ever getting to go, so I figure that the vicarious act of watching others is the best I can indulge. I'm not watching out of hope to get the glimpse of fear, or some morbid curiousity akin to the character Ballard in "Crash". I'm curious, is all.
Scott
Joseph J. Finn
Chicago, - Sunday, March 2 2003 14:12:22
Who the hell are Zora Andrich and Helene Ekaterowicz?
Joseph
Forrester
- Sunday, March 2 2003 12:57:15
Thanks for the Tom Lehrer article. My wife the doctor is looking it over right now. Every time there's a press conference with the pope or any of the "princes of the church" (as Henry called them in "A Man for All Seasons"), they should be compelled to play Tom's "Vatican Rag."
Forrester
Alex Jay Berman <alexjay@earthlink.net>
Philly, - Sunday, March 2 2003 12:22:55
(Chicken Roulade is a super-easy dish which LOOKS like you've slaved for hours. It can be made MANY ways--I usually use ground veal--so if anyone wants, just e-mail me for the recipe.)
Cindy <IAMCINDIANAJONES@netscape.net>
TEXAS USA - Sunday, March 2 2003 12:16:24
I'll be back in a bit to finish my posts but for now I can help you on your question;
"But Cindy--I DO have one important question for you:
What the heck should I make for dinner tonight?"
That is EASY! If it's cold up there-- as it is here at the moment have Tortilla SOUP!
If you need instructions holler at me.
:)
yer pal,
Cindy
rich
- Sunday, March 2 2003 12:15:40
One Hour Photo is not a good movie and the ONLY reason it's even watchable is because of Williams' performance. I don't have the time to discuss all the things wrong with this movie. In a nutshell, it doesn't know what it wants to do or be.
But, the main reason I'm writing is that you MUST go out and get Criterion's The Killers. Faaaaaaaantastic. And, even better, it comes with memos from Siegel and his spot on analysis of the shortcomings of the short story and the '46 version. Oh, yes, there's also a nice student film by someone named Tarkovsky.
Columbia Cockpit Video: I had written a bunch of shit regarding this and saw Scott's post and I couldn't keep the rest of it intact without insulting Scott (which was NOT my goal) so I'll say this: I will not watch it as it ain't news.
Scott Reeston
- Sunday, March 2 2003 11:54:56
Not surprising to me at all. I didn't think there would be much which could give any clue as to the catastrophe. First, I don't think that any thing pertinent to the investigation would be released without both NASA's and the victims families giving consent to its release. If there was anything disturbing, we would not have gotten a glimpse and personally, I do applaud that stance.
Second, there is little chance that the tape being recorded at the breakup would've been able to be read, due to its being closer to the heat and damage at that point in time. The tragedy is far less for any voyeur than the folks at NASA, who could've used the recording as a "black box" to get some potential idea as to causality.
Scott
Scott Reeston
- Sunday, March 2 2003 11:44:8
Got nothing to say about abortion on demand except that it's the women's body. She has the right of ownership as far as I'm concerned. As to unwanted pregnancy, well, accidents happen, but planning parenthood makes a good deal of difference. More resonsibility in sexual conduct means less consequences.
Alex, in regards to taxation and government encroachment on free speech:
First, America is far down the list of countries taking the largest percentile of their citizen's money, at least according to research by "Forbes" magazine:
http://www.forbes.com/legacy/global/2000/0207/48chart1_chart.shtml
We in Canada are farther down the list from you, but there was no numbers there to support the premise. There is an odd dichotomy here regarding taxation: We want spending on social programs as much as we desire tax cuts.
As to "Patriot, Act II", we don't have much in the works by way of government moving to usurp the rights of the people to discourse. Our politicians at least gave the people here enough respect to see that there should be a day when the war on terror ends and subsequently placed a sunset clause in all binding legislation, especially C-36: The Anti-Terroism Act, in order to keep government in check. Of course, the standing government can easily get around the sunset clause by simply voting an extension, and this process can continue in perpetuity.
One more: Bill C-42: The Public Safety Act, which would give the Defense Minister ample force to declare any and all areas of Canada "military security zones" and promptly do away with all civil liberites to those inhabiting such declared areas. Essentially, it's a proposed end-around to the cumbersome War Measures Act, which requires a clear and visible threat to our country and a full vote for assent in the House of Commons to invoke martial law. C-42 would allow standing governments to simply state that they perceive a terrorist threat and subsequently invoke the Act.
I've heard it said that we would never enter into totalitarianism at the point of a gun, but that we would go willingly. Perhaps it should be added that fear is a seemingly exploitable path for governments as well.
Scott
Alex Jay Berman <alexjay@earthlink.net>
Philly, - Sunday, March 2 2003 11:27:34
BRIAN: Though I'm fine with you using scatterguns on gnats, one thing you said struck me wrong: Cindy can be a Republican without wholly endorsing the antics of the party leaders--it's not HER obligation to reconcile her own beliefs with those of her party in power. She can do that by voting.
And while I'll ascribe some political naivete to her (witness her love letter to Trent Lott right before he developed severe foot-in-mouth disease), she surely doesn't have to justify her political leanings to US.
(Even if they are a bit "silly")
(What--I was supposed to RESIST?!?)
But Cindy--I DO have one important question for you:
What the heck should I make for dinner tonight?
CHARLIE: By simply stopping, you missed out on that which was good. It seems a nose-cutting act of spite (even if you DID end up saving money).
JOSEPH: Um. What--you won't wine me and dine me first? Who do you think I am--Zora Andrich or Helene Ekaterowicz?
(The fact that I know those names despite not watching teevee saddens me greatly)
But hey--you have comics questions, I'm prolly the guy to ask.
(And if you know any nice intelligent Jewish girls, they will serve quite well as your proxies with regard to romantic entanglements.)
HARLAN: Thank you for your recommendation, some time back, of THE WEEK--my first issue just came (MyPoints gave me a free subscription), and I am much impressed.
ALL: Has anyone watched the 13-minute Columbia cockpit video? I just can't bring myself to do it--it'll hurt too much.
Well, I'm back to the tasks for the day--practicing the guitar (it's so nice when everything starts coming together) and cleaning house (a task akin to the Hercules' doing the same for the Augean Stables--and me without a handy river). I'm hoping I'll be awake enough at day's end to get some writing done.
Joseph J. Finn
Chicago, - Sunday, March 2 2003 11:24:20
Marry me. That's exactly what I was thinking of. More superheros than I remmebr from the description I found, but the feel is exactly right (especially with the Kingpin trying to buy the young cop). Thanks ever so much!
Forrester,
Man, we need to go to a Sox game sometime. I'm a little later as a fan (my first great baseball memory is that 1983 season), but we both share that love for the Sox.
Regards,
Joseph
CEP
- Sunday, March 2 2003 11:14:57
I did trust my taste: I stopped reading comics. I believe they were so bad because nobody would provide criticism (which is not necessarily the same thing as trashing them, but all too often needs to be).
Brian Siano <brian@briansiano.com>
- Sunday, March 2 2003 11:1:48
HOWEVER, Cindy, here's your first statement on the matter, with a particular phrase underlined to show where you misspoke:
"Don't EVEN go to the "poor and undesirable ethnic groups with tub tying and testes snipping" page, Brian. _She's right!_ There SHOULD be a point at which the government says, if you are incapable of helping yourself then we will help you."
Cindy recently said that "I didn't change my lyrics one whit, ducky. It's the same old song I've been whistlin' since I got here."
Please, Cin, don't say that Deb's "right" and then later claim that you'd never endorsed that particular p.o.v. I'm glad that you've said _since_ that you _don't_ endorse forced sterilization. But you can see where most of us got the opposite impression.
Recently, Cindy said:
"I only believe in VOLUNTARY sterilization. I believe that the majority of women who have had an abortion would do nearly anything to avoid having to endure another one. I'd FURTHER wager that a woman who has had TWO abortions would gladly take the government up on an offer of insurance that it would never happen again."
I'm not certain Cindy's thought this through very well. For one thing, many women _do_ exercise a voluntary effort to avoid unwanted conception-- they use birth control pills, IUDs, sponges, and even condoms to avoid it. I wouldn't mind if the government offered funding for such things.
But really, this "sterilization" chat is pretty ridiculous. That's because some of these procedures-- tying the tubes, Norplant, etc.-- require some degree of surgery. And they're not easy to undo. Needless to say, most women probably aren't keen to forgo the usual contraceptive methods and leap onto the operating table.
And Cindy, speaking as a Texas Republican-- could you explain something to me? How do you reconcile your own relatively open attitudes towards contraception to those of the Republican Party? Last I checked, they were the ones keeping RU-486 off the market, denying funding for contraceptive education in the public schools, denying federal funding for abortions _in toto_ (i.e., not just the two-strikes-you're-out policy you suggest), cutting funding for day-care centers, orphanages, and the WIC program, making appeals to the violent anti-abortion Right (a terrorist group by any measure)...
How can you, as a Republican, work to keep reproductive decisions out of the hands of individual women-- yet rush to advocate a serious and invasive procedure that, however voluntary the initial decision, effectively takes that decision _away_ from them from then on?
And here's an interesting question, Cin. Let's say a women agrees to having her tubes tied, and the government funds that procedure. Five years down the road, she decides she wants a baby. Does she get government funding to undo the procedure? If so, what would she have to _demonstrate_ to regain her ability to reproduce? A steady job? Okay. Marriage? Kind of a forced-lifestyle thing. Marriage to a _man_? Kind of leaves lesbians out of the deal. Seems that there's a _lot_ more potential for abuse and lifestyle-policing with this "sterilization" scheme.
In other words, Cindy, you cannot regard this sterilization scheme as anyting _remotely_ resembling "help." It is, simply, taking a great deal of autonomy away from women. It is _punishment_, even if you sugar-coat it with a "voluntary" decision.
Cindy also writes,
"The strangest aspect of it all is that most of those who jump up and down and condemn the right to life of the unborn are the same ones who don't want people to wear furs."
Since I don't care whether people wear furs or not, this is pretty much nonsense. And it's also much more of a reach than my discussion of Republican trepidations, above.
And don't tell me about the "right to life of the unborn," Cindy-- unless you can reconcile the continual _denial_ of rights that your Republican leaders have been giving those of us who are _already here_.
Oh, and if anyone thinks I've been a tad harsh on Deb and Cindy, please consult Harlan's recent post regarding Howitzers and hymenoptera.
Cindy
TEXAS USA - Sunday, March 2 2003 10:21:27
"CINDY: Perhaps I misunderstood. But your "There SHOULD be a point at which the government says, if you are incapable of helping yourself then we will help you" didn't quite have the ring of "voluntary" about it."
My friend Bern responded;
"Alex Jay - re: Your last reply to Cindy. Sure it does! The same way we have a "voluntary" Income Tax system. You "volunteer", or we put a serious hurting on you."
No no no to the BOTH of youse.
I only believe in VOLUNTARY sterilization. I believe that the majority of women who have had an abortion would do nearly anything to avoid having to endure another one. I'd FURTHER wager that a woman who has had TWO abortions would gladly take the government up on an offer of insurance that it would never happen again.
The government should be LIBERAL with free sterilization for any and all who want it.
:)
See-- I ain't so bad-- I wrote the word "LIBERAL" and didn't turn into a pillar of salt!
You boys...
:)
Cindy
P.A. Berman
- Sunday, March 2 2003 10:14:33
What people who want to limit the number of abortions women can have don't seem to consider is: OK, a woman steps over the line and has a 3rd or 4th unwanted pregnancy. You're saying she should be forced by law to have this baby? How is that a good idea? All kinds of horrors would result, have no fear.
If you feel that you can tell this woman she MUST have children, you should step up and finance this woman's pregnancy, and then raise that child as your own. This includes non-white babies, babies born with substance abuse problems, etc. No one much wants to do that. When I worked at a mental health clinic, there was an office than did adoptions. There was a "baby book" filled with pictures of kids (mostly black) who were up for adoption that no one wanted. It's easy to sit in your living room and judge other people's choices, but when it comes time to do something about it, no one wants to, so the government has to step in... which it does, rather imperfectly.
Abortion is a necessarily evil in a society that is not geared towards supporting poor single mothers. This is coming from someone who would NEVER, ever, have an abortion, unless said pregnancy was going to kill me. The choice to have an abortion is rarely an easy or painless one; I imagine most people who make such a decision feel they have no other choice. And they might not-- you can't know unless you walk that proverbial mile in their moccasins. Maybe what we should be working towards is a foolproof method of birth control (considering all the fools who are having sex...)
PAB
PS--I don't see how Mr. Rogers is weird, unless being a truly good and caring human beingin this crazy world is the gold standard for weird these days.
Forrester
- Sunday, March 2 2003 10:2:21
here, no duplicate prizes will be awarded in the event of a tie, so don't expect a tie."
With a tip of the cap to Harlan "I DARE you to thorw that one again!" Ellison, ol' number ... "kee-rist, Ellison played in the days before they HAD numbers. Just find out if he wants ta be called "skipper," "coach" or "chief." High five to Todd, pat on the back and a "you'll get'em next time" to Alex. Enjoyed the stories. Those of you that don't get it, the appeal of the game, my sympathies and, well, sometimes it's like explaining color to the blind.
Concisely - me? Slim chance of that. The game is:
The rituals. Watching Paul O'Neill and Jim Abbott warming up in the outfield before a game at Comiskey (or as some in the old neighborhood over by dere call it "Kaminski") back in '92, looking like a couple of kids playing catch. Then Abbot flipped his glove around, let one loose and you could hear the "pop" into O'Neill's mitt like he was standing right next to you, even tho we were in center and O'Neill was in left.
The potential. Getting to watch a young outfielder named Jim Rushford, taking a second chance at playing professionally in the Northern League. That sinking feeling when he crashed into the center field wall one night and was carted off by paramedics, overcome by the uplifting moment when he was back in the on-deck circle a few weeks later. Reading about how he got
signed by the Brewers, lead all of minor league baseball in hitting, then watching him make his major league debut at Wrigley a few years later. You could tell by his expression that he was realizing a dream that went back to when attended Cubs games as a kid, and there he was, in left field, making that night's ESPN highlight reel.
The history. The night 97-year-old Negro League veteran Ted "Double-Duty" Radcliffe (after getting signed to a $1 contract) suited up and threw out the first official pitch of the game (that went about 42 feet). You should have seen the old gentlemen in the stands, the ones who played for the Monarchs and Black Barons, the ones who had seen their day come and gone
before Robinson went to Brooklyn. (BTW the story is that the nickname came into being the day Ted caught Satchel Paige in the top of a double-header and then pitched the nightcap).
The transitions. The spring ritual of my wife bringing home several scorebooks from Sportmart, which began when she asked me to teach her how to score a ballgame. Seeing my then nine-year-old son make his first relief appearance in a little league game. Still with the image in my head of the toddler just barely catching the ball with both hands, there he was, striking out the twelve-year-old batter on four pitches as his team cheered and he pumped his fist like he'd been doing it forever. Spending twenty minutes on batting with my son's buddy who was 0 for the summer, 'cuz his dad had traded shifts with someone so he wouldn't miss the game. Later watching dad almost do a backflip when his son smacked a double with the bases loaded. The kid saying thanks and seeming to understand what he and his father got to share that day.
And the autographed ball, signed by Billy Pierce and Al Weis and a bunch of others a few years ago at a charity game, the ball that sits on the shelf next to the one signed by the '59 White Sox, the one my wife got when she wrote a letter to Bill Veeck when she was a little girl.
That's baseball.
Alex Jay Berman <alexjay@earthlink.net>
Philly, - Sunday, March 2 2003 10:1:35
All it means is that we're trusted to figure out what our taxes are on our own and send them in, without gangs of thugs sent around door-to-door to TELL you what you owe and collect on the spot. Which, yeah, means nothing. It's just a holdover from the days whjen the king's men would go around in Brute Squads, taking what THEY thought the King deserved to get from the populace--or from the days when the early Colonials didn't act much differently--see Shay's Rebellion.
And as for "serious hurting" ... AHAHAHAHAHA!!! Ahem. You don't see what I see.
(Like the angry divorcee yelling how unfair it was that we should dare to send her a letter saying that collection action might begin on the $20K she owed for ten years: "You just don't know what it's like to have to LIVE on just a hundred thousand a year!"
"... No, ma'am; you're right: I don't. Statistically, very few of us do. Most Americans live on half or even a quarter of that."
The other one I like is when people bitch about living in "the most taxed country on the planet." (I hear you guys laughing, Scott, Velvet, Jon.)
If you look at it ONE way, that's true: We have MORE TAXPAYERS than any other country--but when you compare our rate of taxation with most other developed countries, we come off quite well.
Look, *I* don't like having taxes taken out. Very few of us do. What I HATE are when the Enrons and Halliburtons and Eli Lillys and their ilk are given a free pass (often expressly stated in legislation) to get out of paying while we the citizens pony up our share fairly.
And what I REALLY hate are the huge tax-prep companies who charge inordinate fees to do returns that are little more than simple addition-and-subtraction exercises--and of course, should they do it INCORRECTLY and not get the amount they should, they are by contract indemnified from any liability--this while charging YOU 75% to 200% interest rates on the money they loaned you against your (incorrect) refund.
Xanadu <X_a_n_a_d_u@yahoo.com>
One Bit, One Piece - Sunday, March 2 2003 8:34:18
Barney Dannelke <dannelke01@enter.net>
Allentown, - Sunday, March 2 2003 6:34:5
www.salebooks.com/
and I'm glad I did - here are a couple of things that I thought might appeal to the folks here;
Best of Crank TPB [$2.98]
The Investigations of Avram Davidson HC [$3.98]
Stardust HC by Gaiman [$3.98]
No doubt your mileage will vary. I also picked up the "new" Samuel Johnson biography and a Twain YA item [Alice Rose and Sam]. Makes a nice diversion from Amazon in any event.
- Barney
Albert
- Sunday, March 2 2003 2:55:50
I was just trying to be cute when I referred to install problems, not prophetic. I didn't encounter the infinite loop problem. There's another way to access uninstall & update functions for the display. Right click on the desktop....click properties.....settings......advanced.....adapter There should be a diagnostic available here and some other stuff that might help. I'm using Windows 2000 Pro so there may be some differences but the display info should be available from the desktop. Good luck.
Alex Jay Berman <alexjay@earthlink.net>
Philly, - Saturday, March 1 2003 23:38:5
JOSEPH: You're thinking of CODE OF HONOR, a four-issue Prestige Format painted miniseries which followed a cop from rookiehood on. If I recall correctly, it was written by Chuck Dixon with a few different painters supplying the artwork. It was supposed to fill the void created by the collapse of the Marvels 2 project.
You ought to still be able to find it in your local comic shop's back issue bins for not much more than cover. Or you can get it very cheaply at http://tinyurl.com/6p6f ; the whole set'll cost you less than a ten-spot.
lonegungirl
Los Angeles, - Saturday, March 1 2003 23:29:15
It's nice to know that he's still around and as critical as always. I used to play his records incessantly throughout elementary school and junior high (yes, lonegungirl was very popular with her peers) and could recite "Elements" and "New Math" by heart.
I am a little disappointed that he doesn't find any merit in the space program, but I suppose you can't expect to agree with everything anyone says...
Joseph J. Finn
Chicago, - Saturday, March 1 2003 23:18:11
Thanks,
Joseph
Jon Stover
Canada. And the Spitfires weren't bad either. - Saturday, March 1 2003 22:52:17
Besides that...Dennis: Transubstantiate!
Cheers, Jon
Cindy <IAMCINDIANAJONES@netscape.net>
TEXAS USA - Saturday, March 1 2003 20:34:10
"There is a VAST chasm between what I wrote and " enforced eugenics". Allow me to clarify my position. I am not in favor of dragging screaming, kicking women to a surgeon for sterilization by order of the government. But I believe that there should be limitations on what women can expect from the government."
BRIAN RESPONDED;
"This is something of a shift in opinion. We've started by saying that the government should force women who've had more than X abortions undergo surgical procedures to prevent conception. Now, we're saying that the government should merely restrict access to funding for abortion to prevent its casual use. I'll take this as a sign that I've been prety persausive."
BRIAN,
Who's this "we"? You got a mouse in your pocket?
Sorry, chum o' mine; There has been no shift in my perspective-- as you can seen from my initial post;
"Don't EVEN go to the "poor and undesirable ethnic groups with tube tying and testes snipping" page, Brian. She's right! There SHOULD be a point at which the government says, if you are incapable of helping yourself then we will help you."
That's IT- that is my statement en toto. I didn't change my lyrics one whit, ducky. It's the same old song I've been whistlin' since I got here. The one about wasting human life.
Neither side will ever be happy unless it's black or white-- but the fact is BOTH camps must make concessions. Y'all don't need an abortion on demand machine ever cranked and ready to dispose of any unborn child whether it be viable outside the mother or not. Likewise, I'm not gonna get any absolute ban on abortions either. So pro-life and pro-abortion proponents should figure out where the common sense lies and cut all losses. The closest thing to middle ground I can come up with ( in cases without special circumstances ) would grant abortions up to six weeks-- and on the other side a stipulation that no healthy baby that is viable outside its mother's womb could legally be killed.
If it would be a living breathing child with a seventy five year lifespan before him -- if brought the five inches he is away from his first breath then we as a society should protect his rights. It's the same baby outside in the air as it is on the off ramp five inches from that first lungful.
The strangest aspect of it all is that most of those who jump up and down and condemn the right to life of the unborn are the same ones who don't want people to wear furs.
Go figure.
ALEX JAY WROTE;
"CINDY: I take issue (and I suppose Brian does as well) with the idea of there being a point below that of criminal action where the government is open to "help" its citizens in such a manner. Not because there aren't those whose removal from the gene pool would greatly benifit mankind, but because I DON'T WANT ANYONE DRAWING THAT LINE. Lines shift, Cindy. Scapegoats are handily available. And I cannot accept the thought of handing down genetic death sentences on a beauracrat's say-so. Again. Rights cannot be taken from the few, because that "few" will always mushroom. Lord Acton knew it, and we cannot afford to forget it"
Nope- not what I wrote-- not even close. Scroll my little lumpkin--scroll down and read my post. The "help" would be in the form of free sterilization for all who desire it.
:)
Cindy
Dennis
Columbus, OH - Saturday, March 1 2003 18:56:54
Dennis
Diana <dleeg9@yahoo.com>
http://simplycosmic.homestead.com, - Saturday, March 1 2003 17:9:18
"Brian
To Deb: Don't say yer sorry. Sign'o'weakness, y'know"
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
That's just wrong.
Wrong, as incorrect, and untrue, and inaccurate.
And WRONG.
Diana
Ben
- Saturday, March 1 2003 17:2:16
"KILL ME!!! I'M RIGHT HEA!!! KILL ME!!! COME ON, KILL ME!!! I'M RIGHT HEAAAAAA!!!!!!"
Ben
- Saturday, March 1 2003 16:58:7
"But what would be the POINT of such a movie?"
Oh, no point. I just said that was the best concept anyone's come up with.
And yes, I've always been fond of Hall's performance in PREDATOR too. The "you've GOT to be kidding" look he gives Arnold after he uncovers his would-be trap is an absolute classic.
Yes, it's more Alex--Now with Bleach!
- Saturday, March 1 2003 16:33:32
There have been rumors about a "Patriot Act II" for months, but no one could find out anything about the supposed legislation to be proposed. Now, a leaked copy of the draft, euphemistically called "The Domestic Security Enhamcement Act of 2003" has been leaked to the media--not that anyone's talking about it.
And they SHOULD.
If approved, this would give Attorney General Ashcroft more power than any American in history who was not President. And these are not good powers. They include further handicapping the Freedom of Information Act in several places, stepping up secret governmen tribunals, stripping American citizens under suspicion of their rights, allowing the FBI to monitor consumer financial information such as bank accounts and credit histories without needing authorization, ramping up the allowable levels of surveillance, and--here's my favorite--declaring transportaion and other expenses incurred by high-ranking government officials (whose number just HAPPENS to include the Attorney General) nontaxable.
There's a lot of scary shit in here, and a lot of subtle shit as well, which upon first glance might garner comments of, "Hmm; that makes sense," but upon examination reveals that the powers alluded to herein could be extrapolated to allow a LOT more, all of it unconstitutional.
The full document, in the form of a PDF file, is at http://tinyurl.com/6ooo while a short analysis is at http://tinyurl.com/5ifa
Very frightening stuff.
Oh--and remember where I said above that "no one could find out anything?" Well, maybe not "no one." A recently unearthed Office of Legislative Affairs control sheet shows that the draft was sent in January to House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Dick Cheney for "review and comment"--even though both those two AND the Justice Department denied that it had been sent to them.
In other news, there was an interesting conviction in Britain this past week.
Me, I'm against "hate speech" legislation, as I believe in runs counter to the idea of free speech, as well as robbing me of my unalienable right to treat neoNazis and other hateful slapwits as a free pass to pummeling: Wave around your dog-eared copy of MEIN KAMPF, and that just means I get the chance to ram meine Aufladung uppen ihr hinteres. It's a gift, see.
But I applaud the conviction of Sheikh Abdullah el-Faisal in Britain this past week. Here's a guy who went around to mosques exhorting young men to go become martyrs, and whose lectures advocated the wholesale killing of Jews and others.
Mind, he was convicted of soliciting murder, not hate speech.
It's a shame we don't share correctional institutions with the UK--I'd like to see el-Faisal and the (surviving) schmuck from the JDL who was going around bombing buildings forced to share the same cell.
Joseph J. Finn
Chicago, - Saturday, March 1 2003 16:28:4
Not to offend, since you've built up a good measure of trust here, but shouldn't you have been able to trust your own taste in the matter of comics? or was everything you read bad?
Regards,
Joseph
CEP
- Saturday, March 1 2003 16:9:24
Orwell described the role and necessity of honest, searching reviews wonderfully:
"Various people have suggested that it would be all to the good if no novels were reviewed at all. So it would, but the suggestion is useless, because nothing of the kind is going to happen. No paper which depends on publishers' advertisements can afford to throw them away, and though the more intelligent publishers probably realize that they would be no worse off if the blurb-review were abolished, they cannot put an end to it for the same reasons as the nations cannot disarm—because nobody wants to be the first to start. For a long time yet the blurb-reviews are going to continue, and they are going to grow worse and worse; the only remedy is to contrive in some way that they shall be disregarded. But this can only happen if somewhere or other there is decent novel reviewing which will act as a standard of comparison. That is to say, there is need of just one periodical (one would be enough for a start) which makes a specialty of novel reviewing but refuses to take any notice of tripe, and in which the reviewers are reviewers and not ventriloquists' dummies clapping their jaws when the publisher pulls the string."
George Orwell, "In Defense of the Novel" (1936).
Alex Jay Berman <alexjay@earthlink.net>
Philly, - Saturday, March 1 2003 15:57:21
Barney Dannelke <dannelke01@enter.net>
Burnhershesawitch, PA - Saturday, March 1 2003 15:38:14
What's wrong with talking to the puppet heads that live in the walls of your home?
Brian Siano <brian@briansiano.com>
- Saturday, March 1 2003 15:37:13
Here's another fun tidbit for those of us who follow the debates about the "liberal media." _Salon_ ran a long and decent review of Eric Alterman's book _What Liberal Media?_, a book about which I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, Alterman's great about bashing on the right, and here, he has the facts almost overwhelmingly on his side. (Our Media, in a nutshell: slightly more varid than _Pravda_. All conservatives, no lefties, and every "liberal" is paired off with a right-winger to keep'em in line.)
But on the other, most of the legwork on this topic has been dopne by FAIR, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting-- but Alterman's getting most of the credit here. Also, Alterman doesn't mention one of the best dissections of the med